...

To who?  To someone that is carefully reading every word
of posts, searching for questions?  To somone who is
'glancing through' a post to *see* if there are any questions.

The first person might see the question, the second
does not.

I read a lot of threads and do not have the time to go
'hunting' for questions.  Many others who are less prolific
also have even *more* limited time, or simply *ignore* the
messages where the poster does not write in a way that
is easy to read.

This is why I encourage (usually new) posters to
make a clear question, and assist the reader in
any way they can.

If they choose not to follow my *advice* - fine for them.
They can do that, and get the 'less answers' that will
result in.  No skin off my nose.

That is *priceless*!

The 'Java related' advice I posted on the first reply
to this thread had more length than the grammatical
tips I gave (which were, BTW usenet related advice).  
The people that are slagging me, start with a single line
'link' answer, and go on to ..you who provides not *one*
iota of Java related content.

To the OP (the Original Poster - the one who started
the thread).  You might get lots of platitudes and sincere
'niceness' from my critics, but ask yourself this.

Why are you posting to this group?  Is it more to
start polite conversations with nice people, or rather
to get answers to technical questions?

For the first reason, this is a poor place to post.  It is
unmoderated, and people like ..me, Roedy and Kaldrenon
can often get into petty little squabbles, but OTOH, there
is also a lot of highly valuable technical information
exchanged on these unmoderated groups.

If you can understand that corrections or suggestions are
being offered in your best interests, and can profit from
them - this is a good place to post.  If you felt that my
initial reply was 'rude' as the later posters seemed to
think, then it is probably a forum that will offend you
regularly.

As an aside.  Were you offended by my comment?  
Did you think it was rude?

I'm afraid I must jump in here and say that both sides are behaving
like a.ses.

Andrew, your frequent mild grammar and spelling flames/pedantry often
do seem to take priority over actual on-topic content.

Kaldrenon and Roedy, however, you weren't quite fair here, as Andrew
did actually offer some Java-related advice here -- indeed, he pointed
to the excellent and free Java Tutorial, where a lot of people would
have pushed the n00bs directly towards a pay solution such as a book.
And since they actually asked for books and maybe would prefer
physical books (even expensive ones) to a Web site, he did also
provide a pointer to those.

Nonetheless, there are a few people showing a tendency to post 100%
off-topic responses to on-topic posts from time to time. Andrew was
not 100% off-topic in this particular instance, it's true, but Andrew
and Lew in particular seem to be prone to this nonetheless. This
includes such instances as:
* Answering a Java question that could be reasonably parsed with 100%
pure, Java-free spelling and grammar criticism;
* Answering a Java question with a long essay on the relative merits
of cross-posting and multi-posting that was 100% Java free;
* Responding to posts regarding Java sites or Java software with 100%
off-topic rants denouncing the posters as spammers, despite the post
being clearly on-topic and, in most cases, even non-commercial. (I
would consider on-topic but commercially-motivated postings to be
acceptable given full disclosure and given that there is no excess/
frequent repetition or excessive cross-posting. An announcement, say,
or a response to a question that suggests a commercial solution. Note
"full disclosure"; I have been known to drop a load on someone myself
when they sneakily answer a question by suggesting they use thus-and-
such without mentioning up-front that thus-and-such is proprietary and
expensive. If the poster financially benefits I would especially
consider lack of disclosure, that the solution costs money or that the
poster captures some of that money, to be especially egregious.)
* Flaming that isn't in retaliation to a pre-existing flame, or that
leaves the "score" unbalanced more generally (i.e. is an odd-numbered
flame in its references chain).

You have stated my position rather well.

Thanks,

Patricia

 Here's the traffic of the German Java newsgroup:

http://usenet.dex.de/pix/lifeline/de.comp.lang.java.png