how long java 1.0 has developed?

[Raymond DeCampo]

"Insightful" or "inciteful"? I know it's bad form to nitpick about
spelling, but this one is kind of amusing in context (unless I
misunderstand the point you were trying to make).

Please be more careful with your quotations. While a seasoned newsgroup
reader will realize who actually wrote the above, the casual observer
will not. I did not write any of the above.

Ray

 

[blmblm]

[ some stuff I snipped out previously, without also removing the
attribution ]

Please be more careful with your quotations. While a seasoned newsgroup
reader will realize who actually wrote the above, the casual observer
will not. I did not write any of the above.

Indeed. My apologies. As you say (I think), a careful reader will
figure out who actually said the part I responded to, but others could
be misled. In fact I seem to have been unusually careless with the
whole thing -- usually I also put in "[ snip ]" to mark deletions.
What's the rule about every post flaming someone about a spelling
error .... Something similar here, maybe.

 

[.]

"." coughed up:

"." coughed up:
On Wed, 29 Jun 2005, Thomas G. Marshall wrote:


...[rip]...

Bush crime family lost/embezzled $3 trillion from Pentagon.
Complicit Bush-friendly media keeps mum. Rumsfeld confesses on
video.
http://www.infowars.com/articles/us/mckinney_grills_rumsfeld.htm

Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
See http://mindprod.com/iraq.html photos of Bush's war crimes

You'll probably do better if you keep politics out of the java
newsgroups, and in particular not quote from simplistic websites
like infowars nor make silly phrases like "Bush crime family".
You're inviting an OT political flaming. And those things just go
on forever, and with everyone losing.

Until you posted you message this was a non-issue. Your desire to

*BULLSHIT* Until *he* posted that crap it was a non-issue. It's
disruptive, and if he did not do it there would be fewer flame wars.
Don't tell me that its the reaction to something offensive that is
the problem----it's the thing that is offensive.

You think political flame wars happen in a vacuum? They happen when
people start voicing political opinions like he did. He's trying to
push buttons, like you said, and when someone does that, they should
be asked to stop.

I think political flame wars happen between TWO or more people.

I have no control over what feelings someone can incite in me. Roedy
can put things in his signature that makes me angry or happy. I have
no control over that. What I can control is my reaction to it. I
don't see the point of bringing attention to something in Roedy's
signature that has nothing to do with this newsgroup.

Then what is the point in responding to me?

I'm hoping to understand why you felt the need to respond to Roedy's
signature. I don't see what you hoped to gain from your original posting.

I didn't start this thread, roedy did the minute he placed inflamatory
political nonsense into a post. You have perpetuated this by responding to
my post.

Obviously I have chosen my words poorly. What I'm really trying to
understand is why did you post the message that you did. I think from your
objection about who started this thread I kind of understand how we see
things differently.

What do you expect to gain by posting a response to me?

As I said above, understanding. I honestly don't understand what you hope
to gain by posting the message you did. What am I missing? Why do so many
people insist on replying to messages that are off-topic with a message
attempting to stop those people? I know you cannot answer for everyone but
hopefully if I can understand what you expect to gain I might know what to
look for in others.

 

[tgm1024]

Sorry for the temporary change in addresses. I'm on vacation, verizon
disallows access to their ng's unless I'm physically connected via
their DSL, and google does not allow me to specify my usual obfuscated
address. Pain in the neck.

....[rip]...

As I said above, understanding. I honestly don't understand what you hope
to gain by posting the message you did. What am I missing? Why do so many
people insist on replying to messages that are off-topic with a message
attempting to stop those people?

Explanation follows, but note that I do not (as I've explained) have an
issue with OT posts per se. In fact, I like them, again, for reasons
I've explained elsethread. Do *not* confuse the two issues.

I know you cannot answer for everyone but
hopefully if I can understand what you expect to gain I might know what to
look for in others.

Well, when someone is doing something to intentionally cause trouble,
you typically try to tell them so, and (hopefully) politely ask them to
knock it off. The goal would be to (hopefully) get them to change
their behavior. In this case, it is not because Roedy's signature is
OT. It is because such political subjects are frequent fodder for
flame wars. The only point in placing his signature is to stir up
trouble---and that's it. This thread, however, is far from a flame
war---it is a discussion---and as nearly all usenet threads, a form of
compound-disagreement.

 

[Thomas G. Marshall]

(e-mail address removed) coughed up:

....[rip]...

Indeed. My apologies. As you say (I think), a careful reader will
figure out who actually said the part I responded to, but others could
be misled.

No problem (AFAIAC)---it is a *very* easy mistake to make. The currently
accepted news quoting style bothers me a bit. Here is what we're currently
faced with (I'm putting a * at the begining of the line so that various
newsreaders don't attempt to recolor what I'm putting down here):

* Joe said:
* > joe words
* > joe words
* > Steve said:
* >> steve words
* >> steve words
* > joe words
* > joe words
* my words
* my words

What I would really prefer is this

* > (Joe indent)
* > joe words
* > joe words
* >> (Steve indent)
* >> steve words
* >> steve words
* > joe words
* > joe words
* my words
* my words

So basically the quote attribution goes at the same indent as the quote.

{shrug} Whatever...


....[rip]...

 

[Thomas G. Marshall]

(e-mail address removed) coughed up:

Dale King <[email protected]> wrote:

....[potential misattribution yanked]...

"Insightful" or "inciteful"? I know it's bad form to nitpick about
spelling, but this one is kind of amusing in context (unless I
misunderstand the point you were trying to make).

If that is indeed a misspelling, then it is really one of the more ironic
ones!



....[rip]...

 

[Andrew Thompson]

So basically the quote attribution goes at the same indent as the quote.

Hear hear! Whatever possessed the formulators of
this system to have the person's name possess one
less '>' than their words I will never know.

[ Follow-Ups set to c.l.j.p only. ]

 

[Thomas G. Marshall]

[Andrew Thompson Quote Level]

[Thomas G. Marshall Quote Level]

So basically the quote attribution goes at the same indent as the
quote.

Hear hear! Whatever possessed the formulators of
this system to have the person's name possess one
less '>' than their words I will never know.

Well, it's easy to fix!

 

[Dale King]

(e-mail address removed) coughed up:

Dale King <[email protected]> wrote:

....[potential misattribution yanked]...

"Insightful" or "inciteful"? I know it's bad form to nitpick about
spelling, but this one is kind of amusing in context (unless I
misunderstand the point you were trying to make).

If that is indeed a misspelling, then it is really one of the more ironic
ones!

I believe I was pretty tired when writing that. Yes it was insightful
(the word I was trying to type and the catch of the typo).

Something occurred to me. When I first saw the signature, my first
reaction was to respond as Thomas did. When I read it I didn't actually
know who the author was. The only reason I didn't respond was because it
was Roedy. I wonder how many others would be so lenient if the person
doing it was not well known in the group.

 

[.]

Sorry for the temporary change in addresses. I'm on vacation, verizon
disallows access to their ng's unless I'm physically connected via
their DSL, and google does not allow me to specify my usual obfuscated
address. Pain in the neck.

...[rip]...

As I said above, understanding. I honestly don't understand what you hope
to gain by posting the message you did. What am I missing? Why do so many
people insist on replying to messages that are off-topic with a message
attempting to stop those people?

Explanation follows, but note that I do not (as I've explained) have an
issue with OT posts per se. In fact, I like them, again, for reasons
I've explained elsethread. Do *not* confuse the two issues.

Understood. You don't see Roedy's signature as merely off topic. You feel
he is trying to cause trouble.

Well, when someone is doing something to intentionally cause trouble,
you typically try to tell them so, and (hopefully) politely ask them to
knock it off. The goal would be to (hopefully) get them to change
their behavior. In this case, it is not because Roedy's signature is
OT. It is because such political subjects are frequent fodder for
flame wars. The only point in placing his signature is to stir up
trouble---and that's it. This thread, however, is far from a flame
war---it is a discussion---and as nearly all usenet threads, a form of
compound-disagreement.

I think I understand now. You feel Roedy is just trying to stir up
trouble. You are not looking to get in a fight with him. You just wanted
to say you know what he is trying to do and would like him to stop. Right?

So did you post the original message with no expectation? You didn't hope
to gain anything; you just felt it couldn't hurt to post the message?

 

[Thomas G. Marshall]

(e-mail address removed) coughed up:

Dale King <[email protected]> wrote:

....[potential misattribution yanked]...

And that would be a very bad thing. I don't want people to not
interact with him. I've gotten to know Roedy pretty will over the
last 8 years in this group. As much as I am on the opposite end of
the political spectrum from Roedy, I like Roedy very much and he is
a very valuable member of this community. He often has very incitful
things to say and

"Insightful" or "inciteful"? I know it's bad form to nitpick about
spelling, but this one is kind of amusing in context (unless I
misunderstand the point you were trying to make).

If that is indeed a misspelling, then it is really one of the more ironic
ones!

I believe I was pretty tired when writing that. Yes it was insightful (the
word I was trying to type and the catch of the typo).

Something occurred to me. When I first saw the signature, my first
reaction was to respond as Thomas did. When I read it I didn't actually
know who the author was. The only reason I didn't respond was because it
was Roedy. I wonder how many others would be so lenient if the person
doing it was not well known in the group.

Perhaps some, perhaps many.

As you (and I) have pointed out, it's not the case that you can put
/anything/ into a signature without consequence. It's an issue of where the
line is drawn. And that line may move depending upon your impression of the
person.

 

[blmblm]

[ snip ]

Something occurred to me. When I first saw the signature, my first
reaction was to respond as Thomas did. When I read it I didn't actually
know who the author was. The only reason I didn't respond was because it
was Roedy. I wonder how many others would be so lenient if the person
doing it was not well known in the group.

If we're taking a poll ....

I wouldn't be inclined to make an issue of anyone's signature,
however irritating (or worse) I might find it, so long as it's short.
I guess I think of signatures as being something like bumper stickers --
some you like, some you hate, some you wonder "why bother?", but the
only sensible way to respond is to shrug and move on, while mentally
collecting the noteworthy ones to share with like-minded people offline,
as it were.

I found the discussion of whether Roedy should change it to something
less provocative more irritating than the signature itself.

My two cents' worth, of course.

 

[Bent C Dalager]

Hear hear! Whatever possessed the formulators of
this system to have the person's name possess one
less '>' than their words I will never know.

Obviously, it's because the quote header wasn't written by the quoted
person, but by the person quoting him. If you quote the quote header,
it will look like the quoted person started by saying that he just
said what he's going to say and that's just silly.

Note that I didn't start this post by writing
and so it would be wrong for you to add such a line _with_ a leading
qoute symbol. You would be attributing a line to me that I never
wrote.

The current system is the most consistent one of the two, even if it
can be inconvenient at times.

Cheers
Bent D

 

[Thomas G. Marshall]

Bent C Dalager coughed up:

Obviously, it's because the quote header wasn't written by the quoted
person, but by the person quoting him. If you quote the quote header,
it will look like the quoted person started by saying that he just
said what he's going to say and that's just silly.

Nonsense. *Think* about what you're saying.

The only reason it would "look like the quoted person started by saying that
he just said what he's going to say" is because of the (current) rule that
says it should look like this:

Quote Attribute:

Quoted text
Quoted text

There's nothing "silly" about having a rule say it should look like this
instead:

Quote Attribute
Quoted text
Quoted text

To be precise, it would be about keeping everything that has to do with the
quoted person, that is, *both* *whom* it is and *what* he is saying, marked
the same way. Otherwise you end up with the (inevitable) confusion that we
see now and again.

 

[Tim Tyler]

Bent C Dalager coughed up:

Nonsense. *Think* about what you're saying.

The only reason it would "look like the quoted person started by saying that
he just said what he's going to say" is because of the (current) rule that
says it should look like this:

Quote Attribute:

There's nothing "silly" about having a rule say it should look like this
instead:

IMO, that proposal has more drawbacks than benefits compared to the
existing convention.

 

[Andrew Thompson]

IMO, that proposal has more drawbacks than benefits compared to the
existing convention.

An 'out of the box'* 40tude Dialog 'agrees' with Thomas' logic.
<http://www.physci.org/test/screenshot/newsquote.png>
(about 34Kb)

OTOH, it is irrelevant. Whether the original choice was
good or not, I feel it is far too late to introduce an
alternate system over such a minor (and entrenched)
irritation.

...just my 2c. ( Says he who could not be bothered searching for a
news client, or an *option in his current one, that will render
quotes more to his taste. )

 

[Thomas G. Marshall]

Experiments.......

Andrew Thompson Level:

An 'out of the box'* 40tude Dialog 'agrees' with Thomas' logic.
<http://www.physci.org/test/screenshot/newsquote.png>
(about 34Kb)

OTOH, it is irrelevant. Whether the original choice was
good or not, I feel it is far too late to introduce an
alternate system over such a minor (and entrenched)
irritation.

Nah. HTML in email was once considered an *incredible* annoyance. It
was considered rude to try to impose such a change in an "entrenched" system
built for text-only. Now it is commonplace, and (usually) expected. I
suspect (but don't care) that news might wander that way someday.

Not a great analogy, but similar only in that *things change* , and that
"entrenched" is only relative.


....[rip]...

--
Having a dog that is a purebred does not qualify it for breeding. Dogs
need to have several generations of clearances for various illnesses
before being bred. If you are breeding dogs without taking care as to
the genetic quality of the dog (again, being purebred is *not* enough),
you are what is known as a "backyard breeder" and are part of the
problem. Most of the congenital problems of present day dogs are
traceable directly to backyard breeding. Spay or neuter your pet
responsibly, and don't just think that you're somehow the exception and
can breed a dog without taking the care described.

 

[dave]

Having a dog that is a purebred does not qualify it for breeding. Dogs

need to have several generations of clearances for various illnesses
before being bred. If you are breeding dogs without taking care as to
the genetic quality of the dog (again, being purebred is *not* enough),
you are what is known as a "backyard breeder" and are part of the
problem. Most of the congenital problems of present day dogs are
traceable directly to backyard breeding. Spay or neuter your pet
responsibly, and don't just think that you're somehow the exception and
can breed a dog without taking the care described.

Ok, thanks for the tip.

(And for Andrew : get a life).