Giving an application a window icon in a sensible way

[Twisted]

If you have a problem (people not understanding you), and you think the
solution to the problem involves other people doing specific things
(cleaning their ears), then you are falling into the trap that I am
referring to.

Nope. If I have a problem, but I've done the best I can to solve it and
what remains is up to somebody else, then I've not fallen into any
trap, unless having the problem to begin with suffices to have "fallen
into the trap". OTOH, I wasn't given the choice of not having this
problem. It struck like lightning without my having done anything in
particular to attract it. (To recap: I had a Java coding conundrum,
googled, posted here about it, googled some more, found something, and
fixed my problem, then posted here about that. And all hell broke
loose.)

 

[Twisted]

Andrew told you where.

That last sentence was meant to be referring to a plain text or HTML
introduction to the concept, somewhere on the Web. Not the pdf file
that keeps cropping up as a dubious substitute for same.

 

[Twisted]

But that's not what I'm complaining about in your behaviour with regards
to being able to find out about Ant, for example. What I'm complaining about
is that people explicitly told you to google for "Ant", and you argued that
it wouldn't/shouldn't work without even trying it.

Actually, what I am complaining about is that people told me to google
for something at all, rather than simply answering a question in a
straightforward manner. Sometimes it *can* be found. Often it cannot,
at least when you only know the question and not the answer. (Language
describing the solution occurs on the page you want; language
describing a specific problem it solves often does not.)

Of course this doesn't mean one shouldn't google at all. (Although
given that my implementing an icon solution found using google
triggered this mess, I am considering changing that opinion now. )

However, a specific case where it's certainly stupid to is this one:
* You're with a bunch of people.
* One of them mentions something unfamiliar, and clearly knows a fair
bit about it.
* You want to know more.

At this point, which is more sensible: running off and googling it
which *might* work? Or asking the person that's right in front of you
that quite definitely knows the answer?

It's not as if you're even asking someone to do some research for you.
They already have, in a sense; the info you want is info they *already
know* and seemed enthusiastic about less than two minutes ago. All
you're asking them to do is write a paragraph of at least preliminary
info, or a URL directly to more, or even a URL for a google search with
whatever query that produces a bunch of obviously-relevant hits at the
top of the results page.
Things they already have in their head, to judge by their behavior, and
would not have to go looking for. Things that, regardless, take no more
effort for them to do than to snap out a "Google is your friend,
numbnuts!" type of response or something equally useless and/or
hostile, and produce far better results.

Except I don't think it's as big of a problem as you claim it is. IMHO,
there's only 1 person in cljp who is a bit too snappy to newbies, but he
*does* provide valuable information in his snappy posts.

Well, let's do our own count shall we? In this thread alone, we had a
dubious response from a Patricia Somebody, followed closely by
"Wouldn't it be MUCH easier...", clearly flaming, from someone
different, so that's 2 and counting.

Looks like you've lowballed that estimate ...

[Calls me "overly sensitive"]

That's better than "idiot" but it's still a borderline flame. Watch it.

Except I think, on the long term, that one snappy poster makes more
valuable contributions to this newsgroup [snip insult]

And if they were given an incentive to be nicer, you think that would
drive them away?

Right, but luckily it hasn't gone that far yet.

"Yet" being the operative term. The sheer number of l0zer5 here that
are clearly willing to perpetuate a violent and off-topic thread,
despite actually having a choice in the matter (unlike I), is not a
good sign.

Well... in this case, I think it'd be more valuable to teach the n00b to
worry so much about saving face. Easier to change that one n00b than to
change meanie everyone that n00b will ever encounter the rest of his/her
life, right?

Easier is irrelevant. The "meanie"s are the ones in the wrong, so it is
they that must be induced to change their behavior. It is that simple.

Actually, this isn't always true...

Who the heck else would you expect? I don't think the average lay
person (or physicist for that matter) routinely asks questions about
Java that aren't better answered by surfing Sun's site...

Occasionally, we'll get posts here asking why a particular applet won't
work, and the OP is an end-user that just wants to get it to work, and is
not interested in learning the Java programming language at all.

Well, that's rather odd. The newsgroup's clearly for programming and
developing in Java rather than deploying it or getting the plugin to
work. Isn't there a comp.lang.java.misc or similar for that sort of
stuff?

 

[Andrew Thompson]

Twisted wrote:
....

That last sentence was meant to be referring to a plain text or HTML
introduction to the concept, somewhere on the Web. Not the pdf file
that keeps cropping up as a dubious substitute for same.

Since content-types have come up a number
of times on this thread, I though I'd drop a link to
a short code example that displays information
(including content-type) on (most) URL's on
the internet.

<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.java.help/msg/5e484fb13081406f>

Andrew T.

 

[Bent C Dalager]

It would be foolish of them to assume my participation necessarily
means I'm doing much actual flaming.

Foolish or not is really beside the point. Experience suggests that
the mere participation in a flame thread is inevitably going to sully
your name. And, whether fair or not, if your name appears more often
than any other, the general perception will tend to be that you are
largely responsible for the continuation of the flame thread thus
sullying your name even further. Most people won't have the time nor
inclination to check these impressions for correctness, they will just
internalize it and go about their business.

As you probably realize, I disagree with your theory that it is
possible to emerge from a flame war with a net zero effect on your
reputation. The net effect will always be negative, and it will be
more negative the longer the thread went on. Further, I don't believe
a flame thread has to be very long at all for this negative effect to
dwarf whatever disgrace might have been incurred by simply ignoring
any initial insults directed against you.

Cheers
Bent D

 

[Oliver Wong]

Nope. If I have a problem, but I've done the best I can to solve it and
what remains is up to somebody else, then I've not fallen into any
trap, unless having the problem to begin with suffices to have "fallen
into the trap".

In this specific case (people misunderstanding you), I don't think
you've done the best you possibly can to solve it.

OTOH, I wasn't given the choice of not having this
problem. It struck like lightning without my having done anything in
particular to attract it. (To recap: I had a Java coding conundrum,
googled, posted here about it, googled some more, found something, and
fixed my problem, then posted here about that. And all hell broke
loose.)

People (myself included) have tried to explain to you what you've done
that triggered what you refer to as all hell breaking loose. These
explanations are informative, not accusatory. We're telling you because you
seem to not know, not because we're interested in placing blame on you.
Unfortunately, you interpret them as accusations, and then try to justify
your actions, as if whether or not the actions were justified would have any
effect on whether those actions triggered hell breaking loose or not. You
are stuck too heavily in a mindset of determining whose fault this is.

- Oliver

 

[Twisted]

As you probably realize, I disagree with your theory that it is
possible to emerge from a flame war with a net zero effect on your
reputation. The net effect will always be negative, and it will be
more negative the longer the thread went on.

Your theory however leads to a conclusion of futility. It's not
possible to perfectly avoid being flamed. If the moment you are, you've
lost, then there's no point in anything anyway -- anyone who wants to
can at any time, without you having any recourse (self-defensive or
recourse), destroy your reputation and either end or reboot your life.
Might as well become a recluse and save them the bother.

So, I reject your theory as unpragmatic. As with any theory that leads
to a "there's nothing you can do about it anyway" conclusion, where the
stakes are high.

 

[Twisted]

In this specific case (people misunderstanding you), I don't think
you've done the best you possibly can to solve it.

I know better what I "possibly can" than you do, so I'll take this with
a grain of salt.

People (myself included) have tried to explain to you what you've done
that triggered what you refer to as all hell breaking loose.

Yes, I know. I reject all those insulting claims. I did nothing wrong.
All hell broke loose because apparently that day was "pick on the
newbies day" and nobody had bothered to inform me so I could just defer
posting my original question for 24 hours. Or something like that. But
there is nothing a reasonable person could fault about my first few
postings here (and none of the rest matter, since by then it had
*already happened*).

Unfortunately, you interpret them as accusations, and then try to justify
your actions, as if whether or not the actions were justified would have any
effect on whether those actions triggered hell breaking loose or not.

No, you misunderstand once again. Because my actions were not in any
way blameworthy, all hell *shouldn't* have broken loose. That it did
anyway is not my fault then.

You seem to think that my goal here is to avoid that ever happening
again, even if it means I have to accept unreasonable restraints on my
behavior to avoid triggering people that are overly sensitive, stupid,
just plain rude, or whatever. It should suffice for me to a) do a bit
of research first (check, w.r.t. the original question at the very
start of this thread) and b) not throw any first punches (check). If it
doesn't that is Not My Problem(tm) and the people who attack me for no
justified reason can go to hell for all I care.

 

[Oliver Wong]

However, a specific case where it's certainly stupid to [google]
is this one:
* You're with a bunch of people.
* One of them mentions something unfamiliar, and clearly knows a fair
bit about it.
* You want to know more.

At this point, which is more sensible: running off and googling it
which *might* work? Or asking the person that's right in front of you
that quite definitely knows the answer?

In a physical context, where there may not be any computers around, it
makes more sense to ask them. In a USENET context, where you're using a
computer just to make the reply, and there's no "running off" involved, it
makes more sense to google, and where you can't ask the person in front of
you, seeing as there *is* no person in front of you. You seem to be mixing
these two different scenarios up.

It's not as if you're even asking someone to do some research for you.
They already have, in a sense; the info you want is info they *already
know* and seemed enthusiastic about less than two minutes ago. All
you're asking them to do is write a paragraph of at least preliminary
info, or a URL directly to more, or even a URL for a google search with
whatever query that produces a bunch of obviously-relevant hits at the
top of the results page.
Things they already have in their head, to judge by their behavior, and
would not have to go looking for. Things that, regardless, take no more
effort for them to do than to snap out a "Google is your friend,
numbnuts!" type of response or something equally useless and/or
hostile, and produce far better results.

No one gave you that response, so I don't know why you're complaining
about it in cljp. I did see a response of "Google for 'Java ant'" which you
seemed to have dismissed as "wouldn't/shouldn't work".

Except I don't think it's as big of a problem as you claim it is.
IMHO,
there's only 1 person in cljp who is a bit too snappy to newbies, but he
*does* provide valuable information in his snappy posts.

Well, let's do our own count shall we? In this thread alone, we had a
dubious response from a Patricia Somebody, followed closely by
"Wouldn't it be MUCH easier...", clearly flaming, from someone
different, so that's 2 and counting.

Looks like you've lowballed that estimate ...

[Calls me "overly sensitive"]

That's better than "idiot" but it's still a borderline flame. Watch it.

If you think "Patricia Somebody" is too snappy with newbies, then I
claim you are overly sensitive. If you think my calling you overly sensitive
is a borderline flame, then I claim you are overly sensitive.

Except I think, on the long term, that one snappy poster makes more
valuable contributions to this newsgroup [snip insult]

And if they were given an incentive to be nicer, you think that would
drive them away?

I think if you told this person to stop being so snappy to newbies,
they'd reduce the amount of helpful posts they'd make.

Easier is irrelevant. The "meanie"s are the ones in the wrong, so it is
they that must be induced to change their behavior. It is that simple.

You seem to have a different definition of "must" than I do. Perhaps you
meant "ought to"?

Who the heck else would you expect? I don't think the average lay
person (or physicist for that matter) routinely asks questions about
Java that aren't better answered by surfing Sun's site...

I answer this in the very next paragraph. You should read the entire
post before typing your replies.

Well, that's rather odd. The newsgroup's clearly for programming and
developing in Java rather than deploying it or getting the plugin to
work. Isn't there a comp.lang.java.misc or similar for that sort of
stuff?

The existence or not of other groups does not change the reality of what
goes on in this newsgroup. This is another issue with your thought process:
You seem to think that everything in the world actually *does* happens the
way you think it *should* happen. You think everybody who posts in this
newsgroup is a programmer, simply because everybody who posts in this
newsgroup *should* be a programmer. You think a google query for "Ant"
doesn't return the build software, simply because it *shouldn't* return the
build software, etc.

Things don't always work the way you think they should, and you'll
probably make less false assumptions, fewer mistakes, and better models of
reality, if you discard that idea.

- Oliver

 

[Oliver Wong]

That last sentence was meant to be referring to a plain text or HTML
introduction to the concept, somewhere on the Web. Not the pdf file
that keeps cropping up as a dubious substitute for same.

He *DID* give you a link to an HTML document, and not a PDF file.

I mentioned a lack of correlation between extensions and content-type
for dynamically generated pages (e.g. despite ending in ".php" instead of
".html", they're actually HTML content), but you dismissed my explanation as
irrelevant, which is why I guess you're making the same mistakes over and
over again.

- Oliver

 

[Bent C Dalager]

Your theory however leads to a conclusion of futility. It's not
possible to perfectly avoid being flamed. If the moment you are, you've
lost, then there's no point in anything anyway -- anyone who wants to
can at any time, without you having any recourse (self-defensive or
recourse), destroy your reputation and either end or reboot your life.

If reputable people start a campaign to smear you, this can certainly
happen. Most of the time, however, this isn't what you see. People who
like to smear other people tend to have so little respect in the
community already, they cannot succeed in doing so unless you lend
them some assistance. In trying to defend against their unfounded
attacks, you actually end up giving their accusations a level of
credibility they could never have on their own.

So, I reject your theory as unpragmatic. As with any theory that leads
to a "there's nothing you can do about it anyway" conclusion, where the
stakes are high.

The best strategy to avoid getting smeared by random strangers is to
ensure that your own standing is sufficiently strong that no one is
going to take them seriously anyway. This is most effectively achieved
by contributing positively to the community and is unlikely to happen
as a result of trying to defend yourself from detractors.

As an example, if, instead of playing the flame game, you had spent
the same amount of effort helping out people on the ng who had
questions you could answer, this would probably have not only rendered
any prevous insults against you null and void, but also given you a
net positive balance in the eyes of other regulars.

Cheers
Bent D

 

[Twisted]

In a physical context, where there may not be any computers around, it
makes more sense to ask them. In a USENET context, where you're using a
computer just to make the reply, and there's no "running off" involved, it
makes more sense to google

You're just disagreeing with me for the sake of disagreement, rather
than because of any kind of logic.

It still makes more sense to ask because the person SURELY knows and
Google MAYBE knows, unless you need the answer urgently. There, the
likely hours-to-days delay between Q and A makes the optimal strategy
to either Google, or to ask *and* Google until either Google or the
person produces an answer.

And there is still "running off" involved. It's called "task switching"
and "interruption of workflow". Read up on ergonomics.

[Repetitive stuff that disregards things I wrote previously snipped.
I'm not repeating myself ten thousand times on your account. Go reread
what I said earlier, and reread it again, and keep doing so until
something actually sticks.]

[snip insults]

I think if you told this person to stop being so snappy to newbies,
they'd reduce the amount of helpful posts they'd make.

Why? They are surely capable of fulfilling the request without posting
less. It just means altering the tone of what they post. I can't see
how what you claim would make any sense unless the person in question
is an asshole who purposely will withhold helpful posts either out of
spite, or to hold the group hostage and dictate terms. I think it
especially imperative to stand up to that type of asshole, and if they
do withhold helpful posts, so be it. Good riddance to them. There'll
probably be three genuinely helpful people in it for other than just
their own egos ready willing and able to step into the spot they
vacated.

You seem to have a different definition of "must" than I do. Perhaps you
meant "ought to"?

It follows from basic principles of justice. You don't bend over
backwards to accomodate the criminal (antisocial) element; instead you
set boundaries and if they step over the line you call them on it. I
refuse to kowtow to people who insist on deferential treatment; respect
is earned, not demanded.

I answer this in the very next paragraph. You should read the entire
post before typing your replies.

You are not the arbiter of what I should and should not do. It suffices
that I read the entire post. When it's clear a reply is in order I hit
"reply" and start from the top, trimming and adding my original
material. If I waited until the end of some of your interminably-long
posts before doing so I'd have forgotten what I intended to say in
response to earlier points. But then that's what you want, isn't it, to
slip something by me unresponded-to...

You'll have to try harder than that!

The existence or not of other groups does not change the reality of what
goes on in this newsgroup. This is another issue with your thought process:
You seem to think that everything in the world actually *does* happens the
way you think it *should* happen.

There are no "issues" with my thought processes and you will kindly not
claim otherwise in public again.

What I actually think is that what *should* happen, or what I can
predict will happen, is all that matters in defining whether my actions
are reasonable (and thus, in defending my actions). If people do
bizarre things that is in no way shape or form *my* fault and I cannot
be expected to take into account every bizarre thing anyone might do.
So take your judgmental attitude, your rude inquisitions into my state
of mental health/intelligence, and your usenet newsreader and STUFF
THEM!

[Further insults snipped. None of the things claimed about me are true.]

 

[wesley.hall]

Consider...

Twisted: "You are not the arbiter of what I should and should not do"

vs

Twisted: "There are no "issues" with my thought processes and you will
kindly not claim otherwise in public again."

.... and yet you cannot understand why people seem to take an instant
dislike of you.

 

[Oliver Wong]

I know better what I "possibly can" than you do, so I'll take this with
a grain of salt.


Yes, I know. I reject all those insulting claims. I did nothing wrong.

Once again, you seem to be focused on this concept of "right" versus
"wrong". I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about cause and effect. You
did something. Something happened in reaction to what you did. I'm not
saying what you did was "wrong". I *am* saying something happened in
reaction to what you did.

All hell broke loose because apparently that day was "pick on the
newbies day" and nobody had bothered to inform me so I could just defer
posting my original question for 24 hours. Or something like that. But
there is nothing a reasonable person could fault about my first few
postings here (and none of the rest matter, since by then it had
*already happened*).

You seem to think it was only that one day in which your posts generated
a flamewar, but from your history, it looks like *EVERY* post you makes
generates a flamewar.

No, you misunderstand once again. Because my actions were not in any
way blameworthy, all hell *shouldn't* have broken loose. That it did
anyway is not my fault then.

Once again, you're thinking in terms of "blame", "fault" and
"should/shouldn't". Instead, try thinking in terms of "cause", "effect", and
"is/isn't".

- Oliver

 

[Oliver Wong]

Why?

Because they'd be reducing their posts alltogether.

Good riddance to them. There'll
probably be three genuinely helpful people in it for other than just
their own egos ready willing and able to step into the spot they
vacated.

There is no "vacated spot" in USENET, no physical presense. As I've
already told you, there's something like high-tens-low-hundreds of helpful
posters here. If that one person vacates, it's not like people are waiting
in line, and saying "Oh, goody, there's a free spot. Now we can join in."
Anybody who wanted to be helpful already is being helpful. Kicking that guy
out means one less helpful person.

It follows from basic principles of justice. You don't bend over
backwards to accomodate the criminal (antisocial) element; instead you
set boundaries and if they step over the line you call them on it. I
refuse to kowtow to people who insist on deferential treatment; respect
is earned, not demanded.

You didn't answer my question.

If I waited until the end of some of your interminably-long
posts before doing so I'd have forgotten what I intended to say in
response to earlier points.

Yeah, I agree super long posts suck. This is why I don't like it when
you start talking about how your Firefox screwed up while you were writing
your description of your Java problem.

There are no "issues" with my thought processes and you will kindly not
claim otherwise in public again.

Too late, I already did elsewhere in this thread.

What I actually think is that what *should* happen, or what I can
predict will happen, is all that matters in defining whether my actions
are reasonable (and thus, in defending my actions). If people do
bizarre things that is in no way shape or form *my* fault and I cannot
be expected to take into account every bizarre thing anyone might do.

Once again, you're talking about "fault". You obsess too much with
"fault" and "blame" and "right" and "wrong".

- Oliver

 

[Twisted]

He *DID* give you a link to an HTML document, and not a PDF file.

Not in any posting that propagated to me. All I saw was a
http://...foo.pdf link and a http://...format=pdf link.

[Insults me]

Go away and stop telling lies.

 

[Twisted]

Bent C Dalager wrote:
[A whole load of BS]

The best strategy to avoid getting smeared by random strangers is to
ensure that your own standing is sufficiently strong that no one is
going to take them seriously anyway.

Unfortunately, if they attack you while you're a n00b, that strategy is
obviously not available.

[snip remainder of BS]

This is getting pointless. Your attempts to deceive me into lowering my
guard are doomed. As apparently are my attempts to convince you I'm not
whatever evil things you think I am. I'm not going to bother giving
lengthy replies to anything else by you.

 

[Twisted]

Consider...

Twisted: "You are not the arbiter of what I should and should not do"

vs

Twisted: "There are no "issues" with my thought processes and you will
kindly not claim otherwise in public again."

[snip crud]

I don't see any contradiction here, since in the former I'm claiming
not to fall under *your* jurisdiction, and in the latter I'm reminding
you of the law against slander. There isn't even a double standard,
since *I* didn't make the law against slander.

 

[Twisted]

Once again, you seem to be focused on this concept of "right" versus
"wrong". I'm not talking about that.

But I am. I will not change behavior that is not "wrong" in response to
coercive tactics designed to blackmail me into doing so and that's
final.

I'm talking about cause and effect. You did something. Something happened in reaction
to what you did.

A butterfly flaps its wings. A hurricane flattens Galveston. Is it
sensible to blame the butterfly, even if the hurricane would have
missed or been weaker had it not done what it did when it did it?

You seem to think it was only that one day in which your posts generated
a flamewar, but from your history, it looks like *EVERY* post you makes
generates a flamewar.

No. It does seem that in many newsgroups there are one or two arseholes
who will pick a fight just for the sake of picking one, and that I
unlike some will not back down from it and hand them victory on a
silver platter after they fire only one shot.

Once again, you're thinking in terms of "blame", "fault" and
"should/shouldn't". Instead, try thinking in terms of "cause", "effect", and
"is/isn't".

There's no point in doing so when what happened was a vagary of human
behavior -- behavior by someone other than me -- that I had no way to
predict or, in practise, avoid. I have no control over it. That much is
clear. Except, of course, to the extent that that behavior is punished
if it's malicious or irresponsible. And in this case there's plenty of
evidence of malice now.

 

[Andrew Thompson]

Not in any posting that propagated to me.

... All I saw was a
http://...foo.pdf link and a http://...format=pdf link.

"Don't judge a book by its cover"

Andrew T.