Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #5926

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

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com>
wrote:
>In article <4e14a510$0$6450$c3e8da3$b1356c67@news.astraweb.com>,
>Steve Erwin  <trollHunter@Usenet.4.usenetizens.org.invalid> wrote:
>> blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
[cut]
>>>"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.
>
>Oh my, I really did not express myself clearly, did I? 
>
I am going to rip off an expression from The Great Book
of Yarns (War Stories-fiction) and patch this wound of
yorn with "let he who be not carrying the sin cast that
first stone"... and let it rest :-)

> What I think is about to go out of bounds is this subthread as a whole, not
>BGB's participation.  As best I can tell he makes plenty of on-topic
>contributions, 
>
Usenet, when it works best for *readers*, is all about
folks of the ilk of BGB. The variation in pitch without
being "whacko" is exactly what is needed in making a
read. How many times have you "nodded off" in a lecture
hearing some fundamentalist pedant ramble on in
monotone on the topic, without once even acknowledging
there is an audience nor maybe regale same with a
diversionary (stay awake!) anecdotal on the mornings
exercise in the broom cupboard with the campus 
cleaner (either gender-both)!?
Myself I read thousands of posts in any one week, I
publish very few, if any, some weeks. Lately (2 years+)
the likes of Paul Derbyshire are "holding the floor" in
many a group. That activity ruins my read.

As much as Paul loathes being criticized for his
stupidities, I get very proactive when an asshole ruins
my read. Such is why you see me 'pop'.
Reading people as BGB simply urges learning and the
hunting of more information, so as to "get it".
I do not need to post to learn about a topic, I do need
to be able to read to have Usenet work for me. 
Thousands, nay millions, would join with that.

>and speaking only for myself *I* don't think there's
>anything wrong with the occasional digression from such a person.
>
I agree with the direction of your point. I carnt say
"wrong" however, is the word I would use. 
Digression from topic only fits the "wrong" tag when it
leaves the bone of the topic entirely, like mixing fart
jokes into a thread on the biorhythms of an amoeba,
claiming validity of topic as methane production being
a biological function.
This is exactly Paul's MO, precisely.
Paul takes great umbrage when pulled over for doing 
so, playing the victim card as the first pawn move. 
All contrived, as the resultant flammage is his
intended outcome, as a "victolly, I claim victolly".
Paul in full flight demands he has the last word,
always.
Paul's MO is wrong, and Paul knows it.

>My record's not nearly so good, alas, and if there was an intent
>to criticize, it was aimed far more at myself than at BGB. 
> 
I would offer those blessed with quiet humor and a 
sprinkling of intelligence would have no problem
accepting the explanation with a warm smile.

I was most surprised to stumble across posts
by Paul Derbyshire again impacting on the language
groups, as this has all been done before, on at least
three occasions in the past three years I am aware of.
In fact it is through the considerate action of one
member of cljp (at one time) that I was able to
conclusively "nail Paul's ass" in archiving provenance
for his activity elsewhere, Activity which was
impacting on a much wider section of Usenet than the
Java related groups.
That information then allowed covert email contact
with Paul Derbyshire of the Fractals/Mushrooms.
The identification then complete.
http://mushroomobserver.org/observer/show_user?_js=off&_new=true&id=621

Where those people are today I cannot know, a quick
pull of headers does not show anything familiar to
myself. Therefore I again put the information as an
addendum. There is absolutely no doubt 
Paul Derbyshire of  the Fractals and Paul Derbyshire
of the Mushrooms _a n d_ the plethora of posting names 
used over many years are one and the same actual
person.
Paul has constructed his own problems, made his own 
bed. Contrary to his belief the World owes him nothing.
Always beyond "off-topic", he is beyond that as can be
tolerated by many, only Paul can fix that.



As an aside, may I suggest you try this syntax in trn
as a "From"? 
"blmblm@myrealbox.com" <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com>
The change may then allow your "nym" to list
'correctly' in the message group for all reader
software;
example of your header display in one reader is here:
https://rapidshare.com/files/664524757/trn_UsenetSyntax.jpg


Thank you for your contribution.

I bid you good day and good wind aft of the body.

cheers

-- 
+comp.lang.lisp,comp.lang.java.programmer
-xnaREM (for future Usenetizens)

Steve
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3C49223bfe%240%2490264%2414726298%40news.sunsite.dk%3E
pgderb@gmail.com
74.14.135.55
16 Nov 2008
hzergel901@gmail.com
74.14.135.55
17 Nov 2008
scuzwalla@gmail.com
74.14.135.55
17 Nov 2008

IP 	:	74.14.135.55 	     Neighborhood
Host 	:	bas1-ottawa10-1242466103.dsl.bell.ca
Country 	:	Canada

Found on Google.
Read all about it.
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.java.programmer/browse_thread/thread/d7d67d116bd9c2e8/90b1ba4e63328fc4?q=

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