Re: Giving an application a window icon in a sensible way

In article <1164721698.946258.317380@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
<nebulous99@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
blmblm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
In article <1164713588.733168.186010@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Twisted <twisted0n3@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
blmblm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
It wasn't one that began with *me* doing anything.

My mistake, then. Your description sounded a lot like a thread
that began with your posting a question and continued -- well,
much as you described.

This *thread* began with me posting a question. The *hostility* didn't
begin with me doing anything. I did not throw the first punch.

Who said anything about hostility? The thread began with you
posting a question. Where did I say anything else? I did mention
"ensuing furor" ....

I didn't say anything about *you* being hostile. What happened,
roughly, was this:

You said something about the sad state of this thread now, and implied
that it was somehow my fault.

I pointed out that I didn't throw the first punch.

This was misinterpreted as suggesting I didn't make the first post.

I differentiated between "the first post" and "the first punch".

End of story. I hope.

Pretty much (end of story, that is). In the discussion above, I was
talking about the thread in c.t.t. that I *thought* you had brought up.
I think you're talking about the current thread. There's no point in
continuing, since we're talking at cross purposes.

I don't see how any thread other than this one is at all germane here.

Then why did you bring it up? Please clarify the rule you have in
mind here. Off-topic digressions are acceptable, but replies to them
are not?

I didn't. I mentioned c.t.t but at no time did I mention (or invite
reference to) any specific thread therein.

Here's what you said, as part of the post that I originally replied to:

one case involved
some construct that had to be wrapped in something to work, but whoever
posted it neglected to mention that fact; the n00b naturally just
pasted the construct in without doing anything else and detonated his
project into the next century, then logged on and detonated the
newsgroup. It took weeks for that particular thread to die and it ended
up with over 500 postings...

That sounded to me like a reference to a specific thread. If I was
mistaken, okay.

Somebody else mentioned a
specific thread. It is that that I considered to be stepping outside
the bounds.

That was probably me, but again, it sounded to me like you had already
made reference to a specific thread.

[ snip ]

I was simply using it as an example for a newsgroup where attitudes
towards n00bs (and blatant attempts to sell them stuff) were worse than
here. Outside of that narrow scope, it is not material to this
discussion.

And I was disagreeing with you on exactly this point.

How so? If you're suggesting that what I post outside c.j.l.p is
relevant here,

No. But this misunderstanding is my fault. What I'm disagreeing
with is your characterization of c.t.t. That wasn't clear from where
I put my reply with regard to quoted text.

then a hearty *** you! The only possible reason (as I
detailed elsewhere) to drag that kind of thing into any discussion is
for the purpose of twisting it in some way and then launching
ad-hominem attacks against your opponent in the debate, in lieu of such
mature and constructive things as either a) arguing the thing being
debated itself instead of who's an idiot and who is this that or the
other unpleasant comparison or b) leaving well enough alone.

If you're suggesting that newbies don't get bum advice there, then you
obviously haven't been following the group as well as you think you
were.

So apparently when I described my skimming of c.t.t. as "following
the group" it came across as meaning that I follow it closely, which
wasn't what I meant. I don't read every thread in the group by
any means. I guess I *do* assume that the ones I do read, or skim,
are a representative sample with regard to how helpful (or not) the
regulars are. But there's no way I can think of to be sure about
that without reading them all. If you read all of them, then your
observations carry more weight than mine.

[ snip ]

--
B. L. Massingill
ObDisclaimer: I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor.
.