First: I appreciate your honest, if heated, attempt to answer my
questions. Thank you.
This is odd, coming from my mortal enemy. Or at least, one of them.
You've misinterpreted my opinion of you. While I certainly dislike
you and make no attempt to disguise it, I do not wish harm upon you.
Your actions indicate otherwise.
Rather the opposite: I'd like you to go away, but since that seems
unlikely, I'd like it if you [implied insult deleted]
See?
In fact, the way to make me go away is to shut up about me. Posts that
don't publicly make undesirable claims about me don't draw fire from
me. In particular, innocuous posts about Java don't draw fire from me.
Yes, yes, I know. "I do not need to improve." [insults the whole
population of the planet]
Oh, lovely. A misanthropist? That would explain a great deal.
And before you start on *that* line: I have improved myself. I know
more about vi, chess, and google than I did before I got drawn into
any of this
You know many of the outrageous claims being bandied about about vi,
and things like that. I hardly see cluttering up your brain with
useless information as being "improvement" however. Especially when
you have a tiny brain; then it seems doubly wasteful.
further, I'm quite finished with openly slagging you.
Oh, goody. Not that any of the things you said is remotely true or
believable anyway.
I've had my fun, but it's time to move on to an approach that might
actually be productive. You might disagree and find that this post is
just as open an attack on you as others. I respect that opinion, but
I disagree with it so fundamentally that, without independent
verification, I cannot possibly adopt it as my own.
In simpler language, you're changing your tactics from frontal attack
to sly suggestions of mental illness or something along those lines.
It figures. I suppose it would be too much to ask for you to simply
shut the hell up and get back to living your life.
Ignoring "attacks" and posting what you believe to be helpful things
doesn't excuse you (or anyone) from [implied insult deleted]
Oh, go masturbate. You're a liar.
[suggests I've done something to deserve being attacked]
Another lie.
Furthermore, and I know I've said this before, you would be rather
hard to "attack" if you had a little more care about what and how you
posted.
ExCUSE me? More suggestions that I've done something to deserve being
attacked? No. No. Wrong, wrong, WRONG. I should not be attacked at
all. Period. It is not my reason for being here. End of story.
While you obviously don't see it as such, accusing people of
spamming without spending any effort whatsoever to verify whether they
benifit in any way from the product they endorse
Hey, Andrew Thompson and Lew, I think he's talking about you two!
Of course it's often hard to determine whether or not they do...
[accuses me of launching a first strike]
Liar.
Similarly, you suggested that initialising the UI in
a Swing application from the main() thread was acceptable; a few
minutes with google prior to posting would've disabused you of that
notion[2].
This keeps coming up again and again. When I already know something I
have no reason to do a google search on the subject. When something
changes, for example a new version deprecates a formerly common
practise, something has to be done to notify me about this change
beyond merely editing some web page somewhere that won't come to my
attention without my doing such a search.
This keeps recurring for some reason: people expect me to google
everything, even things I already know about, just in case something
has changed or there's some obscure alternate usage. I have a better
idea: people COMMUNICATE CLEARLY IN THE FIRST PLACE. If they mean
something unusual they indicate it in some way, or better yet fully
explain themselves. If something has changed they notify me --
politely, and certainly not by accusing me of incompetence. Things
like "Didn't you get the memo, moron? They changed that six whole
WEEKS ago! You really should google everything you think you already
know every single day, even though it will mean you spend all your
time googling and none doing anything else, even eating or sleeping,
you retard!" isn't the correct way to notify me of changes.
I can provide links to specific posts on request.
I'm more interested in whether you can shut up on request.
I've edited out a lot of text here to address this specific case.
Anyone who sincerely believes, merely on the basis of Mike replying as
if you were, that you were flirting with him needs their head
checked. They're clearly unable to differentiate between mockery and
fact. And, while I do think it's amusing, I don't think his
insinuations are being taken seriously by anyone.
Well, I don't find it amusing, and what of people who simply see
Mike's posting in isolation? With luck they'll at least see my
followup denying his BS.
He is, after all, posting them in the middle of a flame war.
He's an asshole. Nothing he's doing is justified. Same with you.
[snip more implied insults]
Hah! First and foremost, I'm amusing myself.
Amusing yourself in a sadistic and destructive way is wrong. Go ****
yourself.
[further vicious insults and bullshit deleted]
I SAID go **** yourself.
Antipathetic, certainly; hostile, no.
I trust claims like this the least of all. Just give up and go away.
I wish for you the same thing I
wish for myself and for everyone: to learn and improve, in all areas.
My first suggestion for how you can improve: stop posting nasty
followups to my posts and stick to discussing Java. Second: get rid of
the belief you have that you have some right, or even the ability, to
use coercion to force some sort of "improvement" (in your opinion) on
other people. They will make their own choices. Leave them (including
me) alone even when you don't agree with their personal choices.
To my immediate knowledge, the only time I've openly wished you harm
was in a rather over-the-top, silly flame wherein I proposed the
radioactive death of an entire city. Not exactly the sort of thing
I'd write if I wanted to be taken seriously.
Unless maybe you wanted to be taken seriously by DHS and the CIA and
FBI and other three-letter agencies. Perhaps I should call you to
their attention now; that way you'll have other fish to fry and maybe
you'll finally just leave me the Christ alone.
Well, you *are* participating in a particular low in this group's
signal-to-noise ratio. Then again, so am I. Beyond that, I find you
pretty much incomprehensible, which is intellectually discomforting.
That's because of your tiny brain, which I believe I mentioned before.
Instead of attacking what you're too low IQ to understand, maybe you
should just ignore it?
I feel it might even be true if someone always popped out...
I will not be tricked by you. Trying to trick me when my IQ is far
bigger than yours is like trying to lift a Mack truck up and carry it
on your shoulders. You'll sprain something in the effort and need to
see a doctor. In fact, I think perhaps you already have. Seek help.
Now.
Finally, something I agree with. Your use of the word "your" is a
little uncharitable; I'm keeping myself to two specific threads in the
interest avoiding that very thing.
So you promise, but I already know that promises from you lot to shut
up, or to killfile me, or to limit your participation to particular
threads, cannot be trusted.
I'll assume you meant "you,
collectively" to refer to everyone who you feel is, for lack of a
better phrase, working against you.
Stop insidiously suggesting that my attackers are somehow "all in my
head"; it only takes one quick check with google groups for anyone to
confirm that they are unfortunately quite real.
"The only common factor in *all* your unsatisfying relationships is
yourself."
This is obviously another veiled insult meant to suggest that I'm
something awful deserving of horrible mistreatment. Obviously nothing
could be further from the truth. The fact is that in any large enough
group of people there will be a few assholes, and those assholes will
behave as assholes do: great volumes of foul-smelling shit will pour
forth from them at any hour of the day or night. Which means that
somewhere out there, there is a sigmoidoscope with your name on it.
Physics, as I believe it is understood now, is about patterns in
energy systems: electromagnetism, relativity, gravity, orbital
mechanics, quantum mechanics, optics, and so on. It is possibly the
branch of science most directly grounded in mathematics. And it is
absolutely mute on the matter of agents with free will
The notion that you are exempt from the laws of physics is quaint and
laughable. If you believe it though, might I suggest a new
recreational activity for you? Flap your arms and fly. Preferably
leaping off the tallest available landmark. Without a parachute, of
course -- you don't need it, since you apparently believe that the
laws of physics do not apply to you.
On the other hand,
"nature, red in tooth and claw" is more a matter of ecology,
sociology, psychology, and (if you stretch a bit) biochemistry.
All of this stuff, and sociobiology too, is based ultimately on
physics. Everything that exists is governed by physics, more or less
by definition. What we can't directly explain through physics is
whatever is too complex to work out exactly because it has, say,
trillions of moving parts.
Alternately, maybe it prevents there from ever being an argument
True enough. If someone says I'm horrible and ought to die and I don't
respond I guess there was never an argument; just an assertion and an
implied agreement with it. But I don't want the final consensus on the
issue to be anything like that! For obvious reasons.
"Both sides win" is not, in fact, a draw; game theory is full of cases
where both sides can win and come out ahead of their initial
positions. The key assumption is that each player is playing
primarily for the maximization of their own score on some metric,
rather than maximizing the amount their score is "better" than
others'.
Positive-sum games? Too bad the people around here seem to prefer the
negative-sum variety, acting only to try to drag down someone else's
score.
In my experience, that *is* what happens. I consciously sacrificed
some of my reputation by choosing to get involved at all; it's paid
off, since I've enjoyed my participation pretty thoroughly
Because you're some sort of sadist? If so, any drop in your reputation
is well deserved, you piece of shit.
Have you ever considered why I post under my own real name?
Because you're stupid? Or maybe because you're naive?
And, yes,
that line in the From: header is what's printed on my driver's
license.
Or, of course, because you're actually not? You could be lying here
and the name could be something you made up, or even someone else's
that you know, for all I can determine.
Or why Arne posts under his? Or any of the many people
here, both in this thread and outside it, who feel no need to hide
behind a pseudonym?
Why do you insist on describing it as "hiding"? That is what the
fascists do that would like to repeal all rights to privacy and fourth
amendment rights and the like. They say "if you have nothing to hide,
then why do you want strong crypto?" or whatever they wish we didn't
have. Apparently you think like they do. Well, a person can have
perfectly valid reasons to not want to use their real name that are
NONE OF YOUR FUCKING BEESWAX, get it? Now **** OFF.
Is it possible that the world is just a *shade* less hostile and
dangerous than you believe it to be?
Is it possible that the world is just a *shade* more hostile and
dangerous than *you* believe it to be?
Certainly when I read postings like yours I don't feel that it's all
that fucking friendly. Your words say one thing, but your actions give
evidence against those very claims.
There was a fairly long period of time where the top hits for my name
on google were some layabout's post to comp.lang.c++ opening with
"owen jacobson is gay". It had no impact that I'm aware of on my
ability to get a job
No negative one. You probably got one fairly easily so that they could
make their quota of gay employees.
I'd be more concerned about your trouble getting laid (by a girl!)
afterward.
Of course, this assumes that you aren't just lying through your teeth
as usual.
I don't buy it. And invading other peoples' privacy for fun is just as
evil as invading it for any other reason anyway.
It's time I could spend replying to you instead, if
you'd like.
It's time you could spend discussing Java, or doing something entirely
unrelated to cljp. Spend it in some way that has nothing to do with
me.
Another suspected lie.
[0] Your highly-selective editing makes that hard, but not impossible,
to verify.
It is not possible to "verify" some insulting falsehood about me, any
more than it is possible to "verify" that 1 * 1 is 3.
[1] Shades of Captain Renault, here...
Who?
[2] Yes, it is a common practice, which is what you fell back to.
Common practices can be wrong too.
They can become deprecated, yes. But you can't google every common
practise you engage in every single time you're about to engage in it.
You'd spend your time doing nothing else.
