Bogus NullPointerExceptions

[Twisted]

You mean this[snip]

SHUT UP ALREADY. You're like a goddam stuck record!

If it was true the first time, it would still be true the six
zillionth.

So would "2 + 2 = 5". Your statement is basically meaningless.

It's conventional to put your signature at the *end* of the message.

Oh ho, very clever. Not. Your wit is comparable to that of one of my
neighbor's three pigs. The one that frequently leaves runny turds right
at the boundary fence as a matter of fact.

[Further insulting dreck deleted, all of it mischaracterizing me
grossly without anything resembling evidence]

Not necessarily.

In the same way that your various spoutings are "not necessarily" due
to a deep loathing you feel towards me? Yeah, right. Like I'm going to
believe *you*.

 

[Twisted]

Joe Attacki strikes again:

Belligerancy? Now you're making words up too.

I'm not responsible for your lack of dictionary-foo. Now go sulk in a
corner for a while or something.

If I want to get back involved with a conversation again, that's my right.

Not if your "involvement" is solely for the purpose of character
assassination, it isn't.

Now for ONCE can you not dodge the question

You are not in any position to be asking me irrelevant,
non-Java-related questions. If you really really want to, use e-mail.

and answer me this: Why
does the trend seem to be that once you get into a discussion on
Usenet, you quickly turn it into a heated argument where the original
topic is long-gone? [snip calling me a liar]

Tell me sir, have you stopped beating your wife yet?

When you have a yes or no answer to that, I'll get back to you on your
question. Fair's fair.

 

[Twisted]

Because you wish to continue discussing it.

No I don't. But by wish not to leave this with an insult standing
unchallenged is stronger. Now why don't you tell me why *you* wish to
continue this nonsense of yours?

Do I seem convinced?

This is comp.lang.java.programmer. Psychiatrists are asked to please
leave; only rigorous logic is wanted here, and answering questions with
questions, psychobabble, trying to draw out the "patient", and so forth
are ineffective on software anyway. So please go away.

[several meaningless, untrue insults snipped]

You can't leave it alone *because* you love that sort of response.

Another lie. You and Attacki vying for some prize here? First to
accumulate 100 bald-faced lies that you get called on? (Whoever gets
there first is the loser, as far as I am concerned.)

[Snip further insults, irrelevancies, and BS]

You mean this

[snip repetition]

STOP REINSERTING SNIPPED MATERIAL FUCKHEAD. I SNIPPED IT BECAUSE I
DON'T WANT IT BEING SPREAD AROUND OR BELIEVED BY ANYBODY. ARE YOU
FUCKING STUPID OR SOMETHING?! JEEZ!

Anyone reading the start of this thread can see that you aggravate
others.

No. They can see that people (including, eventually, me) *got*
aggravated; that much is true. But that doesn't mean I did it. Why on
earth would I want to anyway, given what the result is? Anyway, it is
only people like you who feel the need to point fingers of blame (and
invariably end up pointing in the wrong damn direction at that).

You are repeating yourself, did you forget. Here's my earlier reply

[snip insult]

Eh. What? There's no "reply" there, just another dim-witted ad-hominem
attack.

I'm enjoying it, aren't you?

NO, you bloody moron! Now shut up!

Do you speak from experience?

Don't be insulting.

I'll treat this as an abstract question: The kind where the other
participant enjoys it.

Clearly a lie, since I do not enjoy it. This is work for me, not play;
work you're forcing me to do, to clean up the stupid messes you keep
leaving.

Remember at the top of this reply I said "addressed at end." Were
anyone following this thread, they would be able to observe that it is
you who introduce those things into our conversation.

Stop lying and shut the hell up.

I know you prefer unconventional approaches to tasks (e.g. loading
icons), but I operate my keyboard with my hands. Your way must be messy
and uncomfortable

This is way too stupid a remark to bother dignifying with a proper
rebuttal. Go away.

 

[Twisted]

I have been amused [snip]

I have not. Now go away and stop implying nasty little lies about me.
Or else.

 

[Twisted]

Tom Forsmo wrote:
[filtering all inarticulate, content-free blather]

[nothing left?!]

Hrm, looks like you forgot to actually put anything meaningful in your
post.

OK, moving along now...

 

[Twisted]

In fact, we are all having pleasant conversations...

That's false. I, for one, am not. Now GO AWAY.

 

[Twisted]

False.

No its actually true [reiteration of stupid baseless insult]

Go to hell.

But in any case, if you get into a street fight because some guy tries
to hit you and you throw a punch you that misses and then throws a punch
that kills the guy, you think you can get away with telling the police
its not your fault because he started it... lol

When you start to come off your meth high and make sense, please be
sure to let me know.

The cat always thinks its pleasant to chase a mouse....

But it's not nice for the mouse. Cats aren't civilized or self-aware or
any of that, but humans are, and human behavior that's equivalent and
directed at other human beings is wrong. So stop it.

 

[Twisted]

foo bar baz qux used a newsgroup the way puppies use a newspaper:

Do you need my permission to cease posting to this thread? I grant you
that permission.

No, I need no outstanding unaddressed insults to exist, as I've
explained TEN THOUSAND GODDAM TIMES!!

You don't demonstrate any belief this statement.

I stated it TEN THOUSAND GODDAM TIMES, you liar!! The only reason I
continue at all is to undo as much of the damage you are trying to do
to my future as possible, you stupid, worthless piece of shit!

Hypothetically, if your example had persuaded others to adopt your
posting philosophy, how would this thread come to an end?

Quickly, if they didn't consistently keep posting attacks and stopped
posting altogether once they were no longer under attack themselves.

Why, by the way, are you now polluting the NPE thread with your drivel?

I've already said that I view this as a conversation. You started the
"Bogus NullPointerExceptions" thread.

You turned it into something else asshole and you fucking know it!

end on your terms, and that you must have the last word...

I've never written that. [snip]

It's written all over your behavior, notably, the fact that you STILL
HAVEN'T SHUT THE **** UP!

It's conventional to put hyphen hyphen space newline prior to your
signature.

That wasn't my signature, you complete and utter MORON.

 

[Joe Attardi]

Joe Attacki strikes again:

Still intent on first-grade insults of my last name? OK.

I'm not responsible for your lack of dictionary-foo. Now go sulk in a
corner for a while or something.

Actually it is you who lacks dictionary skills. There is no such word.
Try "belligerence" or "belligerency".

Not if your "involvement" is solely for the purpose of character
assassination, it isn't.

It's not character assassination. Either way, though, it actually is
still my right. Since this is an unmoderated public newsgroup, as you
have stressed to strongly before, anyone has the right to post
anything.

Tell me sir, have you stopped beating your wife yet?
When you have a yes or no answer to that, I'll get back to you on your
question. Fair's fair.

Wait, what!? That is the most random question ever. What does spousal
abuse have to do with anything being discussed here? Besides, I'm not
married yet, so I don't have a wife to beat, nor will I once I am
married. Not sure what you were going for here, but you got your
answer, at least.

 

[Andreas Leitgeb]

I don't think this is true at all. Unless you refer to my responses to
people pointing out perceived "problems" with me (rather than with my
code).

Well, sure, they started criticizing you for your lack of
cooperation (even before your problem was declared solved
by you). While that was indeed personal criticism, this
didn't at that point justify snazzy responses and swear words.

Even now, while you're surely *not* the only one throwing
insults, you're still the only one using direct swear words.

The point where the topic actually went off-track was your
claim that your were "forced" to answer all articles. This
surely invited all lurking leisure-time-Trolls (and yes,
some even admit they do this just for fun, watching you
trying to answer *every* such article). It seems unlikely
that you could exit this thread any other way than backwards.

 

[Twisted]

Joe Attardi wrote:
[another fairly diverse assortment of insults]

Ah, the "broad-spectrum antibiotic" approach. Insult a whole variety of
different things about someone at once in the hope of finding at least
one vulnerable point. Unfortunately, when you are so juvenile about it
it doesn't work, as it's kind of like diluting that antibiotic to one
part in a million and still expecting it to kill anything.

Some specific rebuttals:

It's not character assassination.
Liar.

Either way, though, it actually is
still my right. Since this is an unmoderated public newsgroup, as you
have stressed to strongly before, anyone has the right to post
anything.

The ability to, anyway. That doesn't mean some behavior isn't wrong,
such as:
* Intentionally being inflammatory
* Intentionally piloting a thread off-topic
* Character assassination attempts...

Funnily enough, by that measure you're guilty of virtually every crime
usenet has a law for (or what passes for law hereabouts, anyway).

Wait, what!? That is the most random question ever.

No, actually, it is not. It's from a famous legal case in which a judge
was insisting that a witness answer "yes" or "no" to a loaded question
-- one where either answer admits to something.

Sneakily-worded questions are often used to try to get "facts" entered
into evidence without debate or proper review. And I was (somewhat
obscurely, I admit) calling you on your latest attempt to do so, in
which you asked a question that asked why I <something evil> and, in
the process, tried to sneak in a baseless claim *that* I <something
evil> under the radar.

In other words, "Nice try".

 

[Daniel Pitts]

Tom Forsmo wrote:
[filtering all inarticulate, content-free blather]

[nothing left?!]

Hrm, looks like you forgot to actually put anything meaningful in your
post.

OK, moving along now...

He doesn't need to put anything meaningful, if he follows your example
at least.

 

[Joe Attardi]

** Cracks knuckles and prepares for another round of this nonsense **

Joe Attardi wrote:[another fairly diverse assortment of insults]

Now hang on. You want to talk about insults? You are taking my last
name and changing the spelling of it to try to make fun of me. That is
a childhood school-age style of insult. The fact that you continue to
do it pretty much nullifies any claims you have about being insulted
yourself.

Ah, the "broad-spectrum antibiotic" approach. Insult a whole variety of
different things about someone at once in the hope of finding at least
one vulnerable point. Unfortunately, when you are so juvenile about it
it doesn't work, as it's kind of like diluting that antibiotic to one
part in a million and still expecting it to kill anything.

??! What are you talking about? You said I didn't have dictionary-foo
[sic] and I corrected you with how the word is actually spelled. What
does that have to do with "insult[ing] a whole variety of different
things about someone at once" ?

Liar.

This seems to be what you say to something for which you have no
response or counter examples. When all else fails, just call the person
a liar, eh Twisted?

* Intentionally being inflammatory Twisted says:
* Intentionally piloting a thread off-topic Twisted says:
* Character assassination attempts... Twisted says:

My "double-standard" alarm has been tripped! You are guilty of
everything you are accusing others of. At least I have provided some
examples. Could you do the same? Oh yeah, you can't, because you
apparently use a single-threaded single-window browser in a
non-multitasking operating system.

Funnily enough, by that measure you're guilty of virtually every crime
usenet has a law for (or what passes for law hereabouts, anyway).

I'm sorry, usenet has laws or rules? Kind of hard for an unmoderated
forum don't you think? (Although at least you have good taste in
movies. [assuming that was a Matrix reference])

Sneakily-worded questions are often used to try to get "facts" entered
into evidence without debate or proper review. And I was (somewhat
obscurely, I admit) calling you on your latest attempt to do so, in
which you asked a question that asked why I <something evil> and, in
the process, tried to sneak in a baseless claim *that* I <something
evil> under the radar.

Are you convinced that this is some sort of courtroom drama?

 

[Twisted]

I don't think this is true at all. Unless you refer to my responses to
people pointing out perceived "problems" with me (rather than with my
code).

Well, sure, they started criticizing you for your [alleged] lack of
cooperation (even before your problem was declared solved
by you). While that was indeed personal criticism, this
didn't at that point justify snazzy responses and swear words.

Nor did I react that way until some people had done much worse, and
then only to those people (Joe Attardi is currently the #1 villain in
that regard).

Even now, while you're surely *not* the only one throwing
insults, you're still the only one using direct swear words.

I'm pissed off, that's why! I want these morons to shut the hell up!
They haven't been saying anything either a) on-topic, b) pleasant, or
c) original for days now -- just repeating themselves over and over
again as if somehow that will make their fantasies magically become
true! And I can't just ignore it because whoever else is reading the
spew coming out of their keyboards might start to believe them --
repetition is a well-known propaganda technique, as these faceless
attackers of mine evidently know well. So I'm forced to wade through
their crap trying to rebut it to counteract its propaganda effects day
after day, for a week or so now, which as you might guess is
FRUSTRATING!

The point where the topic actually went off-track was your
claim that your were "forced" to answer all articles.

See above -- if an article contains bogus accusations or allegations
that might poison the minds of third parties until they come to be
prejudiced against me, it's incumbent on me to avoid just sitting back
and doing nothing about it. I've had damaging rumors spread online
about me before and I know from personal experience that they can
result in serious repercussions, so you can't possibly expect me to be
blase about this or to just ignore it and hope it goes away.

[Something that seems vaguely insulting snipped]

 

[Twisted]

He doesn't need to put anything meaningful, if he follows your example
at least.

This appears to be an insult. If so, it is false and you should shut up.

 

[Twisted]

** Cracks knuckles and prepares for another round of this nonsense **

** Cocks gun and prepares to end this nonsense once and for all **

Joe Attardi wrote:[another fairly diverse assortment of insults]

Now hang on. You want to talk about insults? You are taking my last
name and changing the spelling of it to try to make fun of me.

You started it. Then when I land a blow you cry foul? If you're that
wimpy you shouldn't pick fights, moron!

??! What are you talking about? You said I didn't have dictionary-foo
[sic] and I corrected you with how the word is actually spelled. What
does that have to do with "insult[ing] a whole variety of different
things about someone at once" ?

Your "correcting" me IS an insult, dweeb. I do not need "correcting".
Certainly not about either spelling or Java. Any suggestion at all to
the contrary is going to provoke a violently hostile reaction from me,
since it cannot be allowed to stand unchallenged. And it wasn't the
only insult I'd snipped in that batch, dumbass.

This seems to be what you say to something for which you have no
response or counter examples.

No, it's what I say when someone lied and the thread history speaks for
itself. Oh yeah, but I forget, you seem to believe our mutual audience
(if anyone is even still paying attention to this nonsense) has an
average IQ in the teens and no memory to speak of, and everything has
to be cited like in some scholarly journal or something because
otherwise they'll have no chance of either remembering it on their own
or doing their own googling to find it. Right.

* Intentionally being inflammatory

Twisted says:[snip]

Doesn't count. I didn't do anything of the sort until the thread was
already in flames. It was one of you who put it into that state, not I.

The thread was already way off-topic long before then, dimbulb. Someone
else steered it there; I just found it like that.

I explained that that was an example to show you that your stupid trick
of asking loaded questions a) actually is stupid and b) won't work, but
it sailed right over your head. I *did* forgot to adjust for your
substantially subnormal IQ; I freely admit this. In any event, since
you do recognize that asking such a loaded question constitutes a
character assassination attempt, you will hopefully now apologize for
your own loaded, character-attacking questions.

My "double-standard" alarm has been tripped! You are guilty of
everything you are accusing others of.

Wrong! See above. I didn't pilot anything off-topic; only found it
already adrift there. I didn't inflame the thread either; you did that.
And I didn't do anything of the sort *first*, but only when attacked
and provoked by a bunch of crazed howler monkeys given steroids and
internet access.

Are you convinced that this is some sort of courtroom drama?

You're the one putting me on trial. You tell me whether it's a
courtroom drama or not.

 

[Tom Forsmo]

Joe Attardi wrote:
Some specific rebuttals:


Liar.

Liar liar pants on fire... thats what I used to say when i went to first
grade....

The ability to, anyway. That doesn't mean some behavior isn't wrong,
such as:
* Intentionally being inflammatory
* Intentionally piloting a thread off-topic
* Character assassination attempts...

Exactly what you have been doing as well.

No, actually, it is not. It's from a famous legal case in which a judge
was insisting that a witness answer "yes" or "no" to a loaded question
-- one where either answer admits to something.

you do know that this only works in the movies? along with other
dramatical techniques such as "your honor, please allow me to treat this
witness as a hostile witness" and so on. In real life nobody can dictate
or limit what a witness may answer, the witness may even refuse to
answer (of course in some cases refusing to answer, can lead to
imprisonment, but they can not force you to answer).

 

[Tom Forsmo]

Nor did I react that way until some people had done much worse, and
then only to those people (Joe Attardi is currently the #1 villain in
that regard).

No he is not a villian, he is a gatekeeper trying to fend off all kind
off dirt.

I'm pissed off, that's why! I want these morons to shut the hell up!

Well they are not going to, and I shall tell you why (which I have tried
to do earlier as well.) you keep responding instead of ignoring them...

They haven't been saying anything either a) on-topic, b) pleasant, or
c) original for days now -- just repeating themselves over and over

Neither have you...

again as if somehow that will make their fantasies magically become
true! And I can't just ignore it because whoever else is reading the
spew coming out of their keyboards might start to believe them --
repetition is a well-known propaganda technique, as these faceless
attackers of mine evidently know well. So I'm forced to wade through
their crap trying to rebut it to counteract its propaganda effects day
after day, for a week or so now, which as you might guess is
FRUSTRATING!

Thats why they keep responding... to frustrate you for fun...

See above -- if an article contains bogus accusations or allegations
that might poison the minds of third parties until they come to be
prejudiced against me, it's incumbent on me to avoid just sitting back
and doing nothing about it.

Let me try and make this clear to you again.

There are several hundred million users on the net, none of them know
who you are or or cares who you are. To them you are a little mosquito,
some dust blowing by... If it happens to be that one of the mosquitos
are a little dirtier or cleaner than the others, nobodys even going to
notice, because you are insignificant in the grander scale of things, as
are the rest of us as well.
So for each slanderous thing there is written about you there are a
thousand slanderous things written about others as well. And if someone
should read something about a person and take notice, they are mad.
Because we all know that one can not blindly trust the information on
the net.

Did that make it any clearer for you that your effort is totally wasted?

I've had damaging rumors spread online
about me before and I know from personal experience that they can
result in serious repercussions, so you can't possibly expect me to be
blase about this or to just ignore it and hope it goes away.

please do share...

 

[Tom Forsmo]

That's false. I, for one, am not. Now GO AWAY.

Well, I was talking about you... I was talking about the rest of us.

 

[Tom Forsmo]

Let me explain it in simple words: You aggravate others
False.

No its actually true [reiteration of stupid baseless insult]

Go to hell.

I am in hell at the moment and I will stay here until I vanquish the
devil...

When you start to come off your meth high and make sense, please be
sure to let me know.

Im am sorry that it does not make any sense to you, but please let me
know in the future if you manage to make sense of it (its really not
that difficult to understand).

But it's not nice for the mouse.

Did you ever hear the story of the scorpion and the turtle trying to
cross a stream?...

Animals dont have feelings and abstract understanding as humans do, so
to them its not a matter whether its nice, it just a biological reflex
of how to react, in other words their nature.

Cats aren't civilized

Shall I tell you why? because only people can be civilised, its part of
the definition of being civilised.

> or self-aware or
any of that, but humans are, and human behavior that's equivalent and
directed at other human beings is wrong. So stop it.

Yes please stop it, you are directing non-human behaviour at other
humans. And as you say it; its wrong, so stop it.