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

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #20431 > unrolled thread

Need clarification on Object.equals.

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.java.programmer

Contents

  Need clarification on Object.equals. "plewto@gmail.com" <plewto@gmail.com> - 2012-12-18 00:13 -0800
    Re: Need clarification on Object.equals. lipska the kat <lipskathekat@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-12-18 10:39 +0000
      Re: Need clarification on Object.equals. Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2012-12-18 04:48 -0800
        Re: Need clarification on Object.equals. Peter Duniho <NpOeStPeAdM@NnOwSlPiAnMk.com> - 2012-12-18 10:56 -0800
          Re: Need clarification on Object.equals. FredK <fred.l.kleinschmidt@gmail.com> - 2012-12-19 08:13 -0800
            Re: Need clarification on Object.equals. Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-12-19 11:22 -0500
              Re: Need clarification on Object.equals. Lars Enderin <lars.enderin@telia.com> - 2012-12-19 17:43 +0100
                Re: Need clarification on Object.equals. Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-12-19 12:06 -0500
                  Re: Need clarification on Object.equals. Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2012-12-19 09:39 -0800
                    Re: Need clarification on Object.equals. Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-12-19 13:24 -0500
              Re: Need clarification on Object.equals. FredK <fred.l.kleinschmidt@gmail.com> - 2012-12-19 11:23 -0800
            Re: Need clarification on Object.equals. Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2012-12-19 08:25 -0800
      Re: Need clarification on Object.equals. plewto@gmail.com - 2012-12-18 10:56 -0800
        Re: Need clarification on Object.equals. Jim Janney <jjanney@shell.xmission.com> - 2012-12-18 14:24 -0700
          Re: Need clarification on Object.equals. Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2012-12-18 13:52 -0800
    Re: Need clarification on Object.equals. markspace <-@.> - 2012-12-18 10:24 -0800
      Re: Need clarification on Object.equals. plewto@gmail.com - 2012-12-18 10:48 -0800
        Re: Need clarification on Object.equals. David Lamb <dalamb@cs.queensu.ca> - 2012-12-18 14:01 -0500
          Re: Need clarification on Object.equals. plewto@gmail.com - 2012-12-18 12:14 -0800
            Re: Need clarification on Object.equals. plewto@gmail.com - 2012-12-18 12:17 -0800
              Re: Need clarification on Object.equals. Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-12-18 22:16 -0500
                Re: Need clarification on Object.equals. lipska the kat <lipskathekat@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-12-19 10:20 +0000
                  Re: Need clarification on Object.equals. Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2012-12-19 03:22 -0800
                    Re: Need clarification on Object.equals. lipska the kat <lipskathekat@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-12-19 12:06 +0000
                    Re: Need clarification on Object.equals. Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-12-19 09:07 -0500
                      Re: Need clarification on Object.equals. Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-12-19 09:09 -0500
                        Re: Need clarification on Object.equals. lipska the kat <lipskathekat@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-12-19 14:36 +0000
                          Re: Need clarification on Object.equals. Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-12-19 09:42 -0500
                            Re: Need clarification on Object.equals. lipska the kat <lipskathekat@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-12-19 15:05 +0000
                              Re: Need clarification on Object.equals. Lars Enderin <lars.enderin@telia.com> - 2012-12-19 16:15 +0100
                                Re: Need clarification on Object.equals. lipska the kat <lipskathekat@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-12-19 15:47 +0000
                                  Re: Need clarification on Object.equals. Lars Enderin <lars.enderin@telia.com> - 2012-12-19 16:57 +0100
                                    Re: Need clarification on Object.equals. lipska the kat <lipskathekat@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-12-19 16:51 +0000
                                      Re: Need clarification on Object.equals. Lars Enderin <lars.enderin@telia.com> - 2012-12-19 18:12 +0100
                                        Re: Need clarification on Object.equals. lipska the kat <lipskathekat@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-12-19 17:27 +0000
                                          Re: Need clarification on Object.equals. Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2012-12-19 11:40 -0800
                              Re: Need clarification on Object.equals. Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-12-19 10:17 -0500
                                Re: Need clarification on Object.equals. lipska the kat <lipskathekat@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-12-19 15:40 +0000
                                  Re: Need clarification on Object.equals. Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-12-19 10:50 -0500
                                  Re: Need clarification on Object.equals. Lars Enderin <lars.enderin@telia.com> - 2012-12-19 17:01 +0100
                                  Re: Need clarification on Object.equals. Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2012-12-19 10:22 -0800
                                    Re: Need clarification on Object.equals. lipska the kat <lipskathekat@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-12-19 18:49 +0000
                                      Re: Need clarification on Object.equals. Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2012-12-19 11:41 -0800
                                      Re: Need clarification on Object.equals. Peter Duniho <NpOeStPeAdM@NnOwSlPiAnMk.com> - 2012-12-19 17:05 -0800
                                        Re: Need clarification on Object.equals. lipska the kat <lipskathekat@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-12-20 08:34 +0000
                                          Re: Need clarification on Object.equals. Peter Duniho <NpOeStPeAdM@NnOwSlPiAnMk.com> - 2012-12-20 07:27 -0800
                                          Re: Need clarification on Object.equals. Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2012-12-20 09:04 -0800
                                            Re: Need clarification on Object.equals. lipska the kat <lipskathekat@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-12-20 18:10 +0000
                                              Re: Need clarification on Object.equals. Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2012-12-20 11:08 -0800
                                                Re: Need clarification on Object.equals. Peter Dunihơ <Np0eStPeAdM@NnOwSlPiAnMk.com> - 2012-12-21 07:50 +0000
                                                  Re: Need clarification on Object.equals. Peter Duniho <NpOeStPeAdM@NnOwSlPiAnMk.com> - 2012-12-21 07:30 -0800
                                                    Re: Need clarification on Object.equals. lipska the kat <lipskathekat@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-12-21 17:09 +0000
                                                      Re: Need clarification on Object.equals. Leŵ <lewbl0ch@gmail.com> - 2012-12-23 00:54 +0000
                                                    Re: Need clarification on Object.equals. Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-12-21 12:23 -0500
                                                      Re: Need clarification on Object.equals. lipska the kat <lipskathekat@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-12-21 17:38 +0000
                                                    Re: Need clarification on Object.equals. Arne Vajhoj <arne@vajhoj.dk> - 2012-12-23 00:50 +0000
                                                Re: Need clarification on Object.equals. lipska the kat <lipskathekat@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-12-21 08:39 +0000
                                              Re: Need clarification on Object.equals. Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2012-12-20 13:39 -0800
                                                Re: Need clarification on Object.equals. lipska the kat <lipskathekat@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-12-21 08:34 +0000
                              Re: Need clarification on Object.equals. Leif Roar Moldskred <leifm@dimnakorr.com> - 2012-12-19 09:22 -0600
                                Re: Need clarification on Object.equals. lipska the kat <lipskathekat@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-12-19 15:35 +0000
                                Re: Need clarification on Object.equals. Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-12-19 10:56 -0500
                            Re: Need clarification on Object.equals. lipska the kat <lipskathekat@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-12-19 17:08 +0000
                          Re: Need clarification on Object.equals. Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2012-12-19 08:58 -0600
                            Re: Need clarification on Object.equals. lipska the kat <lipskathekat@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-12-19 15:32 +0000
                              Re: Need clarification on Object.equals. Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2012-12-19 11:08 -0600
                                Re: Need clarification on Object.equals. lipska the kat <lipskathekat@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-12-19 17:32 +0000
                                  Re: Need clarification on Object.equals. Lars Enderin <lars.enderin@telia.com> - 2012-12-19 18:41 +0100
                                    Re: Need clarification on Object.equals. lipska the kat <lipskathekat@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-12-19 17:58 +0000
                                      Re: Need clarification on Object.equals. lipska the kat <lipskathekat@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-12-19 18:12 +0000
                                      Re: Need clarification on Object.equals. Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2012-12-19 12:29 -0600
                                  Re: Need clarification on Object.equals. Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2012-12-19 12:00 -0600
                                    Re: Need clarification on Object.equals. lipska the kat <lipskathekat@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-12-19 18:06 +0000
                                      Re: Need clarification on Object.equals. Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-12-19 13:13 -0500
                          Re: Need clarification on Object.equals. Peter Duniho <NpOeStPeAdM@NnOwSlPiAnMk.com> - 2012-12-19 07:48 -0800
                            Re: Need clarification on Object.equals. lipska the kat <lipskathekat@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-12-19 16:48 +0000
                              Re: Need clarification on Object.equals. Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-12-19 12:09 -0500
                                Re: Need clarification on Object.equals. lipska the kat <lipskathekat@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-12-19 17:50 +0000
                                  Re: Need clarification on Object.equals. Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-12-19 13:14 -0500
                                    Re: Need clarification on Object.equals. lipska the kat <lipskathekat@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-12-19 18:59 +0000
                                  Re: Need clarification on Object.equals. Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-12-19 13:16 -0500
                                    Re: Need clarification on Object.equals. lipska the kat <lipskathekat@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-12-19 19:05 +0000
                                      Re: Need clarification on Object.equals. Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2012-12-19 11:45 -0800
                                        Re: Need clarification on Object.equals. lipska the kat <lipskathekat@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-12-19 20:00 +0000
                              Re: Need clarification on Object.equals. Peter Duniho <NpOeStPeAdM@NnOwSlPiAnMk.com> - 2012-12-19 17:15 -0800
                                Re: Need clarification on Object.equals. lipska the kat <lipskathekat@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-12-20 09:22 +0000
                                  Re: Need clarification on Object.equals. Peter Duniho <NpOeStPeAdM@NnOwSlPiAnMk.com> - 2012-12-20 07:36 -0800
                          Re: Need clarification on Object.equals. Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2012-12-19 10:19 -0800
                            Re: Need clarification on Object.equals. lipska the kat <lipskathekat@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-12-19 19:16 +0000
                              Re: Need clarification on Object.equals. Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2012-12-19 11:48 -0800
                              Re: Need clarification on Object.equals. Leif Roar Moldskred <leifm@dimnakorr.com> - 2012-12-19 14:12 -0600
                  Re: Need clarification on Object.equals. Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-12-19 09:04 -0500
                  Re: Need clarification on Object.equals. Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2012-12-19 13:40 -0800
                    Re: Need clarification on Object.equals. lipska the kat <lipskathekat@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-12-20 09:30 +0000
            Re: Need clarification on Object.equals. Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2012-12-18 12:52 -0800
            Re: Need clarification on Object.equals. Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2012-12-19 09:27 -0600
              Re: Need clarification on Object.equals. Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-12-19 10:44 -0500
        Re: Need clarification on Object.equals. Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-12-18 22:11 -0500
    Re: Need clarification on Object.equals. Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-12-18 22:10 -0500

Page 5 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5]

#20571

On 12/19/2012 12:50 PM, lipska the kat wrote:
> The behaviour of you and you pals is unacceptable to me.

Pals?

> If I see this behaviour again I will take you to task again.

You will just make a fool out of yourself again.

Arne

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20584

On 19/12/12 18:16, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 12/19/2012 12:50 PM, lipska the kat wrote:
>> The behaviour of you and you pals is unacceptable to me.
>
> Pals?
>
>> If I see this behaviour again I will take you to task again.
>
> You will just make a fool out of yourself again.

Never worried me before and it won't worry me in the future.
Unlike you and your rather sad little collection of puffed up self 
important 'friends' I have the courage of my convictions.

You and your like will never subjugate me whatever cowardly tactics you 
employ.

You can bet the farm on it.

lipska

-- 
Lipska the Kat©: Troll hunter, sandbox destroyer
and farscape dreamer of Aeryn Sun

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20590

On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 19:05:55 +0000, lipska the kat
<lipskathekat@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>On 19/12/12 18:16, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 12/19/2012 12:50 PM, lipska the kat wrote:
>>> The behaviour of you and you pals is unacceptable to me.
>>
>> Pals?
>>
>>> If I see this behaviour again I will take you to task again.
>>
>> You will just make a fool out of yourself again.
>
>Never worried me before and it won't worry me in the future.
>Unlike you and your rather sad little collection of puffed up self 
>important 'friends' I have the courage of my convictions.

     It is too bad that so many of these convictions are not working
out very well for you.  You have done an excellent job of antagonising
quite a few people here in a very short time.

[snip]

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20592

On 19/12/12 19:45, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 19:05:55 +0000, lipska the kat
> <lipskathekat@yahoo.co.uk>  wrote:
>
[snip]

>       It is too bad that so many of these convictions are not working
> out very well for you.

My convictions have stood me in very good stead thank you. How about yours.

 > You have done an excellent job of antagonising
 > quite a few people here in a very short time.

Possibly but the people I've apparently 'antagonised' aren't the sort of 
people I would ever consider as being in any way worthy of my 
friendship. They are weak and cowardly and don't deserve a wink of lost 
sleep over. I'm sick and tired of these idiots so all I can do is make 
them aware that I for one will not tolerate this behaviour.

I suggest you turn your mind to something more productive and hey ... 
here's an idea

Mind your own business.

lipska

-- 
Lipska the Kat©: Troll hunter, sandbox destroyer
and farscape dreamer of Aeryn Sun

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20613

On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 16:48:12 +0000, lipska the kat wrote:

> [...]
>> That's not what Arne's saying at all.  In fact, practically the opposite.
>> After all, taking as granted that newbies have an "allowed to post stupid
>> questions" card (or put slightly differently, "there are no stupid
>> questions"), which Arne clearly has done, then there's no need at all to
>> "pass judgment on what is a stupid question", never mind any indication
>> Arne feels he's "qualified" to do so (though frankly, he's answered enough
>> questions on Usenet over the years that if anyone is, surely he is).
> 
> If there are 'no stupid questions' then how can someone be 'allowed to 
> ask a stupid question"

Take your pick.  They are two different ways of expressing semantically
similar thoughts.  Hence my words "put slightly differently".

Maybe that bothers you.  Doesn't bother me.

> It's just a question
> 
> And here's a thing. Why do Arne and his pals feel the need to chastise 
> someone for being 'insulting' to a particular responder.

Because insulting behavior deserves public, broad denouncement.  That's how
social contracts work.

If you don't like being part of a social group, then don't participate in a
social group.

> Surely that responder will speak up if he feels offended.

He may as well, per his right.

> Why do you or Arne or anyone else for that matter feel the need to 
> interfere in this way.  Do you feel you have a right because you have 
> 'been on Usenet for 25 years' or so. Why don't you let people speak for 
> themselves.

For someone who insists on parsing every last syllable, you sure are
ambiguous about your own questions.  Do you want to know why we "feel the
need", or why we "have a right"?

"Feel the need": out of a sense of justice and enforcement of
aforementioned social contract.

"Have a right": aforementioned freedom of speech. It has nothing to do with
how long.

>> Given your apparently and shockingly low threshold of taking offense, even
>> on behalf of someone else, that seems difficult to believe.
> 
> There you go again, making assumptions. The very first thing I was 
> taught when studying for my Computer Science degree was 'never assume 
> anything'

What assumption?  I can be incredulous without making any assumption
whatsoever.  I'm simply observing your own behavior and comparing it to
your claim of not usually getting this worked up.

If you were as rational and level-headed as you'd like us to believe, you
would have admitted your mistake and apologized already.

> I too have been using Usenet for 20 odd years, I've been reading this 
> group on and off for years ... today or yesterday or whenever it was 
> just struck a nerve. I've been ignoring pompous self important self 
> appointed busybodies for all that time so I'd appreciate it if you 
> didn't don't make assumptions about something you know nothing about.
> 
> Anyway I think I've got to the bottom of what it is that's bugging me. 
> It's this apparent right you (collectively) feel you have to chastise 
> someone for behaviour you feel is inappropriate for this group.
> 
> Why can't you just mind your own business.

Seeing as you had absolutely no involvement whatsoever regarding the
original question, aren't you acting the pot, calling the kettle black?

Pete

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20619

On 20/12/12 01:15, Peter Duniho wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 16:48:12 +0000, lipska the kat wrote:
>
>> [...]
>>> That's not what Arne's saying at all.  In fact, practically the opposite.
>>> After all, taking as granted that newbies have an "allowed to post stupid
>>> questions" card (or put slightly differently, "there are no stupid
>>> questions"), which Arne clearly has done, then there's no need at all to
>>> "pass judgment on what is a stupid question", never mind any indication
>>> Arne feels he's "qualified" to do so (though frankly, he's answered enough
>>> questions on Usenet over the years that if anyone is, surely he is).
>>
>> If there are 'no stupid questions' then how can someone be 'allowed to
>> ask a stupid question"
>
> Take your pick.  They are two different ways of expressing semantically
> similar thoughts.  Hence my words "put slightly differently".

You can argue the point all you want. I doesn't change the fact that the 
phrase 'allowed to ask a stupid question' implies a sense of judgment. 
What is 'stupid' to you is probably confusing to a new Java user. If 
Arne has been answering questions for so long I'm surprised he hasn't 
figured this one out for himself

> Maybe that bothers you.  Doesn't bother me.

What 'bothers' me is the aggressive, self-righteous way you all feel the 
need to add your voices to the chastisement of transgressors.

You just don't get this do you.

> If you don't like being part of a social group, then don't participate in a
> social group.

It's exactly because I like to be a member of a social group that I'm 
making this stand. I don't like the way you and the likes of you feel 
obliged to tell people off en-mass, In a social group one has to have 
consideration for others, when someone transgresses the social norm it 
is right that the error of their way is pointed out to them but when it 
is pointed out in an aggressive and insulting way then my question is this.

If it is wrong to use insulting behavior then how can insults toward the 
transgressor be right?

It's such a simple question, really it is.
Maybe there is one rule for newbies and one for you.
Maybe you have been here so long to feel a sense of 'ownership' of
comp.lang.java.programmer. Maybe you feel that the rules don't apply to 
you because you are in some way 'special' believe me you are not. There 
are people like you in all walks of life, from politics to car-park 
attendants, from offices to software engineering teams.

I've obviously struck a nerve here. I think you (collectively) secretly 
know this behaviour is wrong but your huge over-inflated egos will never 
allow you to admit it.

[snip]

>
> Seeing as you had absolutely no involvement whatsoever regarding the
> original question, aren't you acting the pot, calling the kettle black?

see above

lipska

-- 
Lipska the Kat©: Troll hunter, sandbox destroyer
and farscape dreamer of Aeryn Sun

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20627

On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 09:22:47 +0000, lipska the kat wrote:

> You can argue the point all you want. I doesn't change the fact that the 
> phrase 'allowed to ask a stupid question' implies a sense of judgment. 

It does no such thing whatsoever.

I don't know where you live, but for most of us "allowed" is the _default_.
You are expressly allowed to do _anything_, unless someone with authority
is specifically preventing you from it.

There is NO JUDGMENT AT ALL involved in _allowing_ someone to do something.
It's our inherent right to do _anything_, absent authority to prevent us
from it.

For intelligent, rational people, it is a completely uncontroversial thing
to mention that someone is allowed to do something, because it's just
stating the obvious.

Why you find it controversial at all, never mind so objectionable, is
unfathomable.

> What is 'stupid' to you is probably confusing to a new Java user. If 
> Arne has been answering questions for so long I'm surprised he hasn't 
> figured this one out for himself

Why are you so hung up on what's "stupid"?  No one at all has made any
complaint at all about any "stupid" question.  You are fighting a straw man
that you made up out of thing air, and for which no one else is taking up
the opposite point of view.

>> Maybe that bothers you.  Doesn't bother me.
> 
> What 'bothers' me is the aggressive, self-righteous way you all feel the 
> need to add your voices to the chastisement of transgressors.
> 
> You just don't get this do you.

Oh, we all get it.  You hate it when everyone else chimes in to defend an
unfairly maligned person, but when claim to do it (never mind that there's
not actually an unfairly maligned person you're defending here), it's just
fine.

We get it.

> [...]
> If it is wrong to use insulting behavior then how can insults toward the 
> transgressor be right?

No one has been insulting to the transgressor here.  It's not an insult to
call someone out for anti-social behavior.

> It's such a simple question, really it is.
> Maybe there is one rule for newbies and one for you.

That's rich coming from you, the only person here actually fighting in
favor of a double-standard.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20572

On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 14:36:21 +0000, lipska the kat
<lipskathekat@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

[snip]

>This is USENET, you don't own it, you don't have the right to tell 
>people what they can and cannot post, in fact you are just another 
>faceless whiner among so many faceless whiners.

     You are presuming to tell him what he can post here.  How is it
that your statement does not apply to you?

[snip]

>jeez, I haven't got this worked up in a while.

     So lighten up a bit.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20585

On 19/12/12 18:19, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 14:36:21 +0000, lipska the kat
> <lipskathekat@yahoo.co.uk>  wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> This is USENET, you don't own it, you don't have the right to tell
>> people what they can and cannot post, in fact you are just another
>> faceless whiner among so many faceless whiners.
>
>       You are presuming to tell him what he can post here.  How is it
> that your statement does not apply to you

Am I, I don't get that at all from my statement. I'm questioning his 
authority to tell others what they can and can't post.

English can be a tricky language.

What I will not tolerate however is the 'ganging up' on unsuspecting 
users. I can take it, in fact I find the discourse exhilarating, others 
may be more badly affected.

If you think that sort of behaviour is acceptable then I'm afraid you 
are part of the problem.

I'm trying to put a name to this behaviour. When I do I'll make it quite 
clear where I stand. (Yet again)

lipska

-- 
Lipska the Kat©: Troll hunter, sandbox destroyer
and farscape dreamer of Aeryn Sun

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20591

On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 19:16:26 +0000, lipska the kat
<lipskathekat@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>On 19/12/12 18:19, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>> On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 14:36:21 +0000, lipska the kat
>> <lipskathekat@yahoo.co.uk>  wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> This is USENET, you don't own it, you don't have the right to tell
>>> people what they can and cannot post, in fact you are just another
>>> faceless whiner among so many faceless whiners.
>>
>>       You are presuming to tell him what he can post here.  How is it
>> that your statement does not apply to you
>
>Am I, I don't get that at all from my statement. I'm questioning his 
>authority to tell others what they can and can't post.

     "...you do not have the right to tell..." is doing exactly that.

>English can be a tricky language.
>
>What I will not tolerate however is the 'ganging up' on unsuspecting 
>users. I can take it, in fact I find the discourse exhilarating, others 
>may be more badly affected.

     Why not let them speak for themselves?  You seem to think that we
should do that.  Try applying it yourself.

>If you think that sort of behaviour is acceptable then I'm afraid you 
>are part of the problem.

     There was no big deal here until you made one.

>I'm trying to put a name to this behaviour. When I do I'll make it quite 
>clear where I stand. (Yet again)

     Like a broken record?

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20593

lipska the kat <lipskathekat@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> Am I, I don't get that at all from my statement. I'm questioning his 
> authority to tell others what they can and can't post.

Well, _I'm_ authoriatively questioning your authority to question his
authority.

-- 
Leif Roar Moldskred
By the authority vested in me by Kibo

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20522

On 12/19/2012 5:20 AM, lipska the kat wrote:
> On 19/12/12 03:16, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 12/18/2012 3:17 PM, plewto@gmail.com wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>
>> So stop whining and learn to post better question.
>
> Now I'm not normally driven to using bad language but
> What the f**k is wrong with you people.
> This is Usenet, not your private little universe.

> Please think before you flame.

May I suggest that you take your own advice and
read and think before posting.

The case here is that:
* OP posted a question
* the question did not provide sufficient info
   to answer it
* nobody took offense of that and OP got several
   replies explained that it was difficult to say,
   suggested possible reasons and explained how
   equals is supposed to work
* OP characterized one of the repliers
   as lecturing and condescending

I suggest that you direct you anger towards OP.

Arne

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20598

lipska the kat wrote:
> Now I'm not normally driven to using bad language but
> What the f**k is wrong with you people.

What the fuck is wrong with /you/?

> This is Usenet, not your private little universe.

People gave a perfectly reasonable answer to the question, and "ple..." got 
their knickers in a twist.

> I've noticed this a lot in various newsgroups that I have been 
> frequenting of late. People who are regular contributors get the idea 
> that foo.bar.baz newsgroup is their private domain and anyone who has 
> the temerity to post a question that doesn't meet their exacting 
> standards get flamed and scolded and told to stop whining.

Maybe the OP should not have whined, then.

> I get told off but I have the skin of a Rhino and none of you silly 
> little jibes affect me or my life in any way whatsoever. Not everyone is 
> so unaffected.

They weren't "jibes", as you hope to convince us without evidence by the mere 
use of the word. They were valid advice.'

> Please think before you flame.

Physician, heal thyself.

> Oh, and by the way, my flames are ALWAYS justified :-)

As any troll would say, your disingenuous smiley-face notwithstanding.

-- 
Lew

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20621

On 19/12/12 21:40, Lew wrote:
> lipska the kat wrote:
>> Now I'm not normally driven to using bad language but
>> What the f**k is wrong with you people.
>
> What the fuck is wrong with /you/?

What the fuck is wrong with me is that I'm sick to death of assholes 
like you thinking that they have the right to tell people off using the 
same sort of language that they object to in the first place.

Don't you get this?

Or maybe you are just fucking thick.

I was trying to keep this discussion free of foul language but if you 
really want to go down that route then I'll oblige.

lipska

-- 
Lipska the Kat©: Troll hunter, sandbox destroyer
and farscape dreamer of Aeryn Sun

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20475

ple...@com wrote:

> My issue with [markspace]'s response was not the helpful suggestion to look at super classes but rather that it comes off as lecturing, and frankly rather condescending.

Wow. You really are a piece of work.

You come here asking people to volunteer assistance to you out of the goodness of their hearts.

markspace wrote nothing at all to justify your remark. He was objective, and offered to review
your code for you. He gave you advice on how to present the code so that 
kind volunteers can help. You respond with this garbage instead of thanks?

What the hell is wrong with you?

> My understanding is that equals is true if, and only if, a and b are 
> exactly the same object. Here they are not even the same class. 

That's your misunderstanding. How about you read the Java tutorials to find out 
what the truth is about 'equals()'?

-- 
Lew

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20534

On 12/18/2012 2:14 PM, plewto@gmail.com wrote:
> Yes I understand that. In fact, as I pointed out in a subsequent
> post, none of my code defines equals, Node was however extending
> AbstractSet which does redefine it. Really All I was looking for was
> a general direction I might look and not to burden anyone with large
> blocks of code. Node is 212 lines, Gate is 67, Monitor another 85,
> none of which even once mentions the word "equals"

Your original post gave no indication that Node inherited from 
AbstractSet. Actually, you gave no indication of any inheritance 
structure, etc. The only way we could know what the problem was would be 
to either read your mind or to give a general, vague answer. Providing 
sufficient information to mention this would have precluded the whole 
debate.

That's why there's so much emphasis on the SSCCEs (short, 
self-contained, compilable code examples) in this newsgroup: if you can 
minimize the problem down to a self-contained solution that is small 
enough to include in a post, it gives all the information we need. And, 
often times, just trying to minimize it may lead you to the answer 
without needing to ask the question in the first place.

-- 
Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not
tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20538

On 12/19/2012 10:27 AM, Joshua Cranmer wrote:
> On 12/18/2012 2:14 PM, plewto@gmail.com wrote:
>> Yes I understand that. In fact, as I pointed out in a subsequent
>> post, none of my code defines equals, Node was however extending
>> AbstractSet which does redefine it. Really All I was looking for was
>> a general direction I might look and not to burden anyone with large
>> blocks of code. Node is 212 lines, Gate is 67, Monitor another 85,
>> none of which even once mentions the word "equals"
>
> Your original post gave no indication that Node inherited from
> AbstractSet. Actually, you gave no indication of any inheritance
> structure, etc. The only way we could know what the problem was would be
> to either read your mind or to give a general, vague answer. Providing
> sufficient information to mention this would have precluded the whole
> debate.
>
> That's why there's so much emphasis on the SSCCEs (short,
> self-contained, compilable code examples) in this newsgroup: if you can
> minimize the problem down to a self-contained solution that is small
> enough to include in a post, it gives all the information we need. And,
> often times, just trying to minimize it may lead you to the answer
> without needing to ask the question in the first place.

An SSCCE would have been great.

But even something as simple as:

public abstract class Node extends AbstractSet {
     // no equals method
}

public class Gate extends Node {
     // no equals method
}

public class Monitor extends Node {
     // no equals method
}

Node a = new Gate();
Monitor b = new Monitor();
System.out.println(a.equals(b)); // --> prints 'true'

would have helped.

But I don't know if it is so relevant. That distillation almost require
knowing what the problem is.

Arne

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20509

On 12/18/2012 1:48 PM, plewto@gmail.com wrote:
> It is complex because it is a large application. I can either post
> the several hundred lines of source or the the 6 which adequately
> illustrates the point. Node does not implement equals at all as you
> say

Those 6 lines are completely inadequate for any type of troubleshooting.

They contain zero new information compared to your description of the
problem in English.

Arne

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20508

On 12/18/2012 3:13 AM, plewto@gmail.com wrote:
> In the following code Node is an abstract class and both Gate and
> Monitor are extensions of Node. a and b are distinct objects yet
> a.equals(b) is returning true.
>
> public class Foo {
>      public static void main(String[] argv){
> 	Node a = new Gate();
> 	Monitor b = new Monitor();
> 	System.out.println(a.equals(b)); // --> prints 'true'
>      }
> }
>
> The underlying production code is a bit complex to include here. My
> understanding is that equals is true if, and only if, a and b are
> exactly the same object. Here they are not even the same class.

If you post complete code illustrating the problem, then
it can be solved in a few minutes.

Our telepathic abilities are not very good.

Arne

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 5 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.java.programmer

csiph-web