Re: Java 7 features

On Aug 3, 1:04 pm, Daniel Pitts <googlegrou...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Aug 3, 4:15 am, Twisted <twisted...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Aug 3, 2:07 am, "Mike Schilling" <mscottschill...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
[snip reiterated insults]

I don't see any insults. I see over-sensitivity to being corrected.

I see putdowns, some sly and some just plain blatant, all designed to
present to your audience the impression that I'm a know-nothing
incompetent.

Stop lying about your intentions; why are you continuing to post this
stuff if your main goal here is to discuss Java programming rather
than to attack me? If you had purely honorable motives you wouldn't be
continuing this at all, as it's OT and there's obviously no utility to
be had from posting more flamage directed at me.

Stop reposting your various attacks and insinuations about me. Your
motives are transparent: you seek any excuse to quote and endlessly
repeat the same nasty things you keep trying to suggest, presumably in
the hopes that the Big Lie Effect will cause your audience to start
believing the things you keep saying.

And go soak your head.

Hey Twisted, I've seen some of your non-flame posts, and you do know
quite a bit. Although I have to agree that you tend to have a very
difficult time being corrected or criticized.

There's a simple answer to that problem: DON'T CRITICIZE ME. This is a
forum about Java programming, not about me or any other person, and
centering a discussion around a person and their traits, including but
not limited to perceived/accused failings, is off-topic here anyway. I
am not a small child; I do not need "correcting" nor do I desire it. I
certainly don't take kindly to being accused of things, called names,
or otherwise harassed in public. Trying to publicly humiliate someone
whether by loudly proclaiming their alleged faults in public or by
other means is a sure-fire way to generate a long-lasting enemy, and
to disrupt the public venue where your attack is launched. And of
course there is no way in which launching such an assault in any way
furthers the purpose of this newsgroup, to wit, Java programming
discussion. Indeed it's a sure-fire way to generate at least one post
full of, and likely a whole thread full of, off-topic crap. Once you
put someone on the defensive by publicly questioning their validity
and thereby challenging them to explain or defend themselves or prove
their worth, you just about guarantee at least one equally off-topic
reply; and the tendency I find with usenet nitpickers, pedants, and
hasslers is that they respond to any such post with another volley of
fire rather than moving on. It's as if they feel there's a score to
settle without having originally been provoked -- they "settle" it
with the first attack post, and the defending/rebutting response then
puts the score back to needing settling, so they use another attack
post, and so on; meanwhile the aggrieved party is attacked out of
nowhere and perceives the score as one nothing for the enemy, responds
in their own defense to make it a tie, and soon finds the enemy has
hit them again. Of course only one of these perceptions is correct;
the person who is initially attacked has every right to have the last
word, in their own defense, and then have the issue dropped leaving a
neutral outcome. The attacker on the other hand had nothing to
"defend" by launching their initial attack; if they perceived the
score as somehow skewed away from them and in need of correcting, then
that was their misperception. Yet evidently they do; or how else to
explain the nasty persistent tendency people like Mike have of not
letting it go? Obviously, Mike doesn't perceive a tie game; he
perceives that he's behind a point whenever I've rebutted his latest
drivel and so he posts to reiterate his unwelcome and off-topic
opinion of me one more time. I don't know why, since it would mean
that he was behind a point at the time of the Big Bang, before either
of us had ever posted anything to cljp at all, and then there's no
obvious explanation for why he'd lurk for years before pouncing and
attempting to even the score with what, to everyone else, is an attack
launched without provocation. Nonetheless it's the only model that
predicts continued aggression from Mike, and thus accurately predicts
observed events. I just wonder what Mike perceives is at stake in
this, that he'd a) launch the initial strike and b) feel the need to
launch a new one every time his previous effort had been canceled out.

Also, try to give people the benefit of the doubt,
as most people are not attacking *you*. Instead they are disputing a
fact you posted which they disagree with.

Really. Your model fails to explain the actions of most of my
attackers.
* They don't say they disagree, they accuse me bluntly of
incompetence. That's not assuming good faith, and it's rude. Why be
rude if they have no hostile intent? But suppose that's just an
accident or language-barrier issues or some other cause that makes it
difficult for them to be polite in English...
* When I am affronted and say that my intelligence, etc. are NOT
subnormal, they respond by reiterating things that imply that they
are. Why? It becomes apparent then that they want to say something
nasty about me and make it stick. They will not accept "agreeing to
disagree"; they must have the last word and that last word must be
that I'm an inferior creature and they're the shining light of
perfection, or something equally ludicrous. Also, they make it clear
that it's not about Java at this point, but rather about me, and their
perceived need to put me in my place for some reason. When I respond
in my own defense, they seem to see a lower class of person getting
uppity and needing to be smacked down yet again until he learns his
station in life. This suggests that the people behaving this way are
elitist bastards, and are not acting in good faith.
* I've repeatedly suggested that if people disagree with something I
say, they either ignore it, use private e-mail, or use diplomatic
language that casts it in some other way than one in which I'm clearly
a "loser" and they are a "winner". If to them it's not some contest
but a collaborative effort at Java discussion, there's no logical
reason for them to object or to behave in any other way than as
suggested. But some people insist on trying to force a win/lose sort
of outcome, with themselves as the winner of course, in zero-sum
fashion. These people are acting wrongly and need to be called on
their behavior until they change it. There don't need to be winners or
losers here. Why insist on making every dispute be about the people
involved rather than about the Java involved?

But I am getting the feeling that this is futile. Nobody is likely to
pay attention to the above. The people who need to behave differently
if they truly are here just to discuss Java are clearly uninterested
in reading anything I have to say, apparently on the grounds that
nothing I say is worth responding to other than to attack it, as far
as they are concerned. I'm fairly sure most of them are acting in bad
faith anyway, since they have had repeatedly ignored suggestions of
how to be nicer, including a) better ways to get their point across
diplomatically when they have one, b) the idea that getting their
point across may not be something worth pursuing especially when their
"point" is something nasty, c) the idea that any honestly held
negative opinions of me are best left to email or the interiors of
their own skulls, and so forth.

Regardless, I will continue as I have been. Anyone who attacks me or
any other poster in public, either with a straight-up attack or by
"correcting" them or otherwise making a show of disciplining them in
public like a parent with a small child that misbehaved, will get it
from both barrels. I will defend myself when accused of *** by trash-
talking self-styled Internet tough guys looking to make a name for
themselves with a little unsolicited jousting or one-upmanship. And in
all other circumstances I'll remain civil and on-topic and as helpful
as possible.

.