X-FeedAbuse: http://nntpfeed.proxad.net/abuse.pl feeded by 88.191.16.109 Path: csiph.com!eeepc.pasdenom.info!news.pasdenom.info!news.dougwise.org!nntpfeed.proxad.net!nospam.fr.eu.org!usenet-fr.net!de-l.enfer-du-nord.net!feeder2.enfer-du-nord.net!tudelft.nl!txtfeed1.tudelft.nl!feeder.news-service.com!feeder1.cambriumusenet.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!postnews.google.com!i39g2000prd.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: Lew Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer Subject: =?windows-1252?B?UmU6IFdoeSCTbmV3lD8=?= Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 10:02:29 -0800 (PST) Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 37 Message-ID: References: <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> <4d4f7823$1@news.x-privat.org> <4d50885f$0$23758$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <4d512220@news.x-privat.org> <4d515dba$1@news.x-privat.org> <4d521319$0$23758$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.215.87.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1297274549 25388 127.0.0.1 (9 Feb 2011 18:02:29 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 18:02:29 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: i39g2000prd.googlegroups.com; posting-host=64.215.87.3; posting-account=IZs2IgoAAACGaj2oD74Zp9JDhkUk-os6 User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.04506.30; .NET CLR 3.0.04506.648; InfoPath.2; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; MS-RTC LM 8),gzip(gfe) Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.java.programmer:25761 On Feb 9, 10:14=A0am, Andreas Leitgeb wrote: > Lew wrote: > >>> [someone] tried the lame rationale that: > >>>> 2. Asking is still quicker than messing around trying multiple googl= e > >>>> =A0 =A0 =A0queries. > >> Arne Vajh=F8j wrote: > >>> How long time did it take from you posted the question to you got an > >>> answer? > > Andreas Leitgeb wrote: > >> Now, really, Arne, you could have tried to google, instead of asking > >> this question! ;) > >> (just kidding - I know it was a rhetorical one) > > And inherently not amenable to search engine research. > > You're applying the same rationale that you criticized. (joke?) Bullshit. You have no evidence for that. > [someone] assumed, that a query for "j" alone would be inherently > not amenable. Ok, he was wrong with his assumption, but did *you* > try (e.g. google groups), before claiming in-amenability? Yes, I did, contrary to your unfounded assertion that I didn't. Not that it's necessary - to date, search engines to not let the general public search for other individual's search patterns. But you knew that already, of course, since you have used search engines. What I don't understand is your assumption that I didn't check. I can understand a question, but not "You're applying the same rational that you criticized." Of *course* I checked! Sheesh! -- Lew