Arne Vajhøj misquoted me:
Harold Yarmouth did not write:
Yes usually mean agree.
But, as I said in the previous post (and you dishonestly trimmed out and
otherwise ignored!), that is a complete misquotation of what I wrote.
This is what was actually originally written:
As you can CLEARLY see, I was agreeing that you had forgotten to check
your confrontational attitude at the door, not agreeing with any of your
vicious and uncalled-for personal attacks.
Now stop the dishonest quoting and other extremely childish tricks and
start discussing Java, or else go away. Your behavior is completely
inappropriate for this forum, not to mention totally uncalled-for, and
it will not be tolerated.
You forget something. People laugh at you - they are not afraid of you.
No, Arne, people laugh at *you*. They laugh at your combination of
thuggish attitude, poor grammar, childish dishonest cheap tricks to try
to "win" an argument, and complete inability to back up your blustery
words with any credible threat of real force.
It's like being hissed and growled at by a tiny little kitten, one that
frequently tries to hide to pounce at your leg when you walk by, only
its tail is sticking out into plain view. Everybody sees through its
pathetic attempts at deception and sneakiness, and nobody perceives a
real threat, no matter how furiously hissy it gets.
And it can't communicate in clear, understandable English like an adult
human being.
The same is true of you being nasty online, where you have no ability to
project force, your attempts at dishonesty are easily repudiated by a
quick Google Groups search, and you apparently can't make even a fairly
short post without at least three typos that make you look like you're
barely out of the single-digit grades in school. "Yes usually mean
agree" is one step up from "I can has cheezburger?" and two hundred
steps down from the its/it's mistakes that, as near as I can tell, even
the average Ph.D. doesn't seem to be able to avoid.
You are laughable, Arne.
I should probably stop wasting my time replying to your crap, but it's
amusing seeing you flail about in your ignorance and blind anger, and it
also causes you to further destroy your own credibility by posting
nonsense like you just did, thereby neutralizing what little threat you
pose here, that of possibly convincing other people to believe your crap.
Nobody will, now, when they see the cheap tricks you tried to use to
make it look like I was agreeing with you when I wasn't. That kind of
transparent desperation ploy is the last refuge of a stupid and angry
man that realizes he's about to lose the argument. (One that's obviously
nowhere near smart enough to realize that he already HAD lost the argument.)
Obviously not. I was just noting a fact.
But it is not a fact. You seem to think you can control others' opinions
of me, but you can't. You can maybe control others' opinions of *you*.
So far, you're doing a bang-up job, between your poor communication
skills and transparently dishonest tactics. Perhaps you should quit
while ... well, normally I'd say "quit while you're ahead", but you're
not ahead, you're way way behind. But you should still quit; like the
gambler that's lost his car, you shouldn't keep going until you lose
your house, and then your shirt. Not when you're clearly outclassed* and
Lady Luck clearly is not on your side.
* You, of course, would be outclassed by a ten year old with no
debate-team training or anything, and by any smarter-enough-than-average
five year old.
Well - please sue. I guess it would be possible to find around
5000 witnesses from here that can testify that your ability to
read documentation and understanding of OOP are exceptional low.
No, the only things they'll testify are "exceptional low" are
a) your honesty,
b) your intelligence (did you REALLY think nobody would see
through your creative quoting tricks?), and
c) your English reading comprehension and writing grade level
(Really I should stop and "pick on someone my own size". This is like
being in a fistfight with a grade school bully. Except that the grade
school bully was dumb enough to walk up to and punch *me*, so I wasn't
picking on anyone -- he was and he bit off more than he could chew!)
Nonsense. If you had, then this thread would not have existed.
Yet I did, and this thread nonetheless exists.
Clearly, you have made a mistake in your logic somewhere.
See if you can figure out, on your own, where the mistake is.
Hint: If the conclusion is false, either the premise is false or the
conclusion does not follow from the premise. Figure out first which of
these (if not both) is the case, and then continue from there.
Yes, I do.
Your idea of having Calendar implement Gregorian calendar
and have other calendars overwrite methods
My idea was of having Calendar implement a basic Date factory
functionality and have non-standard calendars provide Date- or Calendar-
wrapping and translation functionality, actually. Though given what I
now know regarding your apparent grade-level, I shouldn't expect you to
be able to comprehend any of that.
In other words, Date, Calendar (or maybe another name would be better),
and LocalizedCalendar (or maybe just Calendar, if the date-factory got a
different name), analogously to the existing pattern of String,
StringBuilder, and Collator, MessageBundle, and the other peripheral
classes for localized String handling.
Well, now you've descended to calling me a liar and otherwise being at
the lowly "did too! did not!" level of argumentation.
There's really no point in my continuing this. It's like participating
in a gunfight with an unarmed opponent. It's not really fair to Arne if
I continue.
But then again, he was the one who started the fight ...
Obviously yes.
What Date builder ?
As explained to you many times then Calendar is not a Date builder.
I don't need anything explained to me. I know Calendar has other
functions. The problem is that it IS also the Date builder -- as
evidenced by the Date constructors that produce specific dates and times
being deprecated with a note in the docs to use Calendar instead.
Calendar's split responsibilities are the cause of many if not all of
its woes. The date-building functionality and the localization
functionality belong in separate places, and even at separate layers.
Surprisingly calendar functionality belongs in the calendar classes.
Then it is date-builder functionality that does not.
It is probably best to use the name Calendar for the
localization/translation classes. But then the mutable-Date class used
to just construct a Date from a given bunch of integers should be broken
out as a separate class and named, oh, say, DateBuilder, and those Date
javadocs I mentioned updated to point people to DateBuilder.
