Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #5917

Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects?

From	Steve Erwin <trollHunter@Usenet.4.usenetizens.org.invalid>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.java.programmer
Subject	Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects?
Date	2011-07-07 04:08 +1000
References	<d0bb9e06-16f0-4282-a37e-47e9ca9630ec@r2g2000vbj.googlegroups.com> <iuvoo8$fbj$1@speranza.aioe.org> <97hctfFa1jU1@mid.individual.net> <iv1biu$r22$2@speranza.aioe.org> <97jj30Fr6pU4@mid.individual.net>
Message-ID	<4e14a510$0$6450$c3e8da3$b1356c67@news.astraweb.com> (permalink)
Organization	Unlimited download news at news.astraweb.com

Show all headers | View raw

blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com>
wrote:
>In article <iv1biu$r22$2@speranza.aioe.org>,
>KitKat  <kitkat_11697@gmail.example.com> wrote:
>> On 05/07/2011 5:10 PM, blmblm@myrealbox.com wrote:
>> > In article<iuvoo8$fbj$1@speranza.aioe.org>,
>> > KitKat<kitkat_11697@gmail.example.com>  wrote:
>> On 05/07/2011 5:10 PM, blmblm@myrealbox.com wrote:
>> > In article<iuvoo8$fbj$1@speranza.aioe.org>,
>> > KitKat<kitkat_11697@gmail.example.com>  wrote:
>> >> On 05/07/2011 3:15 PM, BGB wrote:
>> >>> On 7/1/2011 3:08 PM, KitKat wrote:
>> >>>> Regardless of which, "Onodera" also sounds feminine.
>> >>>
>> >>> grr... the name is not latin-based,
>> >>
>> >> What does Latin have to do with Java, BGB?
>> >
>> > About as much as the gender of names does -- and aren't you the one
>> > who brought that up?
>> 
>> Actually, Tom Anderson was the one who prompted it by posting a 
>> feminine-sounding name and following it up with male pronouns.
>
>Perhaps correctly, and you could have resisted ....  <shrug>
>
>> >>> not everything that ends in 'a' is female.
>> >>
>> >> No, just the names that do.
>> >
>> > I think for Japanese names this is not true.  Check Wikipedia under
>> > "Akira Endo" for two examples.
>> 
>> ???
>
>I don't know what you're asking here -- perhaps what I mean by "two
>examples"?  If I go to the main Wikipedia page and do a search on
>"Akira Endo" I get a page that lists two people named Akira Endo
>(a biochemist and a conductor), and the articles about of them 
>indicate that both are male.  What do you get?  Did you want URLs?
>
>(I looked up that name because I vaguely remembered the conductor.
>I didn't know about the biochemist, but perhaps it's not an uncommon
>name in Japan.)
>
>> >>> not like it is some guy with a name like "Chibichibi Hitomi" or
>> >>> something, which would be a bit suspect.
>> >>
>> >> Yes, "i" instead of "y" endings are also usually feminine.
>> >
>> > In Japanese?
>> 
>> In general.
>
>What makes you think this rule is universal, when the one about 
>names ending in 'a' or 'o' isn't?
>
>> > This style is starting to be alarmingly familiar ....
>> 
>> Yes, I was imitating a bit the weirdo calling himself "tholen" that 
>> posted a few things here a month or two ago. I thought it might be 
>> amusing since the latter bits of BGB's post weren't particularly 
>> understandable or, apparently, relevant.
>
>"We are not amused"?  (Well, I'm not.)  I figured the parts
>of BGB's post that didn't make sense to me were a reference to
>something I didn't know about.  I'd have guessed anime, that being
>of Japanese origin and popular among (some) techie types, though
>BGB's follow-up today indicates I'd have been wrong about that.
>I don't mind the occasional digression, within reason.  I think
>this one is about to exceed the limit, if it hasn't already, so
>will try not to reply further.

As opposed to the idiot you respond to, BGB has an 
extensive passive record of Usenet contribution.
[otoh] Paul Derbyshire (KitKat) cannot keep the same
sock for more than brief series of posts. It is one of
his trademarks. Another is never will he provide more
than bluster and that verbose hyperbole he is well
known for.
"All talk no substance" is our Paul :-/

BGB's profile - took just two minutes of time to
discover:
http://groups.google.com/groups/profile?enc_user=YVMd0hMAAADN7svbjKFmbtu94uFL4OxHWMj6vob75xS36mXc24h6ww
One of the earliest examples of that posters
contribution.
Not familiar with the topic, yet I see "expert" leaping
from the read.
http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3Cuartbar6rpbq9e%40corp.supernews.com%3E

You wrote "I think
this one is about to exceed the limit".
By engaging Paul you only serve to feed him, on
anything, he will accept anything as fodder to build a
troll from. 
Nobody has a purpose in taking him to a place where it
is felt "this one is about to exceed the limit". A
simple check of the posting Host is enough to hold back
**any** response.

See -->X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
?
Key "DEL" unread.

Paul has painted himself into a corner, over time.
news.aioe.org is the only free server which is
tolerating his Bullshit, at this time. He has been
booted from all the other portals of generosity. 
Paul will not use his paid subscription with Giganews
nor the account he has weazled from Eternal September
(after being booted from there) to troll from. 
He is reluctant to always use his Google profiles only
because he knows many servers and most savvy 
Usenet readers have those posts filtered out.

So he is very easy to spot, and easier even to control
with a filter.

Google up any of these "From" to find Paul using
news.aioe.org, and only in just the past weeks.
The whole list since his beginning days back in 2002 is
way too extensive to post.
Tim Harrison, Sulfide Eater, Chad Carmichael,
Extravagan, Meerkats, Purpleswandir, Heike
Svensson, Derek Yancey, Zxcvbnm, Greg Kelly, Willy
Wonka, Nougat Surprise, Mister Whiskers, John Harbl,
Alice, Cthun, Boojum, Katie Gerrolds, Julie Faramis,
Henry Harrison, Nancy, 
And--><supercalifragilisticexpialadiamaticonormalizeringelimatisticantations@averylongandannoyingdomainname.com>

Paul mentions "the weirdo calling himself "tholen""
which is most ironic as it is "tholen" who has provided
Paul with many lessons on how to circumvent filters.
Paul is brilliant at copying other peoples work, both 
"good" and "bad". It is how he has existed since his
school days, after failing miserably on his own oats.

There were two or three posters here in cljp who knew
all this. Where they are today is likely the same place
Paul has driven many others.
Off Usenet.
It is what he does. Paul cannot play so nobody else
can.
That is his thinking.

-- 

regards

Steve

Back to comp.lang.java.programmer | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Alex J <vstrength@gmail.com> - 2011-06-28 02:29 -0700
  Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2011-06-28 07:33 -0400
    OT "sic" (was Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2011-06-28 15:56 +0000
      Re: OT "sic" (was Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2011-06-28 12:19 -0400
    Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Michal Kleczek <kleku75@gmail.com> - 2011-06-28 18:41 +0200
      Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2011-06-28 13:10 -0400
        Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Michal Kleczek <kleku75@gmail.com> - 2011-06-28 19:53 +0200
          Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2011-06-28 14:13 -0400
            Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? supercalifragilisticexpialadiamaticonormalizeringelimatisticantations <supercalifragilisticexpialadiamaticonormalizeringelimatisticantations@averylongandannoyingdomainname.com> - 2011-06-28 14:23 -0400
              Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2011-06-28 14:33 -0400
                Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? supercalifragilisticexpialadiamaticonormalizeringelimatisticantations <supercalifragilisticexpialadiamaticonormalizeringelimatisticantations@averylongandannoyingdomainname.com> - 2011-06-28 14:52 -0400
                Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2011-06-28 16:20 -0400
                Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? supercalifragilisticexpialadiamaticonormalizeringelimatisticantations <supercalifragilisticexpialadiamaticonormalizeringelimatisticantations@averylongandannoyingdomainname.com> - 2011-06-29 00:53 -0400
                Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2011-06-29 01:04 -0400
                Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? supercalifragilisticexpialadiamaticonormalizeringelimatisticantations <supercalifragilisticexpialadiamaticonormalizeringelimatisticantations@averylongandannoyingdomainname.com> - 2011-06-29 01:43 -0400
              Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2011-06-28 11:42 -0700
                Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? supercalifragilisticexpialadiamaticonormalizeringelimatisticantations <supercalifragilisticexpialadiamaticonormalizeringelimatisticantations@averylongandannoyingdomainname.com> - 2011-06-28 14:54 -0400
                Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2011-06-28 12:34 -0700
                Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? markspace <-@.> - 2011-06-28 13:20 -0700
                Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2011-06-28 13:44 -0700
                Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? supercalifragilisticexpialadiamaticonormalizeringelimatisticantations <supercalifragilisticexpialadiamaticonormalizeringelimatisticantations@averylongandannoyingdomainname.com> - 2011-06-29 01:05 -0400
                Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2011-06-28 16:21 -0400
                Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? supercalifragilisticexpialadiamaticonormalizeringelimatisticantations <supercalifragilisticexpialadiamaticonormalizeringelimatisticantations@averylongandannoyingdomainname.com> - 2011-06-29 01:06 -0400
                Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-28 14:30 -0700
          Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2011-06-29 18:56 +0200
      Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-28 13:43 -0700
        Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2011-06-28 20:43 -0400
          Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-28 21:14 -0700
        Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? supercalifragilisticexpialadiamaticonormalizeringelimatisticantations <supercalifragilisticexpialadiamaticonormalizeringelimatisticantations@averylongandannoyingdomainname.com> - 2011-06-29 01:12 -0400
          Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-07-01 18:28 -0700
            Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? supercalifragilisticexpialadiamaticonormalizeringelimatisticantations <supercalifragilisticexpialadiamaticonormalizeringelimatisticantations@averylongandannoyingdomainname.com> - 2011-07-02 00:19 -0400
          Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2011-07-01 19:05 -0700
            Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? supercalifragilisticexpialadiamaticonormalizeringelimatisticantations <supercalifragilisticexpialadiamaticonormalizeringelimatisticantations@averylongandannoyingdomainname.com> - 2011-07-02 00:26 -0400
            Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-04 09:39 -0700
              Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? supercalifragilisticexpialadiamaticonormalizeringelimatisticantations <supercalifragilisticexpialadiamaticonormalizeringelimatisticantations@averylongandannoyingdomainname.com> - 2011-07-05 02:11 -0400
    Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Alex J <vstrength@gmail.com> - 2011-07-05 16:56 -0700
      Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? "John B. Matthews" <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2011-07-06 00:57 -0400
      Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? supercalifragilisticexpialadiamaticonormalizeringelimatisticantations <supercalifragilisticexpialadiamaticonormalizeringelimatisticantations@averylongandannoyingdomainname.com> - 2011-07-06 05:55 -0400
  Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2011-06-28 14:40 -0400
  Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2011-06-29 19:15 +0200
  Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Tom Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li> - 2011-06-30 23:04 +0100
    Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? KitKat <kitkat_11697@gmail.example.com> - 2011-06-30 18:29 -0400
      Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2011-06-30 17:05 -0700
        Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? KitKat <kitkat_11697@gmail.example.com> - 2011-06-30 20:17 -0400
          Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Tom Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li> - 2011-07-01 21:22 +0100
      Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Tom Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li> - 2011-07-01 21:40 +0100
        Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? KitKat <kitkat_11697@gmail.example.com> - 2011-07-01 18:08 -0400
          Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-05 12:15 -0700
            Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? KitKat <kitkat_11697@gmail.example.com> - 2011-07-05 15:30 -0400
              Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2011-07-05 21:10 +0000
                Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-05 22:08 -0700
                Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? KitKat <kitkat_11697@gmail.example.com> - 2011-07-06 05:57 -0400
                Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2011-07-06 17:07 +0000
                Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Steve Erwin <trollHunter@Usenet.4.usenetizens.org.invalid> - 2011-07-07 04:08 +1000
                Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2011-07-06 19:09 +0000
                Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Steve Erwin <trollHunter@Usenet.4.usenetizens.org.invalid> - 2011-07-07 09:26 +1000
                Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? KitKat <kitkat_11697@gmail.example.com> - 2011-07-06 20:25 -0400
                Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2011-07-07 19:37 +0000
                Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2011-07-07 19:35 +0000
                Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Steve Erwin <trollHunter@Usenet.4.usenetizens.org.invalid> - 2011-07-07 14:34 -0700
                OT names/nyms/etc. (was Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects?) blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2011-07-08 17:19 +0000
                Re: OT names/nyms/etc. (was Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects?) Steve Erwin <trollHunter@Usenet.4.usenetizens.org.invalid> - 2011-07-09 05:41 +1000
                Re: OT names/nyms/etc. (was Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects?) blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2011-07-08 19:58 +0000
                Re: OT names/nyms/etc. (was Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects?) lewbloch <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-07-08 13:45 -0700
                Re: OT names/nyms/etc. (was Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects?) Steve Erwin <trollHunter@Usenet.4.usenetizens.org.invalid> - 2011-07-10 01:50 -0400
                Re: OT names/nyms/etc. (was Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects?) blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2011-07-10 19:15 +0000
                Re: OT names/nyms/etc. (was Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects?) KitKat <kitkat_11697@gmail.example.com> - 2011-07-10 18:38 -0400
                Re: OT names/nyms/etc. (was Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects?) KitKat <kitkat_11697@gmail.example.com> - 2011-07-09 00:29 -0400
                Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? KitKat <kitkat_11697@gmail.example.com> - 2011-07-09 00:26 -0400
                Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? KitKat <kitkat_11697@gmail.example.com> - 2011-07-06 20:05 -0400
                Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Steve Erwin <trollHunter@Usenet.4.usenetizens.org.invalid> - 2011-07-07 10:24 +1000
                Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? KitKat <kitkat_11697@gmail.example.com> - 2011-07-06 21:52 -0400
                Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Steve Erwin <trollHunter@Usenet.4.usenetizens.org.invalid> - 2011-07-07 12:43 +1000
                Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? KitKat <kitkat_11697@gmail.example.com> - 2011-07-06 23:00 -0400
    Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-07-21 20:27 -0400
    Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-07-21 20:30 -0400
      Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Henderson <h1@g1.f1> - 2011-07-22 00:20 -0400
        Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-07-22 10:17 -0400
          Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2011-07-22 09:30 -0700
            Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2011-07-22 09:45 -0700
            Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-07-22 14:53 -0400
      Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? v_borchert@despammed.com (Volker Borchert) - 2011-07-22 04:39 +0000
        Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-07-22 10:19 -0400
  Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-07-21 20:33 -0400
    Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2011-07-21 21:08 -0700
      Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-07-22 10:20 -0400

csiph-web