Giving an application a window icon in a sensible way

[Twisted]

How do the 10-to-1 odds work in a betting pool? If I bet $1 that he will
shut up, and I win, does that mean I get $10? If only you and I bet (and we
each bet $1) and I win, where will the missing $9 come from?

I don't know. I don't actually know how they manage the accounting
behing the scenes for crap like horse racing and whatever. I didn't
expect this to actually be taken very seriously, or to last very long.
And I was right -- it didn't. Joe Attardi opened his fat mouth again
not long after the post in which he once again had promised to STFU.
Which means I win a buck. (Yes, but from who? )

 

[oubliette]

Oliver Wong wrote:

And Attacki. I'm guessing that after the sheer amount of BS *he*
shoveled and the particularly vicious nature of many of his attacks,
even Gandhi would probably have snapped at him at some point. And
you've got to admit that with a name like that, he really should avoid
picking fights or use a pseudonym -- stones, glass houses, and all
that.

Well it's not as interesting a name as Paul Derbyshire, I'll give it
that.

 

[Twisted]

Well it's not as interesting a name as Paul Derbyshire, I'll give it
that.

I don't know anyone by that name.

 

[Tom Forsmo]

Neither of us "gets" the other. That much is clear.

No you really dont get it. I get what you want. You want to be the last
man standing with all "slanderous" statements about you eradicated for
eternity. What I am trying to tell you is that, such an approach works
in real life in a more confined situation such as at the office or in
the media, but it does not work on the internet. The reason is simple,
in real life and in media, what someone says about another leaves an
actual impression on others which last longer than it takes to listen to
the argument. Why does it leave an impression? because the people
speaking and the people listening are known to each other, so they care
what is being said. On the internet, it does not work like that, because
no one knows you and hence do not care unless you say something usefull
or helpfull. All other statments are just ignored, because there is so
much shit on the net anyway. Thats why your approach is flawed.

I don't give a shit what those goals are, but they sound frivolous and
non-Java-related, so pursue them elsewhere. Regardless, they don't
justify putting someone's character publicly into question (especially
not if they are in fact frivolous).

You put yourself in that position when you started being rude when
unprovoked... You know if a dog exibits unnaturally dangerous behaviour
or are aggressive without being provoked, they are put down...

where undermining me simply is a way for you to stroke your own ego. It
just makes you a bigger asshole and one with a lower IQ. At least
undermining your coworkers has some rational, material gain motivating
it. It's nasty but not necessarily stupid. Your online behavior, on the
other hand, is both.

Well i cant help but throw in a couple of comments now and then, but
thats only because you are begging for it. But in all honesty I am
trying to help you by explaining you faulty behaviour, but I can not
demand that you understand it, that is something you have to do on your
own... and its taking a hell of a long time for you to start showing
that you are at least on the right track...

If I did that, a) I have no guarantee that it *would* die. Perhaps,
emboldened by the lack of responses and sensing weakening prey, the
attackers will just press home a final assault instead. b) Even if
"playing possum" does work, the damage from their last bunch of attacks
will go unmitigated!

There is a difference between walking away and playing dead. The bigger
man walks away when hes sees any further attempts are futile. Only a
looser thinks playing dead is the solution.

No one has asked you play dead, we are asking you to be the bigger man
and end it quietly by walking away from this hopeless discussion
(hopeful that you will understand why that is the best solution on the net)

Any behavior that is not intentionally harmful, nor negligent, is by
definition innocuous. It may be eccentric, but people can ignore it
with impunity (unlike, say, a knife-charge, or being exposed to spam).

No body cares about intention, the only thing that matters is how its
perceived. So its your job, to adapt what you want to say to how you
want it perceived. If people perceive it in another way than you
intended it, you have to rephrase it. You can not blame others for not
understanding your intentions if you are uncapable of adapting it to the
people you talk to.

[insults me]

Ah, now you show your true colors again, after a period of trying to
"reason with" (read: trick) me.

I dont deny it, sometimes I like to poke fun at retards... (eventhough
my better judgement tells me that its wrong, I cant help but doing it
once in a while, its my vice, whats yours?)

And be seen and not heard, no doubt. That is the way I hear they do
things where you apparently come from (based on your attitudes and your
reference to Kim Jong-Il), but that is not the way of my part of the
world and it is not my way.

So where you come from people listen to the people who dont know
anything and ignore the ones who does? interresting approach. maybe that
explains why you are having no luck convincing people here you are right.

In any case, where do I come from? You can not make such a statement
without having an informed opinion about it...

Wrong. First of all, you neglect to mention that the thing I disliked
about the answer I got was that it criticized me for what is actually
praiseworthy behavior: trying to solve the problem myself with some
research, and actually succeeding.

You got it all backwards, people first tried to inform you that your
problem should not be solved the way wanted to solve it, then you found
an answer you liked, then you started telling people off because they
still tried to tell you that it was not the way to go about the problem.

I wouldnt go as far as calling it praiseworthy that you found an answer,
I would rather just call it the way its supposed to be. You should try
to figure it out by yourself because thats how you learn. Then you post
a message explaining what you found out and why you chose that solution
so that others in similar situations can use that information. No where
does it say people are not allowed to respond with criticism of a
proposed solution. In fact its actually incurraged, so that people can
discuss it and together find the best solution with all aspects taken
into consideration.

Secondly, I did not simply "start telling people to piss off".

I argued
with them about why their criticism of me was unfounded.

Apparently you
think that Certain People are not to be argued with by The Likes Of Me,
but since you come from some world of feudal lords and fealty oaths,
that's just you. Apparently, some other people here like to pretend
that they ARE feudal lords, and dislike being reminded that they
actually are not,

One of those people are you.

But nothing *I* did was wrong.

Thats not what the rest of us think. And you believe in majority rule
dont you? you must, because you come from a secular democracy... (and I
am only a lowly person from a dark and evil place called the "old world"
by the esteemed benefactor of the only true democracy in the world,
Cheney, Rumsfeld and Associates)

When I did get around to telling people to piss off, it was *long*
after it became abundantly clear that those specific people had nothing
constructive to say (albeit a few subtle, "constructive-sounding"
attempts to trick me into either letting their trash talk go
unchallenged or into actually "admitting" to the nasty things they
claimed about me).

it wasnt an attempt, its was succesful.. you have massacred yourself so
many times by now, that many people in this news group have noticed you
and will not spend any time on your future questions, just because of
your previous behaviour...

That much is obvious, since most English-speaking countries these days
are secular democracies, and your place of origin is obviously some
kind of feudal monarchy or dictatorship.

Because in secular democracies no body behaves like this? Here is a
news-flash for you; its the same petty human behaviour all over the
world. It does not matter where you are from or what background you
have, someone from that background will behave like a prick for that
persons own interrest. Human nature is being greedy and selfish... and
there are plenty of them in your country too.



Btw lets try to make a record of this: worlds longest running thread...

 

[John W. Kennedy]

In a court of law in the US, aren't lawyers allowed to bring up
otherwise irrelevant material that might be used to support, or
impeach, the credibility of a witness?

Yes.

 

[Tom Forsmo]

This newsgroup doesn't have a "way";

yes it does, its got faqs, netiquettes and so on, the collective
experience on how to behave on the net, and most experienced people on
the net live by these norms and try to teach it to newcomers...

it is a collection of people that
basically don't know one another at all. It's an anarchy, or perhaps a
bit of an adhocracy at most. And any one of the posters might be a dog
for all we know. There can be no castes, hierarchies, lordships, or
kingdoms here to whom fealty is owed,

first of all you are contradicting yourself, you have said in another
post that the internet is a democracy.

secondly, there is, its called meritocracy, and the people who knows the
most are voted ahead and holds the vital projects and positions on the
net. the rest are just trying to live by their example or just whimsing
about uknowingly living by the rules the lords have decided. Its human
nature and it will always be like that.

 

[Twisted]

No you really dont get it. I get what you want. You want to be the last
man standing with all "slanderous" statements about you eradicated for
eternity. What I am trying to tell you is that

[snip]

I don't care what you think.

[insults me]

False.

You put yourself in that position when you started being rude when
unprovoked...

Since I didn't start being rude when unprovoked, what you're saying
doesn't make any sense at all.

Have you not bothered to read the start of the thread? I didn't start
this; I was attacked first, and at first all I did was defend myself
fairly calmly and politely, until MY PATIENCE WORE THIN! NOW **** OFF!

Well i cant help but throw in a couple of comments now and then, but
thats only because you are begging for it.

False. I am actually requesting that you stop, although since you don't
seem to be capable of comprehending English above the 2nd-grade level,
you keep missing the point. I don't want your comments. Go away. If you
feel you must send me your comments, do so through e-mail and not in
public; they are not on-topic here.

But in all honesty I am trying to help you by [insults me some more]

Why do so many violently abusive persons say their terrible deeds are
"honestly trying to help"? Why don't they realize that when their
behavior is clearly annoying, paining, or whatever their victim that
they must be doing something wrong and stop? Or do they just say that
as part of some twisted psychological dysfunction?

[once again one of my attackers tries to trick me into letting down my
guard]

Not on your life.

Can't you at least try some subtler trick instead of being so bloody
*obvious*? Then at least this mess wouldn't be so *boring*.

So its your job, to adapt what you want to say to how you
want it perceived. If people perceive it in another way than you
intended it, you have to rephrase it.

No, they have to clean their ears. I am as clear and unambiguous as
possible, which means any further improvement in communication must
come from improving the comprehension skills of the other guy.

[Insults my intelligence again]

So where you come from people listen to the people who dont know
anything and ignore the ones who does?

No. Where I come from everybody is equal under the law and nobody has
some kind of automatic superior treatment (which just breeds buffoonery
and the crap floating to the top anyway).

You got it all backwards, people first tried to inform you that your
problem should not be solved the way wanted to solve it

What are you blithering about now? I decide how my project should
develop, not you.

Then you post
a message explaining what you found out and why you chose that solution
so that others in similar situations can use that information. No where
does it say people are not allowed to respond with criticism of a
proposed solution.

Constructive criticism maybe. Criticism of the *person* is obviously
completely inappropriate, as well as rude and uncalled-for.

One of those people are you.
Liar.


Thats not what the rest of us think.

That's because the "rest of you" (i.e. all of the people attacking me)
are morons, dummy. Including you.

And you believe in majority rule dont you?
you must, because you come from a secular democracy...

A proper democracy is far more complex than that. For example, trials
here aren't conducted by public opinon poll.

(and I
am only a lowly person from a dark and evil place called the "old world"
by the esteemed benefactor of the only true democracy in the world,
Cheney, Rumsfeld and Associates)

That's an ex-democracy unless they get their act together (starting
with scrapping anything with the Diebold logo on it that counts
anything other than money).

[snip further insults, nonsense, and nonsuch]

Because in secular democracies no body behaves like this? Here is a
news-flash for you; its the same petty human behaviour all over the
world. It does not matter where you are from or what background you
have, someone from that background will behave like a prick for that
persons own interrest. Human nature is being greedy and selfish... and
there are plenty of them in your country too.

Yes, but they're not supposed to be permitted to simply get away with
it here. You seem to be suggesting that when such a prick acts like I
should worship the ground he walks on, then I should promptly kneel and
pray. Well, **** him and **** you; I will do no such thing. I will put
this tin-pot dictator in his place. I can do that because this isn't
his personal goddam fiefdom and he hasn't the power to enforce his idea
of how to run things, fortunately.

 

[Twisted]

Yes.

Not that any of this is at all relevant, since this isn't a courtroom.
This is a Java programming newsgroup, or at least it used to be, and it
is supposed to be for the discussion of code and the like, not
credibilities and witnesses and whatnot.

 

[Twisted]

This newsgroup doesn't have a "way";

yes it does, its got faqs, netiquettes and so on[snip]

This newsgroup doesn't have a faq that I've seen reposted recently. You
must be thinking of a different one. In any event, it's not at all
relevant here, except to the extent that your violently hostile conduct
is undoubtedly seriously off-charter.

first of all you are contradicting yourself, you have said in another
post that the internet is a democracy.

No I'm not. I was referring to this newsgroup in the paragraph you
quoted, rather than the whole Internet.

[snip some nonsense about rankings and rising to the top in an
unmoderated newsgroup]

Bye-bye.

 

[Tom Forsmo]

No. Where I come from everybody is equal under the law and nobody has
some kind of automatic superior treatment (which just breeds buffoonery
and the crap floating to the top anyway).

So where do you come from?

In any case, the statement "being equal" does not mean equality
independent of competence, it only refers to race, religion and such
innate things of a persons being

That's because the "rest of you" (i.e. all of the people attacking me)
are morons, dummy. Including you.

yes, because we are the ones performing name calling of the opposition
as soon as we run out of arguments...

A proper democracy is far more complex than that.

yes but you can not talk about everything at once...

For example, trials
here aren't conducted by public opinon poll.

where did I say trials are conducted by public opinion polls, pay
attention when participating. but to respond: trials can have jury's
which are majority rule, elections are majority rule, voting in a
parliament is majority rule. all the same rules applies on the internet
and in discussion forums. the only difference is that in discussion
forums there are not always a forum administrator to enforce such
majority rules.

Yes, but they're not supposed to be permitted to simply get away with
it here.

But they do anyway...

You seem to be suggesting that when such a prick acts like I
should worship the ground he walks on, then I should promptly kneel and
pray. Well, **** him and **** you; I will do no such thing. I will put
this tin-pot dictator in his place. I can do that because this isn't
his personal goddam fiefdom and he hasn't the power to enforce his idea
of how to run things, fortunately.

[dribble as you usually say...] this has nothing to do with what I said.

But you have not answered my question about where you think I am from
since you are able to characterise me on the basis of my background so
well....

 

[blmblm]

Ah, not *knowingly*. I understood "I never do anything wrong" to mean
"I never deliberately do anything wrong, nor do I make mistakes."

(And you can't fault me for not knowing, if it's not
self-evident, part of a standard Western education, basic Java
programming knowledge).

[snip remainder]

Why are you making a big issue out of it?

Because the statements, as I understood them, seemed astonishing.
I don't believe I've ever met anyone who never makes mistakes. If
that wasn't what you meant, then one of us made a mistake -- me in
interpreting your words, or you in expressing your meaning.

Something along those lines, yes.

[ snip ]

 

[blmblm]

They're also allowed to object to material that would unduly prejudice
the jury, in case you hadn't noticed that bit.

That's my understanding, yes. I am guessing that sometimes the judge
must decide whether a particular line of questioning / argument is
merely/unduly prejudicial (and presumably to be disallowed) or relevant
to the credibility of the witness (and perhaps to be allowed). I don't
know nearly enough about US law, or that of any other country, to say
more than that, but it seems to me that material that is prejudicial
but helps assess the credibility of the witness could reasonably be
allowed.

In any case, I don't recognize the jurisdiction of Attardi and palz'
little kangaroo court and will not dignify their "proceedings" against
me with any kind of legal niceties and allowances. I am beyond reproach
and that is non-negotiable.

By "beyond reproach" you must mean something other than what I
understand the term to mean (never doing anything that violates the
highest standard of behavior, even in moments of weakness or ill
temper, as many people who generally behave well occasionally do).
Otherwise this would be another astonishing claim, though impressive.

Better yet, use the actual facts, as much as possible. A wifebeater
with a history of frequent hospitalizations for mental illness saying
2+2 is 4 is more credible to me than a regular law-abiding citizen with
an unimpeachable reputation who says it's 5.

Quite. But in this example it's possible to evaluate the truth of
the two claims by some objective standard. If it's not possible, or
if it's possible but difficult or time-consuming, then in my opinion
the relative credibility of the two parties is relevant.

 

[blmblm]

Oliver Wong wrote:

[ snip ]

Just to jog your obviously-poor memory:
* You suggested pretending to agree with "OK", and only later suggested
a noncommital, disagreement-implying "Whatever" as an alternative.

Um. No, the person who suggested "whatever" as an alternative less
likely to suggest agreement was not Oliver but me. I believe Oliver
did accept the suggestion, though he said he regarded them as more
or less equivalent in meaning.

I'm not suggesting that you're at fault for not remembering who said
what, but if you make a claim about who says what, isn't it better
to be sure of your facts? Perhaps you mean something different by
"later suggested" than what I understand, however, or perhaps you
mean for "you" to refer to everyone else in the thread, rather than
specifically to Oliver?

[ snip ]

Stop that. Quoting the wrong message (and altering it!) is not kosher.

Altering it how? I didn't perform a word-for-word comparison, but I
spot-checked several of Oliver's quotations, and they seemed accurate
to me. He didn't always quote the entire message, but the quoted
bits did not seem to me to be taken out of context, so the charge of
altering the message seems hard to justify.

[ snip ]

 

[blmblm]

Unfortunately, some apparently get ticked off at the proverbial drop of
the hat. In both groups.

Yes. My impression is that some of the most knowledgeable people are
the quickest to snap at minor transgressions. I'm usually willing
to put up with less than perfect behavior from someone who has expert
knowledge and is willing to share it -- I think it's a fair tradeoff.
Getting the grumpy experts to stop snapping at people is probably a
losing battle, which I wouldn't choose to try to fight. Others might
feel differently.

The one place where I can't fault my respondents here has been on the
Java stuff (in other words, the actually-on-topic stuff). The contrast
there with c.t.t is notable, where technical answers that are
incomplete or otherwise don't "work out of the box" are fairly
frequent.

Could be. Again speaking for myself, if I get an answer that seems
incomplete or doesn't work "out of the box", I'm apt to try first to
figure out for myself why it doesn't work, and then ask a follow-up
question if I can't figure it out. I suspect that on the whole the
folks in c.t.t. are more apt than the folks here (in c.l.j.p.) to
expect that the people being helped are willing to fill in some
gaps themselves. I don't think that's unreasonable. Again, others
might feel otherwise.

[ snip ]

for example I can
recall at least one that went roughly like this:

n00b: I need some drop-in code to do X, and looking in the usual places
doesn't turn up how to do it. (I think X may have been fancier footers,
page numbering, page breaks, or some such.)
Other: Here. <code>
n00b: It made things worse -- now it won't compile at all, zero pages
of output!
Other2: Well it has to be wrapped in <foobar>, dummy!

Sounds a lot like the thread in which you asked how to get something
to happen differently depending on whether it happened at a page
break. Hm. <shrug>

[ snip ]

I don't think we're going to reach agreement any time soon here, so
it might be best to let this discussion fade away.

 

[blmblm]

Actually, I don't think meditation really has anything to do with it. I
even forget why meditation was brought up in the first place. I don't
generally label what I do "meditation", but I'd find it difficult to draw a
line between when the mind is in meditation and when it's just bored.


I'm not sure what the trick is for not getting angry. I'm not even sure
that if I knew my own trick, it would be applicable to others.

You've mentioned elsewhere in the thread that your emotional responses
aren't completely "normal" (and I couldn't agree more about "normal"
not being necessarily something to aim for ). Maybe that's your
"trick". Whatever it is, this thread seems to me to be providing
an excellent opportunity to find out how well it works. ?

For now, I'm
just trying to convince [ Twisted ? ]
that you can choose to not become angry so often.
And once you realize that this choice exists, you now have the freedom to
decide whether you want to continue going through life getting angry, or
not --

I'm not so sure that people can really control the initial flare of
anger in response to perceived insults. I also am no expert, but
my impression is that emotions aren't easily subjected to conscious
control.

What I think they can train themselves to do is manage the anger.
That's more difficult to do in a real-time exchange, but in Usenet,
one can usually just set the infuriating post aside for some period
of time while one goes off and does whatever one does to relieve
stress (which might be anything from meditation to taking out one's
frustrations on something that doesn't fight back and won't mind,
such as a pillow), and then come back and try to answer calmly.

I won't say that it's quick and easy to train oneself in this way,
or that one won't sometimes forget and respond in anger, but --
yeah well, you probably get the idea. Posts made in anger are
rarely a good idea.

but where to go from there, I leave up to each individual person. I
can offer advice at a peer-to-peer level, but I don't feel qualified to be
anyone's personal mentor or guru or whatever you want to call it.

"Lead by example" maybe?

 

[blmblm]

[ snip ]

In other words (well, these are my words, not Oliver's, but if he
disagrees I imagine he will speak up):

The person doing the most damage to the Usenet persona "Twisted" in
this thread is "Twisted" himself/herself. I believe others have made
comments along similar lines. Of course we may be the small minority,
and possibly the lurkers all support your perception of what's going
on here. I can't think of any way to get information about that, but
if there are people who support you, why isn't one of them speaking up
in your defense? (Maybe someone will. That would be interesting too.)

You do invent some strange, topsy-turvy "what-if" scenarios. Anyone who
tends to believe the opposite of what anyone tells them is probably
seriously in need of professional help.

That might be. However, it's also not very reasonable to believe
everything everyone says, and in some cases the more often an assertion
is repeated the less credible it becomes, sometimes depending on the
way in which the repeated assertions are made.

[ snip ]

I've *been* trying to minimize the damage. You've been trying to
convince me not to, so it will just accumulate! (Apparently in the
delusional belief that there is no damage, even after I've told you a
thousand times that there frequently are tangible negative
consequences.)

But you haven't provided any details that would help make your case.
You've made reference to personal experience, but without providing
any details that might make people say "oh! I get what you mean!"
Of course you may have good reasons for not providing details, but
without them the argument is less persuasive. I'm guessing Oliver
is basing his claim on his experience, and you're basing your claim
on your experience, and they differ. You don't seem willing to be
swayed by Oliver's experience; why should he be swayed by yours?

[ snip ]

 

[Twisted]

So where do you come from?

Beyond what I've already told you, that's none of your business.

[Suggests I should be treated unequally because I'm incompetent]

Circular reasoning, asswipe. You have to prove your stupid insulting
beliefs *before* you can use them as an excuse for treating me as less
than equal under your cockamamie theory here. So to the extent that
treating me as inferior is necessary to try to "prove" your BS, you're
SOL my friend.

yes, because we are the ones performing name calling of the opposition
as soon as we run out of arguments...

At last, a frank admission from one of those namecallers! Now please go
crawl back under your rock and leave me alone.

where did I say trials are conducted by public opinion polls, pay
attention when participating. but to respond: trials can have jury's
which are majority rule

Please don't come back until you understand the criminal justice
system. Preferably *all* of them, and not just the usual western ones.
Preferably just plain don't come back, period.

Clue 1: over here, at least, juries must come to a unanimous verdict. A
majority of 9 of the 12 jurors voting to acquit is still a hung jury
and a mistrial.

[snip this particular attacker making excuses for his own shitty
behavior, including -- and this is a gem -- using the observation that
he seems to be able to get away with it as one supposed justification!]

Go away.

 

[Twisted]

Ah, not *knowingly*. I understood "I never do anything wrong" to mean
"I never deliberately do anything wrong, nor do I make mistakes."

You misunderstand me (wilfully?)...

If something I do has an unexpected side effect that I could not
reasonably foresee, that isn't my fault -- it is something that just
happened. It may as well have been caused by nobody, like a lightning
strike, for all that it could reasonably have been prevented from
occurring. In fact lightning can sometimes be controlled, by
comparison.

Likewise, my body does involuntarily that wasn't commanded by my mind
and that isn't predictable isn't me doing something. It's just
something happening. If I make myself puke by gagging myself, I'm
responsible for the mess. If I come down with something and puke, it's
a good guess I had no desire to get ill and took every sensible
precaution to avoid doing so just for my own convience and health. That
it happened anyway is an accident, a natural disaster on a small scale,
and although someone (probably me) has to clean up the mess, it is
senseless to blame me for its happening in the first place.

This is the kind of thing I mean. People get blamed for things that
are, oftentimes, things that happened *to* them, and just appear to be
coming *from* them from the outside. Most of those things are things
that can reasonably be identified as not really voluntary on their
part, too. If someone upchucks, unless you saw them stick a finger or a
spoon way back in their throat shortly beforehand, it's safe to bet
that they are not to blame. If someone's golf backswing brains someone
who quietly came up behind them at a driving range, you're best off
chalking it up as an accident or even blaming the guy who *got* hit for
not making his presence clear or approaching from another angle, since
the risk was foreseeable by him, but the golfer doesn't have eyes in
the back of his head.

Because the statements, as I understood them, seemed astonishing.
I don't believe I've ever met anyone who never makes mistakes. If
that wasn't what you meant, then one of us made a mistake -- me in
interpreting your words, or you in expressing your meaning.

Cute. I'm not claiming perfection or omniscience here. I'm just
disclaiming any responsibility for the deviations from same, since
they're not by choice and to the extent that they're practically
avoidable they are avoided.

 

[Twisted]

By "beyond reproach" you must mean something other than what I
understand the term to mean (never doing anything that violates the
highest standard of behavior, even in moments of weakness or ill
temper, as many people who generally behave well occasionally do).
Otherwise this would be another astonishing claim, though impressive.

I was referring narrowly to this thread, and excluding provoked ill
temper. If you mean something different by that term, fine. However I
stand by my claim that, absent serious provocation, my voluntary
actions and their reasonably-foreseeable consequences are not
unreasonable and should not be criticized.

Quite. But in this example it's possible to evaluate the truth of
the two claims by some objective standard. If it's not possible, or
if it's possible but difficult or time-consuming, then in my opinion
the relative credibility of the two parties is relevant.

There are some caveats to applying that to this present discussion,
however:
1. Peoples' IQs, competencies, general worth as human beings, and so
forth are off-topic in comp.lang.java.programmer so this debate
shouldn't even be happening here.
2. Unpleasant negative opinions of people that are not public figures
(e.g. the President) belong in your head or private diary, not broadly
disseminated on Usenet, anyway.
3. It's bogus to call someone an idiot and then, when he says he is
not, impeach the credibility of this claim with: "You can't believe
what he says, because he's an idiot!". That's called circular
reasoning, or "begging the question". I've noticed quite a bit of it
lately, in these attacks...

 

[Twisted]

Um. No

Do not publicly contradict me.

The main point, that Oliver originally suggested "OK", is not in
dispute here. And *nothing* I say is to be disputed in a manner that
suggests fault on my part. Do I make myself clear?

Perhaps you mean something different by
"later suggested" than what I understand

He certainly endorsed it.

Altering it how?

I can't be arsed to find out, but I have no reason to trust that
nothing was altered or taken out of context.

In particular, if it's being used to support a hostile claim about me,
and it was something that I said, then it was almost certainly
necessary to alter it for it to fit that purpose, and it certainly was
necessary to (at minimum) take it out of context or otherwise misuse it
in such a way that it seems to imply something completely different
from its actual intent.

charge of altering the message seems hard to justify.

See above. If it suggests something unflattering about me, then it
almost had to have been altered, and if not it *did* have to be taken
out of context, since the unflattering thing is false.