Great SWT Program
vijay.ku...@gmail.com
Today I have downloaded a SWT Software which is great to its features.
You can learn
many GUI details out of it. The basic functionality is it lists IP
Addresses of the
remote PC's your system is accessing.
You may find the project under sourceforge.net
http://nettymaster.sourceforge.net/
You can customize this software, please let me know your views
Joe Attardi
> Today I have downloaded a SWT Software which is great to its features.
> You can learn
> many GUI details out of it. The basic functionality is it lists IP
> Addresses of the
> remote PC's your system is accessing.
didn't just happen to download to it. From the "copyright" page:
Copyright (C) 2007 Vijaykumar B.V.
All Rights Reserved.
> You may find the project under sourceforge.net
> http://nettymaster.sourceforge.net/
> You can customize this software, please let me know your views
You might want to post this in comp.lang.java.announce, as it will be
seen as spamming by many members of this group.
--
Joe Attardi
jatt...@gmail.com
Andrew Thompson
>> Today I have downloaded a SWT Software which is great to its features.
>> You can learn
>> many GUI details out of it. The basic functionality is it lists IP
>> Addresses of the
>> remote PC's your system is accessing.
>Don't misrepresent yourself. You are the author of the program, you
>didn't just happen to download to it.
..
>> You may find the project under sourceforge.net
>> http://multyposter.sourceforge.net/
>> You can customize this software, please let me know your views
>You might want to post this in comp.lang.java.announce, ..
Given this misrepresenting multi-poster has already
sent this message to at least two groups, I would
prefer they post to no more.
>..as it will be
>seen as spamming by many members of this group.
Oh, I'm already there. Does that make me ..'far-sighted'?
--
Andrew Thompson
http://www.athompson.info/andrew/
Message posted via http://www.javakb.com
Lew
> Joe Attardi wrote:
>>> Today I have downloaded a SWT Software which is great to its features.
>>> You can learn
>>> many GUI details out of it. The basic functionality is it lists IP
>>> Addresses of the
>>> remote PC's your system is accessing.
>
>> Don't misrepresent yourself. You are the author of the program, you
>> didn't just happen to download to it.
>>> You may find the project under sourceforge.net
>>> http://multyposter.sourceforge.net/
>>> You can customize this software, please let me know your views
>> You might want to post this in comp.lang.java.announce, ..
>
> Given this misrepresenting multi-poster has already
> sent this message to at least two groups, I would
> prefer they post to no more.
>
>> ..as it will be
>> seen as spamming by many members of this group.
>
> Oh, I'm already there. Does that make me ..'far-sighted'?
Just perspicacious.
--
Lew
vijay.ku...@gmail.com
Hey, Hey, Stop floating wrong assumptions, its a valid software and a
good software. There was
no good response to this software though its an excellent software.
All, please do not spread wrong news, if you want to download,
download it, but do not float
wrong impressions. Its not a spam at all. You can download free source
and check yourself.
Try and check for yourself.
Andrew Thompson
>> vijay.kumar.7...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > Today I have downloaded a SWT Software which is great to its features.
Stop multi-posting. Make clear when cross-posting that
you have an inherent (vested) interest in the software.
Stop trying to DECEIVE people.
>...its a valid software and a
>good software. There was
>no good response to this software though its an excellent software.
Like we care. You seem to have this misplaced
assumption that we 'owe' you something, or
indeed, anything.
Grow up and take responsibility for your actions,
or stop wasting our (friggin') time and bandwidth.
Or both.
>All, please do not spread wrong news, if you want to download,
>download it, but do not float
>wrong impressions. Its not a spam at all. You can download free source
>and check yourself.
Not the issue. 'Unsolicited advertising' is what I
regard as spam.
So - answer me this, who *asked* you about your
(damn fool) software? Who asked any question
to which your software was either the entire
answer, or covered some important points of
their inquiry?
And as an aside, you want a techical comment?
What on earth would *possess* me to download and
install the behemoth that is SWT? Sure not some
trivial little network tool..
Do it in Swing and I might bother to look at it,
otherwise I could not really give a toss..
And please, stop whining like either you have
'a justifiable right' or like anyone else deeply
cares (or should care) about your 'beautiful'
project. Neither is the case.
vijay.ku...@gmail.com
You are very Harsh, it really hurts. I am very Sorry. Stop it here.
Twisted
> Copyright (C) 2007 Vijaykumar B.V.
> All Rights Reserved.
And this:
> > You may find the project under sourceforge.net
> >http://nettymaster.sourceforge.net/
seem to be rather at odds.
That said, we're probably dealing with a relative Java newbie that's
made their first reasonably good, working project he was proud of and
wanted unbiased feedback, and you guys just went and blasted him into
next week. I'm sure he'll think twice before trying to make or show
off anything else now; you've just depleted the ranks of Java
programmers by one. Hope you feel proud of yourselves.
(Of course, if he thought it being known it was his own software would
produce biased feedback he was probably wrong there. But it's a more
plausible explanation than your accusations of spamming -- it's not
like he can be making any money off a Sourceforge-hosted project in
all likelihood, after all!)
Joe Attardi
> That said, we're probably dealing with a relative Java newbie that's
> made their first reasonably good, working project he was proud of and
> wanted unbiased feedback
misrepresenting himself, "Oh, look at this great software I found!".
There is an appropriate newsgroup for promoting your projects:
comp.lang.java.announce.
> next week. I'm sure he'll think twice before trying to make or show
> off anything else now; you've just depleted the ranks of Java
> programmers by one. Hope you feel proud of yourselves.
Spare me the guilt trip, eh?
> (Of course, if he thought it being known it was his own software would
> produce biased feedback he was probably wrong there. But it's a more
> plausible explanation than your accusations of spamming -- it's not
> like he can be making any money off a Sourceforge-hosted project in
> all likelihood, after all!)
That doesn't mean it's not spamming.
--
Joe Attardi
jatt...@gmail.com
Twisted
[snip inevitable intentional misattribution]
Why do you keep doing this? Why not just let your news agent insert
"Twisted wrote:" and leave it at that?
> There is an appropriate newsgroup for promoting your projects:
> comp.lang.java.announce.
Isn't that a moderated newsgroup only suitable for submitting major
Java-related news? My Pet Project would probably not be accepted
there, unlike say the fanfare announcing the release of Java 7
whenever that happens.
> > next week. I'm sure he'll think twice before trying to make or show
> > off anything else now; you've just depleted the ranks of Java
> > programmers by one. Hope you feel proud of yourselves.
>
> Spare me the guilt trip, eh?
You? You weren't even part of it. Until now.
> > (Of course, if he thought it being known it was his own software would
> > produce biased feedback he was probably wrong there. But it's a more
> > plausible explanation than your accusations of spamming -- it's not
> > like he can be making any money off a Sourceforge-hosted project in
> > all likelihood, after all!)
>
> That doesn't mean it's not spamming.
Sure it does. For a message to be Usenet spam it has to be either
inappropriate commercial promotion or crossposted or multi-posted to
25 or more newsgroups or something similar. The post that started this
thread isn't cross-posted (I don't know about multi-posted but I doubt
it was multi-posted to over two dozen groups), isn't commercial, and
apparently is on-topic. Just about every spam alarm bell is quietly
sitting there NOT ringing in this particular instance. To say that
calling it a spam is a stretch is to be very generous. It's about as
spammy as the Januaries at my latitude are warm. :P
Joe Attardi
> Isn't that a moderated newsgroup only suitable for submitting major
> Java-related news? My Pet Project would probably not be accepted
> there, unlike say the fanfare announcing the release of Java 7
> whenever that happens.
legitimate Java-related announcement is permitted there.
> You? You weren't even part of it. Until now.
I wasn't? I was the first person to reply to Vijay's spamming in this group.
> Sure it does. For a message to be Usenet spam it has to be either
> inappropriate commercial promotion or crossposted or multi-posted to
> 25 or more newsgroups or something similar.
While this may not be nearly as annoying as whoever keeps posting that
ridiculous "MI5 Persecution" spam in here, it's still someone
misrepresenting himself to promote his project. And it still has
bothered more than just me.
Honestly, I don't care if he advertises his open-source project in here,
but the fact that he was underhanded about it is what I took issue with.
--
Joe Attardi
jatt...@gmail.com
Twisted
[Attacki misattributed the quoted text once again]
[insulting nonsense deleted]
> Honestly, I don't care if he advertises his open-source project in here,
> but the fact that he was underhanded about it is what I took issue with.
I've provided a reasonably plausible and much more charitable
interpretation of his actions. You are quick to see malice where there
may well be none; probably because your own normal behavior is
malicious, so you expect it of everyone else as your default model for
a random person's mind is (as is normal) your self-model.
blm...@myrealbox.com
Twisted <twist...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 21, 1:30 pm, Joe Attacki <jatta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [Attacki misattributed the quoted text once again]
> [insulting nonsense deleted]
> > Honestly, I don't care if he advertises his open-source project in here,
> > but the fact that he was underhanded about it is what I took issue with.
>
> I've provided a reasonably plausible and much more charitable
> interpretation of his actions. You are quick to see malice where there
> may well be none;
Oh, the irony.
> probably because your own normal behavior is
> malicious, so you expect it of everyone else as your default model for
> a random person's mind is (as is normal) your self-model.
--
B. L. Massingill
ObDisclaimer: I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor.
Twisted
> > I've provided a reasonably plausible and much more charitable
> > interpretation of his actions. You are quick to see malice where there
> > may well be none;
>
> Oh, the irony.
Is this meant to be some kind of attack?
If not, then it bears explaining.
If so, then you really need to try harder. :P
blm...@myrealbox.com
Twisted <twist...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 22, 6:01 am, blm...@myrealbox.com <blm...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
> > > I've provided a reasonably plausible and much more charitable
> > > interpretation of his actions. You are quick to see malice where there
> > > may well be none;
> >
> > Oh, the irony.
>
> Is this meant to be some kind of attack?
I'd call it an observation, but one that does imply something
negative about your behavior. I wouldn't call that an attack,
but you might.
> If not, then it bears explaining.
Do I need to spell it out for you? You don't think *you* are
"quick to see malice where there may well be none"?
> If so, then you really need to try harder. :P
I'd just as soon not.
Twisted
wrote:
> In article <1187789743.688478.77...@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Twisted <twisted...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Aug 22, 6:01 am, blm...@myrealbox.com <blm...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
> > > > I've provided a reasonably plausible and much more charitable
> > > > interpretation of his actions. You are quick to see malice where there
> > > > may well be none;
>
> > > Oh, the irony.
>
> > Is this meant to be some kind of attack?
>
> I'd call it an observation, but one that does imply something
> negative about your behavior.
In other words, yes.
> Do I need to spell it out for you? You don't think *you* are
> "quick to see malice where there may well be none"?
No. Only when it's clear that someone is doing something bad or
sneaky. Suggesting an expensive and proprietary solution to someone
while neglecting to mention either a) that it's expensive and
proprietary or b) the several fairly well-known free alternatives that
haven't been mentioned in the thread yet and that a) you surely know
of but b) the OP presumably doesn't or they wouldn't be asking their
question in the first place. This has occurred a few times and leads
to the obvious suspicion that the poster is financially connected to
the company that makes the expensive solution in some way. (Employee,
or owns stock, or ...) else why would they specifically omit
mentioning the free options? (Example: someone responded to someone's
IDE question by mentioning IntelliJ products, with no mention of
either Eclipse or NetBeans, despite surely knowing of both, being a
regular poster here.)
Another example of course is someone posting something that states or
implies something negative about another poster. This (demonstrably)
leads to nonconstructive flamewars and is clearly off-topic besides.
It's difficult to imagine there can be any non-malicious reason for
doing such a thing.
Or do you propose that these things happen by accident? I don't see
this as plausible, though. You don't badmouth someone by accident, or
mention a commercial product but not a free one by chance, unless you
are picking elements of your responses out of a hat by blind draw, and
there's no sane reason to be doing *that* is there?
Mike Schilling
>This has occurred a few times and leads
> to the obvious suspicion that the poster is financially connected to
> the company that makes the expensive solution in some way. (Employee,
> or owns stock, or ...) else why would they specifically omit
> mentioning the free options? (Example: someone responded to someone's
> IDE question by mentioning IntelliJ products, with no mention of
> either Eclipse or NetBeans, despite surely knowing of both, being a
> regular poster here.)
That was me.
1. IntelliJ is, in my experience and opinion, by far the best of the three.
I know many developers who pay money for IntelliJ rather than download the
free ones, because it makes them that much more productive.
2. Other people had mentioned Eclipse and NetBeans, making it unnecessary
for me to do so.
3. That's not an "obvious suspicion". It is an outrageous attack on my
personal integrity, which is why I'm bothering to respond.
blm...@myrealbox.com
Twisted <twist...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 22, 11:16 am, blm...@myrealbox.com <blm...@myrealbox.com>
> wrote:
> > In article <1187789743.688478.77...@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > Twisted <twisted...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Aug 22, 6:01 am, blm...@myrealbox.com <blm...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
> > > > > I've provided a reasonably plausible and much more charitable
> > > > > interpretation of his actions. You are quick to see malice where there
> > > > > may well be none;
> >
> > > > Oh, the irony.
> >
> > > Is this meant to be some kind of attack?
> >
> > I'd call it an observation, but one that does imply something
> > negative about your behavior.
>
> In other words, yes.
I'd say "attack" is too strong a word for an admittedly somewhat
snarky observation. But maybe not.
> > Do I need to spell it out for you? You don't think *you* are
> > "quick to see malice where there may well be none"?
>
> No. Only when it's clear that someone is doing something bad or
> sneaky. Suggesting an expensive and proprietary solution to someone
> while neglecting to mention either a) that it's expensive and
> proprietary or b) the several fairly well-known free alternatives that
> haven't been mentioned in the thread yet and that a) you surely know
> of but b) the OP presumably doesn't or they wouldn't be asking their
> question in the first place. This has occurred a few times and leads
> to the obvious suspicion that the poster is financially connected to
> the company that makes the expensive solution in some way. (Employee,
> or owns stock, or ...) else why would they specifically omit
> mentioning the free options? (Example: someone responded to someone's
> IDE question by mentioning IntelliJ products, with no mention of
> either Eclipse or NetBeans, despite surely knowing of both, being a
> regular poster here.)
Huh. Well, maybe I'm more trusting than I think -- I don't assume
that personal financial gain is the most likely explanation for
someone mentioning a commercial product despite being aware of
no-cost / non-commercial alternatives. Sure, it's a possible
explanation, but most likely? Apparently YMV ("Your Mileage
Varies") here.
The "someone" who mentioned IntelliJ has explained why he didn't
mention no-cost alternatives. I find this explanation completely
plausible, and I might have acted as he did (mentioning a commercial
product I thought was worth recommending, without including a
discussion of alternatives).
> Another example of course is someone posting something that states or
> implies something negative about another poster. This (demonstrably)
> leads to nonconstructive flamewars and is clearly off-topic besides.
> It's difficult to imagine there can be any non-malicious reason for
> doing such a thing.
Carelessness? Different standards of what constitutes an
offensive remark? A comment that many people find unobjectionable
("you are wrong about that") may be taken as an insult by some.
Maybe we should all be more careful not to give offense, even
inadvertently, but I think the rule about not ascribing to malice
that which can be explained by stupidity more or less applies here.
> Or do you propose that these things happen by accident? I don't see
> this as plausible, though. You don't badmouth someone by accident, or
> mention a commercial product but not a free one by chance, unless you
> are picking elements of your responses out of a hat by blind draw, and
> there's no sane reason to be doing *that* is there?
I think there are more possible explanations than you're offering here
(deliberate malice/greed or accident).
Twisted
wrote:
[snip]
You again!
> Twisted wrote:
> >This has occurred a few times and leads
> > to the obvious suspicion that the poster is financially connected to
> > the company that makes the expensive solution in some way. (Employee,
> > or owns stock, or ...) else why would they specifically omit
> > mentioning the free options? (Example: someone responded to someone's
> > IDE question by mentioning IntelliJ products, with no mention of
> > either Eclipse or NetBeans, despite surely knowing of both, being a
> > regular poster here.)
>
> That was me.
>
> 1. [snip advertisement for commercial product]
> 2. Other people had mentioned Eclipse and NetBeans, making it unnecessary
> for me to do so.
This has often not been the case in the threads where I raise a fuss.
> 3. That's not an "obvious suspicion". It is an outrageous attack on my
> personal integrity, which is why I'm bothering to respond.
There was no attack, outrageous or otherwise, in the post to which you
just replied. It didn't name any names but Andrew Thompson, and even
so, it named none in connection with promoting commercial software to
the exclusion of free alternatives and without upfront disclosure.
A post that doesn't name names can hardly be considered an "outrageous
attack on your personal integrity".
On the other hand, your reaction does speak volumes about your guilty
conscience. The duck that got shot quacks the loudest.
Incidentally, you have not provided any reasonable explanation for
mentioning IntelliJ without mentioning that it costs money, thus
saving people on a budget the bother of wasting their time clicking a
link or two before finding that out and then just sighing and clicking
back several times. Well, people on a budget and everyone else of
sound mind and judgment, since nobody sane will pay over the odds for
something they can easily and legally get for free someplace else.
But that comes right back to why care might be taken to softpedal the
very existence of free alternatives...
Twisted
> Huh. Well, maybe I'm more trusting than I think -- I don't assume
> that personal financial gain is the most likely explanation for
> someone mentioning a commercial product despite being aware of
> no-cost / non-commercial alternatives. Sure, it's a possible
> explanation, but most likely? Apparently YMV ("Your Mileage
> Varies") here.
What about doing so while also carefully omitting to mention a) the
existence of free equivalents AND b) the fact that the product you've
mentioned is not free?
> The "someone" who mentioned IntelliJ has explained why he didn't
> mention no-cost alternatives. I find this explanation completely
> plausible, and I might have acted as he did (mentioning a commercial
> product I thought was worth recommending, without including a
> discussion of alternatives).
If the alternatives had already come up in the same thread, that would
be fine. As long as you disclosed in your posting that your new
suggestion was not free, and preferably stated the price rather than
just indicating that it was nonzero.
> Maybe we should all be more careful not to give offense, even
> inadvertently, but I think the rule about not ascribing to malice
> that which can be explained by stupidity more or less applies here.
Calling me names is not easily explained without invoking malice in
some form. Indeed, if someone expresses a negative claim about me one
of two things must be the case:
a) They don't actually believe it, in which case they are lying and
indeed lying maliciously to muddy my name. This is clearly malicious
behavior. Or
b) They are sincere, in which case they actually believe nasty things
about me, in which case those very beliefs are themselves what's
malicious, and presumably malicious behavior (such as broadcasting
those beliefs in public) stems from their dislike of me.
Either way, something malicious is going on. And this applies equally
if I'm replaced with any other person as target.
> I think there are more possible explanations than you're offering here
> (deliberate malice/greed or accident).
Such as? Surely nobody truly honestly believes that excellent free
products like Eclipse are no good and awful? Or perhaps they do --
duped by whoever *really* stands to gain from pushing an inferior,
proprietary, and expensive good over a perfectly good commodity
version. Either way, it's disingenuous on *someone*'s part. It's
rather like a drug company advertising its heavily over-priced
painkiller that actually has exactly the same active ingredient as an
ordinary generic aspirin, only about half as much per pill and at four
times the price per pill; the only difference in the products being
that their pill is a funky orange color and has their logo proudly
stamped on both sides. And then convincing their customers to
proselytize their brand as superior to generic aspirin as well.
Which they're eager to do, mainly because it helps them convince
themselves that they did not just waste an ungodly amount of money on
what they fear they could indeed have had for a fraction of that
amount.
Only with software the force of self-deception will be even more
powerful, as someone seeks desperately to believe that they somehow
didn't get screwed in the transaction when they plonked down a three-
figure sum for something a competitor is giving away gratis.
Convincing others is a common way to try to convince yourself.
This is also how prudish mores survive and get transmitted from
generation to generation. *Not* pushing the notion that anything fun
is immoral and a deadly sin means admitting that your own dry and
boring life of just lying back and thinking of England was wasted and
you missed out on a lot of good things and now you're past your prime
and have lost any chance of ever having those experiences. :)
Mike Schilling
news:1187908650.6...@r23g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
> On the other hand, your reaction does speak volumes about your guilty
> conscience. The duck that got shot quacks the loudest.
I think that The Sopranos is a much better show than Everybody Loves
Raymond. Now claim I own HBO, you idiot.
Mike Schilling
>
> If the alternatives had already come up in the same thread, that would
> be fine. As long as you disclosed in your posting that your new
> suggestion was not free, and preferably stated the price rather than
> just indicating that it was nonzero.
"I just found this great Thai restuarant downtown, but they charge for the
food. Or, the Salvation Army runs a soup kitchen."
nebul...@gmail.com
wrote:
> > On the other hand, your reaction does speak volumes about your guilty
> > conscience. The duck that got shot quacks the loudest.
>
> I think that The Sopranos is a much better show than Everybody Loves
Apples, oranges, and yes, the original topic was bananas into the
bargain.
Do you and Lew actively lurk and monitor the group continually for new
posts so whenever you see one by me you can pounce on it instantly?
It's making it impossible for me to get caught up -- I've already been
here an hour longer than I planned to today, because new posts keep
arriving that flame me and require a response from me, only for you to
go and undo all my hard work by posting another fucking flame two
minutes after my response goes live. Fuck off, the both of you.
Oh, and Lew, I now have evidence that Joe Attacki is a sock puppet of
yours. Not proof, mind you, but some circumstantial evidence. You both
posted via google groups and after a near-simultaneous transition now
post via a Comcast news server, and the whole while from Comcast IPs.
The one niggling spoiler is that there's a post by you with a reply by
Attacki 20 minutes later a few days ago and the IP addresses are quite
different (though both owned by Comcast). That suggests maybe a
coincidence in ISP and news server use, and different cities of
residence. Then again, a lot of large ISPs (such as Comcast) just
allocate DHCP randomly from any of several large, non-city-specific IP
blocks these days, which can be quite diverse even in their first
octets, so ...
I just wonder if maybe you spun off an alternate persona for posting
the really nasty OT flames and legally-dodgy things like privacy-
prying and other things in questionable taste so they won't reflect on
your reputation under the name Lew.
Just a theory, mind you.
Lew
> Oh, and Lew, I now have evidence that Joe Attacki is a sock puppet of
> yours. Not proof, mind you, but some circumstantial evidence. You both
> posted via google groups and after a near-simultaneous transition now
I don't use Google Groups. You couldn't pay me to use Google Groups.
--
Lew
nebul...@gmail.com
wrote:
> "I just found this great Thai restuarant downtown, but they charge for the
> food. Or, the Salvation Army runs a soup kitchen."
That's a completely different matter.
A. The marginal cost of reproduction of food is not zero. Unlike, say,
software.
2. The Salvation Army is a charitable cause whose service is meant for
the hungry homeless. Someone who can afford to buy food at normal
commodity prices using their service might be committing some form of
fraud and is certainly abusing their hospitality and competing with
the homeless people who have no alternative. The same is not true of
people using Eclipse, which is aimed at a general audience of
programmers and where it costs very little for them to provide plenty
for everybody, so people with money downloading Eclipse aren't
crowding out poor people who can't afford IntelliJ. Unlike soup,
Eclipse is a nonrival good. And lastly,
D. There's a quality difference. The soup kitchen probably serves
ordinary food, while the Thai restaurant likely sells weird ethnic
crap. Eclipse and IntelliJ, on the other hand, are both IDEs with a
focus on Java. If you were comparing Eclipse with some weird
commercial Borland text-mode IDE from the early nineties your analogy
might make more sense. A better comparison would be to put the free
Borland-IDE-clone RHIDE on the soup-kitchen side as free but no-frills
and crummy and some weird commercial IDE with a very odd user-
interface on the other -- perhaps something used on SGI workstations
in days of yore, so it would seem to speak with a thick accent to
Windoze-users, and priced in the four-figures like anything else
connected with SGI (except the hardware, whose pricing was worse --
much, much worse).
Anyone who can spot the subtle reference gets a free IDE by the way.
nebul...@gmail.com
Do you ever rest?
Anyway, I never said you did. I said you *used* to.
Lew
I have never used Google Groups.
--
Lew
nebul...@gmail.com
This does not correspond to my own memory, which I certainly trust
much more than I'm likely to ever trust you given your past and
present behavior towards me. Implying that I'm a liar for instance.
Lew
I'm not implying anything. Just letting you and everyone know that I've never
used Google Groups - a simple statement of fact. I use Thunderbird for my
newsreader and have done for many years.
--
Lew
Mike Schilling
<nebul...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1187914576.2...@r23g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 23, 6:49 pm, "Mike Schilling" <mscottschill...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>> > On the other hand, your reaction does speak volumes about your guilty
>> > conscience. The duck that got shot quacks the loudest.
>>
>> I think that The Sopranos is a much better show than Everybody Loves
>> Raymond. Now claim I own HBO, you [insult deleted].
>
> Apples, oranges, and yes, the original topic was bananas into the
> bargain.
>
> Do you and Lew actively lurk and monitor the group continually for new
> posts so whenever you see one by me you can pounce on it instantly?
I do look for replies to message I've sent. If you don't want to be in that
list, you know what to do.
bbo...@gmail.com
[repeats self]
ENOUGH of this horseshit! If you have nothing original to say then
shut the hell up and let me get on with my evening.
Mike Schilling
"Lew" <l...@lewscanon.com> wrote in message
news:i6GdnQ-y__7tuVPb...@comcast.com...
We see right through you. Not only do you use Google Groups, you've hacked
it to set the header
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.5 (X11/20070719)
Mike Schilling
<nebul...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1187915099.4...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 23, 6:56 pm, "Mike Schilling" <mscottschill...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>> "I just found this great Thai restuarant downtown, but they charge for
>> the
>> food. Or, the Salvation Army runs a soup kitchen."
>
> That's a completely different matter.
How can I possibly argue with your points A, 2, and D?
bbo...@gmail.com
wrote:
> I do look for replies to message I've sent.
Every five minutes, 24/7? And for the sole purpose of harassment?
> If you don't want to be in that list, you know what to do.
Nice try. But you won't trick me or blackmailing me into lying down
and just letting you hit me without even defending myself. "Stop
defending yourself or I'll hit you again" is hardly an inducement to
do anything except keep defending myself, especially since you'll no
doubt hit me again anyway whenever it pops into your piggish, vicious
little mind. And besides, I don't take kindly to threats, especially
from His Majesty, King Nothing the MCMLXXXVI, Master and Commander of
Some Cramped Little 386 and 3600-Baud Modem in His Mother's Basement,
Proud Holder of the Title of Time-Waster of the Year 2005, 2006, and
2007, and Final Arbiter of Whether He'll Eat His Peas At Dinner
Tonight. :P
Mike Schilling
<bbo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1187917406.2...@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 23, 8:55 pm, "Mike Schilling" <mscottschill...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>> I do look for replies to message I've sent.
>
> Every five minutes, 24/7? And for the sole purpose of harassment?
And how often do *you* check?
>
>> If you don't want to be in that list, you know what to do.
>
> Nice try. But you won't trick me or blackmailing me into lying down
> and just letting you hit me without even defending myself.
Do you not understand this game? If every time I type two sentences, you
respond with three multi-screeen rants, you lose.
blm...@myrealbox.com
Twisted <twist...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 23, 5:16 am, blm...@myrealbox.com <blm...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
> > Huh. Well, maybe I'm more trusting than I think -- I don't assume
> > that personal financial gain is the most likely explanation for
> > someone mentioning a commercial product despite being aware of
> > no-cost / non-commercial alternatives. Sure, it's a possible
> > explanation, but most likely? Apparently YMV ("Your Mileage
> > Varies") here.
>
> What about doing so while also carefully omitting to mention a) the
> existence of free equivalents AND b) the fact that the product you've
> mentioned is not free?
I still say "possible explanation, not necessarily most likely."
Some mentions of commercial products do come across, to me, as
motivated by desire for personal gain. But not most of them.
Your mileage varies. <shrug>
> > The "someone" who mentioned IntelliJ has explained why he didn't
> > mention no-cost alternatives. I find this explanation completely
> > plausible, and I might have acted as he did (mentioning a commercial
> > product I thought was worth recommending, without including a
> > discussion of alternatives).
>
> If the alternatives had already come up in the same thread, that would
> be fine. As long as you disclosed in your posting that your new
> suggestion was not free, and preferably stated the price rather than
> just indicating that it was nonzero.
That's probably best practice.
> > Maybe we should all be more careful not to give offense, even
> > inadvertently, but I think the rule about not ascribing to malice
> > that which can be explained by stupidity more or less applies here.
>
> Calling me names is not easily explained without invoking malice in
> some form. Indeed, if someone expresses a negative claim about me one
> of two things must be the case:
> a) They don't actually believe it, in which case they are lying and
> indeed lying maliciously to muddy my name. This is clearly malicious
> behavior. Or
> b) They are sincere, in which case they actually believe nasty things
> about me, in which case those very beliefs are themselves what's
> malicious, and presumably malicious behavior (such as broadcasting
> those beliefs in public) stems from their dislike of me.
>
> Either way, something malicious is going on. And this applies equally
> if I'm replaced with any other person as target.
I'm fairly sure I'm not saying anything novel here, but the above
seems to call for *some* response, so:
As best I can tell, you regard "you are wrong" as an insult, and
claim that anyone who says this to you is motivated by malice.
I don't think anyone would deny that "you are wrong" is negative
in some sense, but I also don't think many people regard it as
an insult. So someone saying "you are wrong" may be motivated by
a desire to express the truth as he/she views it, and genuinely
unaware that you will perceive this as an insult.
Also, in my usage "malice" is a fairly strong word; "spite" or
even "annoyance" come closer to expressing what seems to me to
be behind some negative comments.
I dunno. You seem to have a fairly unusual take on human
interaction, which I doubt you're going to change, so further
discussion will probably not be useful or interesting. Not
that I can, or would, dissuade you from replying, just saying
that I probably won't take the discussion further.
> > I think there are more possible explanations than you're offering here
> > (deliberate malice/greed or accident).
>
> Such as? Surely nobody truly honestly believes that excellent free
> products like Eclipse are no good and awful?
First, in the text to which I was replying, you talk about two
things -- "badmouthing" someone, and mentioning commercial products
but not free alternatives -- and my comment was meant to apply at
least as much to the former as to the latter.
Further, I wouldn't assume that if someone says "I really like
Microsoft Word" it means he/she thinks OpenOffice is junk;
maybe it means he/she has tried them both, found something to
like about each of them, but in the end found more to like
about Word. (Hard to imagine, I know.)
[ snip most of long digression ]
> This is also how prudish mores survive and get transmitted from
> generation to generation. *Not* pushing the notion that anything fun
> is immoral and a deadly sin means admitting that your own dry and
> boring life of just lying back and thinking of England was wasted and
> you missed out on a lot of good things and now you're past your prime
> and have lost any chance of ever having those experiences. :)
And where did *that* come from .... <shrug>
Twisted
wrote:
> > Every five minutes, 24/7? And for the sole purpose of harassment?
>
> And how often do *you* check?
Once or twice a day, but if I'm catching up when new posts keep
arriving and they require a reply...
> > Nice try. But you won't trick me or blackmailing me into lying down
> > and just letting you hit me without even defending myself.
[snip further attempt at trickery and threats]
Buzz off.
Twisted
[snip assorted stuff, including insidious suggestion that something
insulting might be true, or honestly perceived as true without malice
aforethought]
> Also, in my usage "malice" is a fairly strong word; "spite" or
> even "annoyance" come closer to expressing what seems to me to
> be behind some negative comments.
That's a question of degree, not kind. If we get into some kind of
quantitative analysis this might become relevant. :P
> I dunno. You seem to have a fairly unusual take on human
> interaction
I suppose I do, in that I am evidently far more logical than most
others I routinely encounter.
> Further, I wouldn't assume that if someone says "I really like
> Microsoft Word" it means he/she thinks OpenOffice is junk;
> maybe it means he/she has tried them both, found something to
> like about each of them, but in the end found more to like
> about Word.
Then there's a padded cell somewhere with their name on it. :P
> [ snip most of long digression ]
>
> And where did *that* come from .... <shrug>
Placing it all in context. There's a more general shaping of human
behavior, social organization, and norms that at least partially
involves bottom-up forces, but that includes a number of things being
subtly manipulated to benefit corporate elites of various sorts,
partly financially but partly with direct power and influence. The
commercial-software-promotion issue that periodically arises here is
thus just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. On the other hand there's
not necessarily much in the way of conscious conspiracy involved
either; just psychological forces and independently-acting self-
interested actors producing a game with a fairly shoddy Nash
equilibrium, one the internet may destabilize ... in favor of who
knows what. There's a chance the new equilibrium might actually be
worse, although I doubt it.
Chris Smith
> Isn't that a moderated newsgroup only suitable for submitting major
> Java-related news? My Pet Project would probably not be accepted
> there, unlike say the fanfare announcing the release of Java 7
> whenever that happens.
As a former moderator of that group, I can say I'd expect that an
announcement of a project in Java would probably be accepted. The
newsgroup charter explicitly allows publicly accessible applets, so an
open-source example of a Java SWT application seems quite on-topic as
well.
The rest of this, though, is that the author lied to everyone. People
are upset. I think they are right to be upset.
--
Chris Smith
blm...@myrealbox.com
Twisted <twist...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 24, 6:14 am, blm...@myrealbox.com <blm...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
> [snip assorted stuff, including insidious suggestion that something
> insulting might be true, or honestly perceived as true without malice
> aforethought]
Insidious? Yeah, whatever. Just for the record, here's what
I said:
>> As best I can tell, you regard "you are wrong" as an insult, and
>> claim that anyone who says this to you is motivated by malice.
>> I don't think anyone would deny that "you are wrong" is negative
>> in some sense, but I also don't think many people regard it as
>> an insult. So someone saying "you are wrong" may be motivated by
>> a desire to express the truth as he/she views it, and genuinely
>> unaware that you will perceive this as an insult.
And in general, something insulting *MIGHT* be true. Well, unless
it applies to you, of course. Hm, to add a :-) or not ....
[ snip]
> > I dunno. You seem to have a fairly unusual take on human
> > interaction
>
> I suppose I do, in that I am evidently far more logical than most
> others I routinely encounter.
To use another pop-culture catchphrase (which I may be getting
wrong, since I'm getting it secondhand at best): How's that
working for you? Does it help you accurately predict the
behavior of others?
> > Further, I wouldn't assume that if someone says "I really like
> > Microsoft Word" it means he/she thinks OpenOffice is junk;
> > maybe it means he/she has tried them both, found something to
> > like about each of them, but in the end found more to like
> > about Word.
>
> Then there's a padded cell somewhere with their name on it. :P
As I said -- hard to imagine. (Why did you snip that out of
the quoted text? It was on the same line as "about Word", and
removing it makes me look like someone who likes Word, which
I most emphatically am not.)
> > [ snip most of long digression ]
> >
> > And where did *that* come from .... <shrug>
My comment referred specifically to the paragraph I *did*
quote, not to the part I snipped. That's not apparent from
your selective quoting. And I suppose you only bother with "[
snip ]" when you want to summarize, in your, um, distinctive?
way, the snipped content.
[ snip ]
But as someone else said in another thread -- there is a lot
of off-topic stuff in this group lately, and this is surely
in that category. So -- sorry about that, folks, and I'll try
to shut up now.
Twisted
wrote:
[snip stuff that seems snarky, but that I can't *prove* is hostile; it
certainly is OT]
> > I suppose I do, in that I am evidently far more logical than most
> > others I routinely encounter.
>
> To use another pop-culture catchphrase (which I may be getting
> wrong, since I'm getting it secondhand at best): How's that
> working for you? Does it help you accurately predict the
> behavior of others?
If you're asking if I model others as perfectly rational, the answer
is no. I model them stochastically, to a significant degree. I do
anticipate the possible moves of an opponent in an adversarial
situation using logic, of course; while keeping in mind that they
might do something illogical (i.e. make a mistake) so I'm ready to
pounce on any such opportunity. Determining their worst-case attacks
and the defense to employ against same necessarily means assuming they
carry out their attack logically and compute and use those worst-case
attacks though. It's a nice relief when (and this happens quite often)
they don't, or miss the mark in some other way, though.
Of course, my own behavior tends to be logical with respect to the
goals involved at the time.
> > > Further, I wouldn't assume that if someone says "I really like
> > > Microsoft Word" it means he/she thinks OpenOffice is junk;
> > > maybe it means he/she has tried them both, found something to
> > > like about each of them, but in the end found more to like
> > > about Word.
>
> > Then there's a padded cell somewhere with their name on it. :P
>
> As I said -- hard to imagine. (Why did you snip that out of
> the quoted text? It was on the same line as "about Word", and
> removing it makes me look like someone who likes Word, which
> I most emphatically am not.)
That wasn't the intent. It's just that my own response was to the
portion actually quoted, but not to the rest.
> > > [ snip most of long digression ]
>
> > > And where did *that* come from .... <shrug>
>
> My comment referred specifically to the paragraph I *did*
> quote, not to the part I snipped. That's not apparent from
> your selective quoting. And I suppose you only bother with "[
> snip ]" when you want to summarize, in your, um, distinctive?
> way, the snipped content.
This is precisely why I don't leave other quoted material between the
quoted material I'm actually responding to and my response to that
bit.
In any event, the quoted part you seem to have been referring to was
still part of the "long digression". The end portion applied the
reasoning in that digression to another observed and sometimes odd-
seeming phenomenon to prove its predictive power and provide an
example.
blm...@myrealbox.com
Twisted <twist...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 24, 11:25 am, blm...@myrealbox.com <blm...@myrealbox.com>
> wrote:
>
> [snip stuff that seems snarky, but that I can't *prove* is hostile; it
> certainly is OT]
Oh sure (on the "OT"). But this whole subthread is off-topic,
isn't it?
By the way, I find your practice of replacing quoted text with your
interpretation of it, as you do above, more than a little annoying --
in order to find out whether I think your characterization
is accurate, I have to look at the previous post, which sort
of defeats the purpose of snipping. But I don't really want to
pursue that. Just stating an opinion.
> > > I suppose I do, in that I am evidently far more logical than most
> > > others I routinely encounter.
> >
> > To use another pop-culture catchphrase (which I may be getting
> > wrong, since I'm getting it secondhand at best): How's that
> > working for you? Does it help you accurately predict the
> > behavior of others?
>
> If you're asking if I model others as perfectly rational, the answer
> is no.
No, I'm asking whether whatever you're doing is "working", in the
sense of helping you interact with other human beings in a way
that meets your goals, whatever those may be. More later.
> I model them stochastically, to a significant degree. I do
> anticipate the possible moves of an opponent in an adversarial
> situation using logic, of course; while keeping in mind that they
> might do something illogical (i.e. make a mistake) so I'm ready to
> pounce on any such opportunity. Determining their worst-case attacks
> and the defense to employ against same necessarily means assuming they
> carry out their attack logically and compute and use those worst-case
> attacks though. It's a nice relief when (and this happens quite often)
> they don't, or miss the mark in some other way, though.
>
> Of course, my own behavior tends to be logical with respect to the
> goals involved at the time.
To me this all feels like using the wrong tool for a job -- the tool
being logic, and the job getting along with other human beings.
For example, in this newsgroup, one of your goals seems to be to
have people think well of you. I think some of your posts move you
away from that goal rather than toward it. It seems that you're
trying to "win" a debate according to some rules that many people
don't recognize. You might be better served by taking a different
approach, even if it's one that doesn't seem logical to you. My
two cents' worth, which I don't really think you're going to find
useful or valid, but -- for the record, maybe.
[ snip stuff I'm no longer interested in pursuing ]
Twisted
> By the way, I find your practice of replacing quoted text with your
> interpretation of it, as you do above, more than a little annoying --
> in order to find out whether I think your characterization
> is accurate, I have to look at the previous post, which sort
> of defeats the purpose of snipping. But I don't really want to
> pursue that. Just stating an opinion.
You don't need to "find out" whether my characterization was accurate;
just accept that it surely was, and move on.
> No, I'm asking whether whatever you're doing is "working", in the
> sense of helping you interact with other human beings in a way
> that meets your goals, whatever those may be. More later.
It's difficult to extricate the effects of my choices from the effects
of others' choices in these cases. For example, if a hostage taker is
determined to kill the hostage no matter what, nothing the hostage
negotiator says will make any difference, and the negotiator's
attempts "won't work" but not because the negotiator necessarily did
anything wrong. In a less extreme way, the outcome of any interaction
results from the choices made by all participants and praise/blame
cannot be solely assigned to just one of them -- any one of them.
> > Of course, my own behavior tends to be logical with respect to the
> > goals involved at the time.
>
> To me this all feels like using the wrong tool for a job -- the tool
> being logic, and the job getting along with other human beings.
Who said that was the goal? I certainly didn't; I didn't specify any
goal. As I recall, the goal here is nominally the exchange of useful
information about Java, although many of the people here clearly have
other, more dubious goals, as evidenced by various forms of behavior
that do not further the first goal. (Most of this behavior also does
not further a goal of "getting along" either, for that matter.)
[something that smells like an attempt to trick me snipped]
I'm sorry, but I seem to still be under attack, and while that remains
the case I cannot and will not lay down my arms -- in this case, my
wits, which you seem to have just suggested I not use. It would leave
me wide open to further attack, and unable to defend myself. (Nor do I
see any benefit in ever behaving stupidly or irrationally, even in the
absence of an immediate threat.)
> [ snip stuff I'm no longer interested in pursuing ]
I thought you said that that included this entire thread, but
apparently I was once again being lied to. (Still waiting for Attacki
to prove that *his* latest promise to STFU was, once again, a lie...)
blm...@myrealbox.com
Twisted <twist...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 1, 1:08 pm, blm...@myrealbox.com <blm...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
> > By the way, I find your practice of replacing quoted text with your
> > interpretation of it, as you do above, more than a little annoying --
> > in order to find out whether I think your characterization
> > is accurate, I have to look at the previous post, which sort
> > of defeats the purpose of snipping. But I don't really want to
> > pursue that. Just stating an opinion.
>
> You don't need to "find out" whether my characterization was accurate;
> just accept that it surely was, and move on.
I'm not sure whether to laugh or shake my head in amazement at
the arrogance of the above sentence. Maybe it would be better
to reply thus:
Even though in most of the cases in which I *have* looked at
the previous post, I've found myself disagreeing with your
characterization?
(There's an excellent example in the thread with subject line
'Post not appear on group "comp.lang.java.programmer"'; you label
a post from Arne [*], which I'd have said was mostly about FSF
and copyright, with a "PS" to you that was a mild corrective, an
"attack post".)
[*] Whose last name I'm not including because I'm not sure how
to include the required non-ASCII characters. My fault for
not knowing enough about relevant standards and how to make my
preferred tools meet them, but I don't want to let it hold up
this Critically! Important! post. :-)?
> > No, I'm asking whether whatever you're doing is "working", in the
> > sense of helping you interact with other human beings in a way
> > that meets your goals, whatever those may be. More later.
>
> It's difficult to extricate the effects of my choices from the effects
> of others' choices in these cases. For example, if a hostage taker is
> determined to kill the hostage no matter what, nothing the hostage
> negotiator says will make any difference, and the negotiator's
> attempts "won't work" but not because the negotiator necessarily did
> anything wrong. In a less extreme way, the outcome of any interaction
> results from the choices made by all participants and praise/blame
> cannot be solely assigned to just one of them -- any one of them.
Well, my take on this is that when something goes wrong, it's
usually a mistake to focus too much on whose fault it was -- better
to try to figure out what went wrong in a way that avoids, as much
as possible, people taking criticism personally. Some assessment
of blame may contribute to an understanding of what went wrong and
how to avoid things going wrong in the future. Too much attention
to whose fault it was -- to me it seems more likely to result
in pointless arguing than to productive discussion. I admit
that I'm often guilty myself of taking criticism personally and
reacting defensively in a way that doesn't advance the discussion.
But I try not to.
> > > Of course, my own behavior tends to be logical with respect to the
> > > goals involved at the time.
> >
> > To me this all feels like using the wrong tool for a job -- the tool
> > being logic, and the job getting along with other human beings.
>
> Who said that was the goal? I certainly didn't; I didn't specify any
> goal. As I recall, the goal here is nominally the exchange of useful
> information about Java, although many of the people here clearly have
> other, more dubious goals, as evidenced by various forms of behavior
> that do not further the first goal. (Most of this behavior also does
> not further a goal of "getting along" either, for that matter.)
>
> [something that smells like an attempt to trick me snipped]
Oh my. I would characterize the snipped text as a sincere if
misguided attempt to suggest a course of action that would serve
you better. In it I assume that your goal is for people to think
well of you, but it applies equally well if the goal is to have
discussions in this group be exchanges of technical information
rather than insults. I'm not nearly good enough at manipulating
other human beings to think I could trick you, so it wouldn't
occur to me to try. I'm not optimistic you'll believe that just
on my say-so, but -- <shrug>.
But you know, I think we've been over this ground, or similar
ground, before -- a long thread some months ago in which I
suggested, as I'm doing here, that you consider altering your
behavior. You didn't find my arguments persuasive then, so I'm
not sure why I'm trying similar ones again. "Hope springs eternal"
or "Insanity is doing the same thing again but expecting different
results" ?
> I'm sorry, but I seem to still be under attack, and while that remains
> the case I cannot and will not lay down my arms -- in this case, my
> wits, which you seem to have just suggested I not use.
Well, I'd say I'm suggesting not that you not use your wits,
but that you use them differently.
> It would leave
> me wide open to further attack, and unable to defend myself. (Nor do I
> see any benefit in ever behaving stupidly or irrationally, even in the
> absence of an immediate threat.)
>
> > [ snip stuff I'm no longer interested in pursuing ]
>
> I thought you said that that included this entire thread, but
> apparently I was once again being lied to. (Still waiting for Attacki
> to prove that *his* latest promise to STFU was, once again, a lie...)
"Lie" seems like a rather strong and inflammatory word here.
However:
I reviewed my previous posts, and reading carefully, I believe
I left myself a bit of wiggle room -- "probably not interested"
and "try to shut up". But the real explanation for my continuing
this thread: In the week between my previous post and your reply,
apparently I forgot my good intentions.
I'd invoke the traditional "woman's prerogative to change her
mind", but -- nah, that would be reinforcing a gender stereotype
I don't approve of anyway. :-)?
Mike Schilling
>> You don't need to "find out" whether my characterization was
>> accurate; just accept that it surely was, and move on.
>
> I'm not sure whether to laugh or shake my head in amazement at
> the arrogance of the above sentence.
I think the indicated response is to back away. Carefully.
Twisted
> > You don't need to "find out" whether my characterization was accurate;
> > just accept that it surely was, and move on.
>
> I'm not sure whether to laugh or shake my head in amazement at
> the arrogance of the above sentence.
Ex-fucking-SCUSE-me? Now you're calling me names. :P And all because I
said something that, though more verbose, boils down to "I am not a
liar". :P
> Even though in most of the cases in which I *have* looked at
> the previous post, I've found myself disagreeing with your
> characterization?
Are you, then, calling me a liar? :P
> (There's an excellent example in the thread with subject line
> 'Post not appear on group "comp.lang.java.programmer"'; you label
> a post from Arne [*], which I'd have said was mostly about FSF
> and copyright, with a "PS" to you that was a mild corrective, an
> "attack post".)
I labeled it an attack post because it was -- its pure purpose was to
indirectly slander me by contradicting most of my previous post and
implying that I was some sort of ignoramus in the bargain. That almost
nothing in it failed to imply something negative about me, while at
the same time nothing at all in it was Java-related, is sufficient for
my purposes.
Your criteria obviously allow an attacker to slip subtle but serious
put-downs under your radar by simply making their claims indirectly by
implication instead of explicitly, which doesn't do a whole lot of
good.
> [*] Whose last name I'm not including because I'm not sure how
> to include the required non-ASCII characters. My fault for
> not knowing enough about relevant standards and how to make my
> preferred tools meet them, but I don't want to let it hold up
> this Critically! Important! post. :-)?
There's alt-numpad and CharMap copy/paste, but it's a pain.
Attributions and such are generated automatically and people enter
their From: info into their news agent just once, so it's not so
awkward there of course.
One guy keeps posting with block quotes offset with single untypable
characters resembling >> and << -- I wonder how he can stand the pain,
or if he keeps a text file open in Notepad with just those two
characters to copy and paste from or something...:P
> Well, my take on this is that when something goes wrong, it's
> usually a mistake to focus too much on whose fault it was -- better
> to try to figure out what went wrong in a way that avoids, as much
> as possible, people taking criticism personally.
Unfortunately there are plenty of people in cljp who take great
pleasure in finger-pointing, blame assignment, and issuing put-downs
and other criticism that will be taken personally. I don't know why.
It seems to have been elevated to a form of sport by some usenetters
more generally, proving themselves to be King Knowitall and everyone
else to be idiots, or at the very least trying very hard.
> Some assessment
> of blame may contribute to an understanding of what went wrong and
> how to avoid things going wrong in the future. Too much attention
> to whose fault it was -- to me it seems more likely to result
> in pointless arguing than to productive discussion. I admit
> that I'm often guilty myself of taking criticism personally and
> reacting defensively in a way that doesn't advance the discussion.
> But I try not to.
Eh? I thought you said the problem was people dishing out personal
criticism where not warranted. Now you're saying that instead the
problem is people not simply rolling over and taking whatever punches
are thrown their way?
I know which of those seemed to me to make more sense. :P
> Oh my. I would characterize the snipped text as a sincere if
> misguided attempt to suggest a course of action that would serve
> you better.
Cease to use my brain? Serve me better? I don't see any possible way
that that can help. Actually having an IQ of 80 or something like that
might be sort of nice -- it would mean being too stupid to realize
they were not laughing *with* me but *at* me, so it wouldn't matter to
be so stupid as to become the target of such laughter in the first
place. OTOH, merely pretending to be stupid while knowing exactly what
was going on strikes me as simply masochistic. And either results in a
reputation for idiocy...
> In it I assume that your goal is for people to think
> well of you, but it applies equally well if the goal is to have
> discussions in this group be exchanges of technical information
> rather than insults.
What, not being intelligent? I'm sorry, but you're not making a whole
lot of sense here. Intelligence is important in understanding and
discussing highly technical subject matter as I'm sure you'll agree.
Also intelligence correlates with doing better at just about anything,
and stupidity with success rates dropping towards those predicted for
purely random inputs. Yet you did suggest I not use my intelligence.
Strange.
> But you know, I think we've been over this ground, or similar
> ground, before -- a long thread some months ago in which I
> suggested, as I'm doing here, that you consider altering your
> behavior.
Nothing in my behavior needs any altering. To suggest otherwise is to
insult me.
[insults my mental health]
> Well, I'd say I'm suggesting not that you not use your wits,
> but that you use them differently.
"Differently" how?
> > I thought you said that that included this entire thread, but
> > apparently I was once again being lied to. (Still waiting for Attacki
> > to prove that *his* latest promise to STFU was, once again, a lie...)
>
> "Lie" seems like a rather strong and inflammatory word here.
True; it's more applicable to Attacki and his ilk.
> I'd invoke the traditional "woman's prerogative to change her
> mind", but -- nah, that would be reinforcing a gender stereotype
> I don't approve of anyway. :-)?
It's obviously false anyway, unless Joe Attacki has no Y chromosome.
The aggression alone suggests otherwise, never mind the first name.
blm...@myrealbox.com
Twisted <twist...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 3, 1:57 pm, blm...@myrealbox.com <blm...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
> > > You don't need to "find out" whether my characterization was accurate;
> > > just accept that it surely was, and move on.
> >
> > I'm not sure whether to laugh or shake my head in amazement at
> > the arrogance of the above sentence.
>
> Ex-fucking-SCUSE-me? Now you're calling me names. :P And all because I
> said something that, though more verbose, boils down to "I am not a
> liar". :P
>
> > Even though in most of the cases in which I *have* looked at
> > the previous post, I've found myself disagreeing with your
> > characterization?
>
> Are you, then, calling me a liar? :P
(I don't really have time to respond at length, but may not
have Usenet access for a few days, so briefly .... )
I'm not quite sure whether lacing your posts with ":P" is supposed
to take the sting out of words that seem a little hostile.
No, I'm not calling you a liar. I'm saying that I often don't
interpret other people's words in the same way you do. It may
be a "your mileage may vary" thing.
[ snip ]
> > But you know, I think we've been over this ground, or similar
> > ground, before -- a long thread some months ago in which I
> > suggested, as I'm doing here, that you consider altering your
> > behavior.
>
> Nothing in my behavior needs any altering. To suggest otherwise is to
> insult me.
>
> [insults my mental health]
Say what? I wrote
>>>> You didn't find my arguments persuasive then, so I'm
>>>> not sure why I'm trying similar ones again. "Hope springs eternal"
>>>> or "Insanity is doing the same thing again but expecting different
>>>> results" ?
Isn't it obvious that the possibly insanity here is mine, not yours?
[ snip ]
> > > I thought you said that that included this entire thread, but
> > > apparently I was once again being lied to. (Still waiting for Attacki
> > > to prove that *his* latest promise to STFU was, once again, a lie...)
> >
> > "Lie" seems like a rather strong and inflammatory word here.
>
> True; it's more applicable to Attacki and his ilk.
>
> > I'd invoke the traditional "woman's prerogative to change her
> > mind", but -- nah, that would be reinforcing a gender stereotype
> > I don't approve of anyway. :-)?
>
> It's obviously false anyway, unless Joe Attacki has no Y chromosome.
> The aggression alone suggests otherwise, never mind the first name.
>
I meant it to apply to myself. As far as I know, I don't have a Y
chromosome.
More another time, maybe.
Lew
> (I don't really have time to respond at length, but may not
> have Usenet access for a few days, so briefly .... )
Don't feed the trolls.
--
Lew
Twisted
> >>>> You didn't find my arguments persuasive then, so I'm
> >>>> not sure why I'm trying similar ones again. "Hope springs eternal"
> >>>> or "Insanity is doing the same thing again but expecting different
> >>>> results" ?
>
> Isn't it obvious that the possibly insanity here is mine, not yours?
Eh ... yeah it could be, although the usual target for such insults
around here is me, and you had also been suggesting I change something
in my behavior for some reason...
> > > I'd invoke the traditional "woman's prerogative to change her
> > > mind", but -- nah, that would be reinforcing a gender stereotype
> > > I don't approve of anyway. :-)?
>
> > It's obviously false anyway, unless Joe Attacki has no Y chromosome.
> > The aggression alone suggests otherwise, never mind the first name.
>
> I meant it to apply to myself. As far as I know, I don't have a Y
> chromosome.
I was referring to Attacki's repeated false promises to leave me
alone, killfile me, etc. there -- he therefore doesn't fit the
stereotype.
As it just so happens I found unsolicited email with his john hancock
sitting in my inbox today alongside the usual assortment of spam to
delete. So it looks like he is still not 100% willing to leave me
alone, though he's not posting anything about me to the newsgroup
still. Hmm. I seem to readily become the subject of peoples'
obsessions. I wonder why -- I don't have a cute butt or anything like
that, and even if I did it wouldn't show in my usenet posts!
Twisted
[implied insult]
You are now placed on notice. You had been keeping out of this, in
large part. I'm not sure you want to get dragged into it. If you do,
posting more like that last one is an excellent way to ensure it
happens.
Mike Schilling
> [implied insult]
Lew, did I misread you? It looked pretty explicit to me.
Lew
You must have. I never wrote "[implied insult]".
--
Lew
Patricia Shanahan
> On Sep 3, 1:57 pm, blm...@myrealbox.com <blm...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>>> You don't need to "find out" whether my characterization was accurate;
>>> just accept that it surely was, and move on.
>> I'm not sure whether to laugh or shake my head in amazement at
>> the arrogance of the above sentence.
>
> Ex-fucking-SCUSE-me? Now you're calling me names. :P And all because I
> said something that, though more verbose, boils down to "I am not a
> liar". :P
No, it boils down to "I am infallible.".
To err is human. To get upset when people consider the possibility that
you might make a mistake is seriously arrogant.
Patricia
Twisted
> Twisted wrote:
> > On Sep 3, 1:57 pm, blm...@myrealbox.com <blm...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
> >>> You don't need to "find out" whether my characterization was accurate;
> >>> just accept that it surely was, and move on.
> >> I'm not sure whether to laugh or shake my head in amazement at
> >> the arrogance of the above sentence.
>
> > Ex-fucking-SCUSE-me? Now you're calling me names. :P And all because I
> > said something that, though more verbose, boils down to "I am not a
> > liar". :P
>
> No
And now you join the ranks of the hostile.
[name-calling snipped]
So sad. And I had been thinking that this latest round of BS was over;
that those who feel compelled to attack others viciously had gotten it
out of their system for the time being and we'd have months of peace
once again.
Apparently not...
blm...@myrealbox.com
> > > You don't need to "find out" whether my characterization was accurate;
> > > just accept that it surely was, and move on.
> >
> > I'm not sure whether to laugh or shake my head in amazement at
> > the arrogance of the above sentence.
>
> Ex-fucking-SCUSE-me? Now you're calling me names. :P And all because I
> said something that, though more verbose, boils down to "I am not a
> liar". :P
>
> > Even though in most of the cases in which I *have* looked at
> > the previous post, I've found myself disagreeing with your
> > characterization?
>
> Are you, then, calling me a liar? :P
Previously responded to. Now for the other things I was going
to say ....
> > (There's an excellent example in the thread with subject line
> > 'Post not appear on group "comp.lang.java.programmer"'; you label
> > a post from Arne [*], which I'd have said was mostly about FSF
> > and copyright, with a "PS" to you that was a mild corrective, an
> > "attack post".)
>
> I labeled it an attack post because it was -- its pure purpose was to
> indirectly slander me by contradicting most of my previous post and
> implying that I was some sort of ignoramus in the bargain. That almost
> nothing in it failed to imply something negative about me, while at
> the same time nothing at all in it was Java-related, is sufficient for
> my purposes.
Nevertheless, labeling it an "attack post" without quoting any of it
leaves the impression -- to me anyway -- that it was nothing but
personal attacks and name-calling, which -- oh well, maybe that *is*
what you think.
> Your criteria obviously allow an attacker to slip subtle but serious
> put-downs under your radar by simply making their claims indirectly by
> implication instead of explicitly, which doesn't do a whole lot of
> good.
My criteria? Huh?
> > [*] Whose last name I'm not including because I'm not sure how
> > to include the required non-ASCII characters. My fault for
> > not knowing enough about relevant standards and how to make my
> > preferred tools meet them, but I don't want to let it hold up
> > this Critically! Important! post. :-)?
>
> There's alt-numpad and CharMap copy/paste, but it's a pain.
> Attributions and such are generated automatically and people enter
> their From: info into their news agent just once, so it's not so
> awkward there of course.
What is this CharMap of which you speak? Googling .... Okay,
maybe there's more than one thing by that name, at least one of
which would work under my preferred operating system. I'm still
a little dubious about what those preferred tools of mine [*] would
do with Unicode characters, or anything other than 7-bit ASCII.
[*] vim and trn, under Linux. Yes, really. (Just curious --
what were you thinking I was using?)
[ snip ]
> > Some assessment
> > of blame may contribute to an understanding of what went wrong and
> > how to avoid things going wrong in the future. Too much attention
> > to whose fault it was -- to me it seems more likely to result
> > in pointless arguing than to productive discussion. I admit
> > that I'm often guilty myself of taking criticism personally and
> > reacting defensively in a way that doesn't advance the discussion.
> > But I try not to.
>
> Eh? I thought you said the problem was people dishing out personal
> criticism where not warranted. Now you're saying that instead the
> problem is people not simply rolling over and taking whatever punches
> are thrown their way?
Actually what I had in mind is that discussion can descend into
unproductive wrangling when someone starts dishing out personal
insults, and also when someone responds to any criticism by
defending his/her behavior. You can label the latter refusing to
roll over and take whatever. Generally speaking, I wouldn't.
> I know which of those seemed to me to make more sense. :P
[ snip ]
> > But you know, I think we've been over this ground, or similar
> > ground, before -- a long thread some months ago in which I
> > suggested, as I'm doing here, that you consider altering your
> > behavior.
>
> Nothing in my behavior needs any altering. To suggest otherwise is to
> insult me.
>
> [insults my mental health]
>
> > Well, I'd say I'm suggesting not that you not use your wits,
> > but that you use them differently.
>
> "Differently" how?
By recognizing that your perception of how humans interact is
distorted, and adopting a more accurate view.
I know, I just insulted you, by your definition of "insult" anyway.
My mileage varies -- when I'm doing something that strikes other
people as counterproductive, in general I'd probably rather hear
about it than not. It's then up to me whether I want to change
my behavior, disagree with the person making the criticism (if one
can call it that), or tell them "you may be right, but I'm probably
not going to change", with or without an explanation of why.
[ snip ]
blm...@myrealbox.com
I think I know what you're getting at, and I agree (with some
reservations along the lines of "even when you really want
to?") -- but "troll" doesn't seem like quite the word for anyone
participating in this admittedly off-topic and probably pointless
discussion.
blm...@myrealbox.com
Twisted <twist...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 5, 4:12 am, blm...@myrealbox.com <blm...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
[ snip ]
> > > > I'd invoke the traditional "woman's prerogative to change her
> > > > mind", but -- nah, that would be reinforcing a gender stereotype
> > > > I don't approve of anyway. :-)?
> >
> > > It's obviously false anyway, unless Joe Attacki has no Y chromosome.
> > > The aggression alone suggests otherwise, never mind the first name.
> >
> > I meant it to apply to myself. As far as I know, I don't have a Y
> > chromosome.
>
> I was referring to Attacki's repeated false promises to leave me
> alone, killfile me, etc. there -- he therefore doesn't fit the
> stereotype.
But you mentioned not only what Joe Attardi [*] had said, but
what I said.
[*] I can't imagine what you hope to accomplish by misspelling
his name.
[ snip ]
Lew
> In article <prqdndhJ1MpUKUPb...@comcast.com>,
> Lew <l...@lewscanon.com> wrote:
>> blm...@myrealbox.com wrote:
>>> (I don't really have time to respond at length, but may not
>>> have Usenet access for a few days, so briefly .... )
>> Don't feed the trolls.
>
> I think I know what you're getting at, and I agree (with some
> reservations along the lines of "even when you really want
> to?") -- but "troll" doesn't seem like quite the word for anyone
> participating in this admittedly off-topic and probably pointless
> discussion.
It's not the word for anyone participating in this discussion. It's the word
for trolls. It has a specific, googlable meaning with respect to online
forums. Wikipedia has a particular fine entry under "Internet troll".
And wanting to feed the troll is the temptation you must resist. I know, I
feel the undertow.
--
Lew
nebul...@gmail.com
[further indirect insults targeted at me]
Shut up.
nebul...@gmail.com
> But you mentioned not only what Joe Attardi [*] had said, but
> what I said.
I didn't mention *only* what you said, and I mentioned Attacki
immediately prior to the stuff in question, and you earlier than that.
> [*] I can't imagine what you hope to accomplish by misspelling
> his name.
Shame him into not posting an output that is 99% attacks and only 1%
off-topic -- what else? Moreover, it may actually be working -- he
hasn't posted anything off-topic or even in questionable taste in a
week now.
nebul...@gmail.com
> > I labeled it an attack post because it was -- its pure purpose was to
> > indirectly slander me by contradicting most of my previous post and
> > implying that I was some sort of ignoramus in the bargain. That almost
> > nothing in it failed to imply something negative about me, while at
> > the same time nothing at all in it was Java-related, is sufficient for
> > my purposes.
>
> Nevertheless, labeling it an "attack post" without quoting any of it
> leaves the impression -- to me anyway -- that it was nothing but
> personal attacks and name-calling, which -- oh well, maybe that *is*
> what you think.
That is what it was, aside from the detail that the attacks were
implied rather than explicit.
> > Your criteria obviously allow an attacker to slip subtle but serious
> > put-downs under your radar by simply making their claims indirectly by
> > implication instead of explicitly, which doesn't do a whole lot of
> > good.
>
> My criteria? Huh?
Your criteria for what constitutes an "attack post". If you require
the attacks be explicit before you treat it as such and rebut,
attackers will simply learn to sneak their attacks in under the radar
if they want whatever nasty beliefs about you that they are trying to
promulgate to be promulgated unchallenged.
Oops. Better rebut implied ones as well then.
> [*] vim and trn, under Linux. Yes, really. (Just curious --
> what were you thinking I was using?)
Nothing specific, since you hadn't specified anything. But you'd need
some tool to enter untypable characters into a document no matter
what. A hex editor if nothing else was handy.
Of course, now you've mentioned the editors you're using, I think you
should probably get with the times. Console-mode archaisms from the
70s simply cannot and will not ever decently support unicode, anyway.
You're lucky if latin-1 accented characters work with that setup; most
likely you're limited to 7-bit ASCII.
Gobs of software got written during the 80s and 90s, and more has been
written so far this millennium; I suggest that you find and use
some. :)
> Actually what I had in mind is that discussion can descend into
> unproductive wrangling when someone starts dishing out personal
> insults, and also when someone responds to any criticism by
> defending his/her behavior. You can label the latter refusing to
> roll over and take whatever. Generally speaking, I wouldn't.
Regardless, the place to stop such "unproductive wrangling" is with no
more personal insults, since no reasonable person can be expected to
simply allow some to stand unchallenged and permanently damage their
reputation (well, if an insulting posting had X-No-Archive: Yes on it,
it might not be so bad to let that one slide, since it won't be around
virtually forever waiting to pop up when someone googles you; OTOH if
it will pop up in a search you'll surely want the very next thing in
the thread to be your followup explaining why the insulting post is
wrong so it's maximally likely that whoever reads the insulting post
also reads a rebuttal.)
> By recognizing that [insults my mental health]
I do not hallucinate and I do not believe it is appropriate for you to
be publicly making false claims that imply I have a mental defect.
Desist at once.
> I know, I just insulted you, by your definition of "insult" anyway.
So at least you won't be claiming later that it was an "accident" and
you didn't mean to insult me; you knew darn well what you were doing
and now you've admitted it.
> My mileage varies -- when I'm doing something that strikes other
> people as counterproductive, in general I'd probably rather hear
> about it than not.
I find, and you apparently find (see above), that publicly insulting
people is counterproductive. So you shouldn't be bothered by followups
to public insults making rebuttals and calling the attacker on their
behavior, based on what you just said.
blm...@myrealbox.com
Lew <l...@lewscanon.com> wrote:
> blm...@myrealbox.com wrote:
> > In article <prqdndhJ1MpUKUPb...@comcast.com>,
> > Lew <l...@lewscanon.com> wrote:
> >> blm...@myrealbox.com wrote:
> >>> (I don't really have time to respond at length, but may not
> >>> have Usenet access for a few days, so briefly .... )
> >> Don't feed the trolls.
> >
> > I think I know what you're getting at, and I agree (with some
> > reservations along the lines of "even when you really want
> > to?") -- but "troll" doesn't seem like quite the word for anyone
> > participating in this admittedly off-topic and probably pointless
> > discussion.
>
> It's not the word for anyone participating in this discussion. It's the word
> for trolls. It has a specific, googlable meaning with respect to online
> forums. Wikipedia has a particular fine entry under "Internet troll".
Agreed on all counts -- which is why I was nitpicking about your choice
of words.
> And wanting to feed the troll is the temptation you must resist. I know, I
> feel the undertow.
Sound advice, which maybe will soak in soon. Just not quite yet.
blm...@myrealbox.com
<nebul...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 10, 6:35 am, blm...@myrealbox.com <blm...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
> > > I labeled it an attack post because it was -- its pure purpose was to
> > > indirectly slander me by contradicting most of my previous post and
> > > implying that I was some sort of ignoramus in the bargain. That almost
> > > nothing in it failed to imply something negative about me, while at
> > > the same time nothing at all in it was Java-related, is sufficient for
> > > my purposes.
> >
> > Nevertheless, labeling it an "attack post" without quoting any of it
> > leaves the impression -- to me anyway -- that it was nothing but
> > personal attacks and name-calling, which -- oh well, maybe that *is*
> > what you think.
>
> That is what it was, aside from the detail that the attacks were
> implied rather than explicit.
>
> > > Your criteria obviously allow an attacker to slip subtle but serious
> > > put-downs under your radar by simply making their claims indirectly by
> > > implication instead of explicitly, which doesn't do a whole lot of
> > > good.
> >
> > My criteria? Huh?
>
> Your criteria for what constitutes an "attack post". If you require
> the attacks be explicit before you treat it as such and rebut,
> attackers will simply learn to sneak their attacks in under the radar
> if they want whatever nasty beliefs about you that they are trying to
> promulgate to be promulgated unchallenged.
What I require before calling something an "attack post" is that
it be nothing *but* attack, explicit or implicit. I don't think
the post I was talking about met that criterion. I guess you do.
Your mileage varies from mine, again.
> Oops. Better rebut implied ones as well then.
> > [*] vim and trn, under Linux. Yes, really. (Just curious --
> > what were you thinking I was using?)
>
> Nothing specific, since you hadn't specified anything. But you'd need
> some tool to enter untypable characters into a document no matter
> what. A hex editor if nothing else was handy.
>
> Of course, now you've mentioned the editors you're using,
I only mentioned one editor -- trn is a newsreader, and like
the good old-Unix-style program it is, it calls a program of the
user's choice (vim in my case) for text editing.
> I think you
> should probably get with the times. Console-mode archaisms from the
> 70s simply cannot and will not ever decently support unicode, anyway.
> You're lucky if latin-1 accented characters work with that setup; most
> likely you're limited to 7-bit ASCII.
Yes, I am. In part that's deliberate -- I'm fairly sure that
7-bit ASCII complies with all relevant standards, but unsure
that any particular way of getting other characters into Usenet
posts would. Something to research sometime (what the standards
actually are).
> Gobs of software got written during the 80s and 90s, and more has been
> written so far this millennium; I suggest that you find and use
> some. :)
It will probably happen someday, though more in spite of your
suggesting it than because of it. I've spent a lot of hours
editing text with vim (and vi before that), though, and I'm
reluctant to set that aside. "Modern" tools are superior in
some respects, inferior (IMO) in others. <shrug>
> > Actually what I had in mind is that discussion can descend into
> > unproductive wrangling when someone starts dishing out personal
> > insults, and also when someone responds to any criticism by
> > defending his/her behavior. You can label the latter refusing to
> > roll over and take whatever. Generally speaking, I wouldn't.
>
> Regardless, the place to stop such "unproductive wrangling" is with no
> more personal insults, since no reasonable person can be expected to
> simply allow some to stand unchallenged and permanently damage their
> reputation (well, if an insulting posting had X-No-Archive: Yes on it,
> it might not be so bad to let that one slide, since it won't be around
> virtually forever waiting to pop up when someone googles you; OTOH if
> it will pop up in a search you'll surely want the very next thing in
> the thread to be your followup explaining why the insulting post is
> wrong so it's maximally likely that whoever reads the insulting post
> also reads a rebuttal.)
>
> > By recognizing that [insults my mental health]
Uh-huh. The alleged insult, for anyone who's curious but can't
be bothered to look upthread:
> > By recognizing that your perception of how humans interact is
> > distorted, and adopting a more accurate view.
Have I said earlier that I agree with those who have said that the
person doing the most damage to your reputation in this newsgroup
is you yourself?
> I do not hallucinate and I do not believe it is appropriate for you to
> be publicly making false claims that imply I have a mental defect.
> Desist at once.
I stand by my opinion -- but it's only that, since all I know about
you is what I read in this and other newsgroups.
> > I know, I just insulted you, by your definition of "insult" anyway.
>
> So at least you won't be claiming later that it was an "accident" and
> you didn't mean to insult me; you knew darn well what you were doing
> and now you've admitted it.
No. What I'm saying is that my words meet *your* definition of
"insult", but not mine.
> > My mileage varies -- when I'm doing something that strikes other
> > people as counterproductive, in general I'd probably rather hear
> > about it than not.
>
> I find, and you apparently find (see above), that publicly insulting
> people is counterproductive. So you shouldn't be bothered by followups
> to public insults making rebuttals and calling the attacker on their
> behavior, based on what you just said.
But I don't consider "you're wrong" an insult.
blm...@myrealbox.com
Juvenile insults based on misspelling someone's name don't strike
me as an effective way of getting the response you say you want --
unless Joe has concluded that further debate with someone who finds
them an effective technique is pointless.
Mike Schilling
news:5kng3aF...@mid.individual.net...
.
>
> Yes, I am. In part that's deliberate -- I'm fairly sure that
> 7-bit ASCII complies with all relevant standards, but unsure
> that any particular way of getting other characters into Usenet
> posts would. Something to research sometime (what the standards
> actually are).
Even more to the point, you know that everyone will be able to read ASCII
correctly. ("7-bit ASCII" is, by the way, a bit redundant; ASCII is a 7-bit
encoding.) Even if there are standards for representing other encodings,
not all newsreaders support them, so using them means failing to communicate
with some fraction of your audience. (Some people, inexplicably to me,
enjoy that, like the idiots who start their posts with "begin", so OE users
can't easily read them.)
Lew
>> It's not the word for anyone participating in this discussion. It's the word
>> for trolls. It has a specific, googlable meaning with respect to online
>> forums. Wikipedia has a particular fine entry under "Internet troll".
blm...@myrealbox.com wrote:
> Agreed on all counts -- which is why I was nitpicking about your choice
> of words.
Well, the Wikipedia link and others describe trollish behavior, which
apparently you believe doesn't apply to anyone in this conversation. Some
might say they've seen this behavior.
You are probably right, which is why I suppose I'm now saying, "[i]t's not the
word for anyone participating in this discussion." However, the principle
that some arguments cannot resolve applies. BTW, I find your arguments cogent
and patient.
--
Lew
Joe Attardi
> Juvenile insults based on misspelling someone's name don't strike
> me as an effective way of getting the response you say you want --
> unless Joe has concluded that further debate with someone who finds
> them an effective technique is pointless.
You hit the nail right on the head. I got sick of the public
back-and-forths with Paul, so I finally killfiled him. Although I have
noticed from other people's quotes replies to him that he continues to
go on and on about me. Obsession is never a healthy thing...
RedGrittyBrick
> <nebul...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I think you should probably get with the times. Console-mode
>> archaisms from the 70s simply cannot and will not ever decently
>> support unicode, anyway. You're lucky if latin-1 accented
>> characters work with that setup; most likely you're limited to
>> 7-bit ASCII.
>
>
> Yes, I am. In part that's deliberate -- I'm fairly sure that 7-bit
> ASCII complies with all relevant standards, but unsure that any
> particular way of getting other characters into Usenet posts would.
> Something to research sometime (what the standards actually are).
>
vi under Linux usually means vim:
http://www.vim.org/htmldoc/mbyte.html#Unicode
"Vim has comprehensive UTF-8 support. It appears to work in:
- xterm with utf-8 support enabled
- Athena, Motif and GTK GUI
- MS-Windows GUI"
nebul...@gmail.com
[attacks me again and also gets my name wrong]
So, you were once again lying about not posting any more off-topic,
Twisted-bashing bullshit.
Why the hell aren't I surprised?
Now might I suggest some more constructive activities? Same for
blmblm, who just attempted to insult my *age* of all things (as if
being any particular age were bad, and thus saying someone was were an
insult; hence "attempted" above). I have a number of ideas for
activities that should fascinate the both of you and have the nice
side effect of getting both of you and your almost-universally-off-
topic posts the hell out of cljp:
* Bungee jumping. May I suggest London Bridge? It's nice this time of
year. I recommend a bungee cord with a maximum extension of 30ft.
* Playing in traffic is an old favorite.
* Picking your arse with shards of broken glass.
* Gambling is a fine tradition in many parts of the world.
Particularly roulette. Might I suggest the variety invented in Russia,
in particular?
* Recreating the circumnavigation voyage of Magellan. Historic
authenticity would be a good idea -- this means no radio or GPS, and
meeting the same eventual fate as Magellan himself did. Right now
would be a great time to set out, as the hurricane season approaches
its peak.
* If that's too iffy for you, try just plain storm chasing. The world
record for the "SUV toss" event at the Tornado Olympics currently
stands at 197 metres, in case you wanted to know; but it's probably
possible to beat that...
* A wide variety of pastoralist and ascetic sects exist. Were you to
join you would get away from all the stresses of modern life; think of
it as a free vacation. No, early retirement even. Of course most of
them expect you to take a vow of poverty, and I'm not aware of any
monasteries having broadband or WiFi hotpoints...oh well.
* If you're car aficionados, you might like the long and storied games
of "chicken" and "train racing".
* Finally, one thing that might at least give a physician somewhere an
amusing anecdote at the end of the day, and which I saw creatively
suggested somewhere once as a method of pain relief after exposure to
atrociously-designed third-party game mods: inhaling boiling Drano
through a straw.
* Oh, and since you two seem made for each other, there's always the
old fashioned man and woman thing, you know? Complete with getting
away from it all (including usenet) for a two week honeymoon. I hear
it's warm in Hades this time of year...
Have fun you two! :P
nebul...@gmail.com
> > Your criteria for what constitutes an "attack post". If you require
> > the attacks be explicit before you treat it as such and rebut,
> > attackers will simply learn to sneak their attacks in under the radar
> > if they want whatever nasty beliefs about you that they are trying to
> > promulgate to be promulgated unchallenged.
>
> What I require before calling something an "attack post" is that
> it be nothing *but* attack, explicit or implicit. I don't think
> the post I was talking about met that criterion. I guess you do.
> Your mileage varies from mine, again.
This is silly. Your new criteria are just as full of loopholes as the
old. "You're an idiot. You're a wanker. You're a jerk. Eclipse is
better than Netbeans!" <- hypothetical attack post you'd fail to
classify as such by those criteria. I only require that its primary
function or effect appear to be to smear a person.
> I only mentioned one editor -- trn is a newsreader, and like
> the good old-Unix-style program it is, it calls a program of the
> user's choice (vim in my case) for text editing.
A news editor, not just reader, given the implication that you can use
it to post, and it presumably manages editing the stuff other than the
actual bodies of news posts. (Account details, favorite-newsgroup
list, etc...)
> Yes, I am. In part that's deliberate -- I'm fairly sure that
> 7-bit ASCII complies with all relevant standards, but unsure
> that any particular way of getting other characters into Usenet
> posts would. Something to research sometime (what the standards
> actually are).
My observation is that it's hit-and-miss depending on what the poster
does, but modern reading software (or Google Groups) will show unicode
characters correctly that were entered correctly at the posting end
(including the character encoding information in the post header being
correct).
> It will probably happen someday, though more in spite of your
> suggesting it than because of it. I've spent a lot of hours
> editing text with vim (and vi before that), though, and I'm
> reluctant to set that aside. "Modern" tools are superior in
> some respects, inferior (IMO) in others. <shrug>
Oh, no, not this shit again. :P
> > > By recognizing that [insults my mental health]
>
> Uh-huh. The alleged insult, for anyone who's curious but can't
> be bothered to look upthread: [repeats the insult]
Christ, I *hate* it when my detractors do that. I snipped the insult
for a very good reason, namely that the fewer copies of it are
floating around having a bad effect the better. It's the same reason
people that follow up to spam here often change the URLs to end in
".spam".
There's no need to repeat your insult (or at best stupid, tasteless
attempt at a weak joke -- failed attempt I might add, since I didn't
find it funny, not one damn bit). We all (unfortunately) heard you the
first time.
[more insults]
I will reiterate. I do not hallucinate. I do not self-attack. I do not
exhibit any of these signs and symptoms of mental illness. I never
have. I never will -- at least, I certainly have no intention of ever
doing so, or taking the sorts of drugs that would bring on such
symptoms by choice.
> > I do not hallucinate and I do not believe it is appropriate for you to
> > be publicly making false claims that imply I have a mental defect.
> > Desist at once.
>
> I stand by my opinion -- but it's only that, since all I know about
> you is what I read in this and other newsgroups.
Forming an opinion that I hallucinate simply from reading usenet is
really, really silly anyway. It's rather like forming an opinion that
the emperor of Zulu has cancer from reading tea leaves, or forming an
opinion that the President is a fucktard from watching Sesame Street.
In the latter case, you'd actually be right -- he IS a fucktard -- but
that's just an example of a stopped clock being right twice a day.
In your case though you weren't that lucky. You were flat wrong -- I
don't hallucinate.
End of discussion.
> No. What I'm saying is that my words meet *your* definition of
> "insult", but not mine.
So you have no problem insulting me as long as you wouldn't find the
same thing insulting? I suppose then you would also have no problems
with the old classics of suggesting I were female or liked other guys,
since you wouldn't be insulted if someone suggested you were female or
liked guys, then? That leaves a lot of options open. Your ethics are
as full of loopholes as your attack-detection rules, it would appear.
> But I don't consider "you're wrong" an insult.
You're strange.
nebul...@gmail.com
wrote:
> Even more to the point, you know that everyone will be able to read ASCII
> correctly. ("7-bit ASCII" is, by the way, a bit redundant; ASCII is a 7-bit
> encoding.) Even if there are standards for representing other encodings,
> not all newsreaders support them, so using them means failing to communicate
> with some fraction of your audience.
In practise, it's not likely that severe. They'll see some garbles
where accented characters were used, and that's about it. Ugly, but
usually comprehensible anyway.
> (Some people, inexplicably to me,
> enjoy that, like the idiots who start their posts with "begin", so OE users
> can't easily read them.)
I find that the people that "enjoy that" (i.e. deliberately making
their posts hard to understand for a fraction of the audience) do it
with gratuitous obscurity, especially unusual acronyms, and then start
a flamewar if asked to clarify what they said (i.e. to spell it out in
plain English). :P
Why would use of the word "begin" garble a post in OE? That's passing
strange -- bugs aren't usually highly specific to one English word.
Then again, it *is* Microsoft software we're discussing...
nebul...@gmail.com
wrote:
> "Vim has comprehensive UTF-8 support. It appears to work in:
That's like mounting a rocket motor on an Edsel, and trying to steer
and throttle it using the usual car controls. There's a reason most
rocket ships have cockpits full of dials and switches like the Space
Shuttle, you know. And there's a reason that unicode support is
normally only found in GUI apps, not on the console...it's bad enough
not being able to type some characters easily, let alone having to see
them as some weird escape codes or whatever they will appear as on a
display limited to one code page of characters at a time.
Unless you stick to just the one code page I suppose. Fairly often
people are using Latin-1 (ISO-8859-1, and basically the zeroth code
page of Unicode) when they speak of using "ASCII" (hence also "7-bit
ASCII" to disambiguate with certainty), and get the accented
characters used in French and maybe Spanish and Italian and a few
other things this way; most consoles and console apps have supported
Latin-1 for a while, and sometimes other code pages, albeit one at a
time.
Mike Schilling
news:1189666662.3...@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> Why would use of the word "begin" garble a post in OE?
When the first line is
begin WORD
(where WORD could be almost anything), OE assumes the post is uuencoded.
Mike Schilling
<nebul...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1189666950....@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 12, 5:09 am, RedGrittyBrick <redgrittybr...@spamweary.foo>
> wrote:
>> "Vim has comprehensive UTF-8 support. It appears to work in:
>
> That's like mounting a rocket motor on an Edsel, and trying to steer
> and throttle it using the usual car controls. There's a reason most
> rocket ships have cockpits full of dials and switches like the Space
> Shuttle, you know. And there's a reason that unicode support is
> normally only found in GUI apps, not on the console...
gvim, which I believe is the most common way people use vim (it is for me),
is a GUI app
RedGrittyBrick
AFAIK Vim supports unicode whether used from console, telnet, SSH, xterm
or GUI.
Here's some stuff cut & pasted out of gvim running on WinXP
Entered using digraph h backspace u
U+3075: Hiragana Letter Hu ふ
Entered using digraph w backspace :
U+1e85: Latin small letter w with Diaeresis ẅ
Entered using code point value in hex ^VUFC12
U+FC12: Arabic ligature Theh with Meem Isolated Form ﰒ
Entered using Windows charmap
U+CEF9: Hangul syllable Khieukh Eo leung 컹
U+03C8: Greek Small Letter Psi ψ
Heres some stuff cut & pasted out of vim running on Linux via SSH (Putty)
digraph hu ふ
digraph w: ẅ
^VUFC12 ﰒ
I guess this means that either
1) Vim is *not* one of the "Console-mode archaisms from the 70s".
or
2) "Console-mode archaisms from the 70s simply cannot and will not ever
decently support unicode" is wrong.
blm...@myrealbox.com
Lew <l...@lewscanon.com> wrote:
> Lew wrote:
> >> It's not the word for anyone participating in this discussion. It's
> the word
> >> for trolls. It has a specific, googlable meaning with respect to online
> >> forums. Wikipedia has a particular fine entry under "Internet troll".
>
> blm...@myrealbox.com wrote:
> > Agreed on all counts -- which is why I was nitpicking about your choice
> > of words.
>
> Well, the Wikipedia link and others describe trollish behavior, which
> apparently you believe doesn't apply to anyone in this conversation. Some
> might say they've seen this behavior.
Bad behavior, yes. Trollish behavior, I'm not sure. But either
way ....
> You are probably right, which is why I suppose I'm now saying, "[i]t's not the
> word for anyone participating in this discussion." However, the principle
> that some arguments cannot resolve applies. BTW, I find your arguments cogent
> and patient.
Also pointless and off-topic. :-)? :-(?
I'm asking myself now how I got into not one but two long
and pointless wrangles, and more importantly how to get out.
("Just stop"? um, yeah, but .... )
blm...@myrealbox.com
<nebul...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 11, 11:35 pm, Joe Attacki <jatta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [attacks me again and also gets my name wrong]
>
> So, you were once again lying about not posting any more off-topic,
> Twisted-bashing bullshit.
>
> Why the hell aren't I surprised?
>
> Now might I suggest some more constructive activities? Same for
> blmblm, who just attempted to insult my *age* of all things (as if
> being any particular age were bad, and thus saying someone was were an
> insult; hence "attempted" above).
Say what? Oh, maybe you mean my use of the phrase "juvenile
insults"? But those can be slung by persons of any age, though
they're more forgivable coming from those who aren't old enough
to know better. I don't know whether that applies to you, and
I doubt it would be interesting or useful to speculate.
[ snip ]
blm...@myrealbox.com
<nebul...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 11, 8:30 am, blm...@myrealbox.com <blm...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
> > > Your criteria for what constitutes an "attack post". If you require
> > > the attacks be explicit before you treat it as such and rebut,
> > > attackers will simply learn to sneak their attacks in under the radar
> > > if they want whatever nasty beliefs about you that they are trying to
> > > promulgate to be promulgated unchallenged.
> >
> > What I require before calling something an "attack post" is that
> > it be nothing *but* attack, explicit or implicit. I don't think
> > the post I was talking about met that criterion. I guess you do.
> > Your mileage varies from mine, again.
>
> This is silly. Your new criteria are just as full of loopholes as the
> old. "You're an idiot. You're a wanker. You're a jerk. Eclipse is
> better than Netbeans!" <- hypothetical attack post you'd fail to
> classify as such by those criteria. I only require that its primary
> function or effect appear to be to smear a person.
Well, you're right that my new definition isn't very precise either.
Yours ("primary function or effect") is better, though it might be
possible to find an example .... Nah. You're right, this *is* silly.
> > I only mentioned one editor -- trn is a newsreader, and like
> > the good old-Unix-style program it is, it calls a program of the
> > user's choice (vim in my case) for text editing.
>
> A news editor, not just reader, given the implication that you can use
> it to post, and it presumably manages editing the stuff other than the
> actual bodies of news posts. (Account details, favorite-newsgroup
> list, etc...)
The use of the term "news editor" to refer to something used to
read and post news is new to me; I thought the generic term was
"newsreader". Perhaps this reflects a gap in my knowledge.
As for editing things other than the text of posts being composed,
hm .... for most of that I would probably use a text editor
to change one of trn's configuration files, which of course :-)
are plain text.
But this also is probably a pointless wrangle, in which both
parties are more interested in proving the other wrong than in
anything useful.
[ snip ]
blm...@myrealbox.com
[ snip stuff replied to earlier ]
[ more snip ]
> I will reiterate. I do not hallucinate. I do not self-attack. I do not
> exhibit any of these signs and symptoms of mental illness. I never
> have. I never will -- at least, I certainly have no intention of ever
> doing so, or taking the sorts of drugs that would bring on such
> symptoms by choice.
>
> > > I do not hallucinate and I do not believe it is appropriate for you to
> > > be publicly making false claims that imply I have a mental defect.
> > > Desist at once.
> >
> > I stand by my opinion -- but it's only that, since all I know about
> > you is what I read in this and other newsgroups.
>
> Forming an opinion that I hallucinate simply from reading usenet is
> really, really silly anyway.
Not even if you say you see flying purple elephants? (Rhetorical
question only. Not saying you *did* say that.)
But I didn't express an opinion one way or another about whether
you hallucinate, only that you seem to me to have a distorted view
of human interaction.
> It's rather like forming an opinion that
> the emperor of Zulu has cancer from reading tea leaves, or forming an
> opinion that the President is a fucktard from watching Sesame Street.
Gratuitous political flamebait. Why?
> In the latter case, you'd actually be right -- he IS a fucktard -- but
> that's just an example of a stopped clock being right twice a day.
>
> In your case though you weren't that lucky. You were flat wrong -- I
> don't hallucinate.
Congratulations: You've found a way of saying "you're wrong" that
I find insulting. (Upthread I said, more than once, that it was
hard to say in the abstract whether "you're wrong" is an insult.
Now we have a concrete example I find at least mildly insulting.
I *think*, though I'm not sure, that what makes the difference
is the implication that if I'm ever other than wrong it's by
luck only.)
> End of discussion.
>
> > No. What I'm saying is that my words meet *your* definition of
> > "insult", but not mine.
>
> So you have no problem insulting me as long as you wouldn't find the
> same thing insulting?
Before this discussion, I'd have said that I generally try to avoid
saying things others would perceive as offensive, even if I didn't
share their opinion. Apparently there are exceptions.
> I suppose then you would also have no problems
> with the old classics of suggesting I were female or liked other guys,
Those "old classics" are insulting, all right, but not to the person
at whom they're aimed.
> since you wouldn't be insulted if someone suggested you were female or
> liked guys, then?
What a poor opinion of my reasoning ability you must have, to suggest
that I would find this an equivalent situation. (No need to tell me
just how much of an idiot you think I am.)
> That leaves a lot of options open. Your ethics are
> as full of loopholes as your attack-detection rules, it would appear.
Ethics, or manners?
As for attack-detection rules, I'm not sure I really have any. To
me there seems to be more downside in perceiving insult where none
was meant than in not perceiving insult where it was meant. I suspect
your mileage varies in that regard.
> > But I don't consider "you're wrong" an insult.
Or not always, anyway.
> You're strange.
Thank you! I try.
Mike Schilling
<blm...@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:5kt18mF...@mid.individual.net...
>> Well, the Wikipedia link and others describe trollish behavior, which
>> apparently you believe doesn't apply to anyone in this conversation.
>> Some
>> might say they've seen this behavior.
>
> Bad behavior, yes. Trollish behavior, I'm not sure. But either
> way ....
The chief goal of a troll is to get other posters hot and bothered. A troll
is happiest when he's ignited a flame war with a single post. On a Java
group, a troll might start with "Why is Java so much slower than .NET?", and
then sit back and watch the fun. Someone who exerts far more effort and
emotion than anyone else in the vicinity might be a lot of things, but he's
not a troll.
> I'm asking myself now how I got into not one but two long
> and pointless wrangles, and more importantly how to get out.
> ("Just stop"? um, yeah, but .... )
No buts. Just stop. Now. Anything else digs you in deeper.
nebul...@gmail.com
wrote:
> In article <raSdnUwczNGSP3vbnZ2dnUVZ_vCkn...@comcast.com>,
> > Well, the Wikipedia link and others describe trollish behavior, which
> > apparently you believe doesn't apply to anyone in this conversation. Some
> > might say they've seen this behavior.
>
> Bad behavior, yes.
If this is intended to describe me, be it known that it's not an
accurate description.
nebul...@gmail.com
wrote:
> In article <1189665624.670955.314...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
>
> <nebulou...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sep 11, 11:35 pm, Joe Attacki <jatta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > [attacks me again and also gets my name wrong]
>
> > So, you were once again lying about not posting any more off-topic,
> > Twisted-bashing bullshit.
>
> > Why the hell aren't I surprised?
>
> > Now might I suggest some more constructive activities? Same for
> > blmblm, who just attempted to insult my *age* of all things (as if
> > being any particular age were bad, and thus saying someone was were an
> > insult; hence "attempted" above).
>
This is getting tiresome. You say or imply untrue nasty things about
me; I point out that they're a) untrue and b) nasty; cycle repeats.
Anything new and interesting you'd like to discuss, or should we just
call it a draw and move on with our lives? :P
nebul...@gmail.com
wrote:
> Well, you're right that my new definition isn't very precise either.
> Yours ("primary function or effect") is better, though it might be
> possible to find an example .... Nah. You're right, this *is* silly.
Well, actually, having a properly functioning threat-detection system
is a matter of deadly seriousness, but I digress...
> The use of the term "news editor" to refer to something used to
> read and post news is new to me; I thought the generic term was
> "newsreader". Perhaps this reflects a gap in my knowledge.
The generic term *is* "newsreader". Nonetheless, most of them are not
read-only, and so constitute editing software however typically named.
> As for editing things other than the text of posts being composed,
> hm .... for most of that I would probably use a text editor
> to change one of trn's configuration files, which of course :-)
> are plain text.
What, as in hand-hack the config files instead of use the options
interface of the newsreader? That's asking for trouble. One cack-
handed edit and you're posting binhexed multipart messages partitioned
every 13 bytes containing gibberish from code page 0x4B as
"Jarkdengler III of Waterloo" or something, with a giant zipped and
uuencoded copy of an old forgotten core file as .signature appended to
every single part. Or more likely it just plain doesn't work, or
worse, forgets all your read/unread info.
Basically it's the equivalent of a Windoze user wanting to change the
font size in something and immediately fiddling around in the registry
instead of trying the Tools->Options route first.
Of course, it may be that this newsreader you use is so crufty as to
lack a proper user interface, or perhaps even any user interface, at
all (or specifically for configuring accounts and etc.) but if so,
it's a sign that you need to replace it with something sane, not that
you need to hand-hack the config files. :P If I ever downloaded
Windoze software that required me to hand-hack the registry to do
various basic things I'd quickly be shopping around for an
alternative.
Getting your hands dirty by sticking them up to the elbows into
machinery may be a turn-on for some people of the "mechanic" type --
the sort that do their own car repairs, randomly fiddle with it when
it's already working, etc. -- but it's really rather silly. Even us
programmers, whose normal job necessarily involves getting hip-deep in
the innards of systems, usually realize that there's work (or even
play) and then there's productivity and usability and not having to do
that just to do ordinary non-novel tasks (and certainly not to inflict
such a requirement on our users!)
All too many techies are too fond of getting their hands dirty. What
happens when an avid car mechanic is always messing with his car?
Sometimes he goofs and the car doesn't work properly for a while until
he fixes whatever he changed. OK. What happens when a sysadmin at a
national ISP or major web site host decides to tinker in the guts of
the system just for the heck of it, even though it had been working
perfectly? The usual answer is thousands of users inconvenienced by
hours of downtime, since casual tinkering never goes hand-in-hand with
proper change management and testing procedures of course! "Bored ...
what to do ... ah, hell, I think maybe I can squeeze 0.3% more
performance out of our DBMS by twiddling this configuration here --
eh, what's this mean? out of memory? Traffic's gone to zero? Phone's
lit up like a Christmas tree?? Uh-oh..."
What we really need in IT is pragmatic people who know the rule "if it
ain't broke, don't fix it" and live by it ... and programmers that
don't enjoy getting up to their elbows in machine-readable files *so*
much that they neglect to provide a better interface than that for the
users of their software...
nebul...@gmail.com
> > Forming an opinion that I hallucinate simply from reading usenet is
> > really, really silly anyway.
>
> Not even if you say you see flying purple elephants? (Rhetorical
> question only. Not saying you *did* say that.)
If I ever *did* say that you can be sure it would be because they were
real (or, at least, they were on TV or something as part of some kids'
show that came on due to my having watched something earlier and then
ignored it instead of changing the channel or turning it off).
> But I didn't express an opinion one way or another about whether
> you hallucinate, only that you [don't see straight, basically]
Oh, do grow up. Such a silly insult. This *if true* would be hardly
more mature than calling some kid with glasses "four-eyes" in the
schoolyard. :P
> > It's rather like forming an opinion that
> > the emperor of Zulu has cancer from reading tea leaves, or forming an
> > opinion that the President is a fucktard from watching Sesame Street.
>
> Gratuitous political flamebait. Why?
That wasn't political flamebait. Political flamebait would be praising
the moron in public. :P
> > In your case though you weren't that lucky. You were flat wrong -- I
> > don't hallucinate.
>
> Congratulations: You've found a way of saying "you're wrong" that
> I find insulting. (Upthread I said, more than once, that it was
> hard to say in the abstract whether "you're wrong" is an insult.
> Now we have a concrete example I find at least mildly insulting.
> I *think*, though I'm not sure, that what makes the difference
> is the implication that if I'm ever other than wrong it's by
> luck only.)
No, I implied that if someone guessing at the value of some variable
based solely on studying completely irrelevant other variables is
other than wrong it's by luck only.
> Before this discussion, I'd have said that I generally try to avoid
> saying things others would perceive as offensive, even if I didn't
> share their opinion. Apparently there are exceptions.
A lot of people seem to go out of their way to make exceptions for me
of a nasty sort. I've no idea why. It seems to be similar to that
schoolkid with the glasses, though -- people fixate on some random and
irrelevant thing and unconsciously and collectively come to a decision
that he's the local stress-reliever and act accordingly. Not caring
that he probably doesn't want to be used as other peoples' stress
reliever. :P
All large enough groups of humans have a nasty tendency to do this --
single someone out by some kind of weird unspoken consensus-forming
method and treat them as though they had a "kick me" sign taped to
them. My current guess as to the mechanism is that the group forms
somehow (e.g. they all enroll in a school one year) and people form
and join cliques and alliances. The last person left unassociated with
any of these becomes "it". Of course the same alliances tend to
persist or get renewed from one year to the next. On the 'net they
probably just persist continually. In this group it seems the people
are unconsciously divided into three categories: the transients,
mostly asking a question or a few about Java; the normal regulars, who
read and post frequently and have formed into loose associations of
some sort with one another; and the targets, regulars who have not.
This behavior, while identifiable and analyzable to some extent, is
nonetheless morally wrong and should obviously stop immediately.
> > I suppose then you would also have no problems
> > with the old classics of suggesting I were female or liked other guys,
>
> Those "old classics" are insulting, all right, but not to the person
> at whom they're aimed.
Well, by implication they insult a whole gender too, the implication
being that it's bad to be that gender. Same way, mind you, that your
earlier attempt to insult me based on age (and guessing it wrong --
way wrong) insults everyone genuinely of that age. :P
> What a poor opinion of my reasoning ability you must have, to suggest
> that I would find this an equivalent situation. (No need to tell me
> just how much of an idiot you think I am.)
I was just working out the logical consequences of your policy
regarding considering saying something about someone fair game if
*you* wouldn't find it insulting. This clearly means you would have no
qualms about comparing me to a female, for example, or whatever else
wouldn't mischaracterize you but would mischaracterize me.
> > That leaves a lot of options open. Your ethics are
> > as full of loopholes as your attack-detection rules, it would appear.
>
> Ethics, or manners?
Maybe both.
nebul...@gmail.com
wrote:
> <nebulou...@gmail.com> wrote in message
That *is* silly. It should have to say "begin UUE", and even then it
should obviously try to decode it, and render it as plain text if this
fails. Apparently it doesn't do that either. I suppose it also doesn't
bother checking the headers for the mime-type or whatever info is
really supposed to differentiate text from binaries and decide whether
to even look for any encoding scheme...
nebul...@gmail.com
wrote:
> <nebulou...@gmail.com> wrote in message
And *that's* like building a space shuttle with an Edsel motor for the
engine. :P
nebul...@gmail.com
wrote:
> digraph hu
> digraph w:
> ^VUFC12
> I guess this means that either
>
> 1) Vim is *not* one of the "Console-mode archaisms from the 70s".
>
> or
>
> 2) "Console-mode archaisms from the 70s simply cannot and will not ever
> decently support unicode" is wrong.
The key word here is "decently". These all look correct to me in
Google Groups. (I won't vouch for their not being mangled when GG
sends this followup though.) But you won't be able to see them
properly when editing in text-mode, unless you switch to a charset
with the right glyphs. Which means either you're hand-hacking stuff
like "^VUFC12" or the *English* text nearby is unreadable...
And I don't consider having to edit blind to be "decent" support for
whatever it is I'm having to edit blind.
For composing a post like the one I'm following up to, anything
limited to displaying one code page at a time is crippling. And
anything that isn't so limited is obviously not (whatever its
ancestry) what was originally under discussion.
Mike Schilling
<nebul...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1189827281.1...@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 13, 4:33 am, "Mike Schilling" <mscottschill...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>> <nebulou...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1189666662.3...@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > Why would use of the word "begin" garble a post in OE?
>>
>> When the first line is
>>
>> begin WORD
>>
>> (where WORD could be almost anything), OE assumes the post is uuencoded.
>
> That *is* silly. It should have to say "begin UUE",
That's not what uuencoded files look like, though. The fisrt line is
begin NAME
where the second word is the name of the file to create.
> and even then it
> should obviously try to decode it, and render it as plain text if this
> fails.
Now *that's* hard to argue with :-)
blm...@myrealbox.com
a better one, and am not entirely convinced Google would do the
right thing about threading.)
In article <1189826209.2...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
<nebul...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 13, 11:15 am, blm...@myrealbox.com <blm...@myrealbox.com>
> wrote:
> > Well, you're right that my new definition isn't very precise either.
> > Yours ("primary function or effect") is better, though it might be
> > possible to find an example .... Nah. You're right, this *is* silly.
>
> Well, actually, having a properly functioning threat-detection system
> is a matter of deadly seriousness, but I digress...
In real life, very true. In Usenet, I disagree. We don't need to
discuss that further, though, since your mileage obviously varies.
(I think you claimed a while back to have encountered real-world
damage incurred by words in Usenet, but you didn't, possibly
couldn't, provide enough detail for me to really understand.
Probably not worth pursuing.)
> > The use of the term "news editor" to refer to something used to
> > read and post news is new to me; I thought the generic term was
> > "newsreader". Perhaps this reflects a gap in my knowledge.
>
> The generic term *is* "newsreader". Nonetheless, most of them are not
> read-only, and so constitute editing software however typically named.
>
> > As for editing things other than the text of posts being composed,
> > hm .... for most of that I would probably use a text editor
> > to change one of trn's configuration files, which of course :-)
> > are plain text.
>
> What, as in hand-hack the config files instead of use the options
> interface of the newsreader? That's asking for trouble. One cack-
> handed edit and you're posting binhexed multipart messages partitioned
> every 13 bytes containing gibberish from code page 0x4B as
> "Jarkdengler III of Waterloo" or something, with a giant zipped and
> uuencoded copy of an old forgotten core file as .signature appended to
> every single part. Or more likely it just plain doesn't work, or
> worse, forgets all your read/unread info.
As in "change the program's options by modifying the configuration
file with a text editor", which was considered standard operating
procedure when I first started using Unix, however many years ago
(probably at least twenty). I don't remember anything such as
you describe ever happening, though I suppose there's always
a first time. A careful person of course makes a backup of
the file first, and then if something goes wrong, the changes
are easily backed out. I'm probably not always that careful,
though I often am. <shrug> My experience is that this method of
configuring things is not very novice-friendly, but it's less apt
to produce mysterious impossible-to-clean-up messes that the GUI
configuration tools typically provided now. Your mileage may vary,
and probably does.
In some contexts "not very novice-friendly" is a significant
drawback. Then again, sometimes the only way I can figure out
to clean up a GUI-tool-created mess is to just delete every
configuration file that looks like it might be related and let
the system start again from the defaults, which has its drawbacks
as well. Perhaps someone more experienced with these tools would
do better.
And perhaps someone more experienced would also know good ways to
deal with another problem I routinely encounter with GUI tools:
lack of what I'd call "scriptability" (possibly not the best
choice of words, but I can't think of a better one).
Example: I dabble a little with Eclipse. For reasons that seem
good to me (though that might be debatable), I often create groups
of small projects in which the source code lives somewhere other
than in Eclipse's workspace. If I move that source code later,
I haven't found any way to tell Eclipse about that other than to
delete the old projects and create new ones, one at a time, using
the GUI, which I find tedious beyond words. If configuration
information were stored in text files, I could just do a
mass edit and change all occurrences of OldPathToSource with
NewPathToSource, which would be a lot less work. (Risky? Maybe.
If I were worried, I'd make a backup copy of everything first.)
I have other examples, but lack the energy right now to describe
them. But it just often seems to me that a task that ought to be
simple, or at least automatable with some sort of scripting --
"tell Eclipse that source for all of these projects has been
moved", in the example above -- is impossible to accomplish
without a lot of tedious pointing and clicking. To me this
reflects a fundamental limitation of GUIs -- if the designer
didn't think of a particular function and provide an interface
to it, it can't be done. It's a trade-off, I guess, with the
benefits of the GUI being novice-friendliness. <shrug>
> Basically it's the equivalent of a Windoze user wanting to change the
> font size in something and immediately fiddling around in the registry
> instead of trying the Tools->Options route first.
>
> Of course, it may be that this newsreader you use is so crufty as to
> lack a proper user interface, or perhaps even any user interface, at
> all (or specifically for configuring accounts and etc.) but if so,
> it's a sign that you need to replace it with something sane, not that
> you need to hand-hack the config files. :P If I ever downloaded
> Windoze software that required me to hand-hack the registry to do
> various basic things I'd quickly be shopping around for an
> alternative.
I don't think the two (configuring a Windows program by
hand-hacking the registry, and configuring a Unix program by
editing text files) are really comparable:
As I understand it, the registry is a single entity, and it's
possible to cause damage to an entire system when all one set
out to do was configure one application. (I could be wrong about
that.) And I don't think Windows has a tradition of configuring
programs by modifying the registry. Old-style Unix programs *do*
have such a tradition, and damage caused by misguided efforts to
configure one application shouldn't affect others.
I'm almost entirely sure you would find trn unbearably crufty:
It's solidly in the "old-style Unix programs" camp, and in fact
is orphaned software that hasn't been changed in many years.
To me, though, it's a familiar friend. I made an attempt a few
years ago to figure out how to use a browser -- I think it was
Netscape -- as a newsreader, and -- I don't remember the details,
but at some point I had that "you are in a maze of twisty passages"
feeling, and I gave up the attempt. I often have this feeling
with GUI tools. Probably more practice with them would help.
Probably that would help me in other ways as well. <shrug>
> Getting your hands dirty by sticking them up to the elbows into
> machinery may be a turn-on for some people of the "mechanic" type --
> the sort that do their own car repairs, randomly fiddle with it when
> it's already working, etc. -- but it's really rather silly.
You seem to be addressing two groups here: People who fix things
that ain't broke, and people who'd prefer to make changes by editing
a text file than by using a GUI. I claim that I'm solidly in the
camp of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", and that my preference
for configuring things in the old way actually supports that. :-)?
I'm also solidly in the second group, in part because I'm vaguely
uneasy with tools that store information in locations and formats
I can't easily discover. On some level I suppose that really applies
to text files as well. <shrug>
[ snip rest of rant, most of which I more or less agree with ]
For the record, if I were developing software for non-techies to
use, I *think* I'd try to come up with some way of storing and
manipulating configuration information that would provide them with
the kind of interface they want and still allow expert users to go
in and modify things in other ways if they wanted to. It's been
a while since I worked on a large program with an intended user
base other than myself, though, so it's hard to be sure.
blm...@myrealbox.com
<nebul...@gmail.com> wrote:
[ snip ]
> This is getting tiresome.
We agree about that, anyway.
> You say or imply untrue nasty things about
> me; I point out that they're a) untrue and b) nasty; cycle repeats.
> Anything new and interesting you'd like to discuss, or should we just
> call it a draw and move on with our lives? :P
Let's do that. I don't need to understand why you think calling
someone's words "juvenile insults" is an attempt to make fun of
their actual age; it certainly wasn't my intent, but I'll just try
to mentally file it as one of the things that you find insulting
and allow us all to move on.
Lew
> Example: I dabble a little with Eclipse. For reasons that seem
> good to me (though that might be debatable), I often create groups
> of small projects in which the source code lives somewhere other
> than in Eclipse's workspace. If I move that source code later,
> I haven't found any way to tell Eclipse about that other than to
> delete the old projects and create new ones, one at a time, using
> the GUI, which I find tedious beyond words. If configuration
> information were stored in text files, I could just do a
> mass edit and change all occurrences of OldPathToSource with
> NewPathToSource, which would be a lot less work. (Risky? Maybe.
> If I were worried, I'd make a backup copy of everything first.)
>
> I have other examples, but lack the energy right now to describe
> them. But it just often seems to me that a task that ought to be
> simple, or at least automatable with some sort of scripting --
> "tell Eclipse that source for all of these projects has been
> moved", in the example above -- is impossible to accomplish
> without a lot of tedious pointing and clicking. To me this
> reflects a fundamental limitation of GUIs -- if the designer
> didn't think of a particular function and provide an interface
> to it, it can't be done. It's a trade-off, I guess, with the
> benefits of the GUI being novice-friendliness. <shrug>
NetBeans lets you simply "open" the project from the new directory. You can
also configure project properties to point to arbitrary source directory
locations.
Eclipse lets you build projects based on other projects. For that IDE locate
subprojects where you want them and refer to them from projects in other
locations.
Neither of these answers might work, possibly, in your immediate problem, but
they may provide future options.
--
Lew
blm...@myrealbox.com
[ snip ]
> > But I didn't express an opinion one way or another about whether
> > you hallucinate, only that you [don't see straight, basically]
>
> Oh, do grow up. Such a silly insult. This *if true* would be hardly
> more mature than calling some kid with glasses "four-eyes" in the
> schoolyard. :P
The repeated calls for me to "grow up" are kind of amusing.
I wonder which of us is chronologically older. Not that that's
particularly relevant, I suppose. As I said elsewhere, anyone
can behave in a juvenile way, me included.
Look, I don't mean to insult you by saying that you view things in
what I think is a distorted way. In my mind it's akin to saying
something like "hey, did you know you have a spider crawling up
your back? might want to do something about that!" Obviously in
your mind it's an insult, though, so let's drop that. The more
I think about it, the more I think the most charitable way of
looking at my side of this conversation is futile do-gooderism.
[ snip ]
> > Before this discussion, I'd have said that I generally try to avoid
> > saying things others would perceive as offensive, even if I didn't
> > share their opinion. Apparently there are exceptions.
>
> A lot of people seem to go out of their way to make exceptions for me
> of a nasty sort. I've no idea why. It seems to be similar to that
> schoolkid with the glasses, though -- people fixate on some random and
> irrelevant thing and unconsciously and collectively come to a decision
> that he's the local stress-reliever and act accordingly. Not caring
> that he probably doesn't want to be used as other peoples' stress
> reliever. :P
Well, I have some guesses about why people pick on you. But I'm
pretty sure you don't want to me explicate them here. Part of it
*is* the pile-on effect you describe below, which I agree is an
unpleasant and objectionable feature of human social interaction:
> All large enough groups of humans have a nasty tendency to do this --
> single someone out by some kind of weird unspoken consensus-forming
> method and treat them as though they had a "kick me" sign taped to
> them. My current guess as to the mechanism is that the group forms
> somehow (e.g. they all enroll in a school one year) and people form
> and join cliques and alliances. The last person left unassociated with
> any of these becomes "it". Of course the same alliances tend to
> persist or get renewed from one year to the next. On the 'net they
> probably just persist continually. In this group it seems the people
> are unconsciously divided into three categories: the transients,
> mostly asking a question or a few about Java; the normal regulars, who
> read and post frequently and have formed into loose associations of
> some sort with one another; and the targets, regulars who have not.
>
> This behavior, while identifiable and analyzable to some extent, is
> nonetheless morally wrong and should obviously stop immediately.
And yet it doesn't, and as best I can tell your efforts to make it
stop by responding to each and every perceived insult are making
the situation worse rather than better. I doubt you'll change your
behavior based on this assessment, or even believe there's any
truth to it, though, so no point in saying more.
> > > I suppose then you would also have no problems
> > > with the old classics of suggesting I were female or liked other guys,
> >
> > Those "old classics" are insulting, all right, but not to the person
> > at whom they're aimed.
>
> Well, by implication they insult a whole gender too, the implication
> being that it's bad to be that gender.
Exactly my point.
[ snip ]
> I was just working out the logical consequences of your policy
> regarding considering saying something about someone fair game if
> *you* wouldn't find it insulting. This clearly means you would have no
> qualms about comparing me to a female, for example, or whatever else
> wouldn't mischaracterize you but would mischaracterize me.
Well, no; it seems obvious to me that whether something is
insulting depends not only on the terms used but on their
target as well. "What a cute girl you are!" might be fine for
a six-year-old female, not so fine for someone older.
This is getting a little tiresome, but maybe I should make one more
attempt to elucidate: I try to imagine, as best I can, whether if
I were in the other person's situation I would find whatever-it-is
insulting. Part of this "try to imagine" is based on what people
in other situations say they find insulting, and why. With you
the best attempt I can make at a general rule is "anything that
might even suggest that Twisted/Nebulous is less than perfect"
may be perceived as an insult. That strikes me as unreasonable,
but -- no, let's not go on, okay? I think it's all been said.
[ snip ]
blm...@myrealbox.com
Lew <l...@lewscanon.com> wrote:
> blm...@myrealbox.com wrote:
> > Example: I dabble a little with Eclipse. For reasons that seem
> > good to me (though that might be debatable), I often create groups
> > of small projects in which the source code lives somewhere other
> > than in Eclipse's workspace. If I move that source code later,
> > I haven't found any way to tell Eclipse about that other than to
> > delete the old projects and create new ones, one at a time, using
> > the GUI, which I find tedious beyond words. If configuration
> > information were stored in text files, I could just do a
> > mass edit and change all occurrences of OldPathToSource with
> > NewPathToSource, which would be a lot less work. (Risky? Maybe.
> > If I were worried, I'd make a backup copy of everything first.)
[ snip ]
> NetBeans lets you simply "open" the project from the new directory. You can
> also configure project properties to point to arbitrary source directory
> locations.
Huh. Not sure that would help, but maybe. Might have to try
NetBeans in addition to Eclipse, though it's hard enough for me
to convince myself to get familiar with *one* IDE :-), and the
people I work with seem to favor Eclipse.
> Eclipse lets you build projects based on other projects. For that IDE locate
> subprojects where you want them and refer to them from projects in other
> locations.
>
> Neither of these answers might work, possibly, in your immediate problem, but
> they may provide future options.
Yeah .... I'm not hearing you say anything, though, about how to
cope with -- really, it's kind of the filesystem equivalent of
rearranging the furniture, and it's something I do, well, maybe
more often than some people -- putting stuff one place, and then
deciding that a different organization of files and directories
would be better, and moving things around. I do sometimes wonder
whether I'm the only one that does such things, because some of
these new-fangled tools sure don't make it easy ....
Another way to cope, I suppose, would be to just put everything
in Eclipse's workspace (possibly having multiple workspaces), and
hope it provides drag-and-drop features that would make all that
rearranging easy. Then the source code files are less easy to
find with other tools (yeah, sometimes I'd rather just compile
and run something from a command line), but .... <shrug>
Hey, this is almost on topic?
Lew
> Yeah .... I'm not hearing you say anything, though, about how to
> cope with -- really, it's kind of the filesystem equivalent of
> rearranging the furniture, and it's something I do, well, maybe
> more often than some people -- putting stuff one place, and then
> deciding that a different organization of files and directories
> would be better, and moving things around. I do sometimes wonder
> whether I'm the only one that does such things, because some of
> these new-fangled tools sure don't make it easy ....
>
> Another way to cope, I suppose, would be to just put everything
> in Eclipse's workspace (possibly having multiple workspaces), and
> hope it provides drag-and-drop features that would make all that
> rearranging easy. Then the source code files are less easy to
> find with other tools (yeah, sometimes I'd rather just compile
> and run something from a command line), but .... <shrug>
Here's how I do it, and it lets me move projects from directory to directory,
computer to computer or Eclipse to Netbeans and v.v.
Store everything in a source repository (CVS or Subversion). Use your IDE to
check it in and out (in CVS: 'cvs co <project> followed by a series of 'cvs
update' / 'cvs commit' cycles). All important IDEs play nicely with at least
CVS, and most with Subversion. When you want to pull the code into a
directory not in the workspace, use the version control to do it. Your
workspace and other directory cannot be out of synch if you are careful always
to check in changes through the version control.
Also, note that in the case of Java source, changing directory structures is
equivalent to changing package structures. Your IDE's refactoring
capabilities will handle that for you.
The beauty of this is that you can use each tool for what it does best. Use
Eclipse to develop. Use command-line tools to rearrange resource files. Use
Ant to deploy nightly. Use JUnit and JMeter to test. They all work off a
sane basis when you use version control to coordinate them.
--
Lew
blm...@myrealbox.com
<nebul...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 13, 7:30 am, RedGrittyBrick <redgrittybr...@spamweary.foo>
> wrote:
> > digraph hu
> > digraph w:
> > ^VUFC12
> >
> > I guess this means that either
> >
> > 1) Vim is *not* one of the "Console-mode archaisms from the 70s".
> >
> > or
> >
> > 2) "Console-mode archaisms from the 70s simply cannot and will not ever
> > decently support unicode" is wrong.
>
> The key word here is "decently". These all look correct to me in
> Google Groups. (I won't vouch for their not being mangled when GG
> sends this followup though.) But you won't be able to see them
> properly when editing in text-mode, unless you switch to a charset
> with the right glyphs. Which means either you're hand-hacking stuff
> like "^VUFC12" or the *English* text nearby is unreadable...
Well, I was curious ....
Running console-mode vim (not gvim) in GNOME's terminal emulator
program on my Linux system, I saw all the characters in the post
by RedGrittyBrick. Not knowing all the relevant alphabets,
I can't be sure they appeared correctly, though they all looked
at least plausible. No idea how they look in Google Groups;
I guess I don't care enough to find out whether a search would
find RGB's post.
After spending a few minutes reading online help about digraphs,
I was able to enter the characters he mentions as being enterable
with digraphs, and there's a table readily accessible showing all
the ones that are currently available. There's also a mention of
"keymaps" that sounds like it could be useful.
Hm, this is getting interesting ....
> And I don't consider having to edit blind to be "decent" support for
> whatever it is I'm having to edit blind.
>
> For composing a post like the one I'm following up to, anything
> limited to displaying one code page at a time is crippling. And
> anything that isn't so limited is obviously not (whatever its
> ancestry) what was originally under discussion.
Well, I believe what was originally under discussion was the
combination of vim and trn, and now we know that vim probably
can do what's needed. (For those who care about such things,
I did initially specify vim and not vi.)
trn I'm not so sure about -- I'm guessing it will probably transmit
whatever file is produced by the text editor used to compose posts,
but it probably won't add appropriate headers. I'm guessing that
"appropriate headers" here means something along the lines of one
of the following, culled from my current archive of posts to cljp:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Hm, I wonder if such headers could be added manually ....
Well, after doing some experiments in misc.test, it appears
that one can, and that with or without them it's possible to
post something containing characters other than 7-bit ASCII and
have them come out okay (as best I can tell anyway). My tools
only get confused when I put in such characters and then add a
Content-Type header specifying us-ascii, which seems utterly
reasonable.
I'm still curious, though, about standards. If I put in Unicode
characters, and add the header
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
does anyone know if this complies with whatever standards exist?
(I'm thinking an RFC somewhere -- I did make a quick attempt to
find out via Google searches, but without success.)
I'll put in some of those Unicode characters here, as another
test ....
A copyright symbol (I hope): ®
An a with an umlaut (I hope): ä
Mike Schilling
"Lew" <l...@lewscanon.com> wrote in message
news:iLKdnR6m5ozNnHHb...@comcast.com...
All good ideas. This also makes it easy to develop at multiple locations
(say, home and work): let the SCM system keep track of your changes for you.
Note that it requires that you work from a "private branch" (or however you
say that in CVS-speak), since you need to be free to check in code that may
not even compile.
Lew
> All good ideas [using version control].
> This also makes it easy to develop at multiple locations
> (say, home and work): let the SCM system keep track of your changes for you.
> Note that it requires that you work from a "private branch" (or however you
> say that in CVS-speak), since you need to be free to check in code that may
> not even compile.
I'd strongly, strongly urge one to avoid checking in any code that breaks the
build (not the run), in particular, code that doesn't compile. I see no
benefit to doing that at all, quite the reverse. It's easy to write code so
that it at least compiles from the class template forward, so there is no
additional effort involved in doing it, and much avoided down the road by
adhering to that one simple, non-egregious rule. Don't break the build.
--
Lew
blm...@myrealbox.com
Lew <l...@lewscanon.com> wrote:
> blm...@myrealbox.com wrote:
> > Yeah .... I'm not hearing you say anything, though, about how to
> > cope with -- really, it's kind of the filesystem equivalent of
> > rearranging the furniture, and it's something I do, well, maybe
> > more often than some people -- putting stuff one place, and then
> > deciding that a different organization of files and directories
> > would be better, and moving things around. I do sometimes wonder
> > whether I'm the only one that does such things, because some of
> > these new-fangled tools sure don't make it easy ....
[ snip ]
> Here's how I do it, and it lets me move projects from directory to directory,
> computer to computer or Eclipse to Netbeans and v.v.
>
> Store everything in a source repository (CVS or Subversion). Use your IDE to
> check it in and out (in CVS: 'cvs co <project> followed by a series of 'cvs
> update' / 'cvs commit' cycles). All important IDEs play nicely with at least
> CVS, and most with Subversion. When you want to pull the code into a
> directory not in the workspace, use the version control to do it. Your
> workspace and other directory cannot be out of synch if you are careful always
> to check in changes through the version control.
Hm!! You know, I think I did vaguely wonder whether CVS would help.
I think you do still need to make a good decision about where to put
the CVS repositories (the "master source"?), since changing that might
be a bit tedious, but not perhaps as tedious ....
I know only a very little bit about CVS, but it's been on my "to
learn more about" list for a while now. And I do have access to a
local semi-expert. Hm ....
> Also, note that in the case of Java source, changing directory structures is
> equivalent to changing package structures. Your IDE's refactoring
> capabilities will handle that for you.
Well, when I talk about rearranging things, I'm not typically
talking about changes that would affect package structure; I'm
talking about moving a whole package directory/hierarchy from one
place in the filesystem to another. Think moving something from
/home/username/javacode to /home/username/javacode-archives, maybe.
Though come to think about it, changing package names is something
I've been known to do as well. Hm, apparently the "obsession with
rearranging the furniture" gene, which I thought somehow got left
off my X chromosomes, can express itself in different ways .... :-)?
> The beauty of this is that you can use each tool for what it does best. Use
> Eclipse to develop. Use command-line tools to rearrange resource files. Use
> Ant to deploy nightly. Use JUnit and JMeter to test. They all work off a
> sane basis when you use version control to coordinate them.
I'm in favor of using the best tool for the job. It's just that
sometimes "best" varies from person to person .... :-)
Lew
> Hm!! You know, I think I did vaguely wonder whether CVS would help.
> I think you do still need to make a good decision about where to put
> the CVS repositories (the "master source"?), since changing that might
> be a bit tedious, but not perhaps as tedious ....
The repository should be a rarely-moving locations, you're absolutely correct.
In CVS's case the repository is merely a directory tree with certain files
and can easily be copied. Naturally only one copy can be considered
authoritative, but it helps in that you can easily back up the CVS repository
tree, and easily restore it.
I keep mine on /opt/cvsrepo, seen as :local: when I'm working from here, but
publishable via :pserver: or other CVS protocols.
When on shared projects, I either make that repository available to
collaborators (via SSH or a web interface), or use a different one provided to
me by whoever manages the shared project. In my own system there is only the
one repository; why clutter things up with more?
--
Lew
blm...@myrealbox.com
Edsel motors are no good? I guess it's possible. All I really
know about the Edsel is that it was, considered as a business
venture, pretty much a total flop. I wouldn't take that as
evidence one way or another about the quality of its various parts.
Still, that's a quibble. You seem to be saying something negative
about vim, and them's fightin' words .... ( :-) !! :-) !! )
A better analogy, from my perspective, is that gvim is like ....
hm, what's an example of a solidly-built and reliable but
unglamorous workhorse vehicle? some brand of pickup truck maybe?
dolled up with lipstick and false eyelashes. Fortunately the
truck's still there, and its controls still work, and the
lipstick doesn't do any obvious harm.
That's not quite it either, since the GUI parts of gvim are really,
in my opinion, more like training wheels than lipstick -- they have
*some* purpose other than decoration -- but it's the best I can do
right now.
But I think we had a full-fledged editor flame war in this group
not too long ago, so maybe this one could be just be -- a flick
of a Bic?