 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Java Forum / General / January 2008Re: the MI 5 spammer
On Jan 7, 1:37 am, Andreas Leitgeb <a...@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> wrote: > [misquotes me] Do not misquote me again. Your post contained supposed "quoted material" that did not occur in the post that you followed up to nor summarize material that did. That is incorrect. Stop being dishonest. > [implied insult deleted] None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true. > On Jan 7, 1:37 am, Andreas Leitgeb <a...@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> wrote: Snipped context restored: << << fragrant, verbally overflowing friend. << > None of the nasty things ... << Interesting to see, that you identified yourself with that description. > Do not misquote me again. Your post contained supposed "quoted > material" that did not occur in the post that you followed up to nor > summarize material that did. It's not indented by '>', so it's not even implied to have been in your previous posting, and where I get my cites else from is my own choice. Anyway, you most obviously *did* take the mention of a "fragrant, verbally overflowing friend" as referring to you, although your name wasn't mentioned. >> On Jan 7, 1:37 am, Andreas Leitgeb <a...@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Anyway, you most obviously *did* take the mention of a "fragrant, verbally > overflowing friend" as referring to you, although your name wasn't mentioned. OK, now you've destroyed another thread.  SignatureLew > OK, now you've destroyed another thread. You're right, and it was more of a "scnr", than anything else, but as an afterthought, this being the "MI5..." thread, the damage isn't all that high. >> OK, now you've destroyed another thread. > > You're right, and it was more of a "scnr", than anything > else, but as an afterthought, this being the "MI5..." > thread, the damage isn't all that high. True, but it had been entertaining. SignatureLew >>> OK, now you've destroyed another thread. >> You're right, and it was more of a "scnr", than anything >> else, but as an afterthought, this being the "MI5..." >> thread, the damage isn't all that high. > True, but it had been entertaining. It's rather likely, that its entertaining qualities are going to go further up, now, at the cost of any informational qualities the thread might have had before. > It's rather likely, that its entertaining qualities are going > to go further up, now, at the cost of any informational qualities > the thread might have had before. I find your optimism and good spirits to be quite engaging. Speaking of information, I've been thinking about how so many people describe anonymous class syntax as "ugly", especially when there are helper methods involved. I actually like anonymous class syntax. Am I just weird? No, there is definitely more to it than that. There is an aesthetic as a maintenance programmer more than as an original author. That means structures that may be annoying to write, or to write around such as checked Exceptions, are a true comfort to the sweep-up person. Anonymous classes, particularly in their main use case of single-method, no-arg constructed functors like Runnable, provide a locality of reference to one-off logic that offsets the psychic diversion from logic to declaration with nested logic. Even that diversion is part of the linguistic experience of source-code reading, like an appositive (or even parenthetical) remark - the very interruption and subsequent resumption of the cognitive thread helps structure one's understanding. The aesthetic that calls that "ugly" perhaps is more linear - resentful of side roads. Ironically this leads to idioms that separate the declaration so far from the logic that it becomes a more egregious interruption, following separate class definitions or even files. With a little practice anonymous class definitions are really a breeze to read and use, and well worth it. It's sort of like learning to read Charles Dickens when you've been weaned on Stephen King. There is a point to all that wordiness. SignatureLew >> It's rather likely, that its entertaining qualities are going >> to go further up, now, at the cost of any informational qualities >> the thread might have had before. > I find your optimism and good spirits to be quite engaging. It seems you don't follow the "SWT..." mega thread. I'd say it's less a matter of "optimism" than of "experience" :-) Of course, this prognose can be easily thwarped by randomly introducing a new topic into this thread: > Speaking of information, I've been thinking about how so many people describe > anonymous class syntax as "ugly", especially when there are helper methods > involved. > I actually like anonymous class syntax. I actually do find it ugly, but I like the concept behind it, and furthermore, I have no idea, how to do it better (for my particular personal definition of "better"). > Am I just weird? No, there is definitely more to it than that. I wouldn't dare to judge your weirdness :-) > There is an aesthetic as a maintenance programmer more than as an original > author. That means structures that may be annoying to write, or to write > around such as checked Exceptions, are a true comfort to the sweep-up person. That's true, but in many cases I'd think that a better compromise would still be a bit nearer to the "original author"-side. That is: some less typing woudl do more good to the author than hurt the maintainer. > Anonymous classes, particularly in their main use case of single-method, > no-arg constructed functors like Runnable, provide a locality of reference to > one-off logic that offsets the psychic diversion from logic to declaration > with nested logic. This almost beats my english. Having that extra "public void run() {" is, what I do dislike about current state (but whose change I'm not holding my breath for). When reading code, it irritates me to find a nested method-declaration (which generally sticks out more than the preceding "new Interface() {"). > Even that diversion is part of the linguistic experience > of source-code reading, like an appositive (or even parenthetical) remark - > the very interruption and subsequent resumption of the cognitive thread helps > structure one's understanding. I find that it distracts me into a syntactic extra level. As if stack-levels in brain weren't generally a scarce ressource :-) > The aesthetic that calls that "ugly" perhaps is more linear - resentful of > side roads. Ironically this leads to idioms that separate the declaration so > far from the logic that it becomes a more egregious interruption, following > separate class definitions or even files. I see this consequence to be not at all interrupting. Not more than normal calling of methods implemented elsewhere. > With a little practice anonymous class definitions are really a breeze to read > and use, and well worth it. It's sort of like learning to read Charles > Dickens when you've been weaned on Stephen King. There is a point to all that > wordiness. I'm spoilt from C's philosophy, where anything longer than "strrchr()", "puts(...)" and "main() { ... }" is source-bloat. :-) > It seems you don't follow the "SWT..." mega thread. > I'd say it's less a matter of "optimism" than of "experience" :-) Not only do I not follow it, I suppressed it from my newsreader a couple of months ago. I am so sick of that nonsense, or was back then - I have no idea what's transpired in it since, but I strongly suspect it remains as useless to me now as it was then. SignatureLew >> It seems you don't follow the "SWT..." mega thread. >> I'd say it's less a matter of "optimism" than of "experience" :-) [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > what's transpired in it since, but I strongly suspect it remains as useless to > me now as it was then. If you haven't yet changed your preferences for that type of entertainment, then your back-then choice is still the one I'd recommend to you, now. Be prepared to suppress this thread as well, from your newsreader, once the show starts. (That is: once some particular loony finds his way back to this thread) >>> It seems you don't follow the "SWT..." mega thread. >>> I'd say it's less a matter of "optimism" than of "experience" :-) [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Be prepared to suppress this thread as well, from your newsreader, once > the show starts. Given that this thread isn't likely to provide any more opportunities for entertainment than the Great SWT Program thread, it would probably be polite to refrain from encouraging him in this one. >>>> It seems you don't follow the "SWT..." mega thread. >>>> I'd say it's less a matter of "optimism" than of "experience" :-) [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > for entertainment than the Great SWT Program thread, it would probably > be polite to refrain from encouraging him in this one. I have already killfiled the loonies. The problem is with the people who insist on answering them or poking them with a stick. I have no desire to killfile Andreas, for example. That's why I'm asking folks not to stir the pot in new threads. SignatureLew > >>>> [implied insult deleted] None of the nasty things that Andreas has said or implied about me are at all true. > >>> Not only do I not follow it, I suppressed it from my newsreader a couple of > >>> months ago. I am so sick of that nonsense... Nonsense for which Andreas bears about 1/3 of the responsibility (shared primarily with Arne and Bent). > >> [implied insult deleted] > > [implied insult deleted] > [insults deleted] None of the nasty things that any of you have said or implied about me are at all true. > >>> [implied insult deleted] None of the nasty things that Andreas has said or implied about me are at all true. > >> Not only do I not follow it, I suppressed it from my newsreader a couple of > >> months ago. I am so sick of that nonsense... Nonsense for which Andreas bears about 1/3 of the responsibility (shared primarily with Arne and Bent). > > [implied insult deleted] > [implied insult deleted] None of the nasty things that either of you have said or implied about me are at all true. On Jan 11, 12:19 pm, Andreas Leitgeb <a...@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> wrote: > >> [implied insult deleted] None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true. > > Not only do I not follow it, I suppressed it from my newsreader a couple of > > months ago. I am so sick of that nonsense... Nonsense for which Andreas bears 1/3 of the responsibility, of course, shared principally with Arne and Bent. :P > [insults deleted] None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true. > > It seems you don't follow the "SWT..." mega thread. > > I'd say it's less a matter of "optimism" than of "experience" :-) [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > what's transpired in it since, but I strongly suspect it remains as useless to > me now as it was then. Nonsense for which Andreass is approximately 1/3 responsible, of course. (Arse Vajhøle and Bent Dalager being responsible for most of the remaining 2/3; Bent's name left uncorrupted because his own parents already did a sufficiently thorough job, though perhaps Warped Dalager or even Demented Dalager would have been even more accurate. ;)) >> > >> [A.L.: some prognose about this thread's entertainment level] >> > > [Lew: calls the prognose "optimism"] [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Dalager or even Demented Dalager would have been even more > accurate. ;)) Did I promise too much? Third grade humour of the finest art. > Third grade humour of the finest art. And the annoying "similarities" between English and German strike again. ;) /W >> Third grade humour of the finest art. > And the annoying "similarities" between English and German strike again. ;) I had two possible interpretations in mind: - third class humour - typical humour of pupils at third grade (which in my country translates to about 8-9 year olds. Probably elsewhere, too) Both seemed apt, some way. If it means something else, it may be inadvertent. I wouldn't mind being told any about other possible understandings. PS: does changing the topic to "Re: Great SWT Program" help to get it filtered again, or do the filters only look at References-headers? >>> Third grade humour of the finest art. >> And the annoying "similarities" between English and German strike again. ;) [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > PS: does changing the topic to "Re: Great SWT Program" help to get it > filtered again, or do the filters only look at References-headers? In my case, reference headers only. SignatureLew > >>> [insult deleted] > >> [suspected insult deleted] > > [insults deleted] > In my case, reference headers only. None of the nasty things that any of you have said or implied about me are at all true. >>>> [suspected insult deleted] Get off it man! If anything, it was an insult to Andreas' Engleutsch. *If* anything. /W On Jan 18, 3:17 pm, Wildemar Wildenburger <lasses_w...@klapptsowieso.net> wrote: > [implied insult deleted] None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true. >>> Third grade humour of the finest art. >> And the annoying "similarities" between English and German strike again. ;) [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > inadvertent. I wouldn't mind being told any about other possible > understandings. I thought you meant to say "the finest kind/variety" (By similarities I meant The German word "Art" for English "kind/sort/species"). Nevermind. :) > PS: does changing the topic to "Re: Great SWT Program" help to get it > filtered again, or do the filters only look at References-headers? The second one, I would guess. Or rather, they would prefer the headers. /W On Jan 14, 10:20 am, Wildemar Wildenburger <lasses_w...@klapptsowieso.net> wrote: > >>> [insult deleted] > >> [suspected insult deleted] > > [implied insults deleted] > [suspected insult deleted] None of the nasty things that either of you have said or implied about me are at all true. >> [suspected insult deleted] > > None of the nasty things that either of you have said or implied about > me are at all true. What, have you stopped reading what you reply to? "Suspected"? Don't be ridiculous. /W >>> [suspected insult deleted] >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > What, have you stopped reading what you reply to? "Suspected"? Don't be > ridiculous. Wildemar - sit on your hands if you must, but stop this now. SignatureLew > > twerpina...@gmail.com wrote: > >>> [suspected insult deleted] [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > > [implied insult deleted] None of the nasty things that Wildemar has said or implied about me are at all true. > Wildemar - sit on your hands if you must, but stop this now. Yes, Wildemar. Stop it now. On Jan 18, 3:18 pm, Wildemar Wildenburger <lasses_w...@klapptsowieso.net> wrote: > [implied insult deleted] None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true. On Jan 14, 9:43 am, Andreas Leitgeb <a...@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> wrote: > >> [insult deleted] > > [suspected insult deleted] > [implied insults deleted] None of the nasty things that either of you have said or implied about me are at all true. On Jan 14, 9:17 am, Wildemar Wildenburger <lasses_w...@klapptsowieso.net> wrote: > > [insult deleted] > [suspected insult deleted] None of the nasty things that either of you have said or implied about me are at all true. On Jan 14, 1:16 am, Andreas Leitgeb <a...@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> wrote: > [misquotes and insults me] Do not misquote me again. Your post contained supposed "quoted material" that did not occur in the post that you followed up to nor summarize material that did. That is incorrect. Stop being dishonest. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true. On Jan 11, 3:51 am, Andreas Leitgeb <a...@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> wrote: > >> [implied insult deleted] > > [implied insult deleted] > [implied insult deleted] None of the nasty things that either of you have said or implied about me are at all true. > > [insult deleted] > [implied insult deleted] None of the nasty things that either of you have said or implied about me are at all true. > Speaking of information, I've been thinking about how so many people describe > anonymous class syntax as "ugly"[snip remainder of tangent] That would have been better off in a new thread, methinks. On Jan 10, 12:17 pm, Andreas Leitgeb <a...@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> wrote: > [implied insult deleted] None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true. > > [misquotes and insults me] None of the nasty things that Andreass has said or implied about me are at all true. > OK, now you've destroyed another thread. Yes, unfortunately he probably has. On Jan 9, 1:55 pm, Andreas Leitgeb <a...@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> wrote: > [misquotes and insults me] Do not misquote me again. Your post contained supposed "quoted material" that did not occur in the post that you followed up to nor summarize material that did. That is incorrect. Stop being dishonest. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true. > > Do not misquote me again. Your post contained supposed "quoted > > material" that did not occur in the post that you followed up to nor > > summarize material that did. > > It's not[snip] See above. > [insult deleted] None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true. Free MagazinesGet these publications absolutely FREE for up to 12 months. There are no hidden fees and no obligation. Simply choose a title, complete the application form and submit it. Read more ...
|
Reply to this Message
|
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.