From: Ken Wesson Subject: Re: Why =?iso-8859-13?b?tG5ld6E/?= Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer References: <4d4da290$0$23764$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <4d4dac30$0$23765$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <4d4e29fb$1@news.x-privat.org> <4d4f6434$1@news.x-privat.org> <4d4f6ae3$1@news.x-privat.org> <4d4faac2$1@news.x-privat.org> <4d512649@news.x-privat.org> <4d51600d$1@news.x-privat.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit NNTP-Posting-Host: $$-cwgml$lsc2q.news.x-privat.org Message-ID: <4d51904e$1@news.x-privat.org> Date: 8 Feb 2011 19:49:50 +0100 Organization: X-Privat.Org NNTP Server - http://www.x-privat.org Lines: 49 X-Authenticated-User: $$o-16a0wpsuhxkoyemw X-Complaints-To: abuse@x-privat.org Path: csiph.com!eeepc.pasdenom.info!news.pasdenom.info!news.dougwise.org!gegeweb.org!newsfeed.x-privat.org!x-privat.org!not-for-mail Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.java.programmer:25962 On Wed, 09 Feb 2011 01:07:45 +0800, Peter Duniho wrote: > On 2/8/11 11:23 PM, Ken Wesson wrote: >> On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 20:24:13 +0800, Peter Duniho wrote: >> >>> On 2/8/11 7:17 PM, Ken Wesson wrote: >>>> [...] >>>> Sure I could have tried mucking about with assorted google queries. I >>>> just plain didn't feel like it. Satisfied? >>> >>> Yes. That's all I wanted: your admission, even absent an apology, >>> that you were lazy. >> >> But you didn't get it. I don't agree that it is "lazy" to ask someone >> instead of googling. > > Doesn't really matter whether you agree. You admitted to behavior > anyone else would describe as lazy. No, I admitted to behave many other people would not describe as lazy. Efficient, perhaps. >> What do you usually do if you're talking to someone > > How is that relevant here? If you'd bothered to read on, you'd know. > We are not in a direct, face-to-face > conversation. It's a completely different type of interaction, one in > which it's not only socially acceptable for you to remove yourself from > the discussion momentarily in order to look something up, it's > _expected_. Acceptable, yes. Expected, no, I don't agree. And the burden of task- switching is still there in both cases. >> Furthermore, consider what happens if a number of people read a post >> and, say, wonder what J is. > > You are more than welcome to, instead of _asking_ what J is, follow-up > with a post that _explains_ what J is. No one is stopping you from > that, any more than they are stopping you from asking the ... question > in the first place. I am also welcome to ask the question, since it is a) not too far off- topic here, b) is apropos to a preceding post, c) is not phrased offensively, d) is not answered in the newsgroup's FAQ, and e) being asked in a country that has freedom of speech.