Bogus NullPointerExceptions

[Tom Forsmo]

I have been amused [snip]

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

That sound like a really bad B movie from the eighties or perhaps the
seventies. Are you not able to come up with any better than that?

 

[Twisted]

Tom Forsmo wrote:
[snip some idiocy]

Exactly what you have been doing as well.

Wrong. I didn't inflame the thread; I just found it that way one day. I
didn't pilot it off topic either; again I just found it that way. And
I'm not the one assassinating here; I'm the one defending!

[snip even further offtopic asides]

 

[John W. Kennedy]

> 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 the US (generally):

A witness called by the other side is presumed to be a hostile witness.

A witness called by your side can be ruled a hostile witness by the
judge, though it happens far less often in real life than in drama (in
general, you don't /want/ to call a hostile witness).

A hostile witness may be asked leading questions.

(See rule 611c of Federal procedure.)

The often-encountered "Answer 'yes' or 'no'" is not established by
Federal procedure, as such, but could certainly be interpreted as being
allowed, at need, under rule 611a, which essentially allows the judge to
do whatever needs to be done to get witness interrogation done
efficiently, and in a timely manner.

 

[Twisted]

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

"Dirt". That's the worst name you can think up to call me right now?
You also seem to have forgotten that this is an unmoderated group.
Nobody has been appointed any kind of gatekeeper, bouncer, or whatever
here, and nobody has any authority to "fend" me off just because they'd
rather I didn't post here.

[snip threats that you'll continue attacking me if I don't stop
defending myself and let you attack me with impunity -- nice try
asshole]

Neither have you...

But I'm not the one in the driver's seat, dimbulb. Every time they post
their shit I have to make sure those who read it get both sides of the
story and not just their BS, which means a new followup. Every time
they post the same crap, I therefore must post the same anti-crap to
counteract its effect.

[snip more stupidity]

Let me try and make this clear to you again.

Stop talking down to me like some kind of thug, cop, or other would-be
bossy type. I don't take orders from you, and I don't take kindly to
threats.

[Compares me to a mosquito]

Well, that's original, at least. Most of you lot's postings have about
as much original material as my monthly cable bill.

[snip further attempts to trick me into lowering my guard]

Perhaps my consistently avoiding being tricked will eventually drive
home the fact that I'M NOT THE IDIOT you bunch of dweebs seem to think
I am.

please do share...

No.

 

[Twisted]

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

Well there's part of your problem. You're an inconsiderate prick, not
to mention you couldn't find your spellchecker with both hands and a
map. Now go away.

 

[Tom Forsmo]

> A hostile witness may be asked leading questions.
>
The often-encountered "Answer 'yes' or 'no'" is not established by
Federal procedure, as such, but could certainly be interpreted as being
allowed, at need, under rule 611a, which essentially allows the judge to
do whatever needs to be done to get witness interrogation done
efficiently, and in a timely manner.

Even though, the judge can not dictate which answer the witness can
give. then its not the witnesses answer any more but the judges or the
attorney. If a witness wants to say "Its not that simple" to a question
that someone would prefer a yes or no answer to, a judge can not
disallow such an answer or instruct the witness to only say yes or no...
If he could then justice would be hollow. A judge could then start
instructing the witnesses to answer what he or the prosecutor wants him
to answer, that's not democracy or rule of law, its fascism.
A judge can instruct a witness to answer, but can not tell him what the
answer should be.

tom

 

[Tom Forsmo]

Well there's part of your problem. You're an inconsiderate prick, not
to mention you couldn't find your spellchecker with both hands and a
map. Now go away.

I WILL NOT GO AWAY... how do you like them apples?

 

[Twisted]

Tom Forsmo wrote:

[compares me to satan]

Well, at least you aim high, even if you keep mistakenly attacking the
wrong target. He's THATaway, doofus!

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).

I'm guessing it wouldn't have been had you been sober at the time you
wrote it. Unfortunately, it came out a mangled mess and seemingly
completely irrelevant here anyway.

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.

Yeah. So, what's *your* excuse?

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

You've gotten it backwards again, dumbass. I'm the one on defense here
remember? It's Attardi and, lately, mainly *you* directing "non-human"
behavior at *me*. (I think the technical term is "inhuman" actually,
although "psychotic" or just plain "evil" will do.)

Now please, Satan, go vanquish thyself as promised earlier.

 

[Twisted]

I have been amused [snip]

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

That sound like a really bad B movie from the eighties or perhaps the
seventies. Are you not able to come up with any better than that?

I just can't be arsed to waste time and effort being original when I
know I'm going to have to repeat it fifty thousand times because you're
as dense as a block of solid plutonium.

 

[Tom Forsmo]

Stop talking down to me like some kind of thug, cop, or other would-be
bossy type. I don't take orders from you, and I don't take kindly to
threats.

When people try to explain to you what you are doing is wrong for the
nth time and you still resist like a stubborn little kid, some get tired
of trying to explain it in a nice way...

[Compares me to a mosquito]

Well, that's original, at least. Most of you lot's postings have about
as much original material as my monthly cable bill.

thank you, I take that as a compliment, even from you can we be arch
enemies now, just like spiderman and the green goblin? (Because you know
that arch enemies secretly admires each other for their skills?) Dibs on
spiderman

[snip further attempts to trick me into lowering my guard]

Perhaps my consistently avoiding being tricked will eventually drive
home the fact that I'M NOT THE IDIOT you bunch of dweebs seem to think
I am.

Yes this is all a grand conspiracy targeted at you, and you only. We
have been sitting here idle, waiting for you to come to this group and
then we throw ourselves on you in anticipation of the great epic battle.

You dont seem to get it: its not personal, its just that you are this
months idiot, who think he can do as he pleases without being told its
wrong.

No.

then why should we care or stop?

 

[Tom Forsmo]

Tom Forsmo wrote:

[compares me to satan]

Too right Just keeping it real you know...

Well, at least you aim high, even if you keep mistakenly attacking the
wrong target. He's THATaway, doofus!

Allmost funny, but still ill fated.

I'm guessing it wouldn't have been had you been sober at the time you
wrote it. Unfortunately, it came out a mangled mess and seemingly
completely irrelevant here anyway.

Its easier to just avoid though questions like these, with sarcasm, isnt it?

Yeah. So, what's *your* excuse?

human nature... what is yours?

Now please, Satan, go vanquish thyself as promised earlier.

after you... ladies first...


(i am having so much fun... how about you? want to go another round?)

 

[Twisted]

Tom Forsmo is a jerk:

When people try to explain to you [something insulting] for the
nth time and you still resist like a [vicious lie], some get tired
of trying to explain it in a nice way...

Then stop "trying to explain it" at all. I don't want to hear your
boneheaded insults. I couldn't care less what horrible things you
believe about me, and I certainly prefer that you not broadcast those
beliefs in front of others. Keep them to yourself or take it to e-mail
asswipe.

thank you, I take that as a compliment, even from you can we be arch
enemies now, just like spiderman and the green goblin? (Because you know
that arch enemies secretly admires each other for their skills?) Dibs on
spiderman

Sorry, spiderman is the good guy and green goblin is the psychopathic
villain, so you got them the wrong way around. Go put on your green
helmet now. Preferably the one with the built-in muzzle.

Yes this is all a grand conspiracy targeted at you, and you only. We
have been sitting here idle, waiting for you to come to this group and
then we throw ourselves on you in anticipation of the great epic battle.

Really? I'd rather thought you were a bunch of dweebs who hung around
here discussing software all day, but unlike the smarter geeks that
enjoy such and the smarter non-geeks who don't come here if they don't
like it, you got bored and eventually decided to torture a n00b or
something. So, more of a petty little bunch of losers with too much
free time and too little compassion, among other things.

But if you say it's actually a grand conspiracy instead ...

[calls me a name]

Do shut up.

 

[Twisted]

Tom Forsmo wrote:

[snip a variety of largely nonsensical, mildly-insulting crud]

human nature... what is yours?

I don't need one. Unlike you, I'm not a vicious predatory sociopath.

Now either take this to e-mail or take it to /dev/null, your choice.

 

[vjg]

Twisted wrote:

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

I have to say that I read the whole thread because I was bored and had
nothing better to do for a little while. I also have to say that you're
nuts... let it go and walk away. Watch closely. This is how it's done.

- Virgil

 

[Chris Uppal]

Even though, the judge can not dictate which answer the witness can
give. then its not the witnesses answer any more but the judges or the
attorney. If a witness wants to say "Its not that simple" to a question
that someone would prefer a yes or no answer to, a judge can not
disallow such an answer or instruct the witness to only say yes or no...
If he could then justice would be hollow.

Not necessarily -- not at all, one would hope. There are two (classes of)
reasons why a witness might not want to give a straightforward answer to an
apparently straightforward question. One is that the matter is not actually as
straightforward as it appears; the other is that the witness is trying to avoid
answering the question at all. Justice is ill-served if either the former is
forbidden, or the latter is permitted. One part of the judge's job -- as a
hopefully unbiased and presumably expert adjudicator -- is to distinguish
between the two, and to direct the legal processes accordingly. Neither the
witness nor the inquisitor can be trusted to make that judgement.

As an aside, this sorry mess of a thread (and the other one) shows what
fruitless chaos ensues if two opposed parties debate without independent
adjudication of their tactics.

-- chris

 

[oubliette]

Twisted wrote:

then why should we care or stop?

Do a GG search for "Paul Derbyshire FAQ".

I feel bad for him. He appears not to have learned anything in ten
years.

 

[Twisted]

Twisted wrote:

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

I have to say that I read the whole thread because I was bored and had
nothing better to do for a little while. I also have to say that [insult]

Whose hand is inside this sock? Anyone care to own up?

 

[Twisted]

Do a GG search for "Paul Derbyshire FAQ".

[snip]

Who the hell is that, and how can this be of any relevance to
comp.lang.java.programmer?