Need clarification on Object.equals.

[ple...@gmail.com]

In the following code Node is an abstract class and both Gate and
Monitor are extensions of Node. a and b are distinct objects yet
a.equals(b) is returning true.

public class Foo {
public static void main(String[] argv){
Node a = new Gate();
Monitor b = new Monitor();
System.out.println(a.equals(b)); // --> prints 'true'
}
}

The underlying production code is a bit complex to include here. My
understanding is that equals is true if, and only if, a and b are
exactly the same object. Here they are not even the same class.


I did do a test stripped down to the bare essence:

public class Foo {
public static void main(String[] argv){
Foo a = new Bar();
Foo b = new Bar();
System.out.println(a.equals(b)); // --> prints 'false'
}
}
class Bar extends Foo {}

In this case the results are as I expected, a.equals(b) --> false

What could be going on here?

java version 1.7.0_06 on 64-bit Fedora 17

[lipska the kat]

On 18/12/12 08:13, ple...@gmail.com wrote:
> In the following code Node is an abstract class and both Gate and
> Monitor are extensions of Node. a and b are distinct objects yet
> a.equals(b) is returning true.
>
> public class Foo {
> public static void main(String[] argv){
> Node a = new Gate();
> Monitor b = new Monitor();
> System.out.println(a.equals(b)); // --> prints 'true'
> }
> }

According to the documentation the contract for equals on instances of
class Object is as follows

"The equals method for class Object implements the most discriminating
possible equivalence relation on objects; that is, for any non-null
reference values x and y, this method returns true if and only if x and
y refer to the same object (x == y has the value true)."

This is obviously the not the case in your example above.
Does the class Node or any of it's superclasses override the equals method ?

The following code returns false as expected

public abstract class Foo {

public static void main(String args[]){
Foo bar = new Bar();
Baz baz = new Baz();
System.out.println(bar.equals(baz));
}
}

class Bar extends Foo{}

class Baz extends Foo{}

...

However, add the following method to the class Foo

public boolean equals(Object obj){
return true;
}

and re-run the code and we get true.

Has someone been messing with equals ?

lipska

--
Lipska the Kat©: Troll hunter, sandbox destroyer
and farscape dreamer of Aeryn Sun

[Roedy Green]

On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 10:39:27 +0000, lipska the kat
<lipska...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone
who said :

>> Node a = new Gate();
>> Monitor b = new Monitor();
>> System.out.println(a.equals(b)); // --> prints 'true'

Gate or one of its superclasses is implementing equals.
--
Roedy Green Canadian Mind Products http://mindprod.com
Students who hire or con others to do their homework are as foolish
as couch potatoes who hire others to go to the gym for them.

[markspace]

On 12/18/2012 12:13 AM, ple...@gmail.com wrote:
> Node a = new Gate();
> Monitor b = new Monitor();
> System.out.println(a.equals(b)); // --> prints 'true'

...

> The underlying production code is a bit complex to include here. My

This is a red flag. The code should not be so complex that you can't
show us what is really going on. If it *is* too complex, then likely
the issue is the complexity itself.

However, I think Roedy zeroed in on the most likely cause. Your
abstract class, Node (or some superclass), implements equals()
*incorrectly* and is returning true when it should not. Probably Node()
should not implement equals() at all.

Show us the implementation of equals() for Node (and probably Gate too,
that version of equals() could also be borked in the example you gave)
and we'll point out the error.

[ple...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, December 18, 2012 12:24:44 PM UTC-6, markspace wrote:
> On 12/18/2012 12:13 AM,
>

It is complex because it is a large application. I can either post the several hundred lines of source or the the 6 which adequately illustrates the point. Node does not implement equals at all as you say

[ple...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, December 18, 2012 4:39:27 AM UTC-6, lipska the kat wrote:
> On 18/12/12 08:13,

> Lipska the Kat�: Troll hunter, sandbox destroyer

>
> and farscape dreamer of Aeryn Sun

Thanks for your response,

I see where the problem is. I do not directly implement equals, however Node is an extension of AbstractSet which does redefine equals. As it turns out I was in the process of rewriting Node so that it no longer extends AbsteractSet when the anomaly popped up in test code, so it is actually a mote point.

[Peter Duniho]

On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 04:48:16 -0800, Roedy Green wrote:

> On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 10:39:27 +0000, lipska the kat
> <lipska...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone
> who said :
>
>>> Node a = new Gate();
>>> Monitor b = new Monitor();
>>> System.out.println(a.equals(b)); // --> prints 'true'
>
> Gate or one of its superclasses is implementing equals.

And doing it incorrectly, I'd say.

[David Lamb]

Roedy suggested Gate, not Node, might implement "equals". Does it?

There's likely not much people can do to help without more context. The
"6 lines" don't adequately "illustrate the point" because from them
alone nobody can say for sure what your problem is. Roedy's guess might
be the best advice you're going to get.

[ple...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, December 18, 2012 1:01:51 PM UTC-6, David Lamb wrote:

Yes I understand that. In fact, as I pointed out in a subsequent post, none of my code defines equals, Node was however extending AbstractSet which does redefine it. Really All I was looking for was a general direction I might look and not to burden anyone with large blocks of code. Node is 212 lines, Gate is 67, Monitor another 85, none of which even once mentions the word "equals"

My issue with Roedy's response was not the helpful suggestion to look at super classes but rather that it comes off as lecturing, and frankly rather condescending.

[ple...@gmail.com]

Im sorry I meant markspace's responce not Roedy's

[Lew]

ple...@com wrote:

> My issue with [markspace]'s response was not the helpful suggestion to look at super classes but rather that it comes off as lecturing, and frankly rather condescending.

Wow. You really are a piece of work.

You come here asking people to volunteer assistance to you out of the goodness of their hearts.

markspace wrote nothing at all to justify your remark. He was objective, and offered to review
your code for you. He gave you advice on how to present the code so that
kind volunteers can help. You respond with this garbage instead of thanks?

What the hell is wrong with you?

> My understanding is that equals is true if, and only if, a and b are
> exactly the same object. Here they are not even the same class.

That's your misunderstanding. How about you read the Java tutorials to find out
what the truth is about 'equals()'?

--
Lew

[Jim Janney]

ple...@gmail.com writes:

>
> Thanks for your response,
>
> I see where the problem is. I do not directly implement equals, however Node is an extension of AbstractSet which does redefine equals. As it turns out I was in the process of rewriting Node so that it no longer extends AbsteractSet when the anomaly popped up in test code, so it is actually a mote point.

And in terms of set equality the test objects are indeed equal, since
each represents the empty set.

--
Jim Janney

[Patricia Shanahan]

The AbstractSet equals method being inappropriate for Node is a symptom
of Node not being a Set. I think changing it to not extend AbstractSet
is a good move.

Patricia

[Arne Vajhøj]

On 12/18/2012 3:13 AM, ple...@gmail.com wrote:
> In the following code Node is an abstract class and both Gate and
> Monitor are extensions of Node. a and b are distinct objects yet
> a.equals(b) is returning true.
>
> public class Foo {
> public static void main(String[] argv){
> Node a = new Gate();
> Monitor b = new Monitor();
> System.out.println(a.equals(b)); // --> prints 'true'
> }
> }
>
> The underlying production code is a bit complex to include here. My
> understanding is that equals is true if, and only if, a and b are
> exactly the same object. Here they are not even the same class.

If you post complete code illustrating the problem, then
it can be solved in a few minutes.

Our telepathic abilities are not very good.

Arne

[Arne Vajhøj]

On 12/18/2012 1:48 PM, ple...@gmail.com wrote:
> It is complex because it is a large application. I can either post
> the several hundred lines of source or the the 6 which adequately
> illustrates the point. Node does not implement equals at all as you
> say

Those 6 lines are completely inadequate for any type of troubleshooting.

They contain zero new information compared to your description of the
problem in English.

Arne

[Arne Vajhøj]

On 12/18/2012 3:17 PM, ple...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 18, 2012 2:14:58 PM UTC-6, ple...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Tuesday, December 18, 2012 1:01:51 PM UTC-6, David Lamb wrote:
>>> On 18/12/2012 1:48 PM, p...mail.com wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, December 18, 2012 12:24:44 PM UTC-6, markspace wrote:
>>>>> Show us the implementation of equals() for Node (and probably Gate too,
>>>>> that version of equals() could also be borked in the example you gave)
>>>>> and we'll point out the error.
>>>> It is complex because it is a large application. I can either post the several hundred lines
>>>> of source or the the 6 which adequately illustrates the point.

>>> There's likely not much people can do to help without more context. The
>>> "6 lines" don't adequately "illustrate the point" because from them
>>> alone nobody can say for sure what your problem is. Roedy's guess might
>>> be the best advice you're going to get.
>>
>> Yes I understand that. In fact, as I pointed out in a subsequent
>> post, none of my code defines equals, Node was however extending
>> AbstractSet which does redefine it. Really All I was looking for was a
>> general direction I might look and not to burden anyone with large
>> blocks of code. Node is 212 lines, Gate is 67, Monitor another 85, none
>> of which even once mentions the word "equals"
>>
>> My issue with Roedy's response was not the helpful suggestion to

>> lookat super classes but rather that it comes off as lecturing,

>> and frankly rather condescending.
>
> Im sorry I meant markspace's responce not Roedy's

You had a problem.

A problem which is relative easy to troubleshoot with
some basic Java knowledge.

You posted the problem here with absolutely no information
to help identify the problem.

What do you expect?

We can not do anything but provide some guesses the presence of
an equals in a class or parent class - and explain some basics
about how equals work.

So stop whining and learn to post better questions.

Arne

[lipska the kat]

On 19/12/12 03:16, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 12/18/2012 3:17 PM, ple...@gmail.com wrote:

[snip]

>
> So stop whining and learn to post better question.

Now I'm not normally driven to using bad language but
What the f**k is wrong with you people.
This is Usenet, not your private little universe.

I've noticed this a lot in various newsgroups that I have been
frequenting of late. People who are regular contributors get the idea
that foo.bar.baz newsgroup is their private domain and anyone who has
the temerity to post a question that doesn't meet their exacting
standards get flamed and scolded and told to stop whining.

I get told off but I have the skin of a Rhino and none of you silly
little jibes affect me or my life in any way whatsoever. Not everyone is
so unaffected.

Please think before you flame.

Oh, and by the way, my flames are ALWAYS justified :-)

lipska

--
Lipska the Kat©: Troll hunter, sandbox destroyer

[Patricia Shanahan]

On 12/19/2012 2:20 AM, lipska the kat wrote:
...

> I've noticed this a lot in various newsgroups that I have been
> frequenting of late. People who are regular contributors get the idea
> that foo.bar.baz newsgroup is their private domain and anyone who has
> the temerity to post a question that doesn't meet their exacting
> standards get flamed and scolded and told to stop whining.
>
> I get told off but I have the skin of a Rhino and none of you silly
> little jibes affect me or my life in any way whatsoever. Not everyone is
> so unaffected.

...

I strongly agree with this, except I would have preferred "Some people
who are regular contributors ...".

Patricia

[lipska the kat]

Concur, my mistake.

[Arne Vajhøj]

On 12/19/2012 5:20 AM, lipska the kat wrote:

> On 19/12/12 03:16, Arne Vajh�j wrote:
>> On 12/18/2012 3:17 PM, ple...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>
>> So stop whining and learn to post better question.
>
> Now I'm not normally driven to using bad language but
> What the f**k is wrong with you people.
> This is Usenet, not your private little universe.

> Please think before you flame.

May I suggest that you take your own advice and
read and think before posting.

The case here is that:
* OP posted a question
* the question did not provide sufficient info
to answer it
* nobody took offense of that and OP got several
replies explained that it was difficult to say,
suggested possible reasons and explained how
equals is supposed to work
* OP characterized one of the repliers
as lecturing and condescending

I suggest that you direct you anger towards OP.

Arne

[Arne Vajhøj]

Do you agree that it is acceptable behavior calling a named
replier lecturing and condescending due to this post:

<quote>

This is a red flag. The code should not be so complex that you can't
show us what is really going on. If it *is* too complex, then likely
the issue is the complexity itself.

However, I think Roedy zeroed in on the most likely cause. Your
abstract class, Node (or some superclass), implements equals()
*incorrectly* and is returning true when it should not. Probably Node()
should not implement equals() at all.

Show us the implementation of equals() for Node (and probably Gate too,
that version of equals() could also be borked in the example you gave)
and we'll point out the error.

<quote>

??

Arne

[Arne Vajhøj]

My point is that while newbies do have a "allowed to post
stupid questions" card, then they do not have a "allowed
to insult others without being criticized for it" card.

Arne

[lipska the kat]

On 19/12/12 14:09, Arne Vajhøj wrote:

> On 12/19/2012 9:07 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 12/19/2012 6:22 AM, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
>>> On 12/19/2012 2:20 AM, lipska the kat wrote:
>>> ...

[snip]

>
> My point is that while newbies do have a "allowed to post
> stupid questions" card,

Your arrogance is almost beyond belief. Listen to yourself
You really do think that you are in some way qualified to pass judgment
on what is a stupid question and what isn't.

This is USENET, you don't own it, you don't have the right to tell
people what they can and cannot post, in fact you are just another
faceless whiner among so many faceless whiners.

Maybe you and cadre of self appointed administrators should go and hang
out on IRC, then you can ban people who you don't agree with ... massage
your overinflated egos a bit more.

jeez, I haven't got this worked up in a while.

[Arne Vajhøj]

On 12/19/2012 9:36 AM, lipska the kat wrote:
> On 19/12/12 14:09, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 12/19/2012 9:07 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>> On 12/19/2012 6:22 AM, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
>>>> On 12/19/2012 2:20 AM, lipska the kat wrote:
>>>> ...
>
> [snip]
>
>>
>> My point is that while newbies do have a "allowed to post

>> stupid questions" card, then they do not have a "allowed
>> to insult others without being criticized for it" card.

> Your arrogance is almost beyond belief. Listen to yourself
> You really do think that you are in some way qualified to pass judgment
> on what is a stupid question and what isn't.

Congratulations you completely missed the point.

> This is USENET, you don't own it, you don't have the right to tell
> people what they can and cannot post,

And you are trying to do what?

Arne

[Joshua Cranmer]

On 12/19/2012 8:36 AM, lipska the kat wrote:
> On 19/12/12 14:09, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 12/19/2012 9:07 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>> On 12/19/2012 6:22 AM, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
>>>> On 12/19/2012 2:20 AM, lipska the kat wrote:
>>>> ...
>
> [snip]
>
>>
>> My point is that while newbies do have a "allowed to post
>> stupid questions" card,
>
> Your arrogance is almost beyond belief. Listen to yourself
> You really do think that you are in some way qualified to pass judgment
> on what is a stupid question and what isn't.

I would suggest that you finish reading entire posts before starting
yelling matches, for if you had finished the sentence (assuming basic
fluency in reading comprehension), you would have learned that Arne was
opining that the criterion for what should be considered socially
acceptable by this newsgroup isn't the quality of the question but
rather by whether or not it is insulting. Also note that there was in no
way any attempt to delineate specifically what class of questions
corresponds to "stupid questions," which is apt because the entire point
of the post was to postulate the nonimportance of such a class.

Unless you were trying to be ironic.

--
Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not
tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth

[lipska the kat]

On 19/12/12 14:42, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 12/19/2012 9:36 AM, lipska the kat wrote:
>> On 19/12/12 14:09, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>> On 12/19/2012 9:07 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>> On 12/19/2012 6:22 AM, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
>>>>> On 12/19/2012 2:20 AM, lipska the kat wrote:
>>>>> ...
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>>
>>> My point is that while newbies do have a "allowed to post
>>> stupid questions" card, then they do not have a "allowed
>>> to insult others without being criticized for it" card.
>
>> Your arrogance is almost beyond belief. Listen to yourself
>> You really do think that you are in some way qualified to pass judgment
>> on what is a stupid question and what isn't.
>
> Congratulations you completely missed the point.

No I didn't and I quote

"My point is that while newbies do have a "allowed to post
stupid questions" card"

Who 'allows' them to post stupid questions.
You ?

Who decides who is a newbie
You ?

Who decides it is a stupid question
You ?

And before you use the 'community' card

Who made you the spokesperson
You ?

Well ?

[Lars Enderin]

2012-12-19 16:05, lipska the kat skrev:

> On 19/12/12 14:42, Arne Vajh�j wrote:
>> On 12/19/2012 9:36 AM, lipska the kat wrote:

>>> On 19/12/12 14:09, Arne Vajh�j wrote:

You're overreacting, in a big way (and there should be no space before
?). You completely missed the spirit (and point) of Arne's response(s).



--
Lars Enderin

[Arne Vajhøj]

Yes - you missed the point, but let me try to explain again.

My point is that I am not objecting to questions whether
I consider them stupid or not (or whether I consider the
person a newbie or not) - I am objecting to the
person asking the question insulting those that try to help.

Arne

[Leif Roar Moldskred]

lipska the kat <lipska...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Who 'allows' them to post stupid questions.
> You ?

Liberal killfile policies, mostly.

It's a self-correcting problem, mostly.

--
Leif Roar Moldskred

[Joshua Cranmer]

On 12/18/2012 2:14 PM, ple...@gmail.com wrote:
> Yes I understand that. In fact, as I pointed out in a subsequent
> post, none of my code defines equals, Node was however extending
> AbstractSet which does redefine it. Really All I was looking for was
> a general direction I might look and not to burden anyone with large
> blocks of code. Node is 212 lines, Gate is 67, Monitor another 85,
> none of which even once mentions the word "equals"

Your original post gave no indication that Node inherited from
AbstractSet. Actually, you gave no indication of any inheritance
structure, etc. The only way we could know what the problem was would be
to either read your mind or to give a general, vague answer. Providing
sufficient information to mention this would have precluded the whole
debate.

That's why there's so much emphasis on the SSCCEs (short,
self-contained, compilable code examples) in this newsgroup: if you can
minimize the problem down to a self-contained solution that is small
enough to include in a post, it gives all the information we need. And,
often times, just trying to minimize it may lead you to the answer
without needing to ask the question in the first place.

[lipska the kat]

On 19/12/12 14:58, Joshua Cranmer wrote:
> On 12/19/2012 8:36 AM, lipska the kat wrote:
>> On 19/12/12 14:09, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>> On 12/19/2012 9:07 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>> On 12/19/2012 6:22 AM, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
>>>>> On 12/19/2012 2:20 AM, lipska the kat wrote:
>>>>> ...
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>>
>>> My point is that while newbies do have a "allowed to post
>>> stupid questions" card,
>>

>> Your arrogance is almost beyond belief. Listen to yourself
>> You really do think that you are in some way qualified to pass judgment
>> on what is a stupid question and what isn't.
>
> I would suggest that you finish reading entire posts before starting
> yelling matches, for if you had finished the sentence (assuming basic
> fluency in reading comprehension), you would have learned that Arne was
> opining that the criterion for what should be considered socially
> acceptable by this newsgroup isn't the quality of the question but
> rather by whether or not it is insulting. Also note that there was in no
> way any attempt to delineate specifically what class of questions
> corresponds to "stupid questions," which is apt because the entire point
> of the post was to postulate the nonimportance of such a class.

Well for someone who can spout such a long winded discourse about
nothing in particular I'm surprised you don't see the obvious.

Allow me to explain as simply as possible.

Lets take the sentence

"allowed to post stupid questions"

Who or what exactly 'allows' someone to post a question. I suggest it is
the nntp protocol over the users internet connection, it certainly isn't
you or one of you little group of self appointed administrators.

The word 'stupid' in the context of a question implies an analysis of
the question and an opinion as to it's stupidity, who's opinion exactly,
yours ?

What makes you or anyone else qualified to determine the validity of any
question anywhere on Usenet ... your own grossly inflated ego perhaps.

You are missing the point. It is not this particular instance of
arrogance I particularly object to although there have been some
spectacular instances of arrogance here today, but the general
preponderance of puffed up self appointed quasi academic popinjays
that inhabit usenet in general and this group in particular and are
strangling what should be a forum for the free and frank exchange of views.

> Unless you were trying to be ironic.

Oh the irony

[lipska the kat]

On 19/12/12 15:22, Leif Roar Moldskred wrote:
> lipska the kat<lipska...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> Who 'allows' them to post stupid questions.
>> You ?
>
> Liberal killfile policies, mostly.
>
> It's a self-correcting problem, mostly.
>

Good idea

*plonk*

[lipska the kat]

Well you still don't get it do you
I don't defend insulting behavior but sometimes flesh and blood can
stand just so much, lets try again. One question at a time.

You said

"My point is that while newbies do have a "allowed to post
stupid questions" card"

Who 'allows' them to post stupid questions.

Do you understand the question

It's a very simple question, really it is. who is it ?
I really do want to know.

[Arne Vajhøj]

An SSCCE would have been great.

But even something as simple as:

public abstract class Node extends AbstractSet {
// no equals method
}

public class Gate extends Node {
// no equals method
}

public class Monitor extends Node {
// no equals method

}

Node a = new Gate();
Monitor b = new Monitor();
System.out.println(a.equals(b)); // --> prints 'true'

would have helped.

But I don't know if it is so relevant. That distillation almost require
knowing what the problem is.

Arne

[lipska the kat]

On 19/12/12 15:15, Lars Enderin wrote:
> 2012-12-19 16:05, lipska the kat skrev:

>> On 19/12/12 14:42, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>> On 12/19/2012 9:36 AM, lipska the kat wrote:

>>>> On 19/12/12 14:09, Arne Vajhøj wrote:

This is Usenet, if you don't like it, go somewhere else. I do like it so
I'm staying and I will continue however futile it may be to stand up
against the ludicrous pomposity and arrogance I see here. Get used to it.

[Peter Duniho]

On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 14:36:21 +0000, lipska the kat wrote:

> On 19/12/12 14:09, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 12/19/2012 9:07 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>> On 12/19/2012 6:22 AM, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
>>>> On 12/19/2012 2:20 AM, lipska the kat wrote:
>>>> ...
>
> [snip]
>
>>
>> My point is that while newbies do have a "allowed to post
>> stupid questions" card,
>
> Your arrogance is almost beyond belief. Listen to yourself
> You really do think that you are in some way qualified to pass judgment
> on what is a stupid question and what isn't.

That's not what Arne's saying at all. In fact, practically the opposite.
After all, taking as granted that newbies have an "allowed to post stupid
questions" card (or put slightly differently, "there are no stupid
questions"), which Arne clearly has done, then there's no need at all to
"pass judgment on what is a stupid question", never mind any indication
Arne feels he's "qualified" to do so (though frankly, he's answered enough
questions on Usenet over the years that if anyone is, surely he is).

Neither he nor Mark have in any way suggested that the question is stupid.
Mark's initial reply was entirely factual, including the part where he
offered EVEN MORE ASSISTANCE.

If by "lecturing" the OP means "stated several correct facts, one after the
other" and by "condescending" the OP means "demonstrated superior knowledge
of a subject", then sure...I suppose Mark's reply might have been those
things (after all, it's practically impossible to answer a fact-based
question without stating facts and demonstrating superior knowledge).

But that's not how most of the rest of us defined those words. Usually, we
use them to carry a negative connotation, and frankly it seems pretty clear
that the OP intended them to carry that same negative connotation, not the
harmless alternate definitions I've hypothesized. And there's just no way
Mark's reply fits the conventional definitions of those words.

> This is USENET, you don't own it, you don't have the right to tell
> people what they can and cannot post, in fact you are just another
> faceless whiner among so many faceless whiners.

No one's telling anyone what they can and cannot post. No one has told the
OP that they shouldn't have posted their question. They ARE telling the OP
that he's being completely ridiculous to accuse Mark of lecturing and
condescension.

> Maybe you and cadre of self appointed administrators should go and hang
> out on IRC, then you can ban people who you don't agree with ... massage
> your overinflated egos a bit more.
>
> jeez, I haven't got this worked up in a while.

Given your apparently and shockingly low threshold of taking offense, even
on behalf of someone else, that seems difficult to believe.

Pete

[Arne Vajhøj]

Then why do you complain about me pointing out insulting behavior?

Arne

[Arne Vajhøj]

On 12/19/2012 10:22 AM, Leif Roar Moldskred wrote:
> lipska the kat <lipska...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> Who 'allows' them to post stupid questions.
>> You ?
>
> Liberal killfile policies, mostly.
>
> It's a self-correcting problem, mostly.

:-)

Arne

[Lars Enderin]

Did I imply that I don't like Usenet? You seem to misunderstand a lot.
And I don't see much pomposity and arrogance here. I've been on Usenet
for 25 years or more.

--
Lars Enderin

[Lars Enderin]

You are takings things too literally. Makes me think of Asperger's
syndrome and related.

--
Lars Enderin

[FredK]

On Tuesday, December 18, 2012 10:56:19 AM UTC-8, Peter Duniho wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 04:48:16 -0800, Roedy Green wrote: > On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 10:39:27 +0000, lipska the kat > <lipska...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone > who said : > >>> Node a = new Gate(); >>> Monitor b = new Monitor(); >>> System.out.println(a.equals(b)); // --> prints 'true' > > Gate or one of its superclasses is implementing equals. And doing it incorrectly, I'd say.

Why would you think it was done incorrectly?
For most classes, a.equals(b) is not the same as a==b.
Think about string:
string a = "abc");
string b = new string(a);
Clearly a==b is false, but a.equals(b) is true.

Usually the equals() method returns true if the internal state of both objects is the same.

[Arne Vajhøj]

It is rather unusual to have objects of different classes considered
equals.

Your example is different.

Arne

[Patricia Shanahan]

I think "inappropriately" might have been a better word than
"incorrectly". The inherited .equals method was a fine .equals method
for a Set. Indeed, it does exactly what a Set .equals method is required
to do, according to the Set contract.

The problem was that AbstractSet was being extended by a class that is
apparently not intended to be used as a Set implementation. The
inherited .equals method was not an appropriate .equals method for Node.

Patricia

[Lars Enderin]

Both Gate and Monitor were extensions of AbstractSet, and empty, which
eventually led to Set#containsAll, and thus equals, returning true.

--
Lars Enderin

[lipska the kat]

On 19/12/12 15:48, Peter Duniho wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 14:36:21 +0000, lipska the kat wrote:
>
>> On 19/12/12 14:09, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>> On 12/19/2012 9:07 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>> On 12/19/2012 6:22 AM, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
>>>>> On 12/19/2012 2:20 AM, lipska the kat wrote:
>>>>> ...
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>>
>>> My point is that while newbies do have a "allowed to post
>>> stupid questions" card,
>>
>> Your arrogance is almost beyond belief. Listen to yourself
>> You really do think that you are in some way qualified to pass judgment
>> on what is a stupid question and what isn't.
>
> That's not what Arne's saying at all. In fact, practically the opposite.
> After all, taking as granted that newbies have an "allowed to post stupid
> questions" card (or put slightly differently, "there are no stupid
> questions"), which Arne clearly has done, then there's no need at all to
> "pass judgment on what is a stupid question", never mind any indication
> Arne feels he's "qualified" to do so (though frankly, he's answered enough
> questions on Usenet over the years that if anyone is, surely he is).

If there are 'no stupid questions' then how can someone be 'allowed to
ask a stupid question"

It's just a question

And here's a thing. Why do Arne and his pals feel the need to chastise
someone for being 'insulting' to a particular responder. Surely that
responder will speak up if he feels offended.

Why do you or Arne or anyone else for that matter feel the need to
interfere in this way. Do you feel you have a right because you have
'been on Usenet for 25 years' or so. Why don't you let people speak for
themselves.

[snip]

>
> Given your apparently and shockingly low threshold of taking offense, even
> on behalf of someone else, that seems difficult to believe.

There you go again, making assumptions. The very first thing I was
taught when studying for my Computer Science degree was 'never assume
anything'

I too have been using Usenet for 20 odd years, I've been reading this
group on and off for years ... today or yesterday or whenever it was
just struck a nerve. I've been ignoring pompous self important self
appointed busybodies for all that time so I'd appreciate it if you
didn't don't make assumptions about something you know nothing about.

Anyway I think I've got to the bottom of what it is that's bugging me.
It's this apparent right you (collectively) feel you have to chastise
someone for behaviour you feel is inappropriate for this group.

Why can't you just mind your own business.

[lipska the kat]

Well you wouldn't I guess

I have a question

Why do you (collectively) feel the need to chastise someone for
behaviour that you decide is inappropriate for this group when that
behaviour is not directed at you. I expand on this in a reply to Arne
elsewhere.

[Arne Vajhøj]

Yes. We know that now. And the problem was solved by not
extending that.

But if the class should continue to extend from
that it should probably have overridden equals again
with an implementation that did use instanceof to test
for type (it could have called super.equals after that
if appropriate).

Arne

[lipska the kat]

On 19/12/12 14:42, Arne Vajh�j wrote:
> On 12/19/2012 9:36 AM, lipska the kat wrote:

>> On 19/12/12 14:09, Arne Vajh�j wrote:

>>> On 12/19/2012 9:07 AM, Arne Vajh�j wrote:
>>>> On 12/19/2012 6:22 AM, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
>>>>> On 12/19/2012 2:20 AM, lipska the kat wrote:
>>>>> ...
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>>
>>> My point is that while newbies do have a "allowed to post
>>> stupid questions" card, then they do not have a "allowed
>>> to insult others without being criticized for it" card.
>
>> Your arrogance is almost beyond belief. Listen to yourself
>> You really do think that you are in some way qualified to pass judgment
>> on what is a stupid question and what isn't.
>
> Congratulations you completely missed the point.
>
>> This is USENET, you don't own it, you don't have the right to tell
>> people what they can and cannot post,

I think I've got to the bottom of what it is that's set me off.
As I explained elsewhere I too have been using usenet for 20 odd years
and reading this group for almost as long as I can remember.

I think what REALLY pisses me off is the attitude that you and the
others in you little clique have towards the chastisment of people for
what you consider to be inappropriate behaviour for this group when that

behaviour is not directed at you.

This is an aggressive 'wolf pack' style behaviour that is designed to
overwhelm and subdue people you decide have behaved inappropriately in
comp.lang.java.programmer. Fortunately this type of behaviour does not
affect me in the slightest. Having stared death squarely in the face on
more than one occasion, to me, it is mearly an annoyance. This time it
seems to have annoyed me more than usual however. Other less experienced
people would no doubt feel highly intimidated and leave
comp.lang.java.programmer never to return.

I'll leave the question of why you feel qualified to decide on the
appropriateness or otherwise of anyones behaviour until another time.

What do you and you pals have to say for yourselves.

[Joshua Cranmer]

When you have four people who have all pointed out that you probably
missed the point, the evidence is in favor that you miscomprehended the
intended point of the state.

> Lets take the sentence
>
> "allowed to post stupid questions"
>
> Who or what exactly 'allows' someone to post a question. I suggest it is
> the nntp protocol over the users internet connection, it certainly isn't
> you or one of you little group of self appointed administrators.

If you read what I wrote (I suspect you didn't, at least not closely),
you will notice that I referred to it as "what [is] considered socially
acceptable by this newsgroup"; that is how I read "allowed to post."

> What makes you or anyone else qualified to determine the validity of any
> question anywhere on Usenet ... your own grossly inflated ego perhaps.

And the entire point of Arne's post in the first place was that whether
or not a question is socially accepted in this newsgroup is
*independent* of its valuation as a "stupid question" or not. He never
portrayed himself as qualified to determine the metric of how stupid or
not stupid a question is.

> You are missing the point. It is not this particular instance of
> arrogance I particularly object to although there have been some
> spectacular instances of arrogance here today, but the general
> preponderance of puffed up self appointed quasi academic popinjays
> that inhabit usenet in general and this group in particular and are
> strangling what should be a forum for the free and frank exchange of views.

Oh, so you dislike everyone who acts like you. I get it. :-)

[Arne Vajhøj]

On 12/19/2012 11:48 AM, lipska the kat wrote:
> And here's a thing. Why do Arne and his pals feel the need to chastise
> someone for being 'insulting' to a particular responder. Surely that
> responder will speak up if he feels offended.
>
> Why do you or Arne or anyone else for that matter feel the need to
> interfere in this way. Do you feel you have a right because you have
> 'been on Usenet for 25 years' or so. Why don't you let people speak for
> themselves.

> Anyway I think I've got to the bottom of what it is that's bugging me.
> It's this apparent right you (collectively) feel you have to chastise
> someone for behaviour you feel is inappropriate for this group.
>
> Why can't you just mind your own business.

If that is your opinion, then why did *you* comment??

Arne

[Lars Enderin]

Why don't you like it when somebody stands up for somebody else? It's
not abnormal behaviour. And in this case Arne may have felt that the
OP's reply was (also) directed at him. But I am not allowed to answer
for Arne, right?

--
Lars Enderin

[lipska the kat]

Well in the real world nobody answers for me except me. I stand and fall
by my own decisions and am quite prepared to take the consequences of my
actions however harsh those consequences may be.

However we are not in the real world are we. We are in a world where
it's easy to gang up on someone who doesn't fit your idea of
'acceptable' and escape without any of the consequences that might
accrue were you to exhibit that behaviour with a flesh and blood person.

I don't have an issue with standing up for your friends when it is
warrented however I do have an issue with the aggressive pack like
rounding on some unfortunate individual who steps on your delicate
little toes.

Witness the forthporing of vitriol and invective from you and others in
this group to my 'frank and lively exchange of views' with Arne although
what the f**k it has got to do with you is anyones guess.

Anyway, this has been an exhilarating and enjoyable exchange and you can
be sure that I will speak up in future when and if I see it happening again.

[lipska the kat]

On 19/12/12 17:08, Joshua Cranmer wrote:
> On 12/19/2012 9:32 AM, lipska the kat wrote:
>> On 19/12/12 14:58, Joshua Cranmer wrote:
>>> On 12/19/2012 8:36 AM, lipska the kat wrote:
>>>> On 19/12/12 14:09, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>>> On 12/19/2012 9:07 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/19/2012 6:22 AM, Patricia Shanahan wrote:

[snip]

>
> Oh, so you dislike everyone who acts like you. I get it. :-)

I seriously doubt if you get anything other than your own inflated sense
of self importance. See elsewhere for a discourse on the frankly rather
distasteful behaviour exhibited by you and your little band of brothers
towards me and others in this group.

[Patricia Shanahan]

On 12/19/2012 9:06 AM, Arne Vajh�j wrote:
> On 12/19/2012 11:43 AM, Lars Enderin wrote:

AbstractSet implements Set, so all its subclasses also implement Set.

That means they are bound by the Set contract for .equals, which treats
all classes that implement Set the same way. There might be a
performance advantage to overriding AbstractSet's .equals in some cases,
but its result would have to be preserved.

The right solution is, of course, the action the OP is already taking -
don't extend AbstractSet unless you really are implementing a Set, and
intend to follow the Set contract.

Patricia

[Lars Enderin]

2012-12-19 18:32, lipska the kat skrev:

> On 19/12/12 17:08, Joshua Cranmer wrote:
>> On 12/19/2012 9:32 AM, lipska the kat wrote:
>>> On 19/12/12 14:58, Joshua Cranmer wrote:
>>>> On 12/19/2012 8:36 AM, lipska the kat wrote:
>>>>> On 19/12/12 14:09, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/19/2012 9:07 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/19/2012 6:22 AM, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>
>> Oh, so you dislike everyone who acts like you. I get it. :-)
>
> I seriously doubt if you get anything other than your own inflated sense
> of self importance. See elsewhere for a discourse on the frankly rather
> distasteful behaviour exhibited by you and your little band of brothers
> towards me and others in this group.

I don't see how you arrive at those terms of characterization from what
has been written here. How do you determine that Joshua has an inflated
sense of self-importance? What makes you use words like "distasteful"? I
submit that your views may be more than a little skewed.

--
Lars Enderin

[lipska the kat]

Because someone needs to speak out. Like I said elsewhere, I'm immune to
your gang based nonsense, others might not be so.

The behaviour of you and you pals is unacceptable to me. This is my
opinion, not someone elses, I don't expect or ask for anyone to stand up
for me or take my side, and by unacceptable I mean the rounding on a
single individual en-mass is unacceptable to me ... don't get what I am
talking about.? just count the number of aggressive posts aimed at me
over my discussion with you. What's the matter, can't you stand up for
yourself, As my father used to say, "are you a man or a mouse". Do you
need your 'friends' to massage your ego, tell THEM to mind their own
business.

If I see this behaviour again I will take you to task again.

[lipska the kat]

Again, you just don't seem to get it do you.
What has this got to do with you. If you think for one minute that I am
intimidated by your aggressive bahaviour then I suggest it is you who
needs a reality check. Mind Your Own Business.

If 'Joshua' has a problem with me let him be the one to speak.

Are you having a problem with the English ?

There are several passable translators on the WWW, do you want me to
Google that for you.

[Joshua Cranmer]

On 12/19/2012 11:32 AM, lipska the kat wrote:
> On 19/12/12 17:08, Joshua Cranmer wrote:
>> Oh, so you dislike everyone who acts like you. I get it. :-)
>
> I seriously doubt if you get anything other than your own inflated sense
> of self importance. See elsewhere for a discourse on the frankly rather
> distasteful behaviour exhibited by you and your little band of brothers
> towards me and others in this group.

That statement was not meant to be taken seriously. To match your
exacting statements, I shall henceforth extricate any attempt at humor
from all future postings.

[lipska the kat]

On 19/12/12 18:00, Joshua Cranmer wrote:
> On 12/19/2012 11:32 AM, lipska the kat wrote:
>> On 19/12/12 17:08, Joshua Cranmer wrote:
>>> Oh, so you dislike everyone who acts like you. I get it. :-)
>>
>> I seriously doubt if you get anything other than your own inflated sense
>> of self importance. See elsewhere for a discourse on the frankly rather
>> distasteful behaviour exhibited by you and your little band of brothers
>> towards me and others in this group.
>
> That statement was not meant to be taken seriously. To match your
> exacting statements, I shall henceforth extricate any attempt at humor
> from all future postings.

Oh it was humor was it... I'm sorry, I seem to have undergone a bit of a
humor bypass recently, perhaps you have noticed.

[lipska the kat]

On 19/12/12 17:58, lipska the kat wrote:

>> What makes you use words like "distasteful"?

What do you call the mass aggressive rounding on an individual who has
'upset' one of your tribe.
I could call it cowardice but I'll be kind and call it distasteful.

I'm feeling kind today

Perhaps that is how you behave in your day to day life, well it's not
how we behave where I come from.

[Arne Vajhøj]

On 12/19/2012 1:06 PM, lipska the kat wrote:
> On 19/12/12 18:00, Joshua Cranmer wrote:
>> On 12/19/2012 11:32 AM, lipska the kat wrote:
>>> On 19/12/12 17:08, Joshua Cranmer wrote:
>>>> Oh, so you dislike everyone who acts like you. I get it. :-)
>>>
>>> I seriously doubt if you get anything other than your own inflated sense
>>> of self importance. See elsewhere for a discourse on the frankly rather
>>> distasteful behaviour exhibited by you and your little band of brothers
>>> towards me and others in this group.
>>
>> That statement was not meant to be taken seriously. To match your
>> exacting statements, I shall henceforth extricate any attempt at humor
>> from all future postings.
>
> Oh it was humor was it... I'm sorry, I seem to have undergone a bit of a
> humor bypass recently, perhaps you have noticed.

Once you have some spare time I suggest you start learning about
those small symbols sometimes used on the internet.

Like :-)

Arne

[Arne Vajhøj]

On 12/19/2012 12:50 PM, lipska the kat wrote:
> On 19/12/12 17:09, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 12/19/2012 11:48 AM, lipska the kat wrote:
>>> And here's a thing. Why do Arne and his pals feel the need to chastise
>>> someone for being 'insulting' to a particular responder. Surely that
>>> responder will speak up if he feels offended.
>>>
>>> Why do you or Arne or anyone else for that matter feel the need to
>>> interfere in this way. Do you feel you have a right because you have
>>> 'been on Usenet for 25 years' or so. Why don't you let people speak for
>>> themselves.
>>
>>> Anyway I think I've got to the bottom of what it is that's bugging me.
>>> It's this apparent right you (collectively) feel you have to chastise
>>> someone for behaviour you feel is inappropriate for this group.
>>>
>>> Why can't you just mind your own business.
>>
>> If that is your opinion, then why did *you* comment??
>
> Because someone needs to speak out.

So the "mind your own business" rule applies to us but not to you?

Rather funky isn't it?

Arne

[Arne Vajhøj]

On 12/19/2012 12:50 PM, lipska the kat wrote:

> The behaviour of you and you pals is unacceptable to me.

Pals?

> If I see this behaviour again I will take you to task again.

You will just make a fool out of yourself again.

Arne

[Gene Wirchenko]

On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 14:36:21 +0000, lipska the kat

<lipska...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

[snip]

>This is USENET, you don't own it, you don't have the right to tell

>people what they can and cannot post, in fact you are just another
>faceless whiner among so many faceless whiners.

You are presuming to tell him what he can post here. How is it
that your statement does not apply to you?

[snip]

>jeez, I haven't got this worked up in a while.

So lighten up a bit.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[Gene Wirchenko]

On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 15:40:54 +0000, lipska the kat
<lipska...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

[snip]

>Well you still don't get it do you
>I don't defend insulting behavior but sometimes flesh and blood can
>stand just so much, lets try again. One question at a time.

Why not relax and enjoy the nice USENET?

>You said

>
>"My point is that while newbies do have a "allowed to post

>stupid questions" card"
>
>Who 'allows' them to post stupid questions.

Freedom of speech.

>Do you understand the question
>
>It's a very simple question, really it is. who is it ?
>I really do want to know.

However, freedom of speech does not require the recipient to
listen or to take it seriously. It also allows the recipient to
reply.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[Arne Vajhøj]

If the Set interface specify the behavior of equals, then testing for
type is not valid.

Testing for type may only make sense on domain classes and not
for container classes at all.

> The right solution is, of course, the action the OP is already taking -
> don't extend AbstractSet unless you really are implementing a Set, and
> intend to follow the Set contract.

Yes.

Arne

[Joshua Cranmer]

On 12/19/2012 11:58 AM, lipska the kat wrote:
> If 'Joshua' has a problem with me let him be the one to speak.

If I feel I have nothing to add to a discourse, I won't say anything. I
also have this nasty habit of ignoring insults or responding to them (or
pretty much anything else) with humor.

[lipska the kat]

On 19/12/12 18:22, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 15:40:54 +0000, lipska the kat
> <lipska...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

[snip]

> However, freedom of speech does not require the recipient to
> listen or to take it seriously. It also allows the recipient to
> reply.

Oh a light in the darkness.

I couldn't agree more the important bit here of course is

It also allows the *recipient* to reply (my accent)

I have no problem with the recipient replying, what I object to is the
mass rounding on an individual by multiple aggressive responders
'standing up for' people who I am sure are well able to stand up for
themselves

THIS is unacceptable and I for one will not tolerate it any longer.

[lipska the kat]

On 19/12/12 18:14, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 12/19/2012 12:50 PM, lipska the kat wrote:
>> On 19/12/12 17:09, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>> On 12/19/2012 11:48 AM, lipska the kat wrote:

[snip]

>>
>> Because someone needs to speak out.
>
> So the "mind your own business" rule applies to us but not to you?

I've already stated my position on this, if you can't be bothered to
read it I certainly can't be bothered to restate it

> Rather funky isn't it?

No not really, what is is is rather sad that despite stating my position
quite clearly you still fail to see the point.

Still extremism often results in a blinkered view of reality so I
suppose it shouldn't come as any big surprise.

[lipska the kat]

Never worried me before and it won't worry me in the future.
Unlike you and your rather sad little collection of puffed up self
important 'friends' I have the courage of my convictions.

You and your like will never subjugate me whatever cowardly tactics you
employ.

You can bet the farm on it.

[lipska the kat]

On 19/12/12 18:19, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 14:36:21 +0000, lipska the kat
> <lipska...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> This is USENET, you don't own it, you don't have the right to tell
>> people what they can and cannot post, in fact you are just another
>> faceless whiner among so many faceless whiners.
>
> You are presuming to tell him what he can post here. How is it
> that your statement does not apply to you

Am I, I don't get that at all from my statement. I'm questioning his
authority to tell others what they can and can't post.

English can be a tricky language.

What I will not tolerate however is the 'ganging up' on unsuspecting
users. I can take it, in fact I find the discourse exhilarating, others
may be more badly affected.

If you think that sort of behaviour is acceptable then I'm afraid you
are part of the problem.

I'm trying to put a name to this behaviour. When I do I'll make it quite
clear where I stand. (Yet again)

[FredK]

On Wednesday, December 19, 2012 8:22:28 AM UTC-8, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 12/19/2012 11:13 AM, FredK wrote: > On Tuesday, December 18, 2012 10:56:19 AM UTC-8, Peter Duniho wrote: >> On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 04:48:16 -0800, Roedy Green wrote: >>>> Node a = new Gate(); >>>> Monitor b = new Monitor(); >>>> System.out.println(a.equals(b)); // --> prints 'true' >>> Gate or one of its superclasses is implementing equals. >>And doing it incorrectly, I'd say. > > Why would you think it was done incorrectly? > For most classes, a.equals(b) is not the same as a==b. > Think about string: > string a = "abc"); > string b = new string(a); > Clearly a==b is false, but a.equals(b) is true. > > Usually the equals() method returns true if the internal state of both objects is the same. It is rather unusual to have objects of different classes considered equals. Your example is different. Arne

Which points out that the real issue is that you must define what you want equals() to mean. There may well be situations where two objects of different classes could be considered to be "equal" ( Consider a Square with side=2, and a (immutable) Rectangle with width=2 and length=2 )

[Gene Wirchenko]

On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 17:27:12 +0000, lipska the kat
<lipska...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>On 19/12/12 17:12, Lars Enderin wrote:
>> 2012-12-19 17:51, lipska the kat skrev:
>>> On 19/12/12 15:57, Lars Enderin wrote:
>
>>
>> Why don't you like it when somebody stands up for somebody else? It's
>> not abnormal behaviour. And in this case Arne may have felt that the
>> OP's reply was (also) directed at him. But I am not allowed to answer
>> for Arne, right?
>
>Well in the real world nobody answers for me except me. I stand and fall
>by my own decisions and am quite prepared to take the consequences of my
>actions however harsh those consequences may be.

Not everyone has to do that.

>However we are not in the real world are we. We are in a world where

Yes, we are. The idea that the Net is not part of the real world
is inane.

[snip]

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[Gene Wirchenko]

On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 18:49:21 +0000, lipska the kat

<lipska...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>On 19/12/12 18:22, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>> On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 15:40:54 +0000, lipska the kat
>> <lipska...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>> However, freedom of speech does not require the recipient to
>> listen or to take it seriously. It also allows the recipient to
>> reply.
>
>Oh a light in the darkness.
>
>I couldn't agree more the important bit here of course is
>
>It also allows the *recipient* to reply (my accent)
>
>I have no problem with the recipient replying, what I object to is the
>mass rounding on an individual by multiple aggressive responders
>'standing up for' people who I am sure are well able to stand up for
>themselves
>
>THIS is unacceptable and I for one will not tolerate it any longer.

How are you going to do that?

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[Gene Wirchenko]

On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 19:05:55 +0000, lipska the kat
<lipska...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>On 19/12/12 18:16, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 12/19/2012 12:50 PM, lipska the kat wrote:
>>> The behaviour of you and you pals is unacceptable to me.
>>
>> Pals?
>>
>>> If I see this behaviour again I will take you to task again.
>>
>> You will just make a fool out of yourself again.
>
>Never worried me before and it won't worry me in the future.
>Unlike you and your rather sad little collection of puffed up self
>important 'friends' I have the courage of my convictions.

It is too bad that so many of these convictions are not working
out very well for you. You have done an excellent job of antagonising
quite a few people here in a very short time.

[snip]

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[Gene Wirchenko]

On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 19:16:26 +0000, lipska the kat

<lipska...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>On 19/12/12 18:19, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>> On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 14:36:21 +0000, lipska the kat
>> <lipska...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> This is USENET, you don't own it, you don't have the right to tell
>>> people what they can and cannot post, in fact you are just another
>>> faceless whiner among so many faceless whiners.
>>
>> You are presuming to tell him what he can post here. How is it
>> that your statement does not apply to you
>
>Am I, I don't get that at all from my statement. I'm questioning his
>authority to tell others what they can and can't post.

"...you do not have the right to tell..." is doing exactly that.

>English can be a tricky language.
>
>What I will not tolerate however is the 'ganging up' on unsuspecting
>users. I can take it, in fact I find the discourse exhilarating, others
>may be more badly affected.

Why not let them speak for themselves? You seem to think that we
should do that. Try applying it yourself.

>If you think that sort of behaviour is acceptable then I'm afraid you
>are part of the problem.

There was no big deal here until you made one.

>I'm trying to put a name to this behaviour. When I do I'll make it quite
>clear where I stand. (Yet again)

Like a broken record?

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[lipska the kat]

On 19/12/12 19:45, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 19:05:55 +0000, lipska the kat
> <lipska...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>

[snip]

> It is too bad that so many of these convictions are not working
> out very well for you.

My convictions have stood me in very good stead thank you. How about yours.

> You have done an excellent job of antagonising
> quite a few people here in a very short time.

Possibly but the people I've apparently 'antagonised' aren't the sort of
people I would ever consider as being in any way worthy of my
friendship. They are weak and cowardly and don't deserve a wink of lost
sleep over. I'm sick and tired of these idiots so all I can do is make
them aware that I for one will not tolerate this behaviour.

I suggest you turn your mind to something more productive and hey ...
here's an idea

Mind your own business.

[Leif Roar Moldskred]

lipska the kat <lipska...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Am I, I don't get that at all from my statement. I'm questioning his
> authority to tell others what they can and can't post.

Well, _I'm_ authoriatively questioning your authority to question his
authority.

--
Leif Roar Moldskred
By the authority vested in me by Kibo

[Lew]

lipska the kat wrote:
> Now I'm not normally driven to using bad language but
> What the f**k is wrong with you people.

What the fuck is wrong with /you/?

> This is Usenet, not your private little universe.

People gave a perfectly reasonable answer to the question, and "ple..." got
their knickers in a twist.

> I've noticed this a lot in various newsgroups that I have been
> frequenting of late. People who are regular contributors get the idea
> that foo.bar.baz newsgroup is their private domain and anyone who has
> the temerity to post a question that doesn't meet their exacting
> standards get flamed and scolded and told to stop whining.

Maybe the OP should not have whined, then.

> I get told off but I have the skin of a Rhino and none of you silly
> little jibes affect me or my life in any way whatsoever. Not everyone is
> so unaffected.

They weren't "jibes", as you hope to convince us without evidence by the mere
use of the word. They were valid advice.'

> Please think before you flame.

Physician, heal thyself.

> Oh, and by the way, my flames are ALWAYS justified :-)

As any troll would say, your disingenuous smiley-face notwithstanding.

--
Lew

[Peter Duniho]

On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 18:49:21 +0000, lipska the kat wrote:

> On 19/12/12 18:22, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>> On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 15:40:54 +0000, lipska the kat
>> <lipska...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> However, freedom of speech does not require the recipient to
>> listen or to take it seriously. It also allows the recipient to
>> reply.
>
> Oh a light in the darkness.
>
> I couldn't agree more the important bit here of course is
>
> It also allows the *recipient* to reply (my accent)

The "recipient" in this case is each and every person who reads the
message.

If a person wants to write a private message, to which only that one
private recipient of the message may reply, then they should send the
message privately.

Public messages grant the right of public comment.

> I have no problem with the recipient replying, what I object to is the
> mass rounding on an individual by multiple aggressive responders
> 'standing up for' people who I am sure are well able to stand up for
> themselves
>
> THIS is unacceptable and I for one will not tolerate it any longer.

Good riddance.

[Peter Duniho]

On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 16:48:12 +0000, lipska the kat wrote:

> [...]
>> That's not what Arne's saying at all. In fact, practically the opposite.
>> After all, taking as granted that newbies have an "allowed to post stupid
>> questions" card (or put slightly differently, "there are no stupid
>> questions"), which Arne clearly has done, then there's no need at all to
>> "pass judgment on what is a stupid question", never mind any indication
>> Arne feels he's "qualified" to do so (though frankly, he's answered enough
>> questions on Usenet over the years that if anyone is, surely he is).
>
> If there are 'no stupid questions' then how can someone be 'allowed to
> ask a stupid question"

Take your pick. They are two different ways of expressing semantically
similar thoughts. Hence my words "put slightly differently".

Maybe that bothers you. Doesn't bother me.

> It's just a question

>
> And here's a thing. Why do Arne and his pals feel the need to chastise
> someone for being 'insulting' to a particular responder.

Because insulting behavior deserves public, broad denouncement. That's how
social contracts work.

If you don't like being part of a social group, then don't participate in a
social group.

> Surely that responder will speak up if he feels offended.

He may as well, per his right.

> Why do you or Arne or anyone else for that matter feel the need to
> interfere in this way. Do you feel you have a right because you have
> 'been on Usenet for 25 years' or so. Why don't you let people speak for
> themselves.

For someone who insists on parsing every last syllable, you sure are
ambiguous about your own questions. Do you want to know why we "feel the
need", or why we "have a right"?

"Feel the need": out of a sense of justice and enforcement of
aforementioned social contract.

"Have a right": aforementioned freedom of speech. It has nothing to do with
how long.

>> Given your apparently and shockingly low threshold of taking offense, even
>> on behalf of someone else, that seems difficult to believe.
>
> There you go again, making assumptions. The very first thing I was
> taught when studying for my Computer Science degree was 'never assume
> anything'

What assumption? I can be incredulous without making any assumption
whatsoever. I'm simply observing your own behavior and comparing it to
your claim of not usually getting this worked up.

If you were as rational and level-headed as you'd like us to believe, you
would have admitted your mistake and apologized already.

> I too have been using Usenet for 20 odd years, I've been reading this
> group on and off for years ... today or yesterday or whenever it was
> just struck a nerve. I've been ignoring pompous self important self
> appointed busybodies for all that time so I'd appreciate it if you
> didn't don't make assumptions about something you know nothing about.

>
> Anyway I think I've got to the bottom of what it is that's bugging me.
> It's this apparent right you (collectively) feel you have to chastise
> someone for behaviour you feel is inappropriate for this group.
>
> Why can't you just mind your own business.

Seeing as you had absolutely no involvement whatsoever regarding the
original question, aren't you acting the pot, calling the kettle black?

Pete

[lipska the kat]

On 20/12/12 01:05, Peter Duniho wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 18:49:21 +0000, lipska the kat wrote:
>
>> On 19/12/12 18:22, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>>> On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 15:40:54 +0000, lipska the kat
>>> <lipska...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

[snip]

> Public messages grant the right of public comment.

Missing the point (again)

>> I have no problem with the recipient replying, what I object to is the
>> mass rounding on an individual by multiple aggressive responders
>> 'standing up for' people who I am sure are well able to stand up for
>> themselves
>>
>> THIS is unacceptable and I for one will not tolerate it any longer.
>
> Good riddance.

Oh dear, one really does have to make things very simple doesn't one.

Every time people like you send an aggressive message en-mass I will
stick my nose in. As you say public messages grant the right of public
comment.

Get used to it.

[lipska the kat]

On 20/12/12 01:15, Peter Duniho wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 16:48:12 +0000, lipska the kat wrote:
>
>> [...]
>>> That's not what Arne's saying at all. In fact, practically the opposite.
>>> After all, taking as granted that newbies have an "allowed to post stupid
>>> questions" card (or put slightly differently, "there are no stupid
>>> questions"), which Arne clearly has done, then there's no need at all to
>>> "pass judgment on what is a stupid question", never mind any indication
>>> Arne feels he's "qualified" to do so (though frankly, he's answered enough
>>> questions on Usenet over the years that if anyone is, surely he is).
>>
>> If there are 'no stupid questions' then how can someone be 'allowed to
>> ask a stupid question"
>
> Take your pick. They are two different ways of expressing semantically
> similar thoughts. Hence my words "put slightly differently".

You can argue the point all you want. I doesn't change the fact that the
phrase 'allowed to ask a stupid question' implies a sense of judgment.
What is 'stupid' to you is probably confusing to a new Java user. If
Arne has been answering questions for so long I'm surprised he hasn't
figured this one out for himself

> Maybe that bothers you. Doesn't bother me.

What 'bothers' me is the aggressive, self-righteous way you all feel the
need to add your voices to the chastisement of transgressors.

You just don't get this do you.

> If you don't like being part of a social group, then don't participate in a
> social group.

It's exactly because I like to be a member of a social group that I'm
making this stand. I don't like the way you and the likes of you feel
obliged to tell people off en-mass, In a social group one has to have
consideration for others, when someone transgresses the social norm it
is right that the error of their way is pointed out to them but when it
is pointed out in an aggressive and insulting way then my question is this.

If it is wrong to use insulting behavior then how can insults toward the
transgressor be right?

It's such a simple question, really it is.
Maybe there is one rule for newbies and one for you.
Maybe you have been here so long to feel a sense of 'ownership' of
comp.lang.java.programmer. Maybe you feel that the rules don't apply to
you because you are in some way 'special' believe me you are not. There
are people like you in all walks of life, from politics to car-park
attendants, from offices to software engineering teams.

I've obviously struck a nerve here. I think you (collectively) secretly
know this behaviour is wrong but your huge over-inflated egos will never
allow you to admit it.

[snip]

>
> Seeing as you had absolutely no involvement whatsoever regarding the
> original question, aren't you acting the pot, calling the kettle black?

see above

[lipska the kat]

On 19/12/12 21:40, Lew wrote:
> lipska the kat wrote:
>> Now I'm not normally driven to using bad language but
>> What the f**k is wrong with you people.
>
> What the fuck is wrong with /you/?

What the fuck is wrong with me is that I'm sick to death of assholes
like you thinking that they have the right to tell people off using the
same sort of language that they object to in the first place.

Don't you get this?

Or maybe you are just fucking thick.

I was trying to keep this discussion free of foul language but if you
really want to go down that route then I'll oblige.

[Peter Duniho]

On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 08:34:35 +0000, lipska the kat wrote:

> [...]

> Every time people like you send an aggressive message en-mass I will
> stick my nose in.

In other words, you will do exactly the thing that you are moaning and
whining about other people doing.

> As you say public messages grant the right of public
> comment.

Yes, they do. So very odd that you "get it" when it comes to things _you_
post, and yet you are so pitifully clueless about it with it comes to
things other people post.

> Get used to it.

I have been used to the concept of a public forum for quite some time now.
I don't have any problem at all with your right to say whatever crazy-ass
thing pops into your head, including the kinds of crazy-ass things you have
been writing here.

[Peter Duniho]

On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 09:22:47 +0000, lipska the kat wrote:

> You can argue the point all you want. I doesn't change the fact that the
> phrase 'allowed to ask a stupid question' implies a sense of judgment.

It does no such thing whatsoever.

I don't know where you live, but for most of us "allowed" is the _default_.
You are expressly allowed to do _anything_, unless someone with authority
is specifically preventing you from it.

There is NO JUDGMENT AT ALL involved in _allowing_ someone to do something.
It's our inherent right to do _anything_, absent authority to prevent us
from it.

For intelligent, rational people, it is a completely uncontroversial thing
to mention that someone is allowed to do something, because it's just
stating the obvious.

Why you find it controversial at all, never mind so objectionable, is
unfathomable.

> What is 'stupid' to you is probably confusing to a new Java user. If
> Arne has been answering questions for so long I'm surprised he hasn't
> figured this one out for himself

Why are you so hung up on what's "stupid"? No one at all has made any
complaint at all about any "stupid" question. You are fighting a straw man
that you made up out of thing air, and for which no one else is taking up
the opposite point of view.

>> Maybe that bothers you. Doesn't bother me.
>
> What 'bothers' me is the aggressive, self-righteous way you all feel the
> need to add your voices to the chastisement of transgressors.
>
> You just don't get this do you.

Oh, we all get it. You hate it when everyone else chimes in to defend an
unfairly maligned person, but when claim to do it (never mind that there's
not actually an unfairly maligned person you're defending here), it's just
fine.

We get it.

> [...]

> If it is wrong to use insulting behavior then how can insults toward the
> transgressor be right?

No one has been insulting to the transgressor here. It's not an insult to
call someone out for anti-social behavior.

> It's such a simple question, really it is.
> Maybe there is one rule for newbies and one for you.

That's rich coming from you, the only person here actually fighting in
favor of a double-standard.

[Gene Wirchenko]

On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 08:34:35 +0000, lipska the kat

<lipska...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>On 20/12/12 01:05, Peter Duniho wrote:
>> On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 18:49:21 +0000, lipska the kat wrote:
>>
>>> On 19/12/12 18:22, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 15:40:54 +0000, lipska the kat
>>>> <lipska...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>> Public messages grant the right of public comment.
>
>Missing the point (again)

Actually, he has the point quite well. You do not appear to like
this though.

>>> I have no problem with the recipient replying, what I object to is the
>>> mass rounding on an individual by multiple aggressive responders
>>> 'standing up for' people who I am sure are well able to stand up for
>>> themselves
>>>
>>> THIS is unacceptable and I for one will not tolerate it any longer.
> >
>> Good riddance.
>
>Oh dear, one really does have to make things very simple doesn't one.
>
>Every time people like you send an aggressive message en-mass I will
>stick my nose in. As you say public messages grant the right of public
>comment.

Go ahead. Flip your bozo bit.

>Get used to it.

We can outlast you easily.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[lipska the kat]

On 20/12/12 17:04, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 08:34:35 +0000, lipska the kat
> <lipska...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 20/12/12 01:05, Peter Duniho wrote:
>>> On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 18:49:21 +0000, lipska the kat wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 19/12/12 18:22, Gene Wirchenko wrote:

[snip]

>> Get used to it.
>
> We can outlast you easily.

WE can outlast you ...

At last, confirmation of a cabal of self-important hypocrites ... as if
any were needed. That makes it all worthwhile ... I feel so happy I
think I may cut me a hunk of Stilton.

I knew you'd slip up eventually. Suck it up Gene, get ready for a bumpy
ride.

lipska the kat, vindicated, exhilarated and face down in a hunk of cheese.

[Lew]

lipska the kat wrote:
> At last, confirmation of a cabal of self-important hypocrites ... as if
> any were needed. That makes it all worthwhile ... I feel so happy I
> think I may cut me a hunk of Stilton.

Oh, Paul, Paul, Paul.

Tsk. Tsk.

--
Lew

[Gene Wirchenko]

On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 18:10:38 +0000, lipska the kat

<lipska...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>On 20/12/12 17:04, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>> On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 08:34:35 +0000, lipska the kat
>> <lipska...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 20/12/12 01:05, Peter Duniho wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 18:49:21 +0000, lipska the kat wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 19/12/12 18:22, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>>> Get used to it.
>>
>> We can outlast you easily.
>
>WE can outlast you ...

Yes. More than one person follows this newsgroup.

>At last, confirmation of a cabal of self-important hypocrites ... as if
>any were needed. That makes it all worthwhile ... I feel so happy I
>think I may cut me a hunk of Stilton.

A conspiracy, huh?

Don't you have a world ending shortly to worry about?

>I knew you'd slip up eventually. Suck it up Gene, get ready for a bumpy
>ride.

Are you offering to play pony for me? I do not swing that way.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[Peter Dunihơ]

On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 11:08:37 -0800, Lew wrote:

13> Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer

13> Oh, Paul, Paul, Paul.

Who is "Paul", Bloch? There is nobody in this newsgroup using that alias.

13> Tsk. Tsk.

How ironic.

[lipska the kat]

On 20/12/12 21:39, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 18:10:38 +0000, lipska the kat
> <lipska...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 20/12/12 17:04, Gene Wirchenko wrote:

[snip]

>
>> I knew you'd slip up eventually. Suck it up Gene, get ready for a bumpy
>> ride.
>
> Are you offering to play pony for me? I do not swing that way.
>

Well I'd guess you have tiny little acorn down there Gene so if I did
swing that way (whatever 'that way' is) I probably wouldn't be
interested anyway.

Can we try to elevate the discussion a bit ?

Oh look, here's me making an assumption, I'd assumed you were a man but
you could just as easily be a mouse.

lipska

[lipska the kat]

I think you may be having trouble with the English again Lew

My name is Lipska the Kat, who's this Paul geezer ?

Lipska the Kat (in case you missed it last time around).

[Peter Duniho]

Looks like you hit the nail (or the troll) on the head Lew.

No reply at all to your message for 12 hours. And then a poorly-forged
message under my name, followed shortly by one under Paul's new pseudonym?

He's getting better at his trolling, I'll grant him that. I guess we
should've seen it coming.

[lipska the kat]

On 21/12/12 15:30, Peter Duniho wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 07:50:02 +0000 (UTC), Peter Dunihơ wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 11:08:37 -0800, Lew wrote:
>>
>> 13> Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer
>>
>> 13> Oh, Paul, Paul, Paul.
>>
>> Who is "Paul", Bloch? There is nobody in this newsgroup using that alias.
>>
>> 13> Tsk. Tsk.
>>
>> How ironic.
>
> Looks like you hit the nail (or the troll) on the head Lew.
>
> No reply at all to your message for 12 hours. And then a poorly-forged
> message under my name, followed shortly by one under Paul's new pseudonym?

Yea, er what's Pauls new pseudonym ... is it Lew, or is it you, or who ?

> He's getting better at his trolling, I'll grant him that. I guess we
> should've seen it coming.

Yea, so, see ,,, who are we talking about, and who is this Paul geezer.

I don't need to nymshift you twat, I am Lipska the Kat

Hey that rhymes ...

lipska

[Arne Vajhøj]

On 12/21/2012 10:30 AM, Peter Duniho wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 07:50:02 +0000 (UTC), Peter Dunihơ wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 11:08:37 -0800, Lew wrote:
>>
>> 13> Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer
>>
>> 13> Oh, Paul, Paul, Paul.
>>
>> Who is "Paul", Bloch? There is nobody in this newsgroup using that alias.
>>
>> 13> Tsk. Tsk.
>>
>> How ironic.
>
> Looks like you hit the nail (or the troll) on the head Lew.
>
> No reply at all to your message for 12 hours. And then a poorly-forged
> message under my name, followed shortly by one under Paul's new pseudonym?

And it was copied to the OS/2 group, which is something also
seen before.

Arne

[lipska the kat]

Can somebody *please* tell me who Paul is ... I'm losing the thread here.

lipska

[Arne Vajhoj]

On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 07:30:33 -0800, Peter Duniho wrote:

1> Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer

1> Looks like you hit the nail (or the troll) on the head Lew.

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do
with Java, Duniho?

1> No reply at all to your message for 12 hours.

What does your classic pontification have to do with Java, Duniho?

1> And then a poorly-forged message under my name,

What does your classic erroneous presupposition have to do with Java,
Duniho?

1> followed shortly by> one under Paul's new pseudonym?

Who is "Paul", Duniho? There is nobody in this newsgroup using that alias.

1> He's getting better at his trolling, I'll grant him that.

What does your classic erroneous presupposition have to do with Java,
Duniho?

1> I guess we should've seen it coming.

What does your classic erroneous presupposition have to do with Java,
Duniho?