Best way to force a JComponent to repaint itself

[Arne Vajhøj]

The same mistake you've made several times before. You assume that I
seek to thoroughly understand JComponent. I don't. I seek to use it in a
particular way at this particular time.

Maybe you should start with some basic OOP.

The methods of a parent class is just as relevant for using a class
as the methods implemented in the sub class.

There is no end-of-term exam. There is only whether or not, at the end
of the day, they have gotten their work done and have not fallen behind
any schedule that might apply. To whatever extent you waste their time
with irrelevancies and to-you-fascinating side diversions such as
learning the implementation and internals of a Java class in depth, you
are doing them a disservice.

If you want to decide what type and form of advice you get, then I
will recommend hiring a consultant - for 200-300 USD/hr such a person
will provide you with exactly what you want.

If you want it for free, then you will need to live with what
can get.

Arne

 

[Arne Vajhøj]

My attitude is fine.

Have you tried counting opinions on that ?

Arne

 

[Arne Vajhøj]

It isn't. However, nobody in this thread has done such a thing (at
least, not yet). You have claimed otherwise, but your claim was a lie.

It looks like the API is missing a no-arg "repaint()" [...]

What part about "It looks like the API is missing a no-arg repaint()"
is not a claim that what you were looking for doesn't exist?

It's a claim that what I was looking for doesn't exist IN THAT
ALPHABETIC LIST OF JCOMPONENT METHODS.

It turns out to exist, SOMEWHERE ELSE.

Is it too much to assume that people read all the relevant
sections of a page ?

Arne

 

[zerg]

It is is on the doc page for the class you are using also - all you
need to do is scroll.

A link was. Buried in a dense mass of text that isn't very amenable to
skimming, no less.

If you'd prefer not to answer a question, for some particular reason,
you could always not post any kind of response to it at all. One thing
I will certainly not tolerate, however, is any sort of response that
implies, in front of a worldwide audience no less, that you think I'm
in some way incompetent. Stop doing that!

Do you think [snipped]

Threats are wasted here, where there is no possible danger of physical
retribution.

Don't bother threatening me again.

Same page.

"Same page" is a meaningless measure of locality when a single "page"
may be the equivalent of thirty or forty printed-book pages.

 

[zerg]

Maybe you should start with some basic OOP.

Maybe you should learn some manners!

The methods of a parent class is just as relevant for using a class
as the methods implemented in the sub class.

That depends on whether the parent class was subclassed as a part of the
data type (X is a special sort of Y) or was subclassed solely for code
reuse. C++ has the concept of private inheritance; for better or worse,
Java does not. Delegation should probably be used when the purpose is
code reuse, but that doesn't mean that this advice is always followed.

If you want to decide what type and form of advice you get, then I
will recommend hiring a consultant - for 200-300 USD/hr such a person
will provide you with exactly what you want.

What? All I'm asking is that people here be polite and treat me with the
basic level of respect normally accorded all human beings interacting in
a civilized society. Are you suggesting that being polite is such an
onerous burden that politeness should cost actual money? My God!

 

[zerg]

In the Java documentation, just after the alphabetical list of methods
under the heading 'Method Summary', there are lists of all methods that
are inherited from each of the superclasses.

Yes, albeit hard to read ones; I've noticed.

Did you have some sort of a point here?

but you should check all the possible lists of methods in
that documentation.

Even when there are five or six of them like that one, densely packed,
with dozens of entries each, and virtually unreadable? A tidy grid with
down-then-across alphabetic order would have been a better design
choice, though still uncomfortably reminiscent of such old-fashioned
things as looking up names in a phone book.

A more interactive documentation reader might be nice. I've played
around a bit with Squeak and it has method categories and color-coding
features in its class browser widget. Something like this in the
Javadocs for more complex classes and APIs would be great, though it
would also be too much work to expect anything to happen anytime soon.

I'd suggest an added doc tag, @category name, to put with the @param,
@throws, etc. tags for methods and even with the @author for classes,
with any string allowed as the name; methods would be grouped and color
coded by category in the generated docs, and likewise classes in the
package overviews, with colors assigned somehow to the distinct category
names in the same class or package.

Links on class and package pages for each category name occurring
therein could provide a category-focused view, with a link back to the
main view. The category-focused view could include showing methods of
interest to subclassers (generally protected, but public ones to
override too), methods related to a particular use scenario (e.g.
user-induced repainting, custom painting, setting preferred dimensions,
and so forth as categories for JComponent), and the like.

Perhaps allowing a method to be in multiple categories would be useful.
The same public method might be a likely target for subclasses to
override usefully as well as having a particular category of use. Better
might be to have an additional tag, @overridetarget or similarly, and an
additional view that specifically focuses on protected and
@overridetarget methods and protected fields.

 

[zerg]

It isn't. However, nobody in this thread has done such a thing (at
least, not yet). You have claimed otherwise, but your claim was a lie.

It looks like the API is missing a no-arg "repaint()" [...]

What part about "It looks like the API is missing a no-arg repaint()"
is not a claim that what you were looking for doesn't exist?

It's a claim that what I was looking for doesn't exist IN THAT
ALPHABETIC LIST OF JCOMPONENT METHODS.

It turns out to exist, SOMEWHERE ELSE.

Is it too much to assume that people read all the relevant
sections of a page ?

It is not too much to assume that people read all of the
OBVIOUSLY-RELEVANT sections of a page, no, particularly the main
alphabetic method listing.

 

[zerg]

Have you tried counting opinions on that ?

Nope. Not interested. This is a technical discussion newsgroup, not a
popularity contest, anyway.

 

[zerg]

In this group people have some expectations about the posters
of questions.

Define "people". What is it with you and Peter and pretending that your
personal opinions or expectations somehow have extra weight or authority
than, say, mine do? You are just people, same as I am, and last I
checked this is an unmoderated newsgroup. You're my equals, not my
superiors. You are certainly not imbued with any sort of official
authority to dictate some sort of "standard" set of opinions or
expectations on behalf of every single other person who may read or
write here.

So you'll excuse me if I take any pronouncements along the theme of
"people expect X", "this group thinks you should Y", "we insist that you
research stuff to depth Z", and so forth with grains of salt roughly the
size of Lake Okeechobee, mmmkay?

Really, those sorts of things should have the pronoun "I" in place of
vague (or speaking-for-everyone arrogance) references to some mysterious
"people" or "we" or suchlike.

YOU have some expectations about the posters of questions. But you
really should not presume to speak on behalf of everyone else in the
universe!

Those begging to learn Java or learn programming should find
groups better suited for that.

And I am not one of these. I just had one narrowly specific question
about an aspect of Swing about which I found the docs to be less than
100% clear.

If you don't like that, well, tough. Ignore my question and move on.
This is an unmoderated group; things will sometimes appear in it that
you don't like, and it behooves you to be more tolerant of such events.
You have the ability to mark something read without actually reading it.
You have resort to a killfile. Not everything one dislikes needs to be
responded to with criticism. (Though outright rudeness and bad-faith
behavior like I've seen from you and Peter sure does.)

That is a typical mistake among new programmers.

No, it is a typical mistake among you and Peter and perhaps a few other
people here.

You really don't want to

I will decide what I do or don't want to do, you arrogant little prick!

I have already explained exactly why I need to explicitly repaint my
subclassed list control sometimes. I should not have had to; I am not
under any obligation to justify my design choices to arrogant little
twerps on Usenet. However you have made it quite clear that you are not
only going to be hostile to me, but publicly deride me as a Bad
Programmer(tm), if I do NOT justify my design choices to you.

In short, you are actually EXTORTING such justifications from me by
actually THREATENING TO HARM MY REPUTATION if I DON'T do so.

Do you realize how ridiculous, arrogant, and nasty such behavior is???

Now read my lips: The people posting questions here are, by and large,
adults, capable of making their own decisions and choices, and if they
want outside advice on any particular such, they will ask for it; they
are not small children and you are not parents that need to give them
guidance lest they step on broken glass, not wear their helmets, or
what-have-you.

Let go of that paternalistic (and consequently, to adults rude,
condescending, and arrogant!) attitude and approach this as an
interaction among equals, adult human beings that are all equal before
the law (and all equal in an unmoderated newsgroup). Take questions at
face value unless there is clear evidence that someone is not acting in
good faith. Assume we're clueful and not Java newbies (even if new to
the newsgroup!) unless PROVEN otherwise, and then just ignore those
people after telling them to go to cljh.

Following the above recommendations will result in a MUCH more congenial
atmosphere around here, and as a side benefit will push the ACTUAL
clueless newbs over to the appropriate newsgroup in a more polite way
than by making them feel unwelcome here by being actively rude and
hostile to them (and, worse, to everyone you merely SUSPECT, often
wrongly, of being one).

This is a forum where you get the best advice whether you want
it or not.

You arrogant little jerk.

And you have paid the price for your arrogance, and that is BEING WRONG
IN PUBLIC. I have explained why I need to explicitly call repaint for my
list subclass. I have explained that there is nothing whatsoever wrong
in my design. (Indeed, it is now tested and working, and thank you very
much for the vote of frigging confidence! It also has a nice and clean
interface, surprisingly enough to you I'm sure.) You thought I really
needed to do something different from explicitly calling repaint, but
you thought wrong! And now you get to have your face rubbed in that, in
public, all because you were so arrogant, rude, and condescending.

If you'd assumed that I knew what I was doing until proven otherwise
(which, in my case, would be "never"), then perhaps you wouldn't have
stepped in it.

But it's too late now.

It is on the JComponent document page as well.

It is LINKED FROM the JComponent document page, though not anywhere
where it's very easy to find by a quick visual check for
relevant-looking method descriptions.

(Arne has some nasty rude and condescending suggestions after this
point, but I have trimmed them without dignifying them with a detailed
response. It is likely that Arne would have found my suggestions to be
anatomically impossible anyway.)

I suggest you do it right the first time.

And of course I did; the main methods for my test cases look like this:

public static void main (String[] args) {
SwingUtilities.invokeAndWait(new Runnable() {
...
});
}

Not a blamed thing except for the creation of a Runnable and the calling
of a SwingUtilities method occurring on any OTHER thread than the EDT.

I DO know what I am doing, whether you choose to believe that or not.

 

[zerg]

You're looking for a method to get a JComponent to repaint. I don't know
about you, but I consider repainting to be a core widget action. That
means I will look first at the root of the widget hierarchy, which is
obviously Component (JComponent is only the root of the lightweight
hierarchy).

You are approaching the search with a detailed knowledge of Swing
internals and design decisions. You are not approaching it from the
perspective of a user of Swing that is more concerned with doing useful
stuff with it than with knowing its in-depth implementation, history,
and so forth.

In particular, I don't think of a "widget hierarchy" and a separate
"lightweight hierarchy"; I think of AWT and Swing, and consider Swing's
borrowing of various AWT things to be code reuse and avoiding
reinventing the wheel, to the extent that I consider it at all.
JComponent is the root of the Swing component hierarchy, as far as I am
concerned (and as far as the docs and tutorial are concerned, too), and
though it inherits Component, this seems to be more of a historical
artifact than anything else.

It is unfortunate that it relies on Component to provide some of its
interface instead of overriding those methods (even with just a call to
super!) still relevant to Swing JComponents so that they appear in the
main listing of JComponent methods.

Also, if you examine the basic structure of the AWT and Swing methods,
you will find LARGE numbers of overloads, and especially methods that do
fair amount of method wrapping (i.e. A is really a wrapper around B with
a bit more magic involved).

This sort of wrapping was exactly at issue here, as I was unsure which
level of wrapping around the repaint was best just to make an unresized
component with possibly-resized internal bits repaint itself in its
entirety.

This fact, that I was not unsure how to repaint at all but how BEST to
repaint, with what level of wrapping, in a particular situation, seems
to keep getting lost in all of this needless and inexplicable acrimony.

Looking for methods only in a leaf class is not going to be complete.

JComponent looks a lot more like a root than it does like a leaf to the
typical user of JComponent.

The problem isn't even that your perspective differs from mine. It is
that you (collective "you", referring to nearly everyone in this thread
except for me and Daniele) arrogantly presume that anyone whose
perspective differs from yours is defective, ignorant, stupid, or some
such epithet, and take paints to make your opinion clear to the general
public!

Daniele's response to my original post is the model to follow in your
future interactions with people who ask a question here. (Roedy's, a
thinly-disguised promotion of his own web site with little other
content, certainly is not -- I didn't find the stuff at his website
especially useful, anyway, except to indicate that revalidate wasn't the
way to go, and besides, I prefer direct answers to breadcrumb trails
when I have questions.)

Actually, some people interpret "RTFM" as "Read The Fine Manual", i.e.,
look at the nuances deep in the text.

I'm not interested in your attempts to make excuses for someone who can,
if he so chooses, speak for himself, and who seems to have no excuse for
his uncouth and unpleasant public behavior anyway.

And, checking the list again, you.

Account for the fact that Andrew and Lew are in what I would consider
the top tier of posters

Excuse me? What the heck feudal society did you log in from? Where I
live, we hold various truths to be self-evident, among them that all men
are created equal and have certain inalienable rights. (Unfortunately,
"polite and respectful treatment by others, absent prior hostile
interpersonal history" does not seem to be enumerated among the OFFICIAL
list of such rights.)

As far as I am concerned, there are no "tiers" here, with some king or
emperor or other such poobah at the top, dukes and earls on the next
level down, and lowly peasants at the bottom, with rudeness toward those
below expected and encouraged and brownnosing toward those above
demanded with a great big Or Else.

There are just people here, and some of them are more knowledgeable
about some things than others, others are more knowledgeable about some
other things than yet others, and yes, some are quite evidently more
polite, politic, circumspect, and civil than others too.

If there is to be any basis here for a class division, it should really
be the latter distinction, with the sometimes-gratuitously-rude people
considered to be low-class and subject to lesser consideration and
poorer treatment by the polite majority.

But even that is too classist for my tastes.

For comparison, I would place myself no higher than the third tier

EVER so humble, arencha?

Those who respond the most tend to be those who get the most mud
flung at them.

Some people seem to get more than others. Patricia and Daniele seem
knowledgeable and astute, and seem to post a lot of answers, but I don't
notice much mud being flung at either. It looks like perhaps there is
something else that affects the amount of mud thrown at the major
question-answering personages here, besides their level of knowledge or
posting frequency. I wonder what that could be?

(It is certainly interesting that there is a correlation between female
sex and more decorum and civility. I'm guessing this is a socialized,
rather than a genetic, difference in behavior. Women are still raised to
be polite in public. Men ... aren't so much, these days, it seems. Men
also seem to be much more socialized towards a notion of behavior that
seems to be describable with "be deferent to those above you, arrogant
and uncharitable to those below you, and always know your place and put
others in theirs" and generally pecking-order oriented instead of "treat
everyone with equal respect".)

Posters of... controversy probably get more, though
(think XahLee, Twisted, or JSH).

Dissension should be tolerated in a free and just society. One would
hope that an unmoderated newsgroup would be a paragon of such, lacking
as it does anyone with actual authority backed by actual ability to
forcibly impose his will upon others. But oh, no ...

 

[zerg]

It is in the documentation.

You just need to read it.

I DID read it.

Well, not the WHOLE THING...

 

[Joshua Cranmer]

You are approaching the search with a detailed knowledge of Swing
internals and design decisions. You are not approaching it from the
perspective of a user of Swing that is more concerned with doing useful
stuff with it than with knowing its in-depth implementation, history,
and so forth.

This is not "detailed knowledge." The Javadocs themselves present this
simple nugget of information: "The Swing classes are built on top of the
AWT architecture."

It is unfortunate that it relies on Component to provide some of its
interface instead of overriding those methods (even with just a call to
super!) still relevant to Swing JComponents so that they appear in the
main listing of JComponent methods.

That makes JComponent unmaintainable, if it has to override all of the
methods, and is bad practice to begin with and possibly destructive to
performance improvements at runtime. Also, by that point, you might as
well not make JComponent inherit from Component.

Inheritance is not done willy-nilly. The fact that JComponent inherits
from Container and Component is important, even if you know nothing
about them. OOP tells you that a JComponent is a Component, and, more
importantly, that JComponent will enhance the capabilities of Component.
Which means that if you can't find something in JComponent, you might
try looking in superclasses.

To give another example, using the DOM. I have a text node. I want to
know what the text inside is. I look on the interface. No method
"getText()". Does that mean that there is no way to do this? No! Its
parent is character data, which has the method "getData()". What if I
want to find which element it is contained in? I have to go back up to
DOM nodes and use the hierarchy information there. In short: if class A
inherits from class B, you'll need to look in both to find useful methods.

This fact, that I was not unsure how to repaint at all but how BEST to
repaint, with what level of wrapping, in a particular situation, seems
to keep getting lost in all of this needless and inexplicable acrimony.

Ever read the Java Tutorials on Sun's website? They cover this sort of
stuff.

The problem isn't even that your perspective differs from mine. It is
that you (collective "you", referring to nearly everyone in this thread
except for me and Daniele) arrogantly presume that anyone whose
perspective differs from yours is defective, ignorant, stupid, or some
such epithet, and take paints to make your opinion clear to the general
public!

Slander and libel will get you nowhere fast. By now, you're resisting a
point several others have made: looking at *only* JComponent for
documentation is not sufficient. What you're arguing is that the
subclass should reimplement all the methods just so that some lazy
person doesn't have to look through a few more pages of documentation,
which is a very, very untenable position.

(Roedy's, a
thinly-disguised promotion of his own web site with little other
content, certainly is not

I would not call it a "thinly-disguised promotion" of his website. I
find that it is an excellent resource for neophytes, especially since it
answers almost all of the basic questions that come up.

And, checking the list again, you.

I come on there only because I have a very thick skin and am willing to
point out criticism to those who have little respect to it.

Excuse me? What the heck feudal society did you log in from? Where I
live, we hold various truths to be self-evident, among them that all men
are created equal and have certain inalienable rights.

"... that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,
that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men,
deriving their just power from the consent of the governed; that
whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is
the right of the people to alter or abolish it."

At least quote the whole thing, if you insist on having such an
Amerocentric world view. Also, keep in mind the actual intent of that
text there.

As far as I am concerned, there are no "tiers" here, with some king or

It's not a feudal tier, it's a tier in terms of posters. I was pointing
out that you're more likely to find a posting by Lew than you are to
find one by yourself here. It was not in any form meant to imply a
hierarchy of control or responsibility, etc.

EVER so humble, arencha?

No, I just don't post terribly often, only once or twice a day at most.

Dissension should be tolerated in a free and just society. One would
hope that an unmoderated newsgroup would be a paragon of such, lacking
as it does anyone with actual authority backed by actual ability to
forcibly impose his will upon others. But oh, no ...

And another case where you've missed the point. XahLee X-posted rather
off-topic messages across several disparate newsgroups, Twisted
embroiled the newsgroup into a rather idealistic view of economics and
related topics, and JSH resisted rather strongly the idea that his
algorithms were incorrect. Many here would consider these three posters
to all be trolls (a moniker that is undeserved in JSH's case, IMO), and
I was trying to be polite in referring to them.

Sure dissension should be tolerated, but this is a forum for discussing
Java, not discussing the flaws in patent law.

 

[zerg]

(Joshua had nothing worthwhile to say in response to this.)

(Joshua had nothing worthwhile to say in response to this.)

I don't suppose you read the part of my earlier post where I mentioned
that inheritance of B from A can mean one or both of TWO things?

* B is a kind of A
* B has reused code from A

Since a Swing component does not seem to me to really be a kind of AWT
component (would a JButton work properly in an AWT Frame? On an old,
AWT-only Java deployment?) it seems questionable to expect me to look
there. Particularly when it means looking in another package entirely,
and at almost the opposite end of the alphabetic listing of packages to
boot.

All of which ignores the fact that I simply looked in the most obvious
place, the alphabetic listing of methods with detailed descriptions, as
seemed reasonable. None of the information you're discussing is in that
particular place to lead me on anywhere else in turn.

Ever read the Java Tutorials on Sun's website? They cover this sort of
stuff.

The Java Tutorial did not go into any depth regarding painting, that I
saw, save that it had a section on custom painting that is clearly
targeted at people overriding paintComponent to draw novel things on
their components.

Slander and libel will get you nowhere fast.

I have done nothing of the sort. It is YOU who have engaged in
defamation, by repeatedly insinuating in public that there is something
wrong with me!

By now, you're resisting a point

What I am "resisting" is you and your buddies' hostile
mischaracterizations of me! Necessarily that also means resisting any
so-called "point" any of you try to make the accepting of which would
imply that I was also accepting your judgment of me.

Because I do NOT accept your judgment of me, or even accept your
implicit claim to have any kind of authority to stand in judgment of me
WITH.

What you're arguing is that the
subclass should reimplement all the methods

No. I suggested that when a subclass had as many methods as JComponent,
and its ancestors have as many methods as JComponent's, and there is a
group of related methods (e.g. sharing the same name), that group should
be made to appear all in one place in the documentation instead of
ending up scattered all over the damn place. I noted that ONE METHOD of
doing so without changing the way the doc tools work would be to
override such methods with just a call to super (NOT reimplement the
functionality!) so the documentation generator includes it with its
relatives in the alphabetic listing, with a copy of the doc comment from
the superclass.

some lazy person

I grow increasingly weary of being gratuitously insulted by you and your
friends. If you don't have anything nice to say about me, please don't
say anything about me at all.

I would not call it a "thinly-disguised promotion" of his website.

Really? He basically posted "The answers are here: http://etc etc etc"
and it was quite clearly his own web site.

Much better would have been "The answer is X. More on this topic can be
found here, if you're interested in the future: http://etc etc etc"
which would give something useful WITHOUT it being conditioned on
bumping his hit counter FIRST.

I come on there only because I have a very thick skin and am willing to
point out criticism to those who have little respect to it.

Please speak in grammatical sentences of English.

I don't care for your attitude and, in particular, your tendency to
sling mud at people at the proverbial drop of a hat.

(Joshua had nothing worthwhile to say in response to this.)

It's not a feudal tier, it's a tier in terms of posters.

It is, in this context, at least implicitly a pecking order that
determines who gets to dish out gratuitous abuse and who is expected to
accept gratuitous abuse without complaining.

I do not recognize any such pecking order as having any kind of
legitimacy whatsoever in this UNMODERATED newsgroup.

I was pointing out that you're more likely to find a posting by Lew
than you are to find one by yourself here. It was not in any form
meant to imply a hierarchy of control or responsibility, etc.

Oh, really? In the middle of a discussion of who is prone to dishing out
abuse? That would be a rather odd swerve of topic, especially as
post-count is apropos of nothing (though try telling that to the
developers of phpBB, sigh).

And another case where you've missed the

I will repeat this again, and I hope that it actually sinks in this time
and that I will NOT have to repeat it any more.

I have missed nothing.
I have not made any mistakes.
I am not lazy.
I am not stupid.
I am not any of those other things that you and your friends have been
insinuating and sometimes outright asserting publicly.
YOU and your friends are the ones who are in the wrong, morally, here.
You are the ones whose behavior is reprehensible. You are the ones who
stooped first to name-calling, the ones who first used (indirectly) the
F-word, and the ones who first accused other people of tort offenses.
By any reasonable measure, you are the ones that need to back down and
apologize for this outrageous behavior!

XahLee X-posted rather off-topic messages across several disparate
newsgroups

Then you should call him on violating the newsgroup's charter. That his
opinions might be controversial as well is entirely beside the point.

Twisted embroiled the newsgroup into a rather idealistic view of
economics and related topics

Then you should call him on violating the newsgroup's charter. That his
opinions might be controversial as well is entirely beside the point.

and JSH resisted rather strongly the idea that his algorithms were
incorrect.

Then you should point out the flaws in his algorithms, but if he holds
controversial opinions or views, those are entirely beside the point.

If any of the three is a persistent thorn in your side, then you should
killfile the thorn.

Hurling abuse at people in public can not serve any useful function and
will generally only make things worse. Making things personal is never
the way to get what you want from someone; it makes them resentful and
likely to resist your wishes purely out of spite. It may also make it
into a matter of honor for them, where they cannot back down or concede
your valid points without also implicitly accepting the personal insults
that you have mixed with those points, and they are understandably
unwilling to do the latter.

In simpler language, even in the case that somebody actually does need
educating, whether in matters of netiquette or matters of Java, you
cannot educate them by browbeating them and all you will get by publicly
humiliating them is that they "play hooky" by never listening to a word
of yours again.

This is not an environment where the use of negative reinforcement (such
as the equivalent of telling someone to wear a dunce cap and go sit in
the corner) is going to be useful. Everyone can just get up and leave,
or killfile you. There's no lock on the door, no hall monitor, and no
threat of parental wrath to hold over your "students" to coerce them
into staying in class and accepting the punishments you mete out.

The only method that will work is the carrot. The stick WON'T work.

Be polite and helpful with any guidance that you may have to offer, and
you will find your efforts far more successful, and your "students" far
happier, and your own esteem with them far greater, than otherwise.

The other thing you may wish to recall is that we are adults here and we
may disagree with you, and if we do we may argue with you. This is not
cheekiness or talking back, the way you might be inclined to perceive
it. It is simply debate and dialogue and discussion, precisely the
purpose of Usenet.

Respond to it not with nastiness but with an open ear. Listen to people
when they object to something you've said and give specific, detailed
reasons why they think you may have over-generalized or whatever. It's
entirely possible that they actually have a point that you had not
previously considered. You certainly can't be a good "teacher" if you
are, yourself, utterly unwilling to learn!

 

[Joshua Cranmer]

I don't suppose you read the part of my earlier post where I mentioned
that inheritance of B from A can mean one or both of TWO things?

* B is a kind of A
* B has reused code from A

No. This is where you are wrong. Read ANY book on OOP design. There is
one thing that is repeated in all of them: inheritance represents an
"is-a" relationship. It has no other meaning. If you interpret it
differently, you're doing something wrong.

If you want to reuse code, use composition. Don't hijack one of the most
fundamental principles of OOP.

Since a Swing component does not seem to me to really be a kind of AWT
component (would a JButton work properly in an AWT Frame? On an old,
AWT-only Java deployment?) it seems questionable to expect me to look
there.

A Swing component is an AWT component. Put a JButton on an AWT frame. It
works.

All of which ignores the fact that I simply looked in the most obvious
place, the alphabetic listing of methods with detailed descriptions, as
seemed reasonable. None of the information you're discussing is in that
particular place to lead me on anywhere else in turn.

And I'm telling you that inheritance indicates another obvious place to
find methods. Because it represents an is-a relationship.

The Java Tutorial did not go into any depth regarding painting, that I
saw, save that it had a section on custom painting that is clearly
targeted at people overriding paintComponent to draw novel things on
their components.

Perhaps it's changed since I read it 4 years ago, but I know they
covered painting and updating in depth at one point.

Really? He basically posted "The answers are here: http://etc etc etc"
and it was quite clearly his own web site.

Much better would have been "The answer is X. More on this topic can be
found here, if you're interested in the future: http://etc etc etc"
which would give something useful WITHOUT it being conditioned on
bumping his hit counter FIRST.

"Give a man a fish, and he'll be fed for a day. Teach him to fish, and
he'll never be hungry again." Similarly, it is often better to point
someone to the core resources rather than having them come back day-in,
day-out for every little piece of advice. Why do you think RTFM and GIYF
are so common responses? Roedy was just pointing neophytes to his
database of informational nuggets that is rather complete and concise.

(Joshua had nothing worthwhile to say in response to this.)

FWIW, it's that kind of stuff that's going to tick people off. I try to
save space: if I don't consider it worthwhile to respond to, I don't
respond to it. The three cases where you removed my responses without
complaints were, in order, a rebuttal of your opinion that something was
"detailed knowledge," my reasoning why JComponents don't override all
methods from Components (another rebuttal), and pointing out subtly that
your implied interpretation of a paraphrase of a common quote did not
match what the quote was trying to convey in context.

Perhaps I was little overboard in the last one, but the first two share
one thing in common: they were quotes criticizing your views. If you
read Twisted's first posts, you'll find the characteristic that drew
people to ire the quickest was his treatment of most criticism in
similar manners.

It is, in this context, at least implicitly a pecking order that
determines who gets to dish out gratuitous abuse and who is expected to
accept gratuitous abuse without complaining.

No it's not. It's me pointing out that your absolute measurements are
inaccurate. If person A dishes out advice to 100 people a day, and 20 of
those are then replied with accusations of rudeness, and person B dishes
out to 10 a day, 10 of which have accusations of rudeness, does that
mean that person A is ruder? No. You counted the numbers absolutely, I
was pointing out that the people in question are regular posters, so
that will skew absolute numbers. Show me *relative* numbers.

I have missed nothing.
I have not made any mistakes.

Let me count:
1. You characterized people's attributes in relative orderings based on
absolute numbers.
2. You believe that inheritance does not represent an is-a relationship,
in violation of every text on OOP I have ever seen.
3. You have marked rebuttals of your views as "not worthwhile."

Everyone makes mistakes. I make them. That you have not made any is
about as believable as the Flat Earth hypothesis.

Then you should point out the flaws in his algorithms, but if he holds
controversial opinions or views, those are entirely beside the point.

One of the definitions of controversy: strife. Anyone who causes strife
-- by fragrantly violating the charter, by repeatedly ignoring the flaws
of posted algorithms -- is a poster of controversy. It does not
necessarily mean that his or her views are in distaste with the community.

Hurling abuse at people in public can not serve any useful function and
will generally only make things worse.

Let me guess... "do as I say, not as I do?"

 

[zerg]

Yes.

If you want to reuse code, use composition. Don't hijack one of the most
fundamental principles of OOP.

I wholeheartedly agree, but others don't always follow that advice and I
take that into consideration when using others' classes.

(Joshua has nothing worthwhile to say here.)

I repeat: would a JButton work properly in an old, AWT-only Java deployment?

And I'm telling you

I do not care what you are telling me. At this point, my objective is
solely to get disentangled from this pointless thread while publicly
correcting the various inaccurate misrepresentations people are making
about my character.

All you do by posting anything that implies that there is something
wrong with me is giving me more work to do. You accomplish nothing else.
Stop hassling me, and stop mistakenly thinking that this has anything to
do with Java anymore. It stopped being about Java the instant somebody
made it about me. Now it's personal and my objective is thus to prevent
you or anyone else from convincing other people to start believing your
unpleasant opinions about me. Your posting anything at all to this
thread, now, is working at cross-purposes.

Perhaps it's changed since I read it 4 years ago, but I know they
covered painting and updating in depth at one point.

You are probably thinking of the paintComponent coverage.

I looked at the discussion of JComponent at the tutorial and there are
only a couple of quick blurbs about painting in the API-referencing
section at the end of that page. The only thing made really clear there,
in connection with my original query, being that revalidate wasn't the
method to use.

But my original query isn't the issue anymore. That problem was long
since solved. The only problem remaining is that people keep badmouthing
me in public and making nasty insinuations that I must keep correcting.
I find it tiresome. Please stop.

"Give a man a fish, and he'll be fed for a day. Teach him to fish, and
he'll never be hungry again." Similarly, it is often better to point
someone to the core resources rather than

No, as well as. Teach someone to fish while he's starving and he dies
before he can put any of your teachings into practice. Not a very smart
strategy.

Also, you should not presume to decide what is best for adults. Adults
are capable of making their own decisions as to whether they want a fish
or a fishing lesson (or both). It is arrogant and rude of you to presume
to know better than they which one they should have.

Why do you think RTFM and GIYF are so common responses?

Because pricks are so common in newsgroups. "If you don't have anything
nice to say, don't say anything at all" is a piece of advice that you
would do well to familiarize yourself with.

Roedy was just pointing neophytes to his database

No, he was actually pointing a NON-neophyte. See, this is another way in
which you and those like you keep erring -- you assume that everyone but
you is a neophyte, or perhaps that everyone new to the NEWSGROUP is a
neophyte WITH JAVA.

And as usual, when you make random assumptions like that, sooner or
later one of them comes back to bite you in the butt!

FWIW, it's that kind of stuff that's going to tick people off.

It's called "getting a taste of your own medicine". If you don't enjoy
it, stop dishing it out!

The three cases where you removed my responses without complaints
were, in order, a rebuttal of your

No. Nothing that I have said is wrong, and therefore you have no valid
"rebuttals" of anything that I have said. Anything that you claim is
such therefore is "nothing worthwhile" for the simple reason that it is
factually false.

As such, it is certainly not worthy of being repeated. It should be
allowed to die the ignominious death in obscurity that it deserves.

(another rebuttal)

See above. It is incorrect to even try to rebut me. Don't.

and pointing out subtly that

you have an unkind opinion of me? I'd prefer that you not point that out
at all. Especially since by now it is abundantly clear to everyone that
is reading this. There is no reason for you to continue to repeat your
nasty insinuations about me. So go away!

Perhaps I was little overboard in the last one, but the first two share
one thing in common: they were quotes criticizing your views.

Exactly. That is why they are not worthwhile and why you should not have
written them in the first place. Attacking and antagonizing me will not
get you what you want. It will only get my back up and cause me to
dismiss anything ELSE that you might have to say as suspect, since it
will cause me to question your motives.

You are acting in bad faith.

If you really want to "educate" me about something, I suggest the following:

1. Don't do it in public! Suggesting in front of a worldwide audience
that someone is an ignoramus will not make that person very willing to
listen to anything that you have to say. In fact it will make that
person want to somehow shut you up before you start doing real damage to
others' perceptions of them. And then you obviously won't be able to
"educate" them.

2. Be polite! Don't accuse them of things, don't lambaste them, don't
cast aspersions, don't insinuate, don't personally attack, and don't
dismiss what they say out-of-hand. Most certainly don't condescend to them.

3. If they demonstrate a clear lack of interest in what you have to say
despite these things, then simply move on. Adults will make their own
decisions as to whether they think you have something useful to tell
them. Some will decide that you don't. You may think they're wrong.
Heck, they may actually BE wrong. But it isn't your decision. They are
adults. It is their decision. Presuming to decide for them, or that you
know better than they do what their own needs are, when they are over
the age of 18 is presumptive, arrogant, and extremely rude.

4. Getting in someone's face will NEVER accomplish anything worthwhile.

If you read Twisted's first posts, you'll find the characteristic
that drew people to ire the quickest was his treatment of most
criticism in similar manners.

In other words, what drew ire was that he stood up for himself when
people were rude to him and cast aspersions about him in public. Well,
good for him, even if he took it to extremes.

I know, people like you don't like it when someone you browbeat stands
up to you instead of meekly accepting your judgment of them. Well,
tough. I don't have much sympathy for you or your kind when you treat
others in such a manner and then become annoyed that some of them don't
just lie down and take your abuse.

If you don't like it when that happens, simply DON'T DISH OUT ABUSE.

No

You clearly still have not learned. (See how you like being addressed in
such a manner!)

Do not respond to my stating a fact by saying "no". It is incorrect, not
to mention exceedingly rude.

People are being abusive and telling me that my place is to accept, not
resist, that abuse; and into that context you pop up with some comment
about how the people dishing out the abuse are in the top "tiers". How
else did you honestly expect that to be interpreted?

I reject any claim of legitimacy to this abuse-acceptance hierarchy. If
you abuse me I will respond in kind, by being condescending to you for
example in much the way you have been condescending toward me. If you
are polite and friendly, or at worst neutral, I will not be abusive.

I don't care if you think it is my place to meekly accept abuse, and
yours to dish it out to whomever you please. You are wrong. It is my
place, and yours, to converse as equals with a common goal in discussing
Java programming, and to do so in a polite and civil fashion, or to not
converse at all if one of us for some reason finds this undesirable or
impossible.

In particular, you will be nice, or at worst neutral, to me or you will
behave as if I did not exist. If you behave otherwise I will continue to
contradict you every time you suggest or say something bad about me in
public and I will continue to heap scorn on you and try to educate you
in manners. Have I made myself clear?

It's me pointing out that your absolute measurements are inaccurate.

No. Nothing about me is "inaccurate" and I will not take kindly to any
further nasty public insinuations to that effect. You will stop
badmouthing me in public or else. Do I make myself clear?

You counted the numbers absolutely

How the hell would you know? I didn't tell you anything about exactly
how I counted the numbers. In fact I did use percentages, rather than
absolute counts, contrary to your claim here. The names I named are
those who got a large number of rudeness complaints from multiple people
relative to the number of posts they made directed at question-askers
and (to the extent that these didn't overlap) newbies.

Let me count:
Zero.

1. You characterized people's attributes in relative orderings based on
absolute numbers.

I did not.

2. You believe that inheritance does not represent an is-a relationship

I believe that inheritance usually does, and is best used to, represent
an is-a relationship, but in actual practice sometimes is (mis)used just
for code re-use.

3. You have marked rebuttals of your views as "not worthwhile."

Because rebuttals of my views ARE "not worthwhile".

If something that I said is a fact, then obviously a rebuttal of it is
not only "not worthwhile" it is a mistake, if not an outright lie.

If, on the other hand, something that I said is an opinion, then a
rebuttal of it is simply off-topic here, not to mention can serve no
useful purpose. (It may very well antagonize me, but that certainly is
not a useful purpose. Quite the opposite, if it results in a long
off-topic debate in this newsgroup.)

Everyone makes mistakes. I make them. That you have not made any is
about as believable as the Flat Earth hypothesis.

I said that I have not made any IN THE ASPECTS OF THIS CURRENT PROJECT
OF MINE THAT HAVE GOTTEN DISCUSSED HERE. And indeed I have not.

Regardless, it is not your place to make that decision on my behalf. I
will be the sole arbiter of my performance at programming, when
programming for myself, and my manager will be when I am programming as
employment. YOU will never be, since your behavior here has convinced me
to absolutely refuse ever to accept any job position anywhere that would
put you in the role of being my employer.

If you don't think I'm doing a good job of something, fine -- you're
welcome to your opinion, just so long as you keep it to yourself.

If you wish to broadcast a public opinion of me, despite my being a
private individual rather than a public figure or celebrity of any sort,
or a person in a position of public trust, then I will decide what
opinion of me you broadcast, and it will be "zerg is a great guy"!

Have I made myself clear NOW?

In simpler language, when I want your public opinion of me, I will give
it to you.

One of the definitions of controversy: strife. Anyone who causes strife
-- by fragrantly violating the charter, by repeatedly ignoring the flaws
of posted algorithms -- is a poster of controversy.

But I was using "controversial" to mean "holder of controversial
opinions and beliefs". This paragraph of yours is, therefore, entirely
beside the point.

Let me guess... "do as I say, not as I do?"

No; as I explained above, I respond in kind. I have learned during my
life that if you always respond nicely even to abuse, people learn that
you can be abused with impunity, and are ever more abusive; if you
always respond nastily even to niceness, people learn not to have
anything to do with you; and therefore that it is better to respond in kind.

In practise, I only tend to respond to abuse with abuse when it has been
repeated several times despite several polite requests for it to stop.

This serves two purposes. First, people abusing me get several chances
to change their minds before they get it, and if their abuse was somehow
an accident they don't get blasted for it (unless they are silly enough
as to let it happen repeatedly and frequently). Secondly, the history of
the interaction will invariably show that I was by a significant time
lag NOT the first to become abusive, and therefore that I hold the moral
high ground.

Furthermore, I will never escalate. You have been rude and condescending
to me, and outright accused me several times of various bad things; the
most I have been to you has been somewhat condescending, with some
assertions that you were wrong about some things. I have kept it below
your level (for example, I have not called YOU "lazy" at any point), but
I have raised it above zero so that you do indeed receive some serious
negative feedback as long as you continue to act in the antisocial
manner that you have been doing. The purpose being to give you an
incentive to stop being rude to people, or at least to stop being rude
to me, personally.

As for my earlier statement, "hurling abuse at people in public can not
serve any useful function and will generally only make things worse",
consider it a bit imprecise, and amended with "(except in response to
persistent abuse)".

I hope this has cleared up any confusion that you may have had.

If you have any better suggestions as to how to deal with abusive
treatment from others without simply taking it lying down and thus
inviting more and worse abuse but without responding in kind either,
then I'm all ears.

(Yes, I know one option is simply to ignore the person who started the
abuse, but that isn't exactly a good idea if they have begun publicly
spouting nasty opinions of you, because then they'll simply be able to
continue doing so "behind your back" and get away with it, and THAT
certainly won't do you any good.)

 

[Lasse Reichstein Nielsen]

(Joshua had nothing worthwhile to say in response to this.)


(Joshua had nothing worthwhile to say in response to this.)

I don't suppose you read the part of my earlier post where I mentioned
that inheritance of B from A can mean one or both of TWO things?

* B is a kind of A
* B has reused code from A

Since a Swing component does not seem to me to really be a kind of AWT
component (would a JButton work properly in an AWT Frame? On an old,
AWT-only Java deployment?)

In an AWT Frame? Yes. It IS A button in the AWT sense.
You could easily have tested this yourself. Example:
---
public class AwtSwingTest implements ActionListener {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Frame frame = new Frame();
//Button button = new Button("Click me");
JButton button = new JButton("Click me");
button.addActionListener(new AwtSwingTest());
frame.add(button);
frame.setSize(100, 100);
frame.setVisible(true);
}
public void actionPerformed(ActionEvent e) {
System.out.println("Button clicked");
System.exit(0);
}
}
---

Would it work in an AWT-only setting? Obviously not, the class wouldn't
be there.

The Swing components are built on top of the AWT system, using IS-A
inheritance to extend the capabilities of the corresponding AWT
components. The entire JAVA system, with both AWT and Swing, is a
consistent system where Swing components naturally inherit from
AWT components. This is the system you are using, and in that, with
the traditional JavaDoc style, the documentation page of a Swing class
only explain the changes from its super-class.

it seems questionable to expect me to look there.

Well, know you know.

Particularly when it means looking in another package entirely,
and at almost the opposite end of the alphabetic listing of packages
to boot.

A superclass is a superclass. What package it is in is not important.

All of which ignores the fact that I simply looked in the most obvious
place, the alphabetic listing of methods with detailed descriptions,
as seemed reasonable. None of the information you're discussing is in
that particular place to lead me on anywhere else in turn.

True. The way JavaDoc is structured, one needs to know to look at
superclasses manually.


[about Roedy]

Really? He basically posted "The answers are here: http://etc etc etc"
and it was quite clearly his own web site.

True. His way of working appears to be to see a question, and if he
thinks the answer is generally applicable and/or the question is likely
to be asked again, then he writes up the answer on his web page and
gives a link, instead of writing the answer in a message.

I have missed nothing.
I have not made any mistakes.

Sorry Paul, I hadn't recognized your twisted writing style before.
Won't bother you again.
/L

 

[Arne Vajhøj]

Define "people". What is it with you and Peter and pretending that your
personal opinions or expectations somehow have extra weight or authority
than, say, mine do? You are just people, same as I am, and last I
checked this is an unmoderated newsgroup. You're my equals, not my
superiors. You are certainly not imbued with any sort of official
authority to dictate some sort of "standard" set of opinions or
expectations on behalf of every single other person who may read or
write here.

I hyphenate that you count the numbers of women that think you should
read docs and the numbers that think you do not need to.

It is an observable difficulty that the women in this goo has this
award.

And I am not one of these.

You dispensable are.

If you don't like that, well, tough. Ignore my question and move on.
This is an unmoderated group;

Unmoderated does not mean that anything is Martian.

No, it is a typical mistake among you and Peter and perhaps a few other
people here.

You are mistaken. It is you that think we do not need to know anything
about your warfare. I have upward made such a claim. And my guess is that
Ken has not either.

In short, you are actually EXTORTING such justifications from me by
actually THREATENING TO HARM MY REPUTATION if I DON'T do so.

You have squeezed to flawlessly squawk your megalomania yourself by your
attitude.

Now read my lips: The people posting questions here are, by and large,
adults, capable of making their own decisions and choices, and if they
want outside advice on any particular such, they will ask for it; they
are not small children and you are not parents that need to give them
guidance lest they step on broken glass, not wear their helmets, or
what-have-you.

That is not how personification works.

If you converse a question on meltdown children will be void about
what you are doing and have conspiracies about what you should use
instead.

If you want to affection what doldrums you get, then pay
an academician.

It is LINKED FROM the JComponent document page, though not anywhere
where it's very easy to find by a quick visual check for
relevant-looking method descriptions.

Until you have affected to read a javadoc page, then I imitate
that you read it all.

And of course I did;

Which was not what you wrote above.

I DO know what I am doing, whether you choose to believe that or not.

Considering that you are not able to read a HTML page, then ...

Arne


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"Since 9-11, we have increasingly embraced at the highest official
level a paranoiac view of the world. Summarized in a phrase repeatedly
used at the highest level,

"he who is not with us is against us."

I strongly suspect the person who uses that phrase doesn't know its
historical or intellectual origins.

It is a phrase popularized by Lenin (Applause)
when he attacked the social democrats on the grounds that they were
anti-Bolshevik and therefore he who is not with us is against us
and can be handled accordingly."

--- Zbigniew Brzezinski

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
This is just a reminder.
It is not an emergency yet.
Were it actual emergency, you wouldn't be able to read this.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

 

[Arne Vajhøj]

Yes, albeit hard to read ones; I've noticed.

Did you have some sort of a point here?

His point should be wicked: your transposition about you
having to read AWT docs is paranoid.

Even when there are five or six of them like that one, densely packed,
with dozens of entries each, and virtually unreadable?

Absolutely.

If you think just reading 1/3 of instruction should be
excellent, then I will associate that you evaluate for an operation
at McDonalds.

Arne


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[NWO, degenerate, Skull and Bones, fanatic, deranged, idiot,
lunatic, retarded, puppet]

"I know what I believe. I will continue to articulate what
I believe and what I believe -- I believe what I believe
is right."

--- Adolph Bush,
Rome, July 22, 2001

 

[Joshua Cranmer]

I wholeheartedly agree, but others don't always follow that advice and I
take that into consideration when using others' classes.

This seems to be the core of the conundrum then. If you treat
inheritance as an is-a relationship, the documentation should be
searched for also in the superclasses. The fact that you *refused* to
acknowledge that the superclass could be a source of documentation
indicates that you've taking this consideration so far that you didn't
think to treat it as an is-a relationship.

I repeat: would a JButton work properly in an old, AWT-only Java
deployment?

Yes, provided you have the libraries to define JButton. AWT and Swing
mix seamlessly, modulo the different design styles.

import java.awt.*;
import javax.swing.*;

class Test {
public static void main(String... args) {
Frame frame = new Frame("Test frame");
frame.setSize(200,300);
JButton button = new JButton("Click me!");
frame.add(button);
frame.setVisible(true);
}
}

It stopped being about Java the instant somebody
made it about me.

It stopped being about Java when you stopped talking about Java. A
little trick for future reference: cut out any part that you think goes
too off-topic and don't mention that you've dropped it. That portion
will die off very quickly.

Because pricks are so common in newsgroups. "If you don't have anything
nice to say, don't say anything at all" is a piece of advice that you
would do well to familiarize yourself with.
*cough*

See, this is another way in
which you and those like you keep erring -- you assume that everyone but
you is a neophyte, or perhaps that everyone new to the NEWSGROUP is a
neophyte WITH JAVA.

It is much easier to assume that someone is a neophyte when no evidence
has been given to the contrary than the other way around; it is also
more correct. Likewise, we assume that people haven't bothered to go
look something up in the correct places unless they explain that they
have. Questions are very frequently answerable by one of the first 10
results on Google.

It's called "getting a taste of your own medicine". If you don't enjoy
it, stop dishing it out!

I can't recall a time where I snipped someone's response and then
complained that the response was worthless, with one exception being a
moment of sarcasm when I was in the midst of a thread with someone else
who did that *very heavily*. So it's not a taste of my own medicine.

Besides, I don't take medicine.

No. Nothing that I have said is wrong, and therefore you have no valid
"rebuttals" of anything that I have said. Anything that you claim is
such therefore is "nothing worthwhile" for the simple reason that it is
factually false.

"This is detailed knowledge" -> "No it's not, it's clearly explained on
this introductory page." If that's not a rebuttal, what is it?

See above. It is incorrect to even try to rebut me. Don't.

"JComponent doesn't override all of Component's methods" -> "It can't
because it's not feasible". If that's not a rebuttal, what is it?

when they are over the age of 18

Actually, I'm technically not *over* the age of 18. Which should go to
show that you shouldn't make any assumptions.

In other words, what drew ire was that he stood up for himself when
people were rude to him and cast aspersions about him in public. Well,
good for him, even if he took it to extremes.

This is what the threads were like:
*Twisted makes a point
Person A: No, I don't think that's valid because...
Twisted: [Snip insult from Person A]

No one was rude at the beginning. People only got rude when this had
gone for some time. Actually *read* what happened. It's centered mostly
in the thread "Java and avoiding piracy" (or something like that). Don't
talk to me about what happened with this one person until you actually
see what happened for yourself, instead of assuming what happened.

You clearly still have not learned. (See how you like being addressed in
such a manner!)

And don't clip context where I explain why I said "no."

I made the statement originally, you misinterpreted it. Which gives me
the right to explain more clearly how it was intended to be interpreted
it. I also have the right to be blunt in pointing out that the statement
was misinterpreted.

How the hell would you know? I didn't tell you anything about exactly
how I counted the numbers. In fact I did use percentages, rather than
absolute counts, contrary to your claim here.

And you made no indication that you did. I also just realized that
Andrew and Lew have both been the victims of a NewsMaestro spammer, but
I'll assume that you already accounted for that (they became such for
telling said spammer that c.l.j.p was not the place to advertise his
product).

then I will decide what
opinion of me you broadcast, and it will be "zerg is a great guy"!

Never have I found Godwin's Law so tempting.

But I was using "controversial" to mean "holder of controversial
opinions and beliefs". This paragraph of yours is, therefore, entirely
beside the point.

I was trying to tell you that you were using a different definition than
I had intended.

Furthermore, I will never escalate. You have been rude and condescending
to me, and outright accused me several times of various bad things;

Never have I called you rude or condescending. Never have I shouted at
you. You have assumed that I called you a neophyte (which isn't exactly
a bad thing) by implication only. The worst thing that I have said
implicitly is "lazy," which is quite frankly a much better attribute
than many of the things you have called me in this thread.

As for my earlier statement, "hurling abuse at people in public can not
serve any useful function and will generally only make things worse",
consider it a bit imprecise, and amended with "(except in response to
persistent abuse)".

It has been my experience that this is generally not the case.
Responding to abuse with abuse generally leads to... two people abusing
each other. Read the Twisted threads, you will find very, very deep
subthreads of people doing nothing but calling each other names. I don't
know how long you've been browsing newsgroups, but if it's for multiple
months or more, I'm surprised that you have that amendment.

(Yes, I know one option is simply to ignore the person who started the
abuse, but that isn't exactly a good idea if they have begun publicly
spouting nasty opinions of you, because then they'll simply be able to
continue doing so "behind your back" and get away with it, and THAT
certainly won't do you any good.)

I have waded deep into threads with loads of abuse hurled at me all with
the simple goal of passing on a nugget of information. I try to follow
the primary tenant of my religion, "Do onto others as you would have
them do unto you." If you read earlier history, you'll notice that I
have actually stood up for JSH, in the midst of a whirlwind of abuse, to
the disbelief of others (you'll have to look in sci.math as well, as
that's where his biggest torturers are).

So yes, just ignore a person. Even the most righteous people are
despised by some people. I learned long ago that trying to purposefully
direct public opinion of myself was a fruitless task. Just let your
actions speak for yourself, and let people form their own opinions. You
may think I'm some brutal bully secretly attempting to become the next
Pol Pot, but that doesn't bother me. You could shout that to the world
for all I care, it still won't bother me.

Besides, I don't feel one can really judge a person until one actually
gets the intimacy equivalent to sitting down and having a debate over
coffee or lunch. All preconceived notions are wrong, anyways.

 

[Arne Vajhøj]

That depends on whether the parent class was subclassed as a part of the
data type (X is a special sort of Y) or was subclassed solely for code
reuse.

You need to reach the relationships uplifted no matter why it
was recovered.

What? All I'm asking is that people here be polite and treat me with the
basic level of respect normally accorded all human beings interacting in
a civilized society. Are you suggesting that being polite is such an
onerous burden that politeness should cost actual money? My God!

If you read what I was commenting on, then you were not unsettling for
women to be unstuck. You were telling them not to write abound what
they generate rational.

And if you want to provoke that, then paying a maintainer seems as
the disorderly advice.

Arne




- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"Zionism, in its efforts to realize its aims, is inherently
a process of struggle against the Diaspora, against nature,
and against political obstacles. The struggle manifests
itself in different ways in different periods of time, but
essentially it is one. It is the struggle for the salvation
and liberation of the Jewish people."

--- Yisrael Galili

"...Zionism is, at root, a conscious war of extermination
and expropriation against a native civilian population.
In the modern vernacular, Zionism is the theory and practice
of "ethnic cleansing," which the UN has defined as a war crime."

"Now, the Zionist Jews who founded Israel are another matter.
For the most part, they are not Semites, and their language
(Yiddish) is not semitic. These Ashkenazi ("German") Jews --
as opposed to the Sephardic ("Spanish") Jews -- have no
connection whatever to any of the aforementioned ancient
peoples or languages.

They are mostly East European Slavs descended from the Khazars,
a nomadic Turko-Finnic people that migrated out of the Caucasus
in the second century and came to settle, broadly speaking, in
what is now Southern Russia and Ukraine."

In A.D. 740, the khagan (ruler) of Khazaria, decided that paganism
wasn't good enough for his people and decided to adopt one of the
"heavenly" religions: Judaism, Christianity or Islam.

After a process of elimination he chose Judaism, and from that
point the Khazars adopted Judaism as the official state religion.

The history of the Khazars and their conversion is a documented,
undisputed part of Jewish history, but it is never publicly
discussed.

It is, as former U.S. State Department official Alfred M. Lilienthal
declared, "Israel's Achilles heel," for it proves that Zionists
have no claim to the land of the Biblical Hebrews."

--- Greg Felton,
Israel: A monument to anti-Semitism