Great SWT Program

java-programmer, Great SWT Program In article <email***@***.com>,
Twisted <email***@***.com> wrote:
> On Aug 21, 1:30 pm, Joe Attacki <email***@***.com> wrote:
> [Attacki misattributed the quoted text once again]
> [insulting nonsense deleted]
> > Honestly, I don't care if he advertises his open-source project in here,
> > but the fact that he was underhanded about it is what I took issue with.
>
> I've provided a reasonably plausible and much more charitable
> interpretation of his actions. You are quick to see malice where there
> may well be none;

Oh, the irony.

> probably because your own normal behavior is
> malicious, so you expect it of everyone else as your default model for
> a random person's mind is (as is normal) your self-model.

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

java-programmer >> Great SWT Program In article <email***@***.com>,
Twisted <email***@***.com> wrote:
> On Aug 21, 1:30 pm, Joe Attacki <email***@***.com> wrote:
> [Attacki misattributed the quoted text once again]
> [insulting nonsense deleted]
> > Honestly, I don't care if he advertises his open-source project in here,
> > but the fact that he was underhanded about it is what I took issue with.
>
> I've provided a reasonably plausible and much more charitable
> interpretation of his actions. You are quick to see malice where there
> may well be none;

Oh, the irony.

> probably because your own normal behavior is
> malicious, so you expect it of everyone else as your default model for
> a random person's mind is (as is normal) your self-model.

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

java-programmer >> Great SWT Program On Aug 22, 6:01 am, email***@***.com <email***@***.com> wrote:
> > I've provided a reasonably plausible and much more charitable
> > interpretation of his actions. You are quick to see malice where there
> > may well be none;
>
> Oh, the irony.

Is this meant to be some kind of attack?

If not, then it bears explaining.

If so, then you really need to try harder. :P

java-programmer >> Great SWT Program In article <email***@***.com>,
Twisted <email***@***.com> wrote:
> On Aug 22, 6:01 am, email***@***.com <email***@***.com> wrote:
> > > I've provided a reasonably plausible and much more charitable
> > > interpretation of his actions. You are quick to see malice where there
> > > may well be none;
> >
> > Oh, the irony.
>
> Is this meant to be some kind of attack?

I'd call it an observation, but one that does imply something
negative about your behavior. I wouldn't call that an attack,
but you might.

> If not, then it bears explaining.

Do I need to spell it out for you? You don't think *you* are
"quick to see malice where there may well be none"?

> If so, then you really need to try harder. :P

I'd just as soon not.

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

java-programmer >> Great SWT Program On Aug 22, 11:16 am, email***@***.com <email***@***.com>
wrote:
> In article <email***@***.com>,
>
> Twisted <email***@***.com> wrote:
> > On Aug 22, 6:01 am, email***@***.com <email***@***.com> wrote:
> > > > I've provided a reasonably plausible and much more charitable
> > > > interpretation of his actions. You are quick to see malice where there
> > > > may well be none;
>
> > > Oh, the irony.
>
> > Is this meant to be some kind of attack?
>
> I'd call it an observation, but one that does imply something
> negative about your behavior.

In other words, yes.

> Do I need to spell it out for you? You don't think *you* are
> "quick to see malice where there may well be none"?

No. Only when it's clear that someone is doing something bad or
sneaky. Suggesting an expensive and proprietary solution to someone
while neglecting to mention either a) that it's expensive and
proprietary or b) the several fairly well-known free alternatives that
haven't been mentioned in the thread yet and that a) you surely know
of but b) the OP presumably doesn't or they wouldn't be asking their
question in the first place. This has occurred a few times and leads
to the obvious suspicion that the poster is financially connected to
the company that makes the expensive solution in some way. (Employee,
or owns stock, or ...) else why would they specifically omit
mentioning the free options? (Example: someone responded to someone's
IDE question by mentioning IntelliJ products, with no mention of
either Eclipse or NetBeans, despite surely knowing of both, being a
regular poster here.)

Another example of course is someone posting something that states or
implies something negative about another poster. This (demonstrably)
leads to nonconstructive flamewars and is clearly off-topic besides.
It's difficult to imagine there can be any non-malicious reason for
doing such a thing.

Or do you propose that these things happen by accident? I don't see
this as plausible, though. You don't badmouth someone by accident, or
mention a commercial product but not a free one by chance, unless you
are picking elements of your responses out of a hat by blind draw, and
there's no sane reason to be doing *that* is there?

java-programmer >> Great SWT Program Twisted wrote:
>This has occurred a few times and leads
> to the obvious suspicion that the poster is financially connected to
> the company that makes the expensive solution in some way. (Employee,
> or owns stock, or ...) else why would they specifically omit
> mentioning the free options? (Example: someone responded to someone's
> IDE question by mentioning IntelliJ products, with no mention of
> either Eclipse or NetBeans, despite surely knowing of both, being a
> regular poster here.)

That was me.

1. IntelliJ is, in my experience and opinion, by far the best of the three.
I know many developers who pay money for IntelliJ rather than download the
free ones, because it makes them that much more productive.
2. Other people had mentioned Eclipse and NetBeans, making it unnecessary
for me to do so.
3. That's not an "obvious suspicion". It is an outrageous attack on my
personal integrity, which is why I'm bothering to respond.

java-programmer >> Great SWT Program In article <email***@***.com>,
Twisted <email***@***.com> wrote:
> On Aug 22, 11:16 am, email***@***.com <email***@***.com>
> wrote:
> > In article <email***@***.com>,
> >
> > Twisted <email***@***.com> wrote:
> > > On Aug 22, 6:01 am, email***@***.com <email***@***.com> wrote:
> > > > > I've provided a reasonably plausible and much more charitable
> > > > > interpretation of his actions. You are quick to see malice where there
> > > > > may well be none;
> >
> > > > Oh, the irony.
> >
> > > Is this meant to be some kind of attack?
> >
> > I'd call it an observation, but one that does imply something
> > negative about your behavior.
>
> In other words, yes.

I'd say "attack" is too strong a word for an admittedly somewhat
snarky observation. But maybe not.

> > Do I need to spell it out for you? You don't think *you* are
> > "quick to see malice where there may well be none"?
>
> No. Only when it's clear that someone is doing something bad or
> sneaky. Suggesting an expensive and proprietary solution to someone
> while neglecting to mention either a) that it's expensive and
> proprietary or b) the several fairly well-known free alternatives that
> haven't been mentioned in the thread yet and that a) you surely know
> of but b) the OP presumably doesn't or they wouldn't be asking their
> question in the first place. This has occurred a few times and leads
> to the obvious suspicion that the poster is financially connected to
> the company that makes the expensive solution in some way. (Employee,
> or owns stock, or ...) else why would they specifically omit
> mentioning the free options? (Example: someone responded to someone's
> IDE question by mentioning IntelliJ products, with no mention of
> either Eclipse or NetBeans, despite surely knowing of both, being a
> regular poster here.)

Huh. Well, maybe I'm more trusting than I think -- I don't assume
that personal financial gain is the most likely explanation for
someone mentioning a commercial product despite being aware of
no-cost / non-commercial alternatives. Sure, it's a possible
explanation, but most likely? Apparently YMV ("Your Mileage
Varies") here.

The "someone" who mentioned IntelliJ has explained why he didn't
mention no-cost alternatives. I find this explanation completely
plausible, and I might have acted as he did (mentioning a commercial
product I thought was worth recommending, without including a
discussion of alternatives).

> Another example of course is someone posting something that states or
> implies something negative about another poster. This (demonstrably)
> leads to nonconstructive flamewars and is clearly off-topic besides.
> It's difficult to imagine there can be any non-malicious reason for
> doing such a thing.

Carelessness? Different standards of what constitutes an
offensive remark? A comment that many people find unobjectionable
("you are wrong about that") may be taken as an insult by some.
Maybe we should all be more careful not to give offense, even
inadvertently, but I think the rule about not ascribing to malice
that which can be explained by stupidity more or less applies here.

> Or do you propose that these things happen by accident? I don't see
> this as plausible, though. You don't badmouth someone by accident, or
> mention a commercial product but not a free one by chance, unless you
> are picking elements of your responses out of a hat by blind draw, and
> there's no sane reason to be doing *that* is there?

I think there are more possible explanations than you're offering here
(deliberate malice/greed or accident).

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

java-programmer >> Great SWT Program On Aug 23, 2:32 am, "Mike Schilling" <email***@***.com>
wrote:
[snip]

You again!

> Twisted wrote:
> >This has occurred a few times and leads
> > to the obvious suspicion that the poster is financially connected to
> > the company that makes the expensive solution in some way. (Employee,
> > or owns stock, or ...) else why would they specifically omit
> > mentioning the free options? (Example: someone responded to someone's
> > IDE question by mentioning IntelliJ products, with no mention of
> > either Eclipse or NetBeans, despite surely knowing of both, being a
> > regular poster here.)
>
> That was me.
>
> 1. [snip advertisement for commercial product]
> 2. Other people had mentioned Eclipse and NetBeans, making it unnecessary
> for me to do so.

This has often not been the case in the threads where I raise a fuss.

> 3. That's not an "obvious suspicion". It is an outrageous attack on my
> personal integrity, which is why I'm bothering to respond.

There was no attack, outrageous or otherwise, in the post to which you
just replied. It didn't name any names but Andrew Thompson, and even
so, it named none in connection with promoting commercial software to
the exclusion of free alternatives and without upfront disclosure.

A post that doesn't name names can hardly be considered an "outrageous
attack on your personal integrity".

On the other hand, your reaction does speak volumes about your guilty
conscience. The duck that got shot quacks the loudest.

Incidentally, you have not provided any reasonable explanation for
mentioning IntelliJ without mentioning that it costs money, thus
saving people on a budget the bother of wasting their time clicking a
link or two before finding that out and then just sighing and clicking
back several times. Well, people on a budget and everyone else of
sound mind and judgment, since nobody sane will pay over the odds for
something they can easily and legally get for free someplace else.

But that comes right back to why care might be taken to softpedal the
very existence of free alternatives...

java-programmer >> Great SWT Program On Aug 23, 5:16 am, email***@***.com <email***@***.com> wrote:
> Huh. Well, maybe I'm more trusting than I think -- I don't assume
> that personal financial gain is the most likely explanation for
> someone mentioning a commercial product despite being aware of
> no-cost / non-commercial alternatives. Sure, it's a possible
> explanation, but most likely? Apparently YMV ("Your Mileage
> Varies") here.

What about doing so while also carefully omitting to mention a) the
existence of free equivalents AND b) the fact that the product you've
mentioned is not free?

> The "someone" who mentioned IntelliJ has explained why he didn't
> mention no-cost alternatives. I find this explanation completely
> plausible, and I might have acted as he did (mentioning a commercial
> product I thought was worth recommending, without including a
> discussion of alternatives).

If the alternatives had already come up in the same thread, that would
be fine. As long as you disclosed in your posting that your new
suggestion was not free, and preferably stated the price rather than
just indicating that it was nonzero.

> Maybe we should all be more careful not to give offense, even
> inadvertently, but I think the rule about not ascribing to malice
> that which can be explained by stupidity more or less applies here.

Calling me names is not easily explained without invoking malice in
some form. Indeed, if someone expresses a negative claim about me one
of two things must be the case:
a) They don't actually believe it, in which case they are lying and
indeed lying maliciously to muddy my name. This is clearly malicious
behavior. Or
b) They are sincere, in which case they actually believe nasty things
about me, in which case those very beliefs are themselves what's
malicious, and presumably malicious behavior (such as broadcasting
those beliefs in public) stems from their dislike of me.

Either way, something malicious is going on. And this applies equally
if I'm replaced with any other person as target.

> I think there are more possible explanations than you're offering here
> (deliberate malice/greed or accident).

Such as? Surely nobody truly honestly believes that excellent free
products like Eclipse are no good and awful? Or perhaps they do --
duped by whoever *really* stands to gain from pushing an inferior,
proprietary, and expensive good over a perfectly good commodity
version. Either way, it's disingenuous on *someone*'s part. It's
rather like a drug company advertising its heavily over-priced
painkiller that actually has exactly the same active ingredient as an
ordinary generic aspirin, only about half as much per pill and at four
times the price per pill; the only difference in the products being
that their pill is a funky orange color and has their logo proudly
stamped on both sides. And then convincing their customers to
proselytize their brand as superior to generic aspirin as well.
Which they're eager to do, mainly because it helps them convince
themselves that they did not just waste an ungodly amount of money on
what they fear they could indeed have had for a fraction of that
amount.

Only with software the force of self-deception will be even more
powerful, as someone seeks desperately to believe that they somehow
didn't get screwed in the transaction when they plonked down a three-
figure sum for something a competitor is giving away gratis.
Convincing others is a common way to try to convince yourself.

This is also how prudish mores survive and get transmitted from
generation to generation. *Not* pushing the notion that anything fun
is immoral and a deadly sin means admitting that your own dry and
boring life of just lying back and thinking of England was wasted and
you missed out on a lot of good things and now you're past your prime
and have lost any chance of ever having those experiences. :)

java-programmer >> Great SWT Program "Twisted" <email***@***.com> wrote in message
news:email***@***.com...

>
> On the other hand, your reaction does speak volumes about your guilty
> conscience. The duck that got shot quacks the loudest.

I think that The Sopranos is a much better show than Everybody Loves
Raymond. Now claim I own HBO, you idiot.

java-programmer >> Great SWT Program
"Twisted" <email***@***.com> wrote in message
news:email***@***.com...

>
> If the alternatives had already come up in the same thread, that would
> be fine. As long as you disclosed in your posting that your new
> suggestion was not free, and preferably stated the price rather than
> just indicating that it was nonzero.

"I just found this great Thai restuarant downtown, but they charge for the
food. Or, the Salvation Army runs a soup kitchen."

java-programmer >> Great SWT Program On Aug 23, 6:49 pm, "Mike Schilling" <email***@***.com>
wrote:
> > On the other hand, your reaction does speak volumes about your guilty
> > conscience. The duck that got shot quacks the loudest.
>
> I think that The Sopranos is a much better show than Everybody Loves
> Raymond. Now claim I own HBO, you [insult deleted].

Apples, oranges, and yes, the original topic was bananas into the
bargain.

Do you and Lew actively lurk and monitor the group continually for new
posts so whenever you see one by me you can pounce on it instantly?
It's making it impossible for me to get caught up -- I've already been
here an hour longer than I planned to today, because new posts keep
arriving that flame me and require a response from me, only for you to
go and undo all my hard work by posting another fucking flame two
minutes after my response goes live. Fuck off, the both of you.

Oh, and Lew, I now have evidence that Joe Attacki is a sock puppet of
yours. Not proof, mind you, but some circumstantial evidence. You both
posted via google groups and after a near-simultaneous transition now
post via a Comcast news server, and the whole while from Comcast IPs.
The one niggling spoiler is that there's a post by you with a reply by
Attacki 20 minutes later a few days ago and the IP addresses are quite
different (though both owned by Comcast). That suggests maybe a
coincidence in ISP and news server use, and different cities of
residence. Then again, a lot of large ISPs (such as Comcast) just
allocate DHCP randomly from any of several large, non-city-specific IP
blocks these days, which can be quite diverse even in their first
octets, so ...

I just wonder if maybe you spun off an alternate persona for posting
the really nasty OT flames and legally-dodgy things like privacy-
prying and other things in questionable taste so they won't reflect on
your reputation under the name Lew.

Just a theory, mind you.

java-programmer >> Great SWT Program email***@***.com wrote:
> Oh, and Lew, I now have evidence that Joe Attacki is a sock puppet of
> yours. Not proof, mind you, but some circumstantial evidence. You both
> posted via google groups and after a near-simultaneous transition now

I don't use Google Groups. You couldn't pay me to use Google Groups.

--
Lew

java-programmer >> Great SWT Program On Aug 23, 6:56 pm, "Mike Schilling" <email***@***.com>
wrote:
> "I just found this great Thai restuarant downtown, but they charge for the
> food. Or, the Salvation Army runs a soup kitchen."

That's a completely different matter.
A. The marginal cost of reproduction of food is not zero. Unlike, say,
software.
2. The Salvation Army is a charitable cause whose service is meant for
the hungry homeless. Someone who can afford to buy food at normal
commodity prices using their service might be committing some form of
fraud and is certainly abusing their hospitality and competing with
the homeless people who have no alternative. The same is not true of
people using Eclipse, which is aimed at a general audience of
programmers and where it costs very little for them to provide plenty
for everybody, so people with money downloading Eclipse aren't
crowding out poor people who can't afford IntelliJ. Unlike soup,
Eclipse is a nonrival good. And lastly,
D. There's a quality difference. The soup kitchen probably serves
ordinary food, while the Thai restaurant likely sells weird ethnic
crap. Eclipse and IntelliJ, on the other hand, are both IDEs with a
focus on Java. If you were comparing Eclipse with some weird
commercial Borland text-mode IDE from the early nineties your analogy
might make more sense. A better comparison would be to put the free
Borland-IDE-clone RHIDE on the soup-kitchen side as free but no-frills
and crummy and some weird commercial IDE with a very odd user-
interface on the other -- perhaps something used on SGI workstations
in days of yore, so it would seem to speak with a thick accent to
Windoze-users, and priced in the four-figures like anything else
connected with SGI (except the hardware, whose pricing was worse --
much, much worse).

Anyone who can spot the subtle reference gets a free IDE by the way.

java-programmer >> Great SWT Program On Aug 23, 8:21 pm, Lew <email***@***.com> wrote:
> email***@***.com wrote:
> > Oh, and Lew, I now have evidence that Joe Attacki is a sock puppet of
> > yours. Not proof, mind you, but some circumstantial evidence. You both
> > posted via google groups and after a near-simultaneous transition now
>
> I don't use Google Groups. You couldn't pay me to use Google Groups.

Do you ever rest?

Anyway, I never said you did. I said you *used* to.

java-programmer >> Great SWT Program email***@***.com wrote:
> On Aug 23, 8:21 pm, Lew <email***@***.com> wrote:
>> email***@***.com wrote:
>>> Oh, and Lew, I now have evidence that Joe Attacki is a sock puppet of
>>> yours. Not proof, mind you, but some circumstantial evidence. You both
>>> posted via google groups and after a near-simultaneous transition now
>> I don't use Google Groups. You couldn't pay me to use Google Groups.
>
> Do you ever rest?
>
> Anyway, I never said you did. I said you *used* to.

I have never used Google Groups.

--
Lew

java-programmer >> Great SWT Program On Aug 23, 8:37 pm, Lew <email***@***.com> wrote:
> email***@***.com wrote:
> > On Aug 23, 8:21 pm, Lew <email***@***.com> wrote:
> >> email***@***.com wrote:
> >>> Oh, and Lew, I now have evidence that Joe Attacki is a sock puppet of
> >>> yours. Not proof, mind you, but some circumstantial evidence. You both
> >>> posted via google groups and after a near-simultaneous transition now
> >> I don't use Google Groups. You couldn't pay me to use Google Groups.
>
> > Do you ever rest?
>
> > Anyway, I never said you did. I said you *used* to.
>
> I have never used Google Groups.

This does not correspond to my own memory, which I certainly trust
much more than I'm likely to ever trust you given your past and
present behavior towards me. Implying that I'm a liar for instance.

java-programmer >> Great SWT Program email***@***.com wrote:
> On Aug 23, 8:37 pm, Lew <email***@***.com> wrote:
>> email***@***.com wrote:
>>> On Aug 23, 8:21 pm, Lew <email***@***.com> wrote:
>>>> email***@***.com wrote:
>>>>> Oh, and Lew, I now have evidence that Joe Attacki is a sock puppet of
>>>>> yours. Not proof, mind you, but some circumstantial evidence. You both
>>>>> posted via google groups and after a near-simultaneous transition now
>>>> I don't use Google Groups. You couldn't pay me to use Google Groups.
>>> Do you ever rest?
>>> Anyway, I never said you did. I said you *used* to.
>> I have never used Google Groups.
>
> This does not correspond to my own memory, which I certainly trust
> much more than I'm likely to ever trust you given your past and
> present behavior towards me. Implying that I'm a liar for instance.

I'm not implying anything. Just letting you and everyone know that I've never
used Google Groups - a simple statement of fact. I use Thunderbird for my
newsreader and have done for many years.

--
Lew

java-programmer >> Great SWT Program
<email***@***.com> wrote in message
news:email***@***.com...
> On Aug 23, 6:49 pm, "Mike Schilling" <email***@***.com>
> wrote:
>> > On the other hand, your reaction does speak volumes about your guilty
>> > conscience. The duck that got shot quacks the loudest.
>>
>> I think that The Sopranos is a much better show than Everybody Loves
>> Raymond. Now claim I own HBO, you [insult deleted].
>
> Apples, oranges, and yes, the original topic was bananas into the
> bargain.
>
> Do you and Lew actively lurk and monitor the group continually for new
> posts so whenever you see one by me you can pounce on it instantly?

I do look for replies to message I've sent. If you don't want to be in that
list, you know what to do.

java-programmer >> Great SWT Program On Aug 23, 8:48 pm, Lew <email***@***.com> wrote:
[repeats self]

ENOUGH of this horseshit! If you have nothing original to say then
shut the hell up and let me get on with my evening.

java-programmer >> Great SWT Program
"Lew" <email***@***.com> wrote in message
news:email***@***.com...
> email***@***.com wrote:
>> Oh, and Lew, I now have evidence that Joe Attacki is a sock puppet of
>> yours. Not proof, mind you, but some circumstantial evidence. You both
>> posted via google groups and after a near-simultaneous transition now
>
> I don't use Google Groups. You couldn't pay me to use Google Groups.

We see right through you. Not only do you use Google Groups, you've hacked
it to set the header

User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.5 (X11/20070719)

java-programmer >> Great SWT Program
<email***@***.com> wrote in message
news:email***@***.com...
> On Aug 23, 6:56 pm, "Mike Schilling" <email***@***.com>
> wrote:
>> "I just found this great Thai restuarant downtown, but they charge for
>> the
>> food. Or, the Salvation Army runs a soup kitchen."
>
> That's a completely different matter.

How can I possibly argue with your points A, 2, and D?