Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!weretis.net!feeder4.news.weretis.net!news.musoftware.de!wum.musoftware.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: blmblm@myrealbox.com Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer Subject: Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Date: 6 Jul 2011 19:09:46 GMT Organization: None Lines: 55 Message-ID: <97jq7qFo8pU1@mid.individual.net> References: <97jj30Fr6pU4@mid.individual.net> <4e14a510$0$6450$c3e8da3$b1356c67@news.astraweb.com> X-Trace: individual.net 925XIxxFhhXAxanDQ6b4NQX8heliSr0aQK1uTvOo6DrrRzAAyk X-Orig-Path: not-for-mail Cancel-Lock: sha1:8sgru9puQsOaBns0ewt1kXHf6zY= X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test76 (Apr 2, 2001) Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.java.programmer:5920 In article <4e14a510$0$6450$c3e8da3$b1356c67@news.astraweb.com>, Steve Erwin wrote: > blmblm@myrealbox.com > wrote: > >In article , > >KitKat wrote: > >> On 05/07/2011 5:10 PM, blmblm@myrealbox.com wrote: > >> > In article, > >> > KitKat wrote: > >> On 05/07/2011 5:10 PM, blmblm@myrealbox.com wrote: > >> > In article, > >> > KitKat 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? [ snip ] > >> 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. Oh my, I really did not express myself clearly, did I? 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, and speaking only for myself *I* don't think there's anything wrong with the occasional digression from such a person. 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. [ snip ] -- B. L. Massingill ObDisclaimer: I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor.