Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
color coding of text
46 views
Skip to first unread message
don
May 31, 2013, 10:38:51 AM5/31/13
to
In Word you can select a color for highlighted text. I'd like to be able to
do this in eclipse or some other java editor. It would allow you to show a
programs structure nicely. Is there such a thing?
do this in eclipse or some other java editor. It would allow you to show a
programs structure nicely. Is there such a thing?
Joerg Meier
May 31, 2013, 11:00:35 AM5/31/13
to
codes in them, so even if you find an editor that would allow this, you
would then be unable to use it to write Java files that compiled.
That being said, most editors have configurable syntax highlighting, and of
course you can always simply copy and paste the Java code into Word and
colour it there (but then it won't compile anymore obviously).
Liebe Gruesse,
Joerg
--
Ich lese meine Emails nicht, replies to Email bleiben also leider
ungelesen.
dst...@gmail.com
May 31, 2013, 11:13:35 AM5/31/13
to
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3434363/eclipse-how-do-you-change-the-highlight-color-of-the-currently-selected-method
lipska the kat
May 31, 2013, 11:56:57 AM5/31/13
to
but it can be a bit of a headbanger to get started with
http://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/emacs/windows/
gedit allows you to create .lang files in [Ubuntu Linux]
/usr/share/gtksourceview-3.0/language-specs/
and is simpler to use and configure but not as flexible
also available for Windows
https://live.gnome.org/Gedit/Windows
I've never used the Windows versions myself.
lipska
--
Lipska the Kat©: Troll hunter, sandbox destroyer
and farscape dreamer of Aeryn Sun
Roedy Green
May 31, 2013, 12:42:09 PM5/31/13
to
On Fri, 31 May 2013 10:38:51 -0400, don <the...@here.com> wrote,
quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :
>In Word you can select a color for highlighted text. I'd like to be able to
>do this in eclipse or some other java editor. It would allow you to show a
>programs structure nicely. Is there such a thing?
I have done it two ways:
1. generate simple HTML and have Swing render it. See
http://mindprod.com/jgloss/htmlrendering.html I have had very little
success rendering "wild" HTML plucked from the web. You can do inline
styles, but the markup must be validated and vanilla.
2. I generate binary tokens, one for each string. It includes the
text. The type of the token encodes the font size, colours,
highlighting etc. Then I use drawString to render this at the lowest
level. See http://mindprod.com/products1.html#JDISPLAY
--
Roedy Green Canadian Mind Products http://mindprod.com
Getting information off the Internet is
like taking a drink from a fire hydrant.
~ Mitch Kapor 1950-11-01
quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :
>In Word you can select a color for highlighted text. I'd like to be able to
>do this in eclipse or some other java editor. It would allow you to show a
>programs structure nicely. Is there such a thing?
1. generate simple HTML and have Swing render it. See
http://mindprod.com/jgloss/htmlrendering.html I have had very little
success rendering "wild" HTML plucked from the web. You can do inline
styles, but the markup must be validated and vanilla.
2. I generate binary tokens, one for each string. It includes the
text. The type of the token encodes the font size, colours,
highlighting etc. Then I use drawString to render this at the lowest
level. See http://mindprod.com/products1.html#JDISPLAY
--
Roedy Green Canadian Mind Products http://mindprod.com
Getting information off the Internet is
like taking a drink from a fire hydrant.
~ Mitch Kapor 1950-11-01
FredK
May 31, 2013, 2:25:07 PM5/31/13
to
On Friday, May 31, 2013 7:38:51 AM UTC-7, don wrote:
> In Word you can select a color for highlighted text. I'd like to be able to do this in eclipse or some other java editor. It would allow you to show a programs structure nicely. Is there such a thing?
In Eclipse: Window -> Preferences -> Java -> Editor -> Syntax Coloring
> In Word you can select a color for highlighted text. I'd like to be able to do this in eclipse or some other java editor. It would allow you to show a programs structure nicely. Is there such a thing?
--
Fred K
Lew
May 31, 2013, 2:48:54 PM5/31/13
to
On Friday, May 31, 2013 7:38:51 AM UTC-7, don wrote:
> In Word you can select a color for highlighted text. I'd like to be able to
> do this in eclipse [sic] or some other java [sic] editor. It would allow you to show a
> programs [sic] structure nicely. Is there such a thing?
RTFM:
http://help.eclipse.org/juno/topic/org.eclipse.platform.doc.user/reference/ref-texteditorprefs.htm
For more general information:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Select+color+for+highlighted+text+in+Java+IDE
which query led me to the RTFM link.
--
Lew
don
May 31, 2013, 4:34:38 PM5/31/13
to
Not the highlight color, the *text* color!
I bet you don't speak to people like that in person.
I bet you don't speak to people like that in person.
Lew
May 31, 2013, 4:43:39 PM5/31/13
to
On Friday, May 31, 2013 1:34:38 PM UTC-7, don wrote:
> Not the highlight color, the *text* color!
> Not the highlight color, the *text* color!
You wrote:
"In Word you can select a color for highlighted text.
I'd like to be able to do this in eclipse [sic] or some other java [sic] editor."
You asked for the color for highlighted text. Don't be mad at me for answering
"In Word you can select a color for highlighted text.
I'd like to be able to do this in eclipse [sic] or some other java [sic] editor."
the question you actually asked instead of the one you intended to ask.
You will note that the query term I suggested was *your* phrase, with the word
"Java" added. If you don't like *your own* search phrase, then for God's sake
use a different one.
Besides, it's the same answer: RTFM!
> I bet you don't speak to people like that in person.
Did you try an online search first?
This is a newsgroup for Java programmers. Part of the essential skill of
being a programmer is knowing how to look things up. Something you did not do.
The advice is sound. Follow it. Get over yourself.
--
Lew
don
May 31, 2013, 7:17:54 PM5/31/13
to
The threads title "color coding of text" might've been a clue…
Just sayin.
BTW, telling someone to "RTFM" is abusive.
Period.
That is why you don't say it to someone's face.
Get over it.
Just sayin.
BTW, telling someone to "RTFM" is abusive.
Period.
That is why you don't say it to someone's face.
Get over it.
Arved Sandstrom
May 31, 2013, 9:19:06 PM5/31/13
to
AHS
--
When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign:
that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him.
-- Jonathan Swift
lipska the kat
Jun 1, 2013, 4:06:47 AM6/1/13
to
On 31/05/13 21:43, Lew wrote:
> On Friday, May 31, 2013 1:34:38 PM UTC-7, don wrote:
>> Not the highlight color, the *text* color!
>
> You wrote:
> "In Word you can select a color for highlighted text.
[snip]
> On Friday, May 31, 2013 1:34:38 PM UTC-7, don wrote:
>> Not the highlight color, the *text* color!
>
> You wrote:
> "In Word you can select a color for highlighted text.
> The advice is sound. Follow it. Get over yourself.
Why do you always feel it necessary to behave like
a total arsehole?
Why do you even bother, if you don't think the question a valid one then
why bother to respond?
Your bizarre behavior lowers the tone of the group
get over yourself, you really are not that important.
Joerg Meier
Jun 1, 2013, 6:01:10 AM6/1/13
to
On Fri, 31 May 2013 19:17:54 -0400, don wrote:
> BTW, telling someone to "RTFM" is abusive.
> Period.
Telling someone to RFTM is in absolutely no way abusive, not even a little
> BTW, telling someone to "RTFM" is abusive.
> Period.
bit, not even jokingly. If being told to read the documentation for
something you want to use offends you, I recommend you give up on
programming and take on something less mentally challenging where you won't
be offended by reading documentation.
Joerg Meier
Jun 1, 2013, 6:02:33 AM6/1/13
to
On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 09:06:47 +0100, lipska the kat wrote:
> Why can't you just give advice?
> Why do you always feel it necessary to behave like
> a total arsehole?
In his defense, his original advice was in a neutral tone, he only turned
> Why can't you just give advice?
> Why do you always feel it necessary to behave like
> a total arsehole?
rude when he was yelled at instead of thanked by the ungrateful original
poster for posting his link.
lipska the kat
Jun 1, 2013, 7:28:55 AM6/1/13
to
On 01/06/13 11:02, Joerg Meier wrote:
> On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 09:06:47 +0100, lipska the kat wrote:
>
>> Why can't you just give advice?
>> Why do you always feel it necessary to behave like
>> a total arsehole?
>
> In his defense, his original advice was in a neutral tone, he only turned
> rude when he was yelled at instead of thanked by the ungrateful original
> poster for posting his link
There are many reasons people post to Usenet Joerg, maybe they would
> On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 09:06:47 +0100, lipska the kat wrote:
>
>> Why can't you just give advice?
>> Why do you always feel it necessary to behave like
>> a total arsehole?
>
> In his defense, his original advice was in a neutral tone, he only turned
> rude when he was yelled at instead of thanked by the ungrateful original
> poster for posting his link
like to start a conversation with like minded people but don't know how
to start, maybe they are trying to make some friends, maybe they are not
experienced with search engines and don't know how to sift the wheat
from the chaff. Maybe they are just starting out on Usenet and don't
understand the protocols yet.
A first response of RTFM is not really helpful is it.
If I just wanted to Read The Fucking Manual I wouldn't be here.
Bloch-local invariably gives RTFM as a first response, look back and see
how many new posters he pisses off with this smart arse attitude.
... and as for all this [sic] nonsense, it's just designed as a wind up,
no need to do it if you are just quoting the original text, he's a wind
up merchant, nothing more.
As the OP opined, I'd bet he wouldn't be such a smart arse face to face.
Robert Klemme
Jun 1, 2013, 7:30:42 AM6/1/13
to
On 01.06.2013 10:06, lipska the kat wrote:
> On 31/05/13 21:43, Lew wrote:
>> On Friday, May 31, 2013 1:34:38 PM UTC-7, don wrote:
>> The advice is sound. Follow it. Get over yourself.
>
> Why can't you just give advice?
> Why do you always feel it necessary to behave like
> a total arsehole?
>
> Why do you even bother, if you don't think the question a valid one then
> why bother to respond?
<disclaimer>I'm not Lew so I don't have access to his mind.</disclaimer>
> On 31/05/13 21:43, Lew wrote:
>> On Friday, May 31, 2013 1:34:38 PM UTC-7, don wrote:
>> The advice is sound. Follow it. Get over yourself.
>
> Why can't you just give advice?
> Why do you always feel it necessary to behave like
> a total arsehole?
>
> Why do you even bother, if you don't think the question a valid one then
> why bother to respond?
You could look at this from a different perspective: since he *did*
bother to answer you could give him the benefit of the doubt and assume
that he wants to help. And in fact, I find most of the time Lew's
postings are helpful - maybe not in an obvious way though. :-)
> Your bizarre behavior lowers the tone of the group
> get over yourself, you really are not that important.
style - very well. But what makes you believe this posting of yours is
helping to improve things?
Cheers
robert
--
remember.guy do |as, often| as.you_can - without end
http://blog.rubybestpractices.com/
Arved Sandstrom
Jun 1, 2013, 8:15:17 AM6/1/13
to
On 06/01/2013 07:01 AM, Joerg Meier wrote:
> On Fri, 31 May 2013 19:17:54 -0400, don wrote:
>
>> BTW, telling someone to "RTFM" is abusive.
>
>> Period.
>
> Telling someone to RFTM is in absolutely no way abusive, not even a little
> bit, not even jokingly. If being told to read the documentation for
> something you want to use offends you, I recommend you give up on
> programming and take on something less mentally challenging where you won't
> be offended by reading documentation.
>
> Liebe Gruesse,
> Joerg
>
Considering that it means Read The Fucking Manual, it is actually a
> On Fri, 31 May 2013 19:17:54 -0400, don wrote:
>
>> BTW, telling someone to "RTFM" is abusive.
>
>> Period.
>
> Telling someone to RFTM is in absolutely no way abusive, not even a little
> bit, not even jokingly. If being told to read the documentation for
> something you want to use offends you, I recommend you give up on
> programming and take on something less mentally challenging where you won't
> be offended by reading documentation.
>
> Liebe Gruesse,
> Joerg
>
somewhat hostile way of telling someone to read the docs. Abusive?
Depends on how you the recipient feels when they've been cursed out in a
professional forum. Maybe.
A neutral way of telling someone to read the docs is "read the docs".
Even better, do like FredK did, and provide a useful hint.
Arved Sandstrom
Jun 1, 2013, 8:30:06 AM6/1/13
to
professional programmer, then even though RTFM is unprofessional, you
could probably tenuously justify saying it. After all, career
programmers should be doing some research before asking questions.
But we don't know that every poster here is a pro. I'll bet quite a few
are not. You might have a guy who works a shitty job who is looking to
improve his marketability by learning a programming language on his own,
for example. Or a parent trying to keep up with her kid's homework.
Under these circumstances using the term RTFM is unhelpful.
lipska the kat
Jun 1, 2013, 8:40:12 AM6/1/13
to
On 01/06/13 12:30, Robert Klemme wrote:
> On 01.06.2013 10:06, lipska the kat wrote:
>> On 31/05/13 21:43, Lew wrote:
>>> On Friday, May 31, 2013 1:34:38 PM UTC-7, don wrote:
>
>>> The advice is sound. Follow it. Get over yourself.
>>
>> Why can't you just give advice?
>> Why do you always feel it necessary to behave like
>> a total arsehole?
>>
>> Why do you even bother, if you don't think the question a valid one then
>> why bother to respond?
>
> <disclaimer>I'm not Lew so I don't have access to his mind.</disclaimer>
> You could look at this from a different perspective: since he *did*
> bother to answer you could give him the benefit of the doubt and assume
> that he wants to help.
Plenty of others, including myself managed to reply without giving it
> On 01.06.2013 10:06, lipska the kat wrote:
>> On 31/05/13 21:43, Lew wrote:
>>> On Friday, May 31, 2013 1:34:38 PM UTC-7, don wrote:
>
>>> The advice is sound. Follow it. Get over yourself.
>>
>> Why can't you just give advice?
>> Why do you always feel it necessary to behave like
>> a total arsehole?
>>
>> Why do you even bother, if you don't think the question a valid one then
>> why bother to respond?
>
> <disclaimer>I'm not Lew so I don't have access to his mind.</disclaimer>
> You could look at this from a different perspective: since he *did*
> bother to answer you could give him the benefit of the doubt and assume
> that he wants to help.
large with the smart arse attitude. You can defend him all you want but
bullies have never phased me, I always stand up to them and they always
turn out to be cowards.
> And in fact, I find most of the time Lew's
> postings are helpful - maybe not in an obvious way though. :-)
>> Your bizarre behavior lowers the tone of the group
>> get over yourself, you really are not that important.
>
> You make it important - with your posting. You may not agree with his
> style - very well. But what makes you believe this posting of yours is
> helping to improve things?
an open and free debate.
If you don't get this then you are part of the problem I'm afraid.
Martin Gregorie
Jun 1, 2013, 9:00:37 AM6/1/13
to
On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 12:28:55 +0100, lipska the kat wrote:
> On 01/06/13 11:02, Joerg Meier wrote:
>> On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 09:06:47 +0100, lipska the kat wrote:
>>
>>> Why can't you just give advice?
>>> Why do you always feel it necessary to behave like a total arsehole?
>>
>> In his defense, his original advice was in a neutral tone, he only
>> turned rude when he was yelled at instead of thanked by the ungrateful
>> original poster for posting his link
>
> There are many reasons people post to Usenet Joerg, maybe they would
> like to start a conversation with like minded people but don't know how
> to start, maybe they are trying to make some friends, maybe they are not
> experienced with search engines and don't know how to sift the wheat
> from the chaff. Maybe they are just starting out on Usenet and don't
> understand the protocols yet.
>
> A first response of RTFM is not really helpful is it.
>
> If I just wanted to Read The Fucking Manual I wouldn't be here.
>
You and the OP may translate RTFM as you've opined.
> On 01/06/13 11:02, Joerg Meier wrote:
>> On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 09:06:47 +0100, lipska the kat wrote:
>>
>>> Why can't you just give advice?
>>> Why do you always feel it necessary to behave like a total arsehole?
>>
>> In his defense, his original advice was in a neutral tone, he only
>> turned rude when he was yelled at instead of thanked by the ungrateful
>> original poster for posting his link
>
> There are many reasons people post to Usenet Joerg, maybe they would
> like to start a conversation with like minded people but don't know how
> to start, maybe they are trying to make some friends, maybe they are not
> experienced with search engines and don't know how to sift the wheat
> from the chaff. Maybe they are just starting out on Usenet and don't
> understand the protocols yet.
>
> A first response of RTFM is not really helpful is it.
>
> If I just wanted to Read The Fucking Manual I wouldn't be here.
>
Oddly enough, I translate it is Read The Fine Manual. I agree that I
wouldn't say RTFM to somebody's face, but then I don't use initial slang
face to face either, but may well say "Read the manual", possibly with
its name added, or "Read the manpage".
Last but not least, RTFM is widely understood to be an invitation to read
the official documentation, or at least the relevant O'Reilly book, but
RTM seems to be more generally understood to mean Remember The Milk (make
a reminder list) or Release To Manufacturing. Run the two searches
yourself and you'll see what I mean.
--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |
Lars Enderin
Jun 1, 2013, 2:54:27 PM6/1/13
to
2013-06-01 14:40, lipska the kat skrev:
> On 01/06/13 12:30, Robert Klemme wrote:
>> On 01.06.2013 10:06, lipska the kat wrote:
>> <disclaimer>I'm not Lew so I don't have access to his mind.</disclaimer>
>> You could look at this from a different perspective: since he *did*
>> bother to answer you could give him the benefit of the doubt and assume
>> that he wants to help.
>
> Plenty of others, including myself managed to reply without giving it
> large with the smart arse attitude. You can defend him all you want but
> bullies have never phased me, I always stand up to them and they always
> turn out to be cowards.
ITYM fazed. And I think you are an over-sensitive jerk, too prone to
> On 01/06/13 12:30, Robert Klemme wrote:
>> On 01.06.2013 10:06, lipska the kat wrote:
>> <disclaimer>I'm not Lew so I don't have access to his mind.</disclaimer>
>> You could look at this from a different perspective: since he *did*
>> bother to answer you could give him the benefit of the doubt and assume
>> that he wants to help.
>
> Plenty of others, including myself managed to reply without giving it
> large with the smart arse attitude. You can defend him all you want but
> bullies have never phased me, I always stand up to them and they always
> turn out to be cowards.
label others as bullies and cowards. Get over yourself.
>> And in fact, I find most of the time Lew's
>> postings are helpful - maybe not in an obvious way though. :-)
>
> I'm happy for you.
>>> Your bizarre behavior lowers the tone of the group
>>> get over yourself, you really are not that important.
>> You make it important - with your posting. You may not agree with his
>> style - very well. But what makes you believe this posting of yours is
>> helping to improve things?
>
> Allowing thugs to practice their thuggery unopposed never contributes to
> an open and free debate.
>
don't like them.
--
Lars Enderin
lipska the kat
Jun 1, 2013, 3:04:50 PM6/1/13
to
On 01/06/13 19:54, Lars Enderin wrote:
> 2013-06-01 14:40, lipska the kat skrev:
>> On 01/06/13 12:30, Robert Klemme wrote:
>>> On 01.06.2013 10:06, lipska the kat wrote:
[snip]
> 2013-06-01 14:40, lipska the kat skrev:
>> On 01/06/13 12:30, Robert Klemme wrote:
>>> On 01.06.2013 10:06, lipska the kat wrote:
> You are not helping either by labelling people as thugs just because you
> don't like them.
Lars Enderin
Jun 1, 2013, 3:31:44 PM6/1/13
to
2013-06-01 21:04, lipska the kat skrev:
> On 01/06/13 19:54, Lars Enderin wrote:
>> 2013-06-01 14:40, lipska the kat skrev:
>>> On 01/06/13 12:30, Robert Klemme wrote:
>>>> On 01.06.2013 10:06, lipska the kat wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> You are not helping either by labelling people as thugs just because you
>> don't like them.
>
> Piss off Lars you idiot.
You need to work on your attitude.
> On 01/06/13 19:54, Lars Enderin wrote:
>> 2013-06-01 14:40, lipska the kat skrev:
>>> On 01/06/13 12:30, Robert Klemme wrote:
>>>> On 01.06.2013 10:06, lipska the kat wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> You are not helping either by labelling people as thugs just because you
>> don't like them.
>
> Piss off Lars you idiot.
--
Lars Enderin
Arne Vajhøj
Jun 1, 2013, 6:10:59 PM6/1/13
to
On 5/31/2013 11:56 AM, lipska the kat wrote:
> On 31/05/13 15:38, don wrote:
>> In Word you can select a color for highlighted text. I'd like to be
>> able to
>> do this in eclipse or some other java editor. It would allow you to
>> show a
>> programs structure nicely. Is there such a thing?
>
> emacs is almost infinitely configurable and is available for Windows
> but it can be a bit of a headbanger to get started with
>
> http://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/emacs/windows/
>
> gedit allows you to create .lang files in [Ubuntu Linux]
> /usr/share/gtksourceview-3.0/language-specs/
> and is simpler to use and configure but not as flexible
> also available for Windows
>
> https://live.gnome.org/Gedit/Windows
>
> I've never used the Windows versions myself.
JEdit is a nice editor and then it is written in Java.
> On 31/05/13 15:38, don wrote:
>> In Word you can select a color for highlighted text. I'd like to be
>> able to
>> do this in eclipse or some other java editor. It would allow you to
>> show a
>> programs structure nicely. Is there such a thing?
>
> emacs is almost infinitely configurable and is available for Windows
> but it can be a bit of a headbanger to get started with
>
> http://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/emacs/windows/
>
> gedit allows you to create .lang files in [Ubuntu Linux]
> /usr/share/gtksourceview-3.0/language-specs/
> and is simpler to use and configure but not as flexible
> also available for Windows
>
> https://live.gnome.org/Gedit/Windows
>
> I've never used the Windows versions myself.
:-)
Arne
Arne Vajhøj
Jun 1, 2013, 6:19:30 PM6/1/13
to
On 5/31/2013 7:17 PM, don wrote:
> The threads title "color coding of text" might've been a clue…
>
> Just sayin.
It is a clue.
> The threads title "color coding of text" might've been a clue…
>
> Just sayin.
But you can hardly criticize somebody for assuming that you meant what
you wrote in the message body.
> BTW, telling someone to "RTFM" is abusive.
not very helpful either.
RTFM with a reference to a FM is not abusive and it is helpful.
Lew did provide a link to the FM for highlighting in his first reply.
He did not in his second reply for text, but a minimum of search
would in the first link would fine the requested information.
> Period.
Making claims and then say "period" does convince many
about the validity of the claim. Most likely the opposite.
Arne
Arne Vajhøj
Jun 1, 2013, 6:25:57 PM6/1/13
to
On 6/1/2013 8:15 AM, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
> On 06/01/2013 07:01 AM, Joerg Meier wrote:
>> On Fri, 31 May 2013 19:17:54 -0400, don wrote:
>>
>>> BTW, telling someone to "RTFM" is abusive.
>>
>>> Period.
>>
>> Telling someone to RFTM is in absolutely no way abusive, not even a
>> little
>> bit, not even jokingly. If being told to read the documentation for
>> something you want to use offends you, I recommend you give up on
>> programming and take on something less mentally challenging where you
>> won't
>> be offended by reading documentation.
>>
> On 06/01/2013 07:01 AM, Joerg Meier wrote:
>> On Fri, 31 May 2013 19:17:54 -0400, don wrote:
>>
>>> BTW, telling someone to "RTFM" is abusive.
>>
>>> Period.
>>
>> Telling someone to RFTM is in absolutely no way abusive, not even a
>> little
>> bit, not even jokingly. If being told to read the documentation for
>> something you want to use offends you, I recommend you give up on
>> programming and take on something less mentally challenging where you
>> won't
>> be offended by reading documentation.
>>
> Considering that it means Read The Fucking Manual, it is actually a
> somewhat hostile way of telling someone to read the docs. Abusive?
> Depends on how you the recipient feels when they've been cursed out in a
> professional forum. Maybe.
>
> A neutral way of telling someone to read the docs is "read the docs".
>
> Even better, do like FredK did, and provide a useful hint.
Well - the F can stand for "Fine" as well. Or a few less used
> somewhat hostile way of telling someone to read the docs. Abusive?
> Depends on how you the recipient feels when they've been cursed out in a
> professional forum. Maybe.
>
> A neutral way of telling someone to read the docs is "read the docs".
>
> Even better, do like FredK did, and provide a useful hint.
words starting with F.
And even if Lew actually meant "Fucking", then I find it
difficult to see as being abusive given the context of
internet year 2013. I am not even sure that I would call
it rude. I would call it harsh.
Arne
Arne Vajhøj
Jun 1, 2013, 6:33:10 PM6/1/13
to
On 6/1/2013 7:28 AM, lipska the kat wrote:
> On 01/06/13 11:02, Joerg Meier wrote:
>> On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 09:06:47 +0100, lipska the kat wrote:
>>
>>> Why can't you just give advice?
>>> Why do you always feel it necessary to behave like
>>> a total arsehole?
>>
>> In his defense, his original advice was in a neutral tone, he only turned
>> rude when he was yelled at instead of thanked by the ungrateful original
>> poster for posting his link
>
> There are many reasons people post to Usenet Joerg, maybe they would
> like to start a conversation with like minded people but don't know how
> to start, maybe they are trying to make some friends, maybe they are not
> experienced with search engines and don't know how to sift the wheat
> from the chaff. Maybe they are just starting out on Usenet and don't
> understand the protocols yet.
>
> A first response of RTFM is not really helpful is it.
And the relevance is?
> On 01/06/13 11:02, Joerg Meier wrote:
>> On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 09:06:47 +0100, lipska the kat wrote:
>>
>>> Why can't you just give advice?
>>> Why do you always feel it necessary to behave like
>>> a total arsehole?
>>
>> In his defense, his original advice was in a neutral tone, he only turned
>> rude when he was yelled at instead of thanked by the ungrateful original
>> poster for posting his link
>
> There are many reasons people post to Usenet Joerg, maybe they would
> like to start a conversation with like minded people but don't know how
> to start, maybe they are trying to make some friends, maybe they are not
> experienced with search engines and don't know how to sift the wheat
> from the chaff. Maybe they are just starting out on Usenet and don't
> understand the protocols yet.
>
> A first response of RTFM is not really helpful is it.
I mean Lew actually did post a link to the FM and the
exact position in the FM discussing the topic.
It is almost impossible to be more helpful I would say.
Arne
Arne Vajhøj
Jun 1, 2013, 6:37:54 PM6/1/13
to
On 6/1/2013 8:30 AM, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
> On 06/01/2013 08:30 AM, Robert Klemme wrote:
>> On 01.06.2013 10:06, lipska the kat wrote:
>>> On 31/05/13 21:43, Lew wrote:
>>>> On Friday, May 31, 2013 1:34:38 PM UTC-7, don wrote:
>>
>>>> The advice is sound. Follow it. Get over yourself.
>>>
>>> Why can't you just give advice?
>>> Why do you always feel it necessary to behave like
>>> a total arsehole?
>>>
>>> Why do you even bother, if you don't think the question a valid one then
>>> why bother to respond?
>>
>> <disclaimer>I'm not Lew so I don't have access to his mind.</disclaimer>
>> You could look at this from a different perspective: since he *did*
>> bother to answer you could give him the benefit of the doubt and assume
>> that he wants to help. And in fact, I find most of the time Lew's
>> postings are helpful - maybe not in an obvious way though. :-)
>>
>>> Your bizarre behavior lowers the tone of the group
>>> get over yourself, you really are not that important.
>>
>> You make it important - with your posting. You may not agree with his
>> style - very well. But what makes you believe this posting of yours is
>> helping to improve things?
> On 06/01/2013 08:30 AM, Robert Klemme wrote:
>> On 01.06.2013 10:06, lipska the kat wrote:
>>> On 31/05/13 21:43, Lew wrote:
>>>> On Friday, May 31, 2013 1:34:38 PM UTC-7, don wrote:
>>
>>>> The advice is sound. Follow it. Get over yourself.
>>>
>>> Why can't you just give advice?
>>> Why do you always feel it necessary to behave like
>>> a total arsehole?
>>>
>>> Why do you even bother, if you don't think the question a valid one then
>>> why bother to respond?
>>
>> <disclaimer>I'm not Lew so I don't have access to his mind.</disclaimer>
>> You could look at this from a different perspective: since he *did*
>> bother to answer you could give him the benefit of the doubt and assume
>> that he wants to help. And in fact, I find most of the time Lew's
>> postings are helpful - maybe not in an obvious way though. :-)
>>
>>> Your bizarre behavior lowers the tone of the group
>>> get over yourself, you really are not that important.
>>
>> You make it important - with your posting. You may not agree with his
>> style - very well. But what makes you believe this posting of yours is
>> helping to improve things?
> Here's the thing, Robert. If we knew that every poster to this NG was a
> professional programmer, then even though RTFM is unprofessional, you
> could probably tenuously justify saying it. After all, career
> programmers should be doing some research before asking questions.
>
> But we don't know that every poster here is a pro. I'll bet quite a few
> are not. You might have a guy who works a shitty job who is looking to
> improve his marketability by learning a programming language on his own,
> for example. Or a parent trying to keep up with her kid's homework.
> Under these circumstances using the term RTFM is unhelpful.
Absolutely.
> professional programmer, then even though RTFM is unprofessional, you
> could probably tenuously justify saying it. After all, career
> programmers should be doing some research before asking questions.
>
> But we don't know that every poster here is a pro. I'll bet quite a few
> are not. You might have a guy who works a shitty job who is looking to
> improve his marketability by learning a programming language on his own,
> for example. Or a parent trying to keep up with her kid's homework.
> Under these circumstances using the term RTFM is unhelpful.
But then Lew did not only post RTFM in his first post.
He also posted a link to the exact page in the manual
with the answer.
That should be pretty useful for the non-pro reader
segment.
(the fact that the page had the answer to the question
in th emessage body and not what OP wanted which was
in the subject muddies the water a bit, but still)
Arne
Arne Vajhøj
Jun 1, 2013, 6:41:36 PM6/1/13
to
On 6/1/2013 8:40 AM, lipska the kat wrote:
> On 01/06/13 12:30, Robert Klemme wrote:
>> On 01.06.2013 10:06, lipska the kat wrote:
>>> On 31/05/13 21:43, Lew wrote:
>>>> On Friday, May 31, 2013 1:34:38 PM UTC-7, don wrote:
>>
>>>> The advice is sound. Follow it. Get over yourself.
>>>
>>> Why can't you just give advice?
>>> Why do you always feel it necessary to behave like
>>> a total arsehole?
>>>
>>> Why do you even bother, if you don't think the question a valid one then
>>> why bother to respond?
>>
>> <disclaimer>I'm not Lew so I don't have access to his mind.</disclaimer>
>> You could look at this from a different perspective: since he *did*
>> bother to answer you could give him the benefit of the doubt and assume
>> that he wants to help.
>
> Plenty of others, including myself managed to reply without giving it
> large with the smart arse attitude.
Actually you did not.
> On 01/06/13 12:30, Robert Klemme wrote:
>> On 01.06.2013 10:06, lipska the kat wrote:
>>> On 31/05/13 21:43, Lew wrote:
>>>> On Friday, May 31, 2013 1:34:38 PM UTC-7, don wrote:
>>
>>>> The advice is sound. Follow it. Get over yourself.
>>>
>>> Why can't you just give advice?
>>> Why do you always feel it necessary to behave like
>>> a total arsehole?
>>>
>>> Why do you even bother, if you don't think the question a valid one then
>>> why bother to respond?
>>
>> <disclaimer>I'm not Lew so I don't have access to his mind.</disclaimer>
>> You could look at this from a different perspective: since he *did*
>> bother to answer you could give him the benefit of the doubt and assume
>> that he wants to help.
>
> Plenty of others, including myself managed to reply without giving it
> large with the smart arse attitude.
In this thread you have posted:
* 1 reply with some general thoughts about editors
which is not really related to OP's question
* 4 replies with various personal attacks
so you seems to be the one in this thread with by far
the worst track record on politeness.
Arne
Lew
Jun 1, 2013, 8:26:07 PM6/1/13
to
Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> I mean Lew actually did post a link to the FM and the
> exact position in the FM discussing the topic.
>
> It is almost impossible to be more helpful I would say.
Furthermore, I found that link by following the more general
> I mean Lew actually did post a link to the FM and the
> exact position in the FM discussing the topic.
>
> It is almost impossible to be more helpful I would say.
search link that I also provided.
Which general search link, and the rest of the FM aforementioned,
do, indeed, answer the "real" question that "don" so politely
wants answered. No matter what the "real" question is.
--
Lew
Arved Sandstrom
Jun 1, 2013, 9:40:18 PM6/1/13
to
info, and dispense with RTFM. The latter is an abrasive extra dig, and
putting it out there as an acronym is evading the fact that it means
Read The Fucking Manual.
I've never used the term professionally, because it's unprofessional.
It's hackerish and unpleasant.
Arne Vajhøj
Jun 1, 2013, 9:52:11 PM6/1/13
to
On 6/1/2013 9:40 PM, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
> On 06/01/2013 09:26 PM, Lew wrote:
>> Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>> I mean Lew actually did post a link to the FM and the
>>> exact position in the FM discussing the topic.
>>>
>>> It is almost impossible to be more helpful I would say.
>>
>> Furthermore, I found that link by following the more general
>> search link that I also provided.
>>
>> Which general search link, and the rest of the FM aforementioned,
>> do, indeed, answer the "real" question that "don" so politely
>> wants answered. No matter what the "real" question is.
>>
> All true, no question. But it would probably help just to provide the
> info, and dispense with RTFM. The latter is an abrasive extra dig, and
> putting it out there as an acronym is evading the fact that it means
> Read The Fucking Manual.
>
> I've never used the term professionally, because it's unprofessional.
I doubt that Lew does use it professionally.
> On 06/01/2013 09:26 PM, Lew wrote:
>> Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>> I mean Lew actually did post a link to the FM and the
>>> exact position in the FM discussing the topic.
>>>
>>> It is almost impossible to be more helpful I would say.
>>
>> Furthermore, I found that link by following the more general
>> search link that I also provided.
>>
>> Which general search link, and the rest of the FM aforementioned,
>> do, indeed, answer the "real" question that "don" so politely
>> wants answered. No matter what the "real" question is.
>>
> All true, no question. But it would probably help just to provide the
> info, and dispense with RTFM. The latter is an abrasive extra dig, and
> putting it out there as an acronym is evading the fact that it means
> Read The Fucking Manual.
>
> I've never used the term professionally, because it's unprofessional.
But is it relevant? Usenet is a different context from work. The
time to respond is different, the code produced is different - so
would it be surprising that language used is different?
Arne
Lew
Jun 1, 2013, 10:31:03 PM6/1/13
to
don wrote:
> Not the highlight color, the *text* color!
>
> I bet you don't speak to people like that in person.
You set up a meeting and I will not only tell you "RTFM"
> Not the highlight color, the *text* color!
>
> I bet you don't speak to people like that in person.
to your face, I'll throw in a "GIYF" for free.
--
Lew
lipska the kat
Jun 2, 2013, 3:51:47 AM6/2/13
to
On 01/06/13 23:37, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 6/1/2013 8:30 AM, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
>> On 06/01/2013 08:30 AM, Robert Klemme wrote:
>>> On 01.06.2013 10:06, lipska the kat wrote:
>>>> On 31/05/13 21:43, Lew wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, May 31, 2013 1:34:38 PM UTC-7, don wrote:
>>>
>>>>> The advice is sound. Follow it. Get over yourself.
>>>>
>>>> Why can't you just give advice?
>>>> Why do you always feel it necessary to behave like
>>>> a total arsehole?
[snip]
> On 6/1/2013 8:30 AM, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
>> On 06/01/2013 08:30 AM, Robert Klemme wrote:
>>> On 01.06.2013 10:06, lipska the kat wrote:
>>>> On 31/05/13 21:43, Lew wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, May 31, 2013 1:34:38 PM UTC-7, don wrote:
>>>
>>>>> The advice is sound. Follow it. Get over yourself.
>>>>
>>>> Why can't you just give advice?
>>>> Why do you always feel it necessary to behave like
>>>> a total arsehole?
> But then Lew did not only post RTFM in his first post.
>
> He also posted a link to the exact page in the manual
> with the answer.
You are trying to defend the indefensible ... as usual.
Once again Bloch-local has trolled c.l.j.p
Given how many people have stated that they find his behavior
unacceptable there are two possible reasons for it.
1. He is deliberately being objectionable.
2. He is too thick to realize his mistake.
Well Bloch, which is it?
lipska the kat
Jun 2, 2013, 3:57:37 AM6/2/13
to
Is this you Bloch
http://www.linkedin.com/in/lewbloch
I've always wanted to go to San Fransisco
lipska the kat
Jun 2, 2013, 4:02:38 AM6/2/13
to
On 01/06/13 23:41, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 6/1/2013 8:40 AM, lipska the kat wrote:
>> On 01/06/13 12:30, Robert Klemme wrote:
>>> On 01.06.2013 10:06, lipska the kat wrote:
>>>> On 31/05/13 21:43, Lew wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, May 31, 2013 1:34:38 PM UTC-7, don wrote:
>>>
>>>>> The advice is sound. Follow it. Get over yourself.
>>>>
>>>> Why can't you just give advice?
>>>> Why do you always feel it necessary to behave like
>>>> a total arsehole?
>>>>
>>>> Why do you even bother, if you don't think the question a valid one
>>>> then
>>>> why bother to respond?
>>>
>>> <disclaimer>I'm not Lew so I don't have access to his mind.</disclaimer>
>>> You could look at this from a different perspective: since he *did*
>>> bother to answer you could give him the benefit of the doubt and assume
>>> that he wants to help.
>>
>> Plenty of others, including myself managed to reply without giving it
>> large with the smart arse attitude.
>
> Actually you did not.
>
> In this thread you have posted:
> * 1 reply with some general thoughts about editors
> which is not really related to OP's question
Read the post again, no RTFM, no abuse, no smart arse comments.
> On 6/1/2013 8:40 AM, lipska the kat wrote:
>> On 01/06/13 12:30, Robert Klemme wrote:
>>> On 01.06.2013 10:06, lipska the kat wrote:
>>>> On 31/05/13 21:43, Lew wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, May 31, 2013 1:34:38 PM UTC-7, don wrote:
>>>
>>>>> The advice is sound. Follow it. Get over yourself.
>>>>
>>>> Why can't you just give advice?
>>>> Why do you always feel it necessary to behave like
>>>> a total arsehole?
>>>>
>>>> Why do you even bother, if you don't think the question a valid one
>>>> then
>>>> why bother to respond?
>>>
>>> <disclaimer>I'm not Lew so I don't have access to his mind.</disclaimer>
>>> You could look at this from a different perspective: since he *did*
>>> bother to answer you could give him the benefit of the doubt and assume
>>> that he wants to help.
>>
>> Plenty of others, including myself managed to reply without giving it
>> large with the smart arse attitude.
>
> Actually you did not.
>
> In this thread you have posted:
> * 1 reply with some general thoughts about editors
> which is not really related to OP's question
> * 4 replies with various personal attacks
> so you seems to be the one in this thread with by far
> the worst track record on politeness.
Arne Vajhøj
Jun 2, 2013, 9:41:26 AM6/2/13
to
Arne
Arne Vajhøj
Jun 2, 2013, 9:47:24 AM6/2/13
to
On 6/2/2013 3:51 AM, lipska the kat wrote:
> On 01/06/13 23:37, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 6/1/2013 8:30 AM, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
>>> On 06/01/2013 08:30 AM, Robert Klemme wrote:
>>>> On 01.06.2013 10:06, lipska the kat wrote:
>>>>> On 31/05/13 21:43, Lew wrote:
>>>>>> On Friday, May 31, 2013 1:34:38 PM UTC-7, don wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> The advice is sound. Follow it. Get over yourself.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why can't you just give advice?
>>>>> Why do you always feel it necessary to behave like
>>>>> a total arsehole?
>
> [snip]
>
>> But then Lew did not only post RTFM in his first post.
>>
>> He also posted a link to the exact page in the manual
>> with the answer.
>
> Irrelevant, the link would have sufficed, no need for RTFM
Lew thougth it would be relevant to refer to the concept
> On 01/06/13 23:37, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 6/1/2013 8:30 AM, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
>>> On 06/01/2013 08:30 AM, Robert Klemme wrote:
>>>> On 01.06.2013 10:06, lipska the kat wrote:
>>>>> On 31/05/13 21:43, Lew wrote:
>>>>>> On Friday, May 31, 2013 1:34:38 PM UTC-7, don wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> The advice is sound. Follow it. Get over yourself.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why can't you just give advice?
>>>>> Why do you always feel it necessary to behave like
>>>>> a total arsehole?
>
> [snip]
>
>> But then Lew did not only post RTFM in his first post.
>>
>> He also posted a link to the exact page in the manual
>> with the answer.
>
> Irrelevant, the link would have sufficed, no need for RTFM
of the Fine Manual.
You are welcome to disagree, but his decision what goes
in his reply.
> Given how many people have stated that they find his behavior
> unacceptable there are two possible reasons for it.
>
> 1. He is deliberately being objectionable.
> 2. He is too thick to realize his mistake.
It is not something unique for Lew.
Arne
markspace
Jun 2, 2013, 10:53:07 AM6/2/13
to
On 6/2/2013 6:47 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> There is a pretty long history of using RFTM on usenet.
>
> It is not something unique for Lew.
For example, it's codified in Eric Raymond's FAQ How to Ask Questions
> There is a pretty long history of using RFTM on usenet.
>
> It is not something unique for Lew.
the Smart Way.
<http://www.catb.org/esr/faqs/smart-questions.html>
"RTFM and STFW: How To Tell You've Seriously Screwed Up
"There is an ancient and hallowed tradition: if you get a reply that
reads “RTFM”, the person who sent it thinks you should have Read The
Fucking Manual. He or she is almost certainly right. Go read it.
"RTFM has a younger relative. If you get a reply that reads “STFW”, the
person who sent it thinks you should have Searched The Fucking Web. He
or she is almost certainly right. Go search it.
Robert Klemme
Jun 2, 2013, 11:46:40 AM6/2/13
to
On 01.06.2013 14:30, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
> But we don't know that every poster here is a pro. I'll bet quite a few
> are not. You might have a guy who works a shitty job who is looking to
> improve his marketability by learning a programming language on his own,
> for example. Or a parent trying to keep up with her kid's homework.
> Under these circumstances using the term RTFM is unhelpful.
The fact that someone is new to (Java) programming is unrelated to his
> But we don't know that every poster here is a pro. I'll bet quite a few
> are not. You might have a guy who works a shitty job who is looking to
> improve his marketability by learning a programming language on his own,
> for example. Or a parent trying to keep up with her kid's homework.
> Under these circumstances using the term RTFM is unhelpful.
ability to deal with unhelpful replies or even inappropriate language.
You make it sound (to me at least) a bit like every programming newbie
is also a newbie when it comes to social interaction. I prefer to
assume persons I interact with to being adult until proven otherwise.
Btw, I'm all for politeness and respect but I think that trying to
police a public forum without access control is bound to fail - worst
case it leads into the opposite direction of the one intended (as
another branch of this discussion exemplifies).
Kind regards
Robert Klemme
Jun 2, 2013, 11:47:28 AM6/2/13
to
someone to improve their language to prevent "lowering the tone of the
group" and end up by asking one "idiot" to "piss off" and suggesting to
"get used to" your language to another.
I guess that also serves as a strong indication that this type of
discussion does not help improving things...
Arne Vajhøj
Jun 2, 2013, 12:04:45 PM6/2/13
to
On 6/2/2013 11:46 AM, Robert Klemme wrote:
> Btw, I'm all for politeness and respect but I think that trying to
> police a public forum without access control is bound to fail - worst
> case it leads into the opposite direction of the one intended (as
> another branch of this discussion exemplifies).
Besides the limited chances of success there is also the question
> Btw, I'm all for politeness and respect but I think that trying to
> police a public forum without access control is bound to fail - worst
> case it leads into the opposite direction of the one intended (as
> another branch of this discussion exemplifies).
of where to draw the line.
Object to a term that has been widely used for decades, because
a letter in it *may* represent the word "Fucking" seems to be a
very strict policy. Somewhat out of touch with reality on
the internet in 2013.
Arne
lipska the kat
Jun 2, 2013, 1:11:50 PM6/2/13
to
On 02/06/13 16:47, Robert Klemme wrote:
> On 02.06.2013 10:02, lipska the kat wrote:
>> On 01/06/13 23:41, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>
>>> so you seems to be the one in this thread with by far
>>> the worst track record on politeness.
>>
>> I speak as I find. Get used to it
>
> I can't help but point out how ironic this is: you started out asking
> someone to improve their language to prevent "lowering the tone of the
> group" and end up by asking one "idiot" to "piss off" and suggesting to
> "get used to" your language to another.
>
> I guess that also serves as a strong indication that this type of
> discussion does not help improving things...
Well this is all very interesting I'm sure.
> On 02.06.2013 10:02, lipska the kat wrote:
>> On 01/06/13 23:41, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>
>>> so you seems to be the one in this thread with by far
>>> the worst track record on politeness.
>>
>> I speak as I find. Get used to it
>
> I can't help but point out how ironic this is: you started out asking
> someone to improve their language to prevent "lowering the tone of the
> group" and end up by asking one "idiot" to "piss off" and suggesting to
> "get used to" your language to another.
>
> I guess that also serves as a strong indication that this type of
> discussion does not help improving things...
Trying to intellectualize this issue only serves to entrench this sort
of behavior.
I only ever respond in kind, check it out, it's easy enough.
I couldn't care less what your academics say, there is simply no need
for a first response of RTFM.
Trying to obfuscate the issue by turning it around and making it my
problem doesn't phase me one bit, I know I'm right.
It's called 'having the courage of ones convictions'
Joerg Meier
Jun 2, 2013, 1:51:16 PM6/2/13
to
On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 20:04:50 +0100, lipska the kat wrote:
> [snip]
>> You are not helping either by labelling people as thugs just because you
>> don't like them.
> Piss off Lars you idiot.
Good job proving Lars right. Frankly, I find Lew considerably less grating
> [snip]
>> You are not helping either by labelling people as thugs just because you
>> don't like them.
> Piss off Lars you idiot.
than you "holier than thou" knights who use him as an excuse to put others
down. Nobody likes Netcops. The nonstop arguments you guys start over Lew's
really comparatively mild attitude problems are a lot more disruptive to
this groups health than simply ignoring him would be.
Liebe Gruesse,
Joerg
--
Ich lese meine Emails nicht, replies to Email bleiben also leider
ungelesen.
Arne Vajhøj
Jun 2, 2013, 2:09:45 PM6/2/13
to
:-)
Arne
Arne Vajhøj
Jun 2, 2013, 2:11:58 PM6/2/13
to
On 6/2/2013 1:51 PM, Joerg Meier wrote:
> On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 20:04:50 +0100, lipska the kat wrote:
>
>> [snip]
>>> You are not helping either by labelling people as thugs just because you
>>> don't like them.
>> Piss off Lars you idiot.
>
> Good job proving Lars right. Frankly, I find Lew considerably less grating
> than you "holier than thou" knights who use him as an excuse to put others
> down. Nobody likes Netcops. The nonstop arguments you guys start over Lew's
> really comparatively mild attitude problems are a lot more disruptive to
> this groups health than simply ignoring him would be.
The funny thing is that Lew can occasionally be extremely harsh, but
> On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 20:04:50 +0100, lipska the kat wrote:
>
>> [snip]
>>> You are not helping either by labelling people as thugs just because you
>>> don't like them.
>> Piss off Lars you idiot.
>
> Good job proving Lars right. Frankly, I find Lew considerably less grating
> than you "holier than thou" knights who use him as an excuse to put others
> down. Nobody likes Netcops. The nonstop arguments you guys start over Lew's
> really comparatively mild attitude problems are a lot more disruptive to
> this groups health than simply ignoring him would be.
in this thread he only used a few RTFM.
Arne
lipska the kat
Jun 2, 2013, 2:30:31 PM6/2/13
to
On 02/06/13 18:51, Joerg Meier wrote:
> On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 20:04:50 +0100, lipska the kat wrote:
>
>> [snip]
>>> You are not helping either by labelling people as thugs just because you
>>> don't like them.
>> Piss off Lars you idiot.
>
> Good job proving Lars right. Frankly, I find Lew considerably less grating
> than you "holier than thou" knights who use him as an excuse to put others
> down. Nobody likes Netcops. The nonstop arguments you guys start over Lew's
> really comparatively mild attitude problems are a lot more disruptive to
> this groups health than simply ignoring him would be.
Yet here you are perpetuating what you profess to find irksome.
> On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 20:04:50 +0100, lipska the kat wrote:
>
>> [snip]
>>> You are not helping either by labelling people as thugs just because you
>>> don't like them.
>> Piss off Lars you idiot.
>
> Good job proving Lars right. Frankly, I find Lew considerably less grating
> than you "holier than thou" knights who use him as an excuse to put others
> down. Nobody likes Netcops. The nonstop arguments you guys start over Lew's
> really comparatively mild attitude problems are a lot more disruptive to
> this groups health than simply ignoring him would be.
There is *never* a reason for uncalled for and unnecessary rudeness.
That's all I'm saying.
lipska
Lew
Jun 2, 2013, 2:45:19 PM6/2/13
to
lipska the kat wrote:
> I only ever respond in kind, check it out, it's easy enough.
> I couldn't care less what your academics say, there is simply no need
> for a first response of RTFM.
Unless of course you want to give the one single piece of advice that will
> I only ever respond in kind, check it out, it's easy enough.
> I couldn't care less what your academics say, there is simply no need
> for a first response of RTFM.
help the OP the most.
--
Lew
lipska the kat
Jun 2, 2013, 3:07:49 PM6/2/13
to
A simple link to a relevant resource would suffice.
I just can't see the point of all the snarky comments.
Lew
Jun 2, 2013, 3:36:10 PM6/2/13
to
lipska the kat wrote:
> Lew wrote:
>> lipska the kat wrote:
>>> I only ever respond in kind, check it out, it's easy enough.
>>> I couldn't care less what your academics say, there is simply no need
>>> for a first response of RTFM.
>>
>> Unless of course you want to give the one single piece of advice that will
>> help the OP the most.
>
> If you don't think a topic worthy of your time why do you bother to respond.
Interrogatives should end in a question mark ("?").
> Lew wrote:
>> lipska the kat wrote:
>>> I only ever respond in kind, check it out, it's easy enough.
>>> I couldn't care less what your academics say, there is simply no need
>>> for a first response of RTFM.
>>
>> Unless of course you want to give the one single piece of advice that will
>> help the OP the most.
>
> If you don't think a topic worthy of your time why do you bother to respond.
Your premise is false, so the conclusion does not follow. Not only
did I find the topic worthy of my time, I provided a query which I
personally vetted, pulled the single most relevant link from the
search results from that query and provided it, and gave the one single
piece of advice that would help the OP the most: RTFM.
Read the *FUCKING* manual!
> A simple link to a relevant resource would suffice.
for one meal. I gave him a fishing line and showed him how to fish.
> I just can't see the point of all the snarky comments.
There's nothing "snarky" about giving the one single piece of advice
that will help the OP the most. Just because you keep saying over
and over again that the comment was "snarky" just because you personally
have a bug up your ass about me doesn't make it true.
Have you tried reading the fucking manual yourself, Mr. Hides-Behind-an-
Anonymous-Handle? Didn't you find it actually empowered you to do so?
--
Lew
lipska the kat
Jun 2, 2013, 4:24:58 PM6/2/13
to
On 02/06/13 20:36, Lew wrote:
> lipska the kat wrote:
>> Lew wrote:
>>> lipska the kat wrote:
>>>> I only ever respond in kind, check it out, it's easy enough.
>>>> I couldn't care less what your academics say, there is simply no need
>>>> for a first response of RTFM.
>>>
>>> Unless of course you want to give the one single piece of advice that will
>>> help the OP the most.
>>
>> If you don't think a topic worthy of your time why do you bother to respond.
[snip]
> lipska the kat wrote:
>> Lew wrote:
>>> lipska the kat wrote:
>>>> I only ever respond in kind, check it out, it's easy enough.
>>>> I couldn't care less what your academics say, there is simply no need
>>>> for a first response of RTFM.
>>>
>>> Unless of course you want to give the one single piece of advice that will
>>> help the OP the most.
>>
>> If you don't think a topic worthy of your time why do you bother to respond.
> There's nothing "snarky" about giving the one single piece of advice
> that will help the OP the most. Just because you keep saying over
> and over again that the comment was "snarky" just because you personally
> have a bug up your ass about me doesn't make it true.
way or another about you. I don't know you and I don't care to know you.
What I object to is your constant smart arsed comments when replying to
new posters to this group.
Let me guess, you 'design' computer systems that have a Person class.
> Have you tried reading the fucking manual yourself, Mr. Hides-Behind-an-
> Anonymous-Handle? Didn't you find it actually empowered you to do so?
will never know it all. Unlike you of course who thinks that everyone
else is beneath you and feels the need to reinforce this erroneous
perception by constantly being an arsehole.
Rajiv Gupta
Jun 3, 2013, 8:36:12 AM6/3/13
to
On 2013-06-01 09:17:54 +1000, don said:
> The threads title "color coding of text" might've been a clue…
>
> Just sayin.
>
> BTW, telling someone to "RTFM" is abusive.
>
> Period.
>
> That is why you don't say it to someone's face.
>
> Get over it.
Don't worry about him. He is just a pedant who appears to have become
stuck in a Java warp and hasn't progressed to more advanced and
productive programming languages. He can't be much good as a programmer
either, because he spends way too much time on usenet being a prick.
Rajiv
> The threads title "color coding of text" might've been a clue…
>
> Just sayin.
>
> BTW, telling someone to "RTFM" is abusive.
>
> Period.
>
> That is why you don't say it to someone's face.
>
> Get over it.
Don't worry about him. He is just a pedant who appears to have become
stuck in a Java warp and hasn't progressed to more advanced and
productive programming languages. He can't be much good as a programmer
either, because he spends way too much time on usenet being a prick.
Rajiv
0 new messages