Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > Java > how long java 1.0 has developed?

Reply
Thread Tools

how long java 1.0 has developed?

 
 
George Cherry
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-30-2005

"Chris Smith" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed).. .
> Dale King <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> I disagree. Just because he posts good stuff does not give him a free
>> ride to do what he pleases. Roedy has wasted the group's time with
>> off-topic political rants in the past

>
> Sorry to make a big deal out of this. I still see a large difference
> between a signature line and what you're referring to. I completely
> agree that political posts are out of place here. We just don't seem to
> agree about what a signature line really is. I don't look at it as
> group content. I don't choose a different signature depending on what
> my post is about. A signature identifies who someone is, what they care
> about, who they are affiliated with, etc... and from what I know of
> Roedy, his current signature does that very well.
>
> In any case, I'll drop it; Roedy will decide as he pleases anyway.


"Do what you will shall be the whole of the law"?

> www.designacourse.com
> The Easiest Way To Train Anyone... Anywhere.
>
> Chris Smith - Lead Software Developer/Technical Trainer
> MindIQ Corporation



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Thomas G. Marshall
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-30-2005
Chris Uppal coughed up:
> Thomas G. Marshall wrote:
>
>>> [me:]
>>> You'll note that whatever the acceptability of politically active
>>> commentary in the .sig parts of posts, whatever the legitimacy of
>>> Roeady's views, whatever the truth about Bush, it is actually /your/
>>> post that has triggered what looks as if it could easily be a
>>> long-running, irritating, and frequently offensive, thread.

>>
>> It is actually Roedy's post. You must follow causality properly.

>
> I think I do -- Roedy posted many, many, times with no response (to
> that aspect of his posts). You posted once.
>
>> Otherwise, it is equally valid to claim that *you* are furthering
>> this thread needlessly and are somehow culpable.

>
> I agree; I have added to the problem. I regret that. I did think
> carefully before "contributing" to this thread, and I thought I had
> sufficient reason, but it seems the effort was in vain.
>
> You will join Roedy in my killfile.


I'm sorry you feel that way.




--
"His name was Robert Paulson. His name was Robert Paulson. His name was
Robert Paulson..."


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Thomas G. Marshall
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-30-2005
Virgil Green coughed up:
> Thomas G. Marshall wrote:
>> Chris Uppal coughed up:
>>> Thomas G. Marshall wrote:
>>>
>>>> You're inviting an OT
>>>> political flaming. And those things just go on forever, and with
>>>> everyone losing.
>>>
>>> You'll note that whatever the acceptability of politically active
>>> commentary in the .sig parts of posts, whatever the legitimacy of
>>> Roeady's views, whatever the truth about Bush, it is actually /your/
>>> post that has triggered what looks as if it could easily be a
>>> long-running, irritating, and frequently offensive, thread.

>>
>> It is actually Roedy's post. You must follow causality properly.
>> Otherwise, it is equally valid to claim that *you* are furthering
>> this thread needlessly and are somehow culpable.

>
> That just cracks me up. The sub(off)-topic of this thread was
> initiated precisely because you chose to take offense based upon
> someone's sig and decided you had to speak your mind about it. Roedy
> did *not* bring this up as a discussion point


That just cracks me up.

It was in his post. It is something that people usually read. It is meant
to incite a flame war. Flame wars are detrimental to the group..


....[rip]...



--
"His name was Robert Paulson. His name was Robert Paulson. His name was
Robert Paulson..."


 
Reply With Quote
 
Dale King
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-01-2005
Virgil Green wrote:
>
> That just cracks me up. The sub(off)-topic of this thread was initiated
> precisely because you chose to take offense


It's not a matter of *choosing* to take offense. Roedy's signature will
obviously offend a great many people. It is not the fault of those
offended that someone is posting offensive material.

> based upon someone's sig and
> decided you had to speak your mind about it.


Actually, if you look at the causality, this sub-thread was initiated
precisely because others chose to take offense at someone suggesting
that it is inappropriate to post inflammatory, offensive material in
these groups. It seems that those who responded to Thomas are actually
responsible for the sub-thread. All Thomas did was very politely suggest
to Roedy that he not include the offensive material because it might
incite a flamewar. That suggestion does not in itself constitute a flamewar.

> Roedy did *not* bring this up
> as a discussion point and has not even contributed to the sub-topic. *You*
> are the cause of the sub-topic.


So what? That doesn't excuse the behavior. The fact that it has not
*yet* caused a flamewar does not mean that Thomas deserves blame for
trying to prevent one.

Imagine if a regular poster were to add to his signature "The only good
_____ is a dead ______." with the blank filled in by an offensive racial
slur (it is too offensive to me to actually fill in the blank even for
this post so I will leave it as a blank to be filled in by the reader).

Would this be acceptable? Wouldn't someone from that racial group likely
be offended? Would it be the fault of they person offended of the person
making the statements? If that person politely asked the poster to not
make such statements in the group would you really blame them for
causing problems? Does it really make any difference if such a statement
were in the sig vs. the body?

How is that any different than what Roedy did?

--
Dale King
 
Reply With Quote
 
iamfractal@hotmail.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-01-2005
Dale King <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:<nd2xe.119093$nG6.31630@attbi_s22>...


< Snip>

>
> Imagine if a regular poster were to add to his signature "The only good
> _____ is a dead ______."


A dreaful thing to say about innocent underscores.


..ed

--
www.EdmundKirwan.com - Home of The Fractal Class Composition.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Raymond DeCampo
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-01-2005
Dale King wrote:
>
>
> So what? That doesn't excuse the behavior. The fact that it has not
> *yet* caused a flamewar does not mean that Thomas deserves blame for
> trying to prevent one.
>


It seems clear that more people are offended to the point of needed to
express themselves by Thomas' attempt to regulate the speech in the
newsgroup than by Roedy's signature.

Ray

--
XML is the programmer's duct tape.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Virgil Green
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-01-2005
Dale King wrote:
> Virgil Green wrote:
>>
>> That just cracks me up. The sub(off)-topic of this thread was
>> initiated precisely because you chose to take offense

>
> It's not a matter of *choosing* to take offense. Roedy's signature
> will obviously offend a great many people. It is not the fault of
> those
> offended that someone is posting offensive material.


Oh, but it is... you must make the choice to be offended. Other options
include making the decision that the poster is a crackpot and ignoring him.

> > based upon someone's sig and
>> decided you had to speak your mind about it.

>
> Actually, if you look at the causality, this sub-thread was initiated
> precisely because others chose to take offense at someone suggesting
> that it is inappropriate to post inflammatory, offensive material in
> these groups. It seems that those who responded to Thomas are actually
> responsible for the sub-thread. All Thomas did was very politely
> suggest
> to Roedy that he not include the offensive material because it might
> incite a flamewar. That suggestion does not in itself constitute a
> flamewar.


He could make these suggestions in email. No need to do it in the group...
except to raise a point of discussion. If you want cause... the first person
to request action was Thomas. No his request doesn't "constitute a
flameware" but I thought we were talking about "causality". He is free to
add "I wish Roedy wouldn't post whacko political commentary in his sig" to
his own sig. I'll ignore that too. Then the two of them can have an implicit
flamewar.

> > Roedy did *not* bring this up
>> as a discussion point and has not even contributed to the sub-topic.
>> *You* are the cause of the sub-topic.

>
> So what? That doesn't excuse the behavior. The fact that it has not
> *yet* caused a flamewar does not mean that Thomas deserves blame for
> trying to prevent one.


No one excused Roedy's behavior... and no one excuses Thomas's.

> Imagine if a regular poster were to add to his signature "The only
> good _____ is a dead ______." with the blank filled in by an
> offensive racial slur (it is too offensive to me to actually fill in
> the blank even for
> this post so I will leave it as a blank to be filled in by the
> reader).
>
> Would this be acceptable? Wouldn't someone from that racial group
> likely
> be offended? Would it be the fault of they person offended of the
> person making the statements? If that person politely asked the
> poster to not
> make such statements in the group would you really blame them for
> causing problems? Does it really make any difference if such a
> statement were in the sig vs. the body?


"Fault" here is a rather charged word. If the person taking offense really
"caused problems" then they would be at fault the problems caused.

Had Thomas not included:

"If having such a battle is what you're really after, then you had better
rethink your motives for being in these groups at all."

Then I doubt this would have continued nearly as long as it has (which is
still rather short in usenet terms). While not an actual accusation, it came
rather close.

But your question was whether it was acceptable. No it wouldn't be
acceptable. Since I choose to download the contents of this newsgroup, my
recourse would be limited to a single request to not include such commentary
and I would likely make that request through email. If it persisted, I'd
killfile the poster. Eventually, the OP would be ostracized and likely go
away. He could post such diatribe all day long and even be archived in
Google, but I really wouldn't care about the lone voice spewing vile
rhetoric in the wilderness.

> How is that any different than what Roedy did?


Degree. I don't see his sig as being nearly so emotionally charged as your
example. To get anything that would raise anyone's hackles, the reader would
have to follow the suggested links.

Note, I've not asked anyone to quit doing anything. I'll ignore anything I
don't like, form my own opinion about the value of any posters content on
any subject. For instance, I highly value Roedy's technical commentary and
consider his politics to be of no value to me.

--
Virgil


 
Reply With Quote
 
Dale King
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-01-2005
Raymond DeCampo wrote:
> Dale King wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> So what? That doesn't excuse the behavior. The fact that it has not
>> *yet* caused a flamewar does not mean that Thomas deserves blame for
>> trying to prevent one.
>>

>
> It seems clear that more people are offended to the point of needed to
> express themselves by Thomas' attempt to regulate the speech in the
> newsgroup than by Roedy's signature.


So what? You basically said that those who didn't like Thomas' polite
request are more vocal. What about those that reacted to Roedy's
signature non-verbally? How many people came to this group saw that
nonsense in Roedy's sig and left because they decided they didn't want
to be in a group where such stuff is rampant? How many people killfiled
Roedy because of it?

No one is questioning Roedy's freedom of speech. But the exercising of
that freedom can have consequences. The granting of that freedom does
not mean you are guaranteed freedom from the natural consequences of
that speech.

A recent real world example: Danny Glover was an outspoken critic of US
policies which cost him his gig as spokesman for MCI, not because of any
political views at MCI but because the natural consequence of that
criticism was MCI losing business. He of course denounced it as "thought
police", but it was a natural consequence.

In this case the consequences can be harmful to this group. The bottom
line to me is that Roedy's signature is not doing anything good for this
group and can cause harm by chasing people away from the group, causing
people to killfile Roedy, actually inciting a flamewar, or causing long
meta discussions like this one. Therefore it would be better if he did
not bring that stuff into this group.

That is all I read in Thomas' request and I agree with what sentiment.

--
Dale King
 
Reply With Quote
 
Thomas G. Marshall
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-01-2005
Raymond DeCampo coughed up:
> Dale King wrote:
>>
>>
>> So what? That doesn't excuse the behavior. The fact that it has not
>> *yet* caused a flamewar does not mean that Thomas deserves blame for
>> trying to prevent one.
>>

>
> It seems clear that more people are offended to the point of needed to
> express themselves by Thomas' attempt to regulate the speech in the
> newsgroup than by Roedy's signature.


So what? This is a discussion, not a needless flame war. This is a
discussion concerning how someone can *intend* to produce something to
disrupt the newsgroup, and the position that there is nothing wrong with
asking them to knock it off.

You are asking me to knock this off. Are you really saying that I have no
right to ask roedy to knock off his inflamatory statements?

I'm having a difficult time responding, because Dale King keeps doing such a
good job of explaining the position.

Your arguing technique of attempting to demonize my point by simplistically
categorizing it as a regulation of freedom of speech is not going to work
with most people. *IF* you insist on bringing in constitutional analogy,
which is foolhardy on your part, then I'll point out that the constitution
*does not allow* someone to incite.

But again, that is merely a response to your attempt to glue a powerful set
of buzz words in order to throw the argument into a category in a further
attempt to have readers dismiss it.



 
Reply With Quote
 
Thomas G. Marshall
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-01-2005
On Friday, July 01, 2005 9:51 AM [GMT+1=CET],
Virgil Green <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

....[rip]...

> Had Thomas not included:
>
> "If having such a battle is what you're really after, then you had
> better rethink your motives for being in these groups at all."
>
> Then I doubt this would have continued nearly as long as it has
> (which is still rather short in usenet terms). While not an actual
> accusation, it came rather close.


I still contend that /this/ argument makes no sense. I was /very/ careful
not to say:

You are a miscreant and should reconsider
why you want to **** things up.

And instead pointed out a concept that is truly axiomatic:

If inciting a flame war is what you wish to do
then rethink why it is you are in a technical newsgroup
where flame wars are only damaging.

This is indeed a paraphrase, which I only did because the verbatim clearly
did not sink in with you, and if you doubt that this is an accurate
representation of the obvious sentiment, then I'll return to the verbatim,
which speaks for itself.



....[rip]...


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Having compilation error: no match for call to (const __gnu_cxx::hash<long long int>) (const long long int&) veryhotsausage C++ 1 07-04-2008 05:41 PM
long long and long Mathieu Dutour C Programming 4 07-24-2007 11:15 AM
Is there any one who has been working with java for a long long time? Amanda Java 26 11-11-2006 12:43 AM
unsigned long long int to long double Daniel Rudy C Programming 5 09-20-2005 02:37 AM
Assigning unsigned long to unsigned long long George Marsaglia C Programming 1 07-08-2003 05:16 PM



Advertisments