Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #20431 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "plewto@gmail.com" <plewto@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2012-12-18 00:13 -0800 |
| Last post | 2012-12-18 22:10 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 99 — 19 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.java.programmer
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 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next page →
| From | lipska the kat <lipskathekat@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-12-19 15:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <56CdnSM79us1Q0zNnZ2dnUVZ7ridnZ2d@bt.com> |
| In reply to | #20533 |
On 19/12/12 15:22, Leif Roar Moldskred wrote: > lipska the kat<lipskathekat@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> >> Who 'allows' them to post stupid questions. >> You ? > > Liberal killfile policies, mostly. > > It's a self-correcting problem, mostly. > Good idea *plonk* -- Lipska the Kat©: Troll hunter, sandbox destroyer and farscape dreamer of Aeryn Sun
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-12-19 10:56 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <50d1e396$0$285$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> |
| In reply to | #20533 |
On 12/19/2012 10:22 AM, Leif Roar Moldskred wrote: > lipska the kat <lipskathekat@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> >> Who 'allows' them to post stupid questions. >> You ? > > Liberal killfile policies, mostly. > > It's a self-correcting problem, mostly. :-) Arne
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | lipska the kat <lipskathekat@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-12-19 17:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2ZKdnd7_LtwIaUzNnZ2dnUVZ8jmdnZ2d@bt.com> |
| In reply to | #20528 |
On 19/12/12 14:42, Arne Vajhøj wrote: > On 12/19/2012 9:36 AM, lipska the kat wrote: >> On 19/12/12 14:09, Arne Vajhøj wrote: >>> On 12/19/2012 9:07 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote: >>>> On 12/19/2012 6:22 AM, Patricia Shanahan wrote: >>>>> On 12/19/2012 2:20 AM, lipska the kat wrote: >>>>> ... >> >> [snip] >> >>> >>> My point is that while newbies do have a "allowed to post >>> stupid questions" card, then they do not have a "allowed >>> to insult others without being criticized for it" card. > >> Your arrogance is almost beyond belief. Listen to yourself >> You really do think that you are in some way qualified to pass judgment >> on what is a stupid question and what isn't. > > Congratulations you completely missed the point. > >> This is USENET, you don't own it, you don't have the right to tell >> people what they can and cannot post, I think I've got to the bottom of what it is that's set me off. As I explained elsewhere I too have been using usenet for 20 odd years and reading this group for almost as long as I can remember. I think what REALLY pisses me off is the attitude that you and the others in you little clique have towards the chastisment of people for what you consider to be inappropriate behaviour for this group when that behaviour is not directed at you. This is an aggressive 'wolf pack' style behaviour that is designed to overwhelm and subdue people you decide have behaved inappropriately in comp.lang.java.programmer. Fortunately this type of behaviour does not affect me in the slightest. Having stared death squarely in the face on more than one occasion, to me, it is mearly an annoyance. This time it seems to have annoyed me more than usual however. Other less experienced people would no doubt feel highly intimidated and leave comp.lang.java.programmer never to return. I'll leave the question of why you feel qualified to decide on the appropriateness or otherwise of anyones behaviour until another time. What do you and you pals have to say for yourselves. lipska -- Lipska the Kat©: Troll hunter, sandbox destroyer and farscape dreamer of Aeryn Sun
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-12-19 08:58 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <kaskm4$b74$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #20527 |
On 12/19/2012 8:36 AM, lipska the kat wrote: > On 19/12/12 14:09, Arne Vajhøj wrote: >> On 12/19/2012 9:07 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote: >>> On 12/19/2012 6:22 AM, Patricia Shanahan wrote: >>>> On 12/19/2012 2:20 AM, lipska the kat wrote: >>>> ... > > [snip] > >> >> My point is that while newbies do have a "allowed to post >> stupid questions" card, > > Your arrogance is almost beyond belief. Listen to yourself > You really do think that you are in some way qualified to pass judgment > on what is a stupid question and what isn't. I would suggest that you finish reading entire posts before starting yelling matches, for if you had finished the sentence (assuming basic fluency in reading comprehension), you would have learned that Arne was opining that the criterion for what should be considered socially acceptable by this newsgroup isn't the quality of the question but rather by whether or not it is insulting. Also note that there was in no way any attempt to delineate specifically what class of questions corresponds to "stupid questions," which is apt because the entire point of the post was to postulate the nonimportance of such a class. Unless you were trying to be ironic. -- Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | lipska the kat <lipskathekat@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-12-19 15:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <56CdnSA79uu5Q0zNnZ2dnUVZ7ridnZ2d@bt.com> |
| In reply to | #20529 |
On 19/12/12 14:58, Joshua Cranmer wrote: > On 12/19/2012 8:36 AM, lipska the kat wrote: >> On 19/12/12 14:09, Arne Vajhøj wrote: >>> On 12/19/2012 9:07 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote: >>>> On 12/19/2012 6:22 AM, Patricia Shanahan wrote: >>>>> On 12/19/2012 2:20 AM, lipska the kat wrote: >>>>> ... >> >> [snip] >> >>> >>> My point is that while newbies do have a "allowed to post >>> stupid questions" card, >> >> Your arrogance is almost beyond belief. Listen to yourself >> You really do think that you are in some way qualified to pass judgment >> on what is a stupid question and what isn't. > > I would suggest that you finish reading entire posts before starting > yelling matches, for if you had finished the sentence (assuming basic > fluency in reading comprehension), you would have learned that Arne was > opining that the criterion for what should be considered socially > acceptable by this newsgroup isn't the quality of the question but > rather by whether or not it is insulting. Also note that there was in no > way any attempt to delineate specifically what class of questions > corresponds to "stupid questions," which is apt because the entire point > of the post was to postulate the nonimportance of such a class. Well for someone who can spout such a long winded discourse about nothing in particular I'm surprised you don't see the obvious. Allow me to explain as simply as possible. Lets take the sentence "allowed to post stupid questions" Who or what exactly 'allows' someone to post a question. I suggest it is the nntp protocol over the users internet connection, it certainly isn't you or one of you little group of self appointed administrators. The word 'stupid' in the context of a question implies an analysis of the question and an opinion as to it's stupidity, who's opinion exactly, yours ? What makes you or anyone else qualified to determine the validity of any question anywhere on Usenet ... your own grossly inflated ego perhaps. You are missing the point. It is not this particular instance of arrogance I particularly object to although there have been some spectacular instances of arrogance here today, but the general preponderance of puffed up self appointed quasi academic popinjays that inhabit usenet in general and this group in particular and are strangling what should be a forum for the free and frank exchange of views. > Unless you were trying to be ironic. Oh the irony lipska -- Lipska the Kat©: Troll hunter, sandbox destroyer and farscape dreamer of Aeryn Sun
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-12-19 11:08 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <kassb6$tap$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #20535 |
On 12/19/2012 9:32 AM, lipska the kat wrote: > On 19/12/12 14:58, Joshua Cranmer wrote: >> On 12/19/2012 8:36 AM, lipska the kat wrote: >>> On 19/12/12 14:09, Arne Vajhøj wrote: >>>> On 12/19/2012 9:07 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote: >>>>> On 12/19/2012 6:22 AM, Patricia Shanahan wrote: >>>>>> On 12/19/2012 2:20 AM, lipska the kat wrote: >>>>>> ... >>> >>> [snip] >>> >>>> >>>> My point is that while newbies do have a "allowed to post >>>> stupid questions" card, >>> > >>> Your arrogance is almost beyond belief. Listen to yourself >>> You really do think that you are in some way qualified to pass judgment >>> on what is a stupid question and what isn't. >> >> I would suggest that you finish reading entire posts before starting >> yelling matches, for if you had finished the sentence (assuming basic >> fluency in reading comprehension), you would have learned that Arne was >> opining that the criterion for what should be considered socially >> acceptable by this newsgroup isn't the quality of the question but >> rather by whether or not it is insulting. Also note that there was in no >> way any attempt to delineate specifically what class of questions >> corresponds to "stupid questions," which is apt because the entire point >> of the post was to postulate the nonimportance of such a class. > > Well for someone who can spout such a long winded discourse about > nothing in particular I'm surprised you don't see the obvious. When you have four people who have all pointed out that you probably missed the point, the evidence is in favor that you miscomprehended the intended point of the state. > Lets take the sentence > > "allowed to post stupid questions" > > Who or what exactly 'allows' someone to post a question. I suggest it is > the nntp protocol over the users internet connection, it certainly isn't > you or one of you little group of self appointed administrators. If you read what I wrote (I suspect you didn't, at least not closely), you will notice that I referred to it as "what [is] considered socially acceptable by this newsgroup"; that is how I read "allowed to post." > What makes you or anyone else qualified to determine the validity of any > question anywhere on Usenet ... your own grossly inflated ego perhaps. And the entire point of Arne's post in the first place was that whether or not a question is socially accepted in this newsgroup is *independent* of its valuation as a "stupid question" or not. He never portrayed himself as qualified to determine the metric of how stupid or not stupid a question is. > You are missing the point. It is not this particular instance of > arrogance I particularly object to although there have been some > spectacular instances of arrogance here today, but the general > preponderance of puffed up self appointed quasi academic popinjays > that inhabit usenet in general and this group in particular and are > strangling what should be a forum for the free and frank exchange of views. Oh, so you dislike everyone who acts like you. I get it. :-) -- Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | lipska the kat <lipskathekat@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-12-19 17:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <9v6dnZc_YueJZ0zNnZ2dnUVZ8sGdnZ2d@bt.com> |
| In reply to | #20553 |
On 19/12/12 17:08, Joshua Cranmer wrote: > On 12/19/2012 9:32 AM, lipska the kat wrote: >> On 19/12/12 14:58, Joshua Cranmer wrote: >>> On 12/19/2012 8:36 AM, lipska the kat wrote: >>>> On 19/12/12 14:09, Arne Vajhøj wrote: >>>>> On 12/19/2012 9:07 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote: >>>>>> On 12/19/2012 6:22 AM, Patricia Shanahan wrote: [snip] > > Oh, so you dislike everyone who acts like you. I get it. :-) I seriously doubt if you get anything other than your own inflated sense of self importance. See elsewhere for a discourse on the frankly rather distasteful behaviour exhibited by you and your little band of brothers towards me and others in this group. lipska -- Lipska the Kat©: Troll hunter, sandbox destroyer and farscape dreamer of Aeryn Sun
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lars Enderin <lars.enderin@telia.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-12-19 18:41 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <50D1FC5B.4090201@telia.com> |
| In reply to | #20557 |
2012-12-19 18:32, lipska the kat skrev: > On 19/12/12 17:08, Joshua Cranmer wrote: >> On 12/19/2012 9:32 AM, lipska the kat wrote: >>> On 19/12/12 14:58, Joshua Cranmer wrote: >>>> On 12/19/2012 8:36 AM, lipska the kat wrote: >>>>> On 19/12/12 14:09, Arne Vajhøj wrote: >>>>>> On 12/19/2012 9:07 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote: >>>>>>> On 12/19/2012 6:22 AM, Patricia Shanahan wrote: > > [snip] > >> >> Oh, so you dislike everyone who acts like you. I get it. :-) > > I seriously doubt if you get anything other than your own inflated sense > of self importance. See elsewhere for a discourse on the frankly rather > distasteful behaviour exhibited by you and your little band of brothers > towards me and others in this group. I don't see how you arrive at those terms of characterization from what has been written here. How do you determine that Joshua has an inflated sense of self-importance? What makes you use words like "distasteful"? I submit that your views may be more than a little skewed. -- Lars Enderin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | lipska the kat <lipskathekat@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-12-19 17:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <8qWdnW1abuv9nU_NnZ2dnUVZ8hWdnZ2d@bt.com> |
| In reply to | #20559 |
On 19/12/12 17:41, Lars Enderin wrote: > 2012-12-19 18:32, lipska the kat skrev: >> On 19/12/12 17:08, Joshua Cranmer wrote: >>> On 12/19/2012 9:32 AM, lipska the kat wrote: >>>> On 19/12/12 14:58, Joshua Cranmer wrote: >>>>> On 12/19/2012 8:36 AM, lipska the kat wrote: >>>>>> On 19/12/12 14:09, Arne Vajhøj wrote: >>>>>>> On 12/19/2012 9:07 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote: >>>>>>>> On 12/19/2012 6:22 AM, Patricia Shanahan wrote: >> >> [snip] >> >>> >>> Oh, so you dislike everyone who acts like you. I get it. :-) >> >> I seriously doubt if you get anything other than your own inflated sense >> of self importance. See elsewhere for a discourse on the frankly rather >> distasteful behaviour exhibited by you and your little band of brothers >> towards me and others in this group. > > I don't see how you arrive at those terms of characterization from what > has been written here. How do you determine that Joshua has an inflated > sense of self-importance? What makes you use words like "distasteful"? I > submit that your views may be more than a little skewed. Again, you just don't seem to get it do you. What has this got to do with you. If you think for one minute that I am intimidated by your aggressive bahaviour then I suggest it is you who needs a reality check. Mind Your Own Business. If 'Joshua' has a problem with me let him be the one to speak. Are you having a problem with the English ? There are several passable translators on the WWW, do you want me to Google that for you. lipska -- Lipska the Kat©: Troll hunter, sandbox destroyer and farscape dreamer of Aeryn Sun
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | lipska the kat <lipskathekat@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-12-19 18:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <8rCdndZERbkPnk_NnZ2dnUVZ7o2dnZ2d@bt.com> |
| In reply to | #20562 |
On 19/12/12 17:58, lipska the kat wrote: >> What makes you use words like "distasteful"? What do you call the mass aggressive rounding on an individual who has 'upset' one of your tribe. I could call it cowardice but I'll be kind and call it distasteful. I'm feeling kind today Perhaps that is how you behave in your day to day life, well it's not how we behave where I come from. lipska -- Lipska the Kat©: Troll hunter, sandbox destroyer and farscape dreamer of Aeryn Sun
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-12-19 12:29 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <kat11g$oh6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #20562 |
On 12/19/2012 11:58 AM, lipska the kat wrote: > If 'Joshua' has a problem with me let him be the one to speak. If I feel I have nothing to add to a discourse, I won't say anything. I also have this nasty habit of ignoring insults or responding to them (or pretty much anything else) with humor. -- Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-12-19 12:00 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <kasvc1$h18$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #20557 |
On 12/19/2012 11:32 AM, lipska the kat wrote: > On 19/12/12 17:08, Joshua Cranmer wrote: >> Oh, so you dislike everyone who acts like you. I get it. :-) > > I seriously doubt if you get anything other than your own inflated sense > of self importance. See elsewhere for a discourse on the frankly rather > distasteful behaviour exhibited by you and your little band of brothers > towards me and others in this group. That statement was not meant to be taken seriously. To match your exacting statements, I shall henceforth extricate any attempt at humor from all future postings. -- Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | lipska the kat <lipskathekat@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-12-19 18:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <MvadnSf9VaHZn0_NnZ2dnUVZ8gWdnZ2d@bt.com> |
| In reply to | #20563 |
On 19/12/12 18:00, Joshua Cranmer wrote: > On 12/19/2012 11:32 AM, lipska the kat wrote: >> On 19/12/12 17:08, Joshua Cranmer wrote: >>> Oh, so you dislike everyone who acts like you. I get it. :-) >> >> I seriously doubt if you get anything other than your own inflated sense >> of self importance. See elsewhere for a discourse on the frankly rather >> distasteful behaviour exhibited by you and your little band of brothers >> towards me and others in this group. > > That statement was not meant to be taken seriously. To match your > exacting statements, I shall henceforth extricate any attempt at humor > from all future postings. Oh it was humor was it... I'm sorry, I seem to have undergone a bit of a humor bypass recently, perhaps you have noticed. lipska -- Lipska the Kat©: Troll hunter, sandbox destroyer and farscape dreamer of Aeryn Sun
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-12-19 13:13 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <50d203d2$0$284$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> |
| In reply to | #20565 |
On 12/19/2012 1:06 PM, lipska the kat wrote: > On 19/12/12 18:00, Joshua Cranmer wrote: >> On 12/19/2012 11:32 AM, lipska the kat wrote: >>> On 19/12/12 17:08, Joshua Cranmer wrote: >>>> Oh, so you dislike everyone who acts like you. I get it. :-) >>> >>> I seriously doubt if you get anything other than your own inflated sense >>> of self importance. See elsewhere for a discourse on the frankly rather >>> distasteful behaviour exhibited by you and your little band of brothers >>> towards me and others in this group. >> >> That statement was not meant to be taken seriously. To match your >> exacting statements, I shall henceforth extricate any attempt at humor >> from all future postings. > > Oh it was humor was it... I'm sorry, I seem to have undergone a bit of a > humor bypass recently, perhaps you have noticed. Once you have some spare time I suggest you start learning about those small symbols sometimes used on the internet. Like :-) Arne
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Duniho <NpOeStPeAdM@NnOwSlPiAnMk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-12-19 07:48 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <10yaq02q0ygj1.rzrlmse29xcs$.dlg@40tude.net> |
| In reply to | #20527 |
On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 14:36:21 +0000, lipska the kat wrote: > On 19/12/12 14:09, Arne Vajhøj wrote: >> On 12/19/2012 9:07 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote: >>> On 12/19/2012 6:22 AM, Patricia Shanahan wrote: >>>> On 12/19/2012 2:20 AM, lipska the kat wrote: >>>> ... > > [snip] > >> >> My point is that while newbies do have a "allowed to post >> stupid questions" card, > > Your arrogance is almost beyond belief. Listen to yourself > You really do think that you are in some way qualified to pass judgment > on what is a stupid question and what isn't. 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). Neither he nor Mark have in any way suggested that the question is stupid. Mark's initial reply was entirely factual, including the part where he offered EVEN MORE ASSISTANCE. If by "lecturing" the OP means "stated several correct facts, one after the other" and by "condescending" the OP means "demonstrated superior knowledge of a subject", then sure...I suppose Mark's reply might have been those things (after all, it's practically impossible to answer a fact-based question without stating facts and demonstrating superior knowledge). But that's not how most of the rest of us defined those words. Usually, we use them to carry a negative connotation, and frankly it seems pretty clear that the OP intended them to carry that same negative connotation, not the harmless alternate definitions I've hypothesized. And there's just no way Mark's reply fits the conventional definitions of those words. > 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. No one's telling anyone what they can and cannot post. No one has told the OP that they shouldn't have posted their question. They ARE telling the OP that he's being completely ridiculous to accuse Mark of lecturing and condescension. > Maybe you and cadre of self appointed administrators should go and hang > out on IRC, then you can ban people who you don't agree with ... massage > your overinflated egos a bit more. > > jeez, I haven't got this worked up in a while. Given your apparently and shockingly low threshold of taking offense, even on behalf of someone else, that seems difficult to believe. Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | lipska the kat <lipskathekat@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-12-19 16:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <g4qdnZYPb8NTckzNnZ2dnUVZ7tadnZ2d@bt.com> |
| In reply to | #20540 |
On 19/12/12 15:48, Peter Duniho wrote: > On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 14:36:21 +0000, lipska the kat wrote: > >> On 19/12/12 14:09, Arne Vajhøj wrote: >>> On 12/19/2012 9:07 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote: >>>> On 12/19/2012 6:22 AM, Patricia Shanahan wrote: >>>>> On 12/19/2012 2:20 AM, lipska the kat wrote: >>>>> ... >> >> [snip] >> >>> >>> My point is that while newbies do have a "allowed to post >>> stupid questions" card, >> >> Your arrogance is almost beyond belief. Listen to yourself >> You really do think that you are in some way qualified to pass judgment >> on what is a stupid question and what isn't. > > 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" 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. Surely that responder will speak up if he feels offended. 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. [snip] > > 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' 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. lipska -- Lipska the Kat©: Troll hunter, sandbox destroyer and farscape dreamer of Aeryn Sun
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-12-19 12:09 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <50d1f4bb$0$288$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> |
| In reply to | #20549 |
On 12/19/2012 11:48 AM, lipska the kat wrote: > And here's a thing. Why do Arne and his pals feel the need to chastise > someone for being 'insulting' to a particular responder. Surely that > responder will speak up if he feels offended. > > 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. > 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. If that is your opinion, then why did *you* comment?? Arne
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | lipska the kat <lipskathekat@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-12-19 17:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <gZ-dnczQhObwY0zNnZ2dnUVZ8i2dnZ2d@bt.com> |
| In reply to | #20554 |
On 19/12/12 17:09, Arne Vajhøj wrote: > On 12/19/2012 11:48 AM, lipska the kat wrote: >> And here's a thing. Why do Arne and his pals feel the need to chastise >> someone for being 'insulting' to a particular responder. Surely that >> responder will speak up if he feels offended. >> >> 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. > >> 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. > > If that is your opinion, then why did *you* comment?? Because someone needs to speak out. Like I said elsewhere, I'm immune to your gang based nonsense, others might not be so. The behaviour of you and you pals is unacceptable to me. This is my opinion, not someone elses, I don't expect or ask for anyone to stand up for me or take my side, and by unacceptable I mean the rounding on a single individual en-mass is unacceptable to me ... don't get what I am talking about.? just count the number of aggressive posts aimed at me over my discussion with you. What's the matter, can't you stand up for yourself, As my father used to say, "are you a man or a mouse". Do you need your 'friends' to massage your ego, tell THEM to mind their own business. If I see this behaviour again I will take you to task again. lipska -- Lipska the Kat©: Troll hunter, sandbox destroyer and farscape dreamer of Aeryn Sun
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-12-19 13:14 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <50d20420$0$284$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> |
| In reply to | #20560 |
On 12/19/2012 12:50 PM, lipska the kat wrote: > On 19/12/12 17:09, Arne Vajhøj wrote: >> On 12/19/2012 11:48 AM, lipska the kat wrote: >>> And here's a thing. Why do Arne and his pals feel the need to chastise >>> someone for being 'insulting' to a particular responder. Surely that >>> responder will speak up if he feels offended. >>> >>> 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. >> >>> 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. >> >> If that is your opinion, then why did *you* comment?? > > Because someone needs to speak out. So the "mind your own business" rule applies to us but not to you? Rather funky isn't it? Arne
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | lipska the kat <lipskathekat@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-12-19 18:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <O8SdnRcCea8Hk0_NnZ2dnUVZ7qCdnZ2d@bt.com> |
| In reply to | #20570 |
On 19/12/12 18:14, Arne Vajhøj wrote: > On 12/19/2012 12:50 PM, lipska the kat wrote: >> On 19/12/12 17:09, Arne Vajhøj wrote: >>> On 12/19/2012 11:48 AM, lipska the kat wrote: [snip] >> >> Because someone needs to speak out. > > So the "mind your own business" rule applies to us but not to you? I've already stated my position on this, if you can't be bothered to read it I certainly can't be bothered to restate it > Rather funky isn't it? No not really, what is is is rather sad that despite stating my position quite clearly you still fail to see the point. Still extremism often results in a blinkered view of reality so I suppose it shouldn't come as any big surprise. lipska -- Lipska the Kat©: Troll hunter, sandbox destroyer and farscape dreamer of Aeryn Sun
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.java.programmer
csiph-web