Re: Shouldn't these statements work?

2011-10-15 Thread Russ Michaels

Regards
Russ Michaels
From my mobile
On 13 Oct 2011 20:28, Michael Grant mgr...@modus.bz wrote:


 Sure they exist. However using a word, such as truthiness doesn't make it
 right. People also say flustrated, so since it exists, it's a word, it
 doesn't make it right.

 On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 3:07 PM, Dave Watts dwa...@figleaf.com wrote:

 
   If it were added to a reputable dictionary you would be absolutely
  correct.
 
  And, if it were not, I'd still be correct. This is Linguistics 101
  stuff. Dictionaries don't create words, they list the words that are
  already in use. Words exists before dictionaries recognize them.
 
  Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
  http://www.figleaf.com/
  http://training.figleaf.com/
 
  Fig Leaf Software is a Veteran-Owned Small Business (VOSB) on
  GSA Schedule, and provides the highest caliber vendor-authorized
  instruction at our training centers, online, or onsite.
 
 

 

~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion
Archive: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:348179
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm


Re: Shouldn't these statements work?

2011-10-15 Thread Russ Michaels

I dont think your ever going to win against a dictionaryophile dave.

Regards
Russ Michaels
From my mobile
On 15 Oct 2011 00:40, Dave Watts dwa...@figleaf.com wrote:


   Just for kicks, I tested this in TextEdit, TextWrangler, and MS Word
 for
   Mac 2011
 
  Ug. Mac. Now it makes sense. You likely also think black turtle necks are
  fashionable.

 Actually, I'm not much of a Mac guy, but I do have to support them,
 and it's what I had in front of me at the time. Today, I have MS Word
 2010 on Windows 7, which also recognizes it as a word.

   If we're talking about the way it's cited in the evidence then I'd
 replace it
  perhaps with instinct, strong hunch, belief or intuition.

 But none of those words really provide the same meaning. It does have
 a fairly specific meaning.

  There's another five minutes I'll never get back. I'm such a sucker for
 Troll bait.

 Perhaps you should consult your dictionary. There's no trolling going
 on here on either side, just off-topic arguing.

 Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
 http://www.figleaf.com/
 http://training.figleaf.com/

 Fig Leaf Software is a Veteran-Owned Small Business (VOSB) on
 GSA Schedule, and provides the highest caliber vendor-authorized
 instruction at our training centers, online, or onsite

 

~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion
Archive: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:348180
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm


Re: Shouldn't these statements work?

2011-10-15 Thread James Holmes

Also not a word.
--
Shu Ha Ri: Agile and .NET blog
http://www.bifrost.com.au/


On 15 October 2011 17:58, Russ Michaels r...@michaels.me.uk wrote:


 dictionaryophile


~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion
Archive: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:348181
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm


Re: Shouldn't these statements work?

2011-10-14 Thread Russ Michaels

The internet seems to think its a real word

http://www.google.co.uk/search?gcx=wsourceid=chromeie=UTF-8q=truthiness

Don't forget all the dumb words people have invented which have ended
up in the dictionary.
I even invented a couple myself back in the 80's in the Comoodore 64
hacking/demo era, which have now become everyday words.
--

Russ Michaels

www.bluethunderinternet.com  : Business hosting services  solutions
www.cfmldeveloper.com    : ColdFusion developer community
www.michaels.me.uk   : my blog
www.cfsearch.com : ColdFusion search engine

sky

~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion
Archive: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:348139
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm


Re: Shouldn't these statements work?

2011-10-14 Thread Michael Grant


 Just for kicks, I tested this in TextEdit, TextWrangler, and MS Word for
 Mac 2011


Ug. Mac. Now it makes sense. You likely also think black turtle necks are
fashionable.


 Anyway, if you feel intimidated by your spellchecker, perhaps you have
 issues that go beyond this discussion.


:) I see you've got a keen sense of humour Dave. Not to be outdone by your
ability to spot sarcasm.


 Sure, and in any case I'm not inclined to take presentation advice
 from someone who thinks words come from dictionaries.


Sure Dave, that's neither here nor there. Continue on your path, it seems
comfortable.

I'll note that you didn't answer the question I asked earlier, though - what
 word
 would you use in its place?


You're right Dave. I did miss that. What would I use in it's place? In the
context that it's used in the original statement here? Or in the context of
what all the dictionary references that have been posted? The evidence
given to prove the existence of truthiness (there's that squiqqle again in
Chrome) in no way relates to Truthy and Falsy, so if we're talking about the
original statement I wouldn't replace it, I'd just use it correctly. If
we're talking about the way it's cited in the evidence then I'd replace it
perhaps with instinct, strong hunch, belief or intuition.

There's another five minutes I'll never get back. I'm such a sucker for
Troll bait.


~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion
Archive: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:348141
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm


Re: Shouldn't these statements work?

2011-10-14 Thread Michael Grant

Yes Russ. You worked on Commodore thirty years ago. We get it. Stop waving
that flag and move on mate.


On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 5:21 AM, Russ Michaels r...@michaels.me.uk wrote:


 The internet seems to think its a real word

 http://www.google.co.uk/search?gcx=wsourceid=chromeie=UTF-8q=truthiness

 Don't forget all the dumb words people have invented which have ended
 up in the dictionary.
 I even invented a couple myself back in the 80's in the Comoodore 64
 hacking/demo era, which have now become everyday words.
 --

 Russ Michaels

 www.bluethunderinternet.com  : Business hosting services  solutions
 www.cfmldeveloper.com: ColdFusion developer community
 www.michaels.me.uk   : my blog
 www.cfsearch.com : ColdFusion search engine

 sky

 

~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion
Archive: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:348142
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm


RE: Shouldn't these statements work?

2011-10-14 Thread Rick Faircloth

Finally!

-Original Message-
From: Bobby Hartsfield [mailto:bo...@acoderslife.com] 
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 6:34 PM
To: cf-talk
Subject: RE: Shouldn't these statements work?


Say goodbye to your thread Rick. :-/


.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.
Bobby Hartsfield
http://acoderslife.com
http://cf4em.com






~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion
Archive: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:348158
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm


Re: Shouldn't these statements work?

2011-10-14 Thread Russ Michaels

what on earth are u talking about ?

On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 12:04 PM, Michael Grant mgr...@modus.bz wrote:

 Yes Russ. You worked on Commodore thirty years ago. We get it. Stop waving
 that flag and move on mate.


 On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 5:21 AM, Russ Michaels r...@michaels.me.uk wrote:


 The internet seems to think its a real word

 http://www.google.co.uk/search?gcx=wsourceid=chromeie=UTF-8q=truthiness

 Don't forget all the dumb words people have invented which have ended
 up in the dictionary.
 I even invented a couple myself back in the 80's in the Comoodore 64
 hacking/demo era, which have now become everyday words.
 --

 Russ Michaels

 www.bluethunderinternet.com  : Business hosting services  solutions
 www.cfmldeveloper.com        : ColdFusion developer community
 www.michaels.me.uk           : my blog
 www.cfsearch.com             : ColdFusion search engine

 sky



 

~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion
Archive: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:348166
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm


Re: Shouldn't these statements work?

2011-10-14 Thread Sean Corfield

In the Lisp communities, truthiness is a very commonly used word
because Lisps typically have some specific true / false literals but
also equate other things to true and false in conditionals. You'll
here Lispers talk about truthy values and falsey values too. And
Lisp's been around for over 50 years so there's a lot of precedence:

http://www.google.com/search?q=lisp+truthiness

(I see this a lot in the Clojure community)

Sean

On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 7:50 PM, Brian Kotek brian...@gmail.com wrote:
 It sure is a word:
 http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/truthiness?region=us

 On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 1:29 PM, Michael Grant mgr...@modus.bz wrote:


 Truthiness is not a word. It may seem like a natural progression, but that
 doesn't make it exist. I stand by my statement.

~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion
Archive: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:348167
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm


Re: Shouldn't these statements work?

2011-10-14 Thread Dave Watts

  Just for kicks, I tested this in TextEdit, TextWrangler, and MS Word for
  Mac 2011

 Ug. Mac. Now it makes sense. You likely also think black turtle necks are
 fashionable.

Actually, I'm not much of a Mac guy, but I do have to support them,
and it's what I had in front of me at the time. Today, I have MS Word
2010 on Windows 7, which also recognizes it as a word.

  If we're talking about the way it's cited in the evidence then I'd replace 
 it
 perhaps with instinct, strong hunch, belief or intuition.

But none of those words really provide the same meaning. It does have
a fairly specific meaning.

 There's another five minutes I'll never get back. I'm such a sucker for Troll 
 bait.

Perhaps you should consult your dictionary. There's no trolling going
on here on either side, just off-topic arguing.

Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
http://training.figleaf.com/

Fig Leaf Software is a Veteran-Owned Small Business (VOSB) on
GSA Schedule, and provides the highest caliber vendor-authorized
instruction at our training centers, online, or onsite

~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion
Archive: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:348170
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm


Re: Shouldn't these statements work?

2011-10-13 Thread Michael Grant


 It sure is a word:




 Entry from US dictionary

Like I said. Not a word.


~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion
Archive: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:348085
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm


Re: Shouldn't these statements work?

2011-10-13 Thread Michael Grant

From Merriam-Webster:

* truthiness

The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling
suggestion below or try again using the search bar above.


*


On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 7:37 AM, Michael Grant mgr...@modus.bz wrote:

 It sure is a word:




  Entry from US dictionary

 Like I said. Not a word.



~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion
Archive: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:348086
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm


Re: Shouldn't these statements work?

2011-10-13 Thread Dominic Watson

Interestingly enough, it was there word of the year in 2006:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/info/06words.htm

On 13 October 2011 12:42, Michael Grant mgr...@modus.bz wrote:

 From Merriam-Webster:

 * truthiness

 The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling
 suggestion below or try again using the search bar above.


~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion
Archive: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:348091
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm


Re: Shouldn't these statements work?

2011-10-13 Thread Michael Grant

...which is an online survey.

On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 9:39 AM, Dominic Watson 
watson.domi...@googlemail.com wrote:


 Interestingly enough, it was there word of the year in 2006:

 http://www.merriam-webster.com/info/06words.htm

 On 13 October 2011 12:42, Michael Grant mgr...@modus.bz wrote:
 
  From Merriam-Webster:
 
  * truthiness
 
  The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling
  suggestion below or try again using the search bar above.
 

 

~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion
Archive: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:348101
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm


Re: Shouldn't these statements work?

2011-10-13 Thread Dave Watts

 ...which is an online survey.

Words aren't managed through a central authority. They exist by
consensus. If enough people started using blutz to mean something,
it would be a word.

Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
http://training.figleaf.com/

Fig Leaf Software is a Veteran-Owned Small Business (VOSB) on
GSA Schedule, and provides the highest caliber vendor-authorized
instruction at our training centers, online, or onsite.

~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion
Archive: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:348104
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm


Re: Shouldn't these statements work?

2011-10-13 Thread Michael Grant

If it were added to a reputable dictionary you would be absolutely correct.


On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 1:09 PM, Dave Watts dwa...@figleaf.com wrote:


  ...which is an online survey.

 Words aren't managed through a central authority. They exist by
 consensus. If enough people started using blutz to mean something,
 it would be a word.

 Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
 http://www.figleaf.com/
 http://training.figleaf.com/

 Fig Leaf Software is a Veteran-Owned Small Business (VOSB) on
 GSA Schedule, and provides the highest caliber vendor-authorized
 instruction at our training centers, online, or onsite.

 

~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion
Archive: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:348108
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm


Re: Shouldn't these statements work?

2011-10-13 Thread Dave Watts

 If it were added to a reputable dictionary you would be absolutely correct.

And, if it were not, I'd still be correct. This is Linguistics 101
stuff. Dictionaries don't create words, they list the words that are
already in use. Words exists before dictionaries recognize them.

Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
http://training.figleaf.com/

Fig Leaf Software is a Veteran-Owned Small Business (VOSB) on
GSA Schedule, and provides the highest caliber vendor-authorized
instruction at our training centers, online, or onsite.

~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion
Archive: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:348111
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm


Re: Shouldn't these statements work?

2011-10-13 Thread Michael Grant

Sure they exist. However using a word, such as truthiness doesn't make it
right. People also say flustrated, so since it exists, it's a word, it
doesn't make it right.

On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 3:07 PM, Dave Watts dwa...@figleaf.com wrote:


  If it were added to a reputable dictionary you would be absolutely
 correct.

 And, if it were not, I'd still be correct. This is Linguistics 101
 stuff. Dictionaries don't create words, they list the words that are
 already in use. Words exists before dictionaries recognize them.

 Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
 http://www.figleaf.com/
 http://training.figleaf.com/

 Fig Leaf Software is a Veteran-Owned Small Business (VOSB) on
 GSA Schedule, and provides the highest caliber vendor-authorized
 instruction at our training centers, online, or onsite.

 

~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion
Archive: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:348114
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm


Re: Shouldn't these statements work?

2011-10-13 Thread Raymond Camden

In terms of language, what is right? I can say anything I want.
Period. Whether you understand the meaning or not is inconsequential.
Dave is right. Long live blutz and can be move the blutz on please?

On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Michael Grant mgr...@modus.bz wrote:

 Sure they exist. However using a word, such as truthiness doesn't make it
 right. People also say flustrated, so since it exists, it's a word, it
 doesn't make it right.

 On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 3:07 PM, Dave Watts dwa...@figleaf.com wrote:


  If it were added to a reputable dictionary you would be absolutely
 correct.

 And, if it were not, I'd still be correct. This is Linguistics 101
 stuff. Dictionaries don't create words, they list the words that are
 already in use. Words exists before dictionaries recognize them.

 Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
 http://www.figleaf.com/
 http://training.figleaf.com/

 Fig Leaf Software is a Veteran-Owned Small Business (VOSB) on
 GSA Schedule, and provides the highest caliber vendor-authorized
 instruction at our training centers, online, or onsite.



 

~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion
Archive: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:348115
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm


Re: Shouldn't these statements work?

2011-10-13 Thread Dave Watts

 Sure they exist. However using a word, such as truthiness doesn't make it
 right. People also say flustrated, so since it exists, it's a word, it
 doesn't make it right.

There's no consensus among English speakers about flustrated, so,
no, it is not yet a word. But if this changes over time, then, yes, it
will be a word.

http://www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/linguistics/change.jsp (Some
words are even created by mistake.)

You can't really make an argument from authority when it comes to the
existence of words. It just doesn't work. Again, this is all
Linguistics 101 stuff. Shakespeare coined hundreds (thousands?) of
words, many of which are in common usage today. Were they not words
when he created them? If not, what makes them words now, the fact that
they're recognized by dictionaries?

Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
http://training.figleaf.com/

Fig Leaf Software is a Veteran-Owned Small Business (VOSB) on
GSA Schedule, and provides the highest caliber vendor-authorized
instruction at our training centers, online, or onsite.

~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion
Archive: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:348117
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm


RE: Shouldn't these statements work?

2011-10-13 Thread DURETTE, STEVEN J

And I always thought that flustrated was a combination of Flustered and 
Frustrated. 

-Original Message-
From: Dave Watts [mailto:dwa...@figleaf.com] 
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 3:48 PM
To: cf-talk
Subject: Re: Shouldn't these statements work?


 Sure they exist. However using a word, such as truthiness doesn't make it
 right. People also say flustrated, so since it exists, it's a word, it
 doesn't make it right.

There's no consensus among English speakers about flustrated, so,
no, it is not yet a word. But if this changes over time, then, yes, it
will be a word.


~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion
Archive: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:348118
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm


Re: Shouldn't these statements work?

2011-10-13 Thread Michael Grant

What's right in language is subjective of course, but if you use words that
are made up or illustrate a lack of understanding of the language you are
trying to speak, such as flustrated, it hinders your ability to
effectively communicate as well as your ability to be taken seriously.

You can use blutz and flustrated and destroy the Kings English all you want
I guess. It's a free blutzing countryfication after all. Just don't get
flustrated when people stop listening.



On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 3:33 PM, Raymond Camden raymondcam...@gmail.comwrote:


 In terms of language, what is right? I can say anything I want.
 Period. Whether you understand the meaning or not is inconsequential.
 Dave is right. Long live blutz and can be move the blutz on please?

 On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Michael Grant mgr...@modus.bz wrote:
 
  Sure they exist. However using a word, such as truthiness doesn't make
 it
  right. People also say flustrated, so since it exists, it's a word, it
  doesn't make it right.
 
  On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 3:07 PM, Dave Watts dwa...@figleaf.com wrote:
 
 
   If it were added to a reputable dictionary you would be absolutely
  correct.
 
  And, if it were not, I'd still be correct. This is Linguistics 101
  stuff. Dictionaries don't create words, they list the words that are
  already in use. Words exists before dictionaries recognize them.
 
  Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
  http://www.figleaf.com/
  http://training.figleaf.com/
 
  Fig Leaf Software is a Veteran-Owned Small Business (VOSB) on
  GSA Schedule, and provides the highest caliber vendor-authorized
  instruction at our training centers, online, or onsite.
 
 
 
 

 

~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion
Archive: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:348119
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm


Re: Shouldn't these statements work?

2011-10-13 Thread Dave Watts

 What's right in language is subjective of course, but if you use words that
 are made up or illustrate a lack of understanding of the language you are
 trying to speak, such as flustrated, it hinders your ability to
 effectively communicate as well as your ability to be taken seriously.

ALL words are made up. It's just a matter of when they were made up.
Right now, flustrated is recognized as a mistake. But that may not
be the case in the future. Right now, truthiness is recognized as a
word with a specific meaning. This doesn't require some blessing from
on high. It happens over time, all by itself.

Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
http://training.figleaf.com/

Fig Leaf Software is a Veteran-Owned Small Business (VOSB) on
GSA Schedule, and provides the highest caliber vendor-authorized
instruction at our training centers, online, or onsite.

~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion
Archive: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:348120
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm


Re: Shouldn't these statements work?

2011-10-13 Thread Michael Grant

True Dave. However the fact that at some far off point in the future
incorrect usage of words may become correct shouldn't be justification for
using them incorrectly now, should it?
Words have specific meanings. That might change in the future, sure. However
when you're trying to communicate in the here and now using words
incorrectly, or words not recognized as words, undermines your ability to
communicate effectively and is likely to give people justification to not
take you seriously.

Here. Let's try a paragraph that may, in the future, make perfect sense:

Conflarg a doffle erf flustrate the truthiness of the forgenfluff? Hahaha.
Indeed. Kefondulor. Kefondulor.




On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 4:03 PM, Dave Watts dwa...@figleaf.com wrote:


  What's right in language is subjective of course, but if you use words
 that
  are made up or illustrate a lack of understanding of the language you are
  trying to speak, such as flustrated, it hinders your ability to
  effectively communicate as well as your ability to be taken seriously.

 ALL words are made up. It's just a matter of when they were made up.
 Right now, flustrated is recognized as a mistake. But that may not
 be the case in the future. Right now, truthiness is recognized as a
 word with a specific meaning. This doesn't require some blessing from
 on high. It happens over time, all by itself.

 Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
 http://www.figleaf.com/
 http://training.figleaf.com/

 Fig Leaf Software is a Veteran-Owned Small Business (VOSB) on
 GSA Schedule, and provides the highest caliber vendor-authorized
 instruction at our training centers, online, or onsite.

 

~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion
Archive: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:348121
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm


Re: Shouldn't these statements work?

2011-10-13 Thread Dave Watts

 True Dave. However the fact that at some far off point in the future
 incorrect usage of words may become correct shouldn't be justification for
 using them incorrectly now, should it?

If I recall correctly, this tangent to the thread came up with your
objection to the word truthiness, which wasn't used incorrectly, and
has a clear meaning to the people who use it (and most everyone else).
Your objection revolved around the fact that it wasn't listed in a
reputable dictionary, whatever that is. Again, though, this is
simply not a valid linguistic argument. If people use a specific
sequence of sounds and/or letters, and enough other people understand
what that sequence means, it's a word. You seem to think that these
sequences are not-words until some authority - the reputable
dictionary - recognizes them as words. That is simply not how
language works.

 Words have specific meanings. That might change in the future, sure. However
 when you're trying to communicate in the here and now using words
 incorrectly, or words not recognized as words, undermines your ability to
 communicate effectively and is likely to give people justification to not
 take you seriously

Clearly, that was Shakespeare's problem. He couldn't communicate
effectively, which is why no one takes him seriously.

 Here. Let's try a paragraph that may, in the future, make perfect sense:

 Conflarg a doffle erf flustrate the truthiness of the forgenfluff? Hahaha.
 Indeed. Kefondulor. Kefondulor.

I think you may want to reread what I mentioned previously about consensus.

Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
http://training.figleaf.com/

Fig Leaf Software is a Veteran-Owned Small Business (VOSB) on
GSA Schedule, and provides the highest caliber vendor-authorized
instruction at our training centers, online, or onsite.

~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion
Archive: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:348122
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm


Re: Shouldn't these statements work?

2011-10-13 Thread Russ Michaels

and the utterly ridiculous txt speak is enough proof of that :-)

On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 10:16 PM, Dave Watts dwa...@figleaf.com wrote:

 True Dave. However the fact that at some far off point in the future
 incorrect usage of words may become correct shouldn't be justification for
 using them incorrectly now, should it?

 If I recall correctly, this tangent to the thread came up with your
 objection to the word truthiness, which wasn't used incorrectly, and
 has a clear meaning to the people who use it (and most everyone else).
 Your objection revolved around the fact that it wasn't listed in a
 reputable dictionary, whatever that is. Again, though, this is
 simply not a valid linguistic argument. If people use a specific
 sequence of sounds and/or letters, and enough other people understand
 what that sequence means, it's a word. You seem to think that these
 sequences are not-words until some authority - the reputable
 dictionary - recognizes them as words. That is simply not how
 language works.

 Words have specific meanings. That might change in the future, sure. However
 when you're trying to communicate in the here and now using words
 incorrectly, or words not recognized as words, undermines your ability to
 communicate effectively and is likely to give people justification to not
 take you seriously

 Clearly, that was Shakespeare's problem. He couldn't communicate
 effectively, which is why no one takes him seriously.

 Here. Let's try a paragraph that may, in the future, make perfect sense:

 Conflarg a doffle erf flustrate the truthiness of the forgenfluff? Hahaha.
 Indeed. Kefondulor. Kefondulor.

 I think you may want to reread what I mentioned previously about consensus.

 Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
 http://www.figleaf.com/
 http://training.figleaf.com/

 Fig Leaf Software is a Veteran-Owned Small Business (VOSB) on
 GSA Schedule, and provides the highest caliber vendor-authorized
 instruction at our training centers, online, or onsite.

 

~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion
Archive: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:348123
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm


Re: Shouldn't these statements work?

2011-10-13 Thread Michael Grant

I think you're being obtuse Dave. And that's your right to do so. You're
right from an idealistic perspective. I'll give you that. My position comes
from the practical world, not the theoretical one. You meet with a CEO and
use truthiness in a presentation you'll look like a fool. You use a world
like flustrate for instance, and though people will understand what you
mean, they'll make an assumption about your intelligence. Same as mixing up
there/their/they're. Certainly people will understand you. However that
doesn't make it effective communication. Effective communication isn't
simply understand the meaning behind the message, but also respecting the
message.

That's my two cents anyway.

Flame on Garth.


On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 5:16 PM, Dave Watts dwa...@figleaf.com wrote:


  True Dave. However the fact that at some far off point in the future
  incorrect usage of words may become correct shouldn't be justification
 for
  using them incorrectly now, should it?

 If I recall correctly, this tangent to the thread came up with your
 objection to the word truthiness, which wasn't used incorrectly, and
 has a clear meaning to the people who use it (and most everyone else).
 Your objection revolved around the fact that it wasn't listed in a
 reputable dictionary, whatever that is. Again, though, this is
 simply not a valid linguistic argument. If people use a specific
 sequence of sounds and/or letters, and enough other people understand
 what that sequence means, it's a word. You seem to think that these
 sequences are not-words until some authority - the reputable
 dictionary - recognizes them as words. That is simply not how
 language works.

  Words have specific meanings. That might change in the future, sure.
 However
  when you're trying to communicate in the here and now using words
  incorrectly, or words not recognized as words, undermines your ability to
  communicate effectively and is likely to give people justification to not
  take you seriously

 Clearly, that was Shakespeare's problem. He couldn't communicate
 effectively, which is why no one takes him seriously.

  Here. Let's try a paragraph that may, in the future, make perfect sense:
 
  Conflarg a doffle erf flustrate the truthiness of the forgenfluff?
 Hahaha.
  Indeed. Kefondulor. Kefondulor.

 I think you may want to reread what I mentioned previously about consensus.

 Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
 http://www.figleaf.com/
 http://training.figleaf.com/

 Fig Leaf Software is a Veteran-Owned Small Business (VOSB) on
 GSA Schedule, and provides the highest caliber vendor-authorized
 instruction at our training centers, online, or onsite.

 

~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion
Archive: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:348124
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm


Re: Shouldn't these statements work?

2011-10-13 Thread Brian Kotek

I'd say Oxford is a more reputable dictionary than Webster.

On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 2:56 PM, Michael Grant mgr...@modus.bz wrote:


 If it were added to a reputable dictionary you would be absolutely correct.


 On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 1:09 PM, Dave Watts dwa...@figleaf.com wrote:

 
   ...which is an online survey.
 
  Words aren't managed through a central authority. They exist by
  consensus. If enough people started using blutz to mean something,
  it would be a word.
 
  Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
  http://www.figleaf.com/
  http://training.figleaf.com/
 
  Fig Leaf Software is a Veteran-Owned Small Business (VOSB) on
  GSA Schedule, and provides the highest caliber vendor-authorized
  instruction at our training centers, online, or onsite.
 
 

 

~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion
Archive: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:348125
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm


Re: Shouldn't these statements work?

2011-10-13 Thread Phillip Vector

Sorry... I may be mistaken.. This STILL is a ColdFusion list.. Correct?

On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 3:04 PM, Brian Kotek brian...@gmail.com wrote:

 I'd say Oxford is a more reputable dictionary than Webster.

~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion
Archive: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:348126
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm


Re: Shouldn't these statements work?

2011-10-13 Thread Brian Kotek

Also: http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/truthiness

Entry from World dictionary

Sorry, didn't mean to start a flame war. Just pointing out that it's
definitely a recognized word.

(Ducks)

On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 7:37 AM, Michael Grant mgr...@modus.bz wrote:


 
  It sure is a word:
 



  Entry from US dictionary

 Like I said. Not a word.


 

~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion
Archive: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:348127
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm


Re: Shouldn't these statements work?

2011-10-13 Thread Dave Watts

 I think you're being obtuse Dave. And that's your right to do so. You're
 right from an idealistic perspective. I'll give you that. My position comes
 from the practical world, not the theoretical one. You meet with a CEO and
 use truthiness in a presentation you'll look like a fool.

Really? Why do you say that? What word would you use instead of
truthiness, to describe what people generally mean by that word? Why
do you think that CEOs haven't heard of Steven Colbert?

I spend quite a bit of my time communicating with people. I'm paid to
do that among other things, and I think I do it pretty well. I meet
with and talk to quite a few CEOs. And I would have no hesitation
about using truthiness if that's the word that fits what I'm trying
to describe. And I'm quite confident that I wouldn't look like a fool.
I'm CTO of a successful software company. If someone appropriately
used that word in a presentation to me, I wouldn't consider that
person a fool either.

As for obtuseness and idealism, it seems to me that these describe you
better than me in this case. You're describing the world as you'd like
it to be - words being right or wrong according to some
unquestionable authority. I'm describing the world as it is -
dictionaries observe the language, they don't create it. You seem
unable to acknowledge this, which strikes me as being ... obtuse.

Finally, to bring this around to something that might be relevant for
programmers: this seems to be a fairly common failing of programmers,
in my experience. Computer languages, after all, do have the sort of
rigidity and exactness that you seem to expect in human languages - if
you use the wrong word, things simply don't work.

Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
http://training.figleaf.com/

Fig Leaf Software is a Veteran-Owned Small Business (VOSB) on
GSA Schedule, and provides the highest caliber vendor-authorized
instruction at our training centers, online, or onsite.

~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion
Archive: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:348128
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm


RE: Shouldn't these statements work?

2011-10-13 Thread Bobby Hartsfield

Say goodbye to your thread Rick. :-/


.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.
Bobby Hartsfield
http://acoderslife.com
http://cf4em.com




~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion
Archive: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:348129
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm


Re: Shouldn't these statements work?

2011-10-13 Thread Michael Grant

I can only imagine what a game of scrabble must be like at your house.

In the interest of moving forward and freeing up my spare time I'll concede to 
you that truthiness is a word. (Even though the red squiggle under the word 
right now seems to be mocking me.) 

We'll have to agree to disagree as to whether or not using it in a presentation 
would make you look a fool. 

MG 

~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion
Archive: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:348130
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm


RE: Shouldn't these statements work?

2011-10-13 Thread Bobby Hartsfield

Now I owe Dave $1. He bet me that he could get you to admit truthiness was
a word... crap!


.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.
Bobby Hartsfield
http://acoderslife.com
http://cf4em.com





-Original Message-
From: Michael Grant [mailto:mgr...@modus.bz] 
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 6:59 PM
To: cf-talk
Subject: Re: Shouldn't these statements work?


I can only imagine what a game of scrabble must be like at your house.

In the interest of moving forward and freeing up my spare time I'll concede
to you that truthiness is a word. (Even though the red squiggle under the
word right now seems to be mocking me.) 

We'll have to agree to disagree as to whether or not using it in a
presentation would make you look a fool. 

MG 



~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion
Archive: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:348132
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm


Re: Shouldn't these statements work?

2011-10-13 Thread Michael Grant

Indeed. In the same way I admit to my daughter that she's right when she
tells me it's Pig Newtons, not Fig Newtons.




On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 9:22 PM, Bobby Hartsfield bo...@acoderslife.comwrote:


 Now I owe Dave $1. He bet me that he could get you to admit truthiness
 was
 a word... crap!


 .:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.
 Bobby Hartsfield
 http://acoderslife.com
 http://cf4em.com





 -Original Message-
 From: Michael Grant [mailto:mgr...@modus.bz]
 Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 6:59 PM
 To: cf-talk
 Subject: Re: Shouldn't these statements work?


 I can only imagine what a game of scrabble must be like at your house.

 In the interest of moving forward and freeing up my spare time I'll concede
 to you that truthiness is a word. (Even though the red squiggle under the
 word right now seems to be mocking me.)

 We'll have to agree to disagree as to whether or not using it in a
 presentation would make you look a fool.

 MG



 

~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion
Archive: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:348133
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm


Re: Shouldn't these statements work?

2011-10-13 Thread Gerald Guido

All that for a dollar?  Sounds like a very expensive dollar.

G! - runs for cover


On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 9:22 PM, Bobby Hartsfield bo...@acoderslife.comwrote:


 Now I owe Dave $1. He bet me that he could get you to admit truthiness
 was
 a word... crap!


 .:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.
 Bobby Hartsfield
 http://acoderslife.com
 http://cf4em.com





 -Original Message-
 From: Michael Grant [mailto:mgr...@modus.bz]
 Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 6:59 PM
 To: cf-talk
 Subject: Re: Shouldn't these statements work?


 I can only imagine what a game of scrabble must be like at your house.

 In the interest of moving forward and freeing up my spare time I'll concede
 to you that truthiness is a word. (Even though the red squiggle under the
 word right now seems to be mocking me.)

 We'll have to agree to disagree as to whether or not using it in a
 presentation would make you look a fool.

 MG



 

~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion
Archive: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:348134
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm


Re: Shouldn't these statements work?

2011-10-13 Thread Dave Watts

 I can only imagine what a game of scrabble must be like at your house.

It must be nonexistent, as I don't play Scrabble. That said, my
understanding of the rules is that you use a specific dictionary as an
authoritative answer to whether you can play a word. That's fine, it's
just a game, and games have specific rules. Natural languages don't
have such specific rules. There's no referee to call foul when a word
is coined in a way not to your liking.

 In the interest of moving forward and freeing up my spare time I'll concede 
 to you that truthiness is a word. (Even though the red squiggle under the word
 right now seems to be mocking me.)

Just for kicks, I tested this in TextEdit, TextWrangler, and MS Word
for Mac 2011 (the three text editors I happened to have handy this
minute). All three spellcheckers recognized the word. It's recognized
by my spellcheckers, and not by yours! Black is white, up is down!
Dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria! We must live in
parallel universes - in one universe it's a word, and in another it's
not!

Anyway, if you feel intimidated by your spellchecker, perhaps you have
issues that go beyond this discussion. And no one's holding a gun to
your head to make you reply - your spare time is your own to spend how
you like.

 We'll have to agree to disagree as to whether or not using it in a 
 presentation would make you look a fool.

Sure, and in any case I'm not inclined to take presentation advice
from someone who thinks words come from dictionaries. I'll note that
you didn't answer the question I asked earlier, though - what word
would you use in its place? Feel free to ignore this question if you
want to move forward and free up your spare time.

Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
http://training.figleaf.com/

Fig Leaf Software is a Veteran-Owned Small Business (VOSB) on
GSA Schedule, and provides the highest caliber vendor-authorized
instruction at our training centers, online, or onsite.

~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion
Archive: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:348136
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm


Re: Shouldn't these statements work?

2011-10-12 Thread Brian Kotek

It sure is a word:
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/truthiness?region=us

On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 1:29 PM, Michael Grant mgr...@modus.bz wrote:


 Truthiness is not a word. It may seem like a natural progression, but that
 doesn't make it exist. I stand by my statement.




~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion
Archive: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:348076
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm


Re: Shouldn't these statements work?

2011-10-12 Thread Gerald Guido


 It sure is a word:
 http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/truthiness?region=us


That is 100% PURE Awesome. w00t!!!

G!

On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 10:50 PM, Brian Kotek brian...@gmail.com wrote:

 It sure is a word:
 http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/truthiness?region=us




-- 
Gerald Guido
http://www.myinternetisbroken.com

-- We all shine on.


~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion
Archive: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:348077
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm


RE: Shouldn't these statements work?

2011-10-06 Thread Rick Faircloth

I checked out the link: and I got it...

Not just comparing string to string, but for any other
type operators and their values.



-Original Message-
From: Dave Watts [mailto:dwa...@figleaf.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2011 4:44 PM
To: cf-talk
Subject: Re: Shouldn't these statements work?


 My understanding from what I've read is that the === operator
 should be used only when comparing strings.  Is that not correct?

That is not correct. The identity operator is intended to compare the
identity of two object references.

https://developer.mozilla.org/en/JavaScript/Reference/Operators/Comparison_O
perators

For example:

// define a custom object constructor
function Thing(arg) {
 this.property = arg;
 return this;
}

var obj1 = new Object(...);
var obj2 = obj1; // pass obj1 to obj2 by reference
if (obj1 === obj2) ... // should evaluate to true
var obj3 = new Thing(some_arg);
var obj4 = new Thing(some_arg);
if (obj3 === obj4) ... // should evaluate to false, even though both
objects have the same type and contain the same value(s)
obj4.property = obj3.property // pass obj3.property by value
if (obj3 === obj4) ... // should still evaluate to false

Now, while this is how the identity operator is intended to work,
there are some variations in its actual implementation, such that it
will just compare object types and values in some JS engines. Take a
look here:

http://blog.agilejedi.com/2008/09/javascript-equality-versus-identity.html

In any case, there's no point to using it when comparing two string
literals.

Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
http://training.figleaf.com/

Fig Leaf Software is a Veteran-Owned Small Business (VOSB) on
GSA Schedule, and provides the highest caliber vendor-authorized
instruction at our training centers, online, or onsite



~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion
Archive: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:347976
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm


Re: Shouldn't these statements work?

2011-10-05 Thread Michael Grant

Truthiness?
Oh Lord.
Steven Colbert has made it so far into pop culture that his fake words are
now used in programming discussion.
The end is nigh.

On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 10:35 PM, Lists li...@commadelimited.com wrote:


 The triple === in JavaScript at least is a strict comparison. It not only
 checks for truthiness, but that both sides are the same type.

 Have you tried simple eq or ==

 On Oct 4, 2011, at 9:17 PM, Rick Faircloth r...@whitestonemedia.com
 wrote:

 
  if  (  activeLinkID === 'search_properties'  currentPage ===
 'index.cfm'
  )
 {  window.location =
 'modules/search-properties/search-properties.cfm';
  }
 
  if  (  activeLinkID === 'search_properties'  currentPage === ''
  )
 {  window.location = '../search-properties/search-properties.cfm';
  }
 
  My first code, that still seems valid, was:
 
  if   (  activeLinkID === 'search_properties'  (currentPage ===
 'index.cfm'
  || currentPage === '')  )
  {  window.location =
 'modules/search-properties/search-properties.cfm'
  }
  else {  window.location = '../search-properties/search-properties.cfm'
  }
 
 
  No syntax errors, but the page is not changed
  to search-properties.cfm.
 
  These lines are bypassed as if conditions are not met,
  and the conditions are met.
 
  They work if the URL ends in 'index.cfm', but not if the
  URL is just the domain name.
 
  I've tried every version of this I can think of.
 
  Clues, anyone?
 
  Rick
 
 
 
 

 

~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion
Archive: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:347933
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm


Re: Shouldn't these statements work?

2011-10-05 Thread Justin Scott

 Steven Colbert has made it so far into pop culture that his
 fake words are now used in programming discussion.

Truthy and Falsy were used to describe dynamic boolean expressions
long before Colbert coined his specific definition of truthiness.
Expanding a truthy and testing its truthiness is a natural
progression of the concept even pre-Colbert.  So, I wouldn't take a
use of that word in a programming sense as a political statement. :)


-Justin

~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion
Archive: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:347937
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm


Re: Shouldn't these statements work?

2011-10-05 Thread Michael Grant

Truthiness is not a word. It may seem like a natural progression, but that
doesn't make it exist. I stand by my statement.

On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 12:14 PM, Justin Scott leviat...@darktech.orgwrote:


  Steven Colbert has made it so far into pop culture that his
  fake words are now used in programming discussion.

 Truthy and Falsy were used to describe dynamic boolean expressions
 long before Colbert coined his specific definition of truthiness.
 Expanding a truthy and testing its truthiness is a natural
 progression of the concept even pre-Colbert.  So, I wouldn't take a
 use of that word in a programming sense as a political statement. :)


 -Justin

 

~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion
Archive: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:347939
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm


Re: Shouldn't these statements work?

2011-10-05 Thread Dave Watts

 if  (  activeLinkID === 'search_properties'  currentPage === 'index.cfm'

As everyone's already mentioned, this comparison operator is not an
equality operator. It's an identity operator - it's used to see if two
object references point to the same object. A literal string won't
work here, as it's not the same object as the object to which you're
comparing it.

Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
http://training.figleaf.com/

Fig Leaf Software is a Veteran-Owned Small Business (VOSB) on
GSA Schedule, and provides the highest caliber vendor-authorized
instruction at our training centers, online, or onsit

~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion
Archive: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:347941
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm


RE: Shouldn't these statements work?

2011-10-05 Thread Rick Faircloth

I'm not entirely sure about the === operator, but it's working.
My understanding from what I've read is that the === operator
should be used only when comparing strings.  Is that not correct?


-Original Message-
From: Dave Watts [mailto:dwa...@figleaf.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2011 1:39 PM
To: cf-talk
Subject: Re: Shouldn't these statements work?


 if  (  activeLinkID === 'search_properties'  currentPage === 'index.cfm'

As everyone's already mentioned, this comparison operator is not an
equality operator. It's an identity operator - it's used to see if two
object references point to the same object. A literal string won't
work here, as it's not the same object as the object to which you're
comparing it.

Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
http://training.figleaf.com/

Fig Leaf Software is a Veteran-Owned Small Business (VOSB) on
GSA Schedule, and provides the highest caliber vendor-authorized
instruction at our training centers, online, or onsit



~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion
Archive: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:347947
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm


Re: Shouldn't these statements work?

2011-10-05 Thread Matt Quackenbush

No, `===` is for comparing _objects_, as Dave said.  :-)


On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 2:36 PM, Rick Faircloth r...@whitestonemedia.comwrote:


 I'm not entirely sure about the === operator, but it's working.
 My understanding from what I've read is that the === operator
 should be used only when comparing strings.  Is that not correct?


 -Original Message-
 From: Dave Watts [mailto:dwa...@figleaf.com]
 Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2011 1:39 PM
 To: cf-talk
 Subject: Re: Shouldn't these statements work?


  if  (  activeLinkID === 'search_properties'  currentPage ===
 'index.cfm'

 As everyone's already mentioned, this comparison operator is not an
 equality operator. It's an identity operator - it's used to see if two
 object references point to the same object. A literal string won't
 work here, as it's not the same object as the object to which you're
 comparing it.

 Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
 http://www.figleaf.com/
 http://training.figleaf.com/

 Fig Leaf Software is a Veteran-Owned Small Business (VOSB) on
 GSA Schedule, and provides the highest caliber vendor-authorized
 instruction at our training centers, online, or onsit



 

~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion
Archive: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:347948
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm


Re: Shouldn't these statements work?

2011-10-05 Thread Lists

Not necessarily. It should be used when you want to make sure the value AND the 
object type both match. 

On Oct 5, 2011, at 2:36 PM, Rick Faircloth r...@whitestonemedia.com wrote:

 
 I'm not entirely sure about the === operator, but it's working.
 My understanding from what I've read is that the === operator
 should be used only when comparing strings.  Is that not correct?
 
 
 -Original Message-
 From: Dave Watts [mailto:dwa...@figleaf.com] 
 Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2011 1:39 PM
 To: cf-talk
 Subject: Re: Shouldn't these statements work?
 
 
 if  (  activeLinkID === 'search_properties'  currentPage === 'index.cfm'
 
 As everyone's already mentioned, this comparison operator is not an
 equality operator. It's an identity operator - it's used to see if two
 object references point to the same object. A literal string won't
 work here, as it's not the same object as the object to which you're
 comparing it.
 
 Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
 http://www.figleaf.com/
 http://training.figleaf.com/
 
 Fig Leaf Software is a Veteran-Owned Small Business (VOSB) on
 GSA Schedule, and provides the highest caliber vendor-authorized
 instruction at our training centers, online, or onsit
 
 
 
 

~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion
Archive: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:347949
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm


Re: Shouldn't these statements work?

2011-10-05 Thread Dave Watts

 My understanding from what I've read is that the === operator
 should be used only when comparing strings.  Is that not correct?

That is not correct. The identity operator is intended to compare the
identity of two object references.

https://developer.mozilla.org/en/JavaScript/Reference/Operators/Comparison_Operators

For example:

// define a custom object constructor
function Thing(arg) {
 this.property = arg;
 return this;
}

var obj1 = new Object(...);
var obj2 = obj1; // pass obj1 to obj2 by reference
if (obj1 === obj2) ... // should evaluate to true
var obj3 = new Thing(some_arg);
var obj4 = new Thing(some_arg);
if (obj3 === obj4) ... // should evaluate to false, even though both
objects have the same type and contain the same value(s)
obj4.property = obj3.property // pass obj3.property by value
if (obj3 === obj4) ... // should still evaluate to false

Now, while this is how the identity operator is intended to work,
there are some variations in its actual implementation, such that it
will just compare object types and values in some JS engines. Take a
look here:

http://blog.agilejedi.com/2008/09/javascript-equality-versus-identity.html

In any case, there's no point to using it when comparing two string literals.

Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
http://training.figleaf.com/

Fig Leaf Software is a Veteran-Owned Small Business (VOSB) on
GSA Schedule, and provides the highest caliber vendor-authorized
instruction at our training centers, online, or onsite

~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion
Archive: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:347952
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm


Re: Shouldn't these statements work?

2011-10-04 Thread Lists

The triple === in JavaScript at least is a strict comparison. It not only 
checks for truthiness, but that both sides are the same type. 

Have you tried simple eq or == 

On Oct 4, 2011, at 9:17 PM, Rick Faircloth r...@whitestonemedia.com wrote:

 
 if  (  activeLinkID === 'search_properties'  currentPage === 'index.cfm'
 )
{  window.location = 'modules/search-properties/search-properties.cfm';
 }
 
 if  (  activeLinkID === 'search_properties'  currentPage === ''
 )
{  window.location = '../search-properties/search-properties.cfm';
 }
 
 My first code, that still seems valid, was:
 
 if   (  activeLinkID === 'search_properties'  (currentPage === 'index.cfm'
 || currentPage === '')  )
 {  window.location = 'modules/search-properties/search-properties.cfm'
 }
 else {  window.location = '../search-properties/search-properties.cfm'
 }
 
 
 No syntax errors, but the page is not changed
 to search-properties.cfm.
 
 These lines are bypassed as if conditions are not met,
 and the conditions are met.
 
 They work if the URL ends in 'index.cfm', but not if the
 URL is just the domain name.
 
 I've tried every version of this I can think of.
 
 Clues, anyone?
 
 Rick
 
 
 
 

~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion
Archive: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:347928
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm


Re: Shouldn't these statements work?

2011-10-04 Thread Justin Scott

 if  (  activeLinkID === 'search_properties' ...

Hi Rick, remember that in JavaScript the === operator checks for value
AND variable type, so if the internal variable types aren't the same
then it will evaluate to false even if the string values match.  You
might consider changing that to a value comparison as == rather than
the value and type comparison.


-Just

~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion
Archive: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:347929
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm


RE: Shouldn't these statements work?

2011-10-04 Thread Rick Faircloth

Good suggestions, guys, but I was purposefully using a string operator
to be very specific in the code.  (The '==' didn't work, either)

This is working... using 3 statements and avoid the use of the or '||'
operator.

Thanks!

Rick

-Original Message-
From: Justin Scott [mailto:leviat...@darktech.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2011 10:37 PM
To: cf-talk
Subject: Re: Shouldn't these statements work?


 if  (  activeLinkID === 'search_properties' ...

Hi Rick, remember that in JavaScript the === operator checks for value
AND variable type, so if the internal variable types aren't the same
then it will evaluate to false even if the string values match.  You
might consider changing that to a value comparison as == rather than
the value and type comparison.


-Just



~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion
Archive: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:347930
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm


Re: Shouldn't these statements work?

2011-10-04 Thread Lists

Try logging each variable and it's type using typeOf. That'll help you move int 
the right direction. 

On Oct 4, 2011, at 9:35 PM, Lists li...@commadelimited.com wrote:

 
 The triple === in JavaScript at least is a strict comparison. It not only 
 checks for truthiness, but that both sides are the same type. 
 
 Have you tried simple eq or == 
 
 On Oct 4, 2011, at 9:17 PM, Rick Faircloth r...@whitestonemedia.com wrote:
 
 
 if  (  activeLinkID === 'search_properties'  currentPage === 'index.cfm'
 )
   {  window.location = 'modules/search-properties/search-properties.cfm';
 }
 
 if  (  activeLinkID === 'search_properties'  currentPage === ''
 )
   {  window.location = '../search-properties/search-properties.cfm';
 }
 
 My first code, that still seems valid, was:
 
 if   (  activeLinkID === 'search_properties'  (currentPage === 'index.cfm'
 || currentPage === '')  )
{  window.location = 'modules/search-properties/search-properties.cfm'
 }
 else {  window.location = '../search-properties/search-properties.cfm'
 }
 
 
 No syntax errors, but the page is not changed
 to search-properties.cfm.
 
 These lines are bypassed as if conditions are not met,
 and the conditions are met.
 
 They work if the URL ends in 'index.cfm', but not if the
 URL is just the domain name.
 
 I've tried every version of this I can think of.
 
 Clues, anyone?
 
 Rick
 
 
 
 
 
 

~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion
Archive: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:347931
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm


RE: Shouldn't these statements work?

2011-10-04 Thread Rick Faircloth

I've had to go to three if statements to get this to
work.  It didn't want to let me use the or '||' operator.

Also, had to start using != in one statement.

Here's what's working properly whether the modal menu
(smartphone website) is being used on the homepage,
'index.cfm' or '':

if  (  activeLinkID === 'search_properties'  currentPage === 'index.cfm'
)
{  window.location = 'modules/search-properties/search-properties.cfm';
}

if  (  activeLinkID === 'search_properties'  currentPage === ''
)
{  window.location = 'modules/search-properties/search-properties.cfm';
}

if  (  activeLinkID === 'search_properties'  currentPage != 'index.cfm' 
currentPage != ''   )
{  window.location = '../search-properties/search-properties.cfm';
}





-Original Message-
From: Lists [mailto:li...@commadelimited.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2011 10:36 PM
To: cf-talk
Subject: Re: Shouldn't these statements work?


The triple === in JavaScript at least is a strict comparison. It not only
checks for truthiness, but that both sides are the same type. 

Have you tried simple eq or == 

On Oct 4, 2011, at 9:17 PM, Rick Faircloth r...@whitestonemedia.com
wrote:

 
 if  (  activeLinkID === 'search_properties'  currentPage === 'index.cfm'
 )
{  window.location = 'modules/search-properties/search-properties.cfm';
 }
 
 if  (  activeLinkID === 'search_properties'  currentPage === ''
 )
{  window.location = '../search-properties/search-properties.cfm';
 }
 
 My first code, that still seems valid, was:
 
 if   (  activeLinkID === 'search_properties'  (currentPage ===
'index.cfm'
 || currentPage === '')  )
 {  window.location = 'modules/search-properties/search-properties.cfm'
 }
 else {  window.location = '../search-properties/search-properties.cfm'
 }
 
 
 No syntax errors, but the page is not changed
 to search-properties.cfm.
 
 These lines are bypassed as if conditions are not met,
 and the conditions are met.
 
 They work if the URL ends in 'index.cfm', but not if the
 URL is just the domain name.
 
 I've tried every version of this I can think of.
 
 Clues, anyone?
 
 Rick
 
 
 
 



~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion
Archive: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:347932
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm