If one person saw it that way, sure. That's been my point about
social interaction all along. The issue is, where do you draw the
line? It looks to me like *many* people saw your initial post in this
thread as an unprovoked attack, which is bad for your reputation
whether you meant it as an attack or not.
For "many" read "Five or six people all of whom happen to be assholes.
And delusional."
A handful of especially vocal morons does not a consensus make.
Would you care to identify where that restriction has occurred? I
certainly hope everyone providing advice and help here has checked
their work before posting it, and I've appreciated the inevitable
corrections when I've forgotten to do it myself.
What are you blathering on about? Nobody here does a bunch of Google
searches before *every bloody post* to see if there was updated
information released changing something. If there's something they
feel uncertain about, they obviously can be expected to look it up in
the javadocs or wherever. On the other hand if something is common
practise for them and everyone they know, they are not going to do a
Google search to see if it's been changed or deprecated or something
*every single time* they might mention it in a post, surely. Should I
double-check the JLS every time I post a code snippet with something
like "i++" in it just in case they've changed or deprecated the post-
increment operator? Should I double-check the API docs for
Object.toString() every time I post a code snippet with a toString
call in it? If I double-checked every single detail of some code
snippet, beyond a cursory check that it "looks normal" and lacks
glaring typos, or at most (for an SSCCE) that it compiles and works as
expected, one such post would take half a day to prepare and post.
[snip a long-winded pile of BS that implies rather rudely that I've
done something wrong. I do not do things wrong. Ever.]
which makes it very hard to correct you
THEN DON'T. Leave me alone. If you have a nasty opinion of me KEEP IT
TO YOURSELF. Is that SO BLOODY HARD that you simply are INCAPABLE of
doing so? If the answer is "yes" then KILLFILE ME and spare the
newsgroup the pain. That's the sort of thing that killfiles are good
for.
... without turning the entire thread into a shouting match.
The way to not turn "the entire thread into a shouting match" is to
not accuse me (or anyone else) of wrongdoing. If you feel you must do
it in fucking email so it won't damage anyone's public reputation.
Do you have a suggestion? How, exactly, would you have preferred I
I would have preferred you shut the hell up. If you had to mention it,
just mention that whoever over at Sun has marked that practise as
deprecated recently and it should be phased out; this would not have
implied anything nasty about anyone.
assuming for the moment that I believe manipulating components outside
the EDT is a sufficiently bad practice that I can't simply ignore
advice to do so?
I can't recall anyone having given advice of the sort you describe.
The closest I've seen has been code snippets and SSCCEs that launch a
GUI from the main thread and then immediately end the main thread,
whose purpose is to suggest or illustrate something unrelated.
I'm all in favour of finding constructive ways to
ensure the best possible information for as many people as possible.
Starting flamewars by smearing honest, well-intentioned helpers'
reputations isn't the way to do it. Have you noticed that I haven't
contributed so much as a single code snippet or other advice on a Java-
related matter lately? Partly because too much of my usenet time is
consumed with other things, and partly because I know you assholes
will pounce on any little thing that *you feel* to be a flaw -- and if
there's nothing of the sort one of you will just make something up
anyway just for the sake of attacking me.
That has REALLY helped make this newsgroup more informative.
Congratulations on halving its SNR and driving at least one formerly
helpful person to not helping any more.
[snip a bunch of random stuff that looks like misplaced post headers]
Indifference is not neutrality. Indifference is a lack of concern
I don't lack concern either, smartass. Stop splitting hairs, stop
trying to imply that I've done something stupid or wrong and misused
the English language, and stop posting BS posts like this altogether
and get back to discussing Java in other threads, jackass.
One can believe a statement false and be indifferent
to it, but not neutral towards it.
YOU were the one who may have been unclear as to which meaning you
intended, smartass. Also, I believe the statements in question to be
false but I sure the **** am NOT indifferent to them either.
Indifference towards insulting behaviour in others is, on the whole, a
very positive trait:
it would hand you victory on a silver platter if only I'd be stupid
enough to fall for your tricks. Yeah, real positive. I wish you'd stop
insulting my intelligence by trying to trick me. Obviously I can't
trust a single word out of your mouth -- you just want to have the
last word, and make sure that the record for posterity has the voices
claiming insulting things about me appear to predominate over the
voices claiming the reverse.
it demonstrates firm self-control and allows you
to get useful work done even when people are being rude to you.
I don't want to get useful work done even when people are being rude
to me. I want the people being rude to me to shut the **** up, and I
want to neutralize the influence they are attempting to exert on the
audience they are trying to convince to mistreat me.
Obviously I need to work even harder at it, much the reverse from
shutting up and letting you assholes walk all over me. I see a new
name has joined the ranks of attackers today: Jernau Gurgeh. Might
just be a new sock puppet of one of the existing attackers, but just
as easily could be someone formerly neutral who has read several BS
posts too many from you, Arnehole, Sperm, or even old Attacki posts
from weeks ago for all I know, and has started to believe the nasty
lies in them.
Stupid people are of little relevance, and in any case can scroll up
and read for themselves that you did no such thing.
That depends actually, on their newsfeed and other things. (One factor
is under my control: I could have handicapped myself by using X-No-
Archive on my posts, with the devastating result being that the long-
standing Google record would be an entirely one-sided, seemingly
unopposed litany of nasty claims that I'm evil and bad and awful and
whatever-else, but I didn't, so that's academic.)
[snip false claim that something I did was voluntary when it wasn't
really]
As noted before, when the options are defend or die, "defend" is a
voluntary choice in only the strict technical sense.
