the MI 5 spammer

java-programmer, the MI 5 spammer email***@***.com wrote:
> Incorrect. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied
> about me are at all true.
Does this mean you still accuse me of hacking OpenOffice.org's mailing
lists? What a hoot!

java-programmer >> the MI 5 spammer email***@***.com wrote:
> Incorrect. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied
> about me are at all true.
Does this mean you still accuse me of hacking OpenOffice.org's mailing
lists? What a hoot!

java-programmer >> the MI 5 spammer On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 10:51:52 -0500, Lew <email***@***.com> wrote,
quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :

>What does Thunderbird's newsgroup filtering lack that makes you so harsh?

I use Forte Agent. It is not so capable.
--
Roedy Green Canadian Mind Products
The Java Glossary
http://mindprod.com

java-programmer >> the MI 5 spammer Roedy Green wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 10:51:52 -0500, Lew <email***@***.com> wrote,
> quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :
>
>> What does Thunderbird's newsgroup filtering lack that makes you so harsh?
>
> I use Forte Agent. It is not so capable.
>
I used Agent when I ran Windows and now use Thunderbird because its the
best Linux newsreader I've found so far.

I'd agree that TB may well be better than Agent as a mail client
(Agent's non-support of nested mailboxes didn't suit me at all) but for
me Agent is considerably better than TB for handling newsgroups because:
- it allows wild cards in filters
- you can set a new filter and then force a rescan on the ng to dump a
new pest without having to skip his tedium in the rest of the ng
- I never saw the sort of deletion-related thread collapse I described
above
- it has considerably more flexible ways of specifying when to discard
a post based on its age, service residence, etc
- it has the ability to lock specific posts, which prevents their
age-related deletion.

--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

java-programmer >> the MI 5 spammer On Jan 3, 4:46 pm, Joe Attardi <email***@***.com> wrote:
> [implied insult deleted]

None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.

java-programmer >> the MI 5 spammer On Jan 5, 1:41 pm, Martin Gregorie <email***@***.com> wrote:
> My only real quibble with TB is the structural c.l.j.p. collapse that
> resulted when I set "delete" filters on the three aliases used by
> [insults deleted]

None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.

java-programmer >> the MI 5 spammer email***@***.com <email***@***.com> wrote:
> On Jan 5, 1:41 pm, Martin Gregorie <email***@***.com> wrote:
>> My only real quibble with TB is the structural c.l.j.p. collapse that
>> resulted when I set "delete" filters on the three aliases used by
<< fragrant, verbally overflowing friend.
> None of the nasty things ...

Interesting to see, that you identified yourself with that description.

java-programmer >> the MI 5 spammer Andreas Leitgeb wrote:
> Interesting to see, that you identified yourself with that description.

More interestingly, this is the second time he's done so!

java-programmer >> the MI 5 spammer On Jan 7, 1:37 am, Andreas Leitgeb <email***@***.com>
wrote:
> [misquotes me]

Do not misquote me again. Your post contained supposed "quoted
material" that did not occur in the post that you followed up to nor
summarize material that did. That is incorrect. Stop being dishonest.

> [implied insult deleted]

None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.

java-programmer >> the MI 5 spammer On Jan 7, 9:33 am, Joe Attardi <email***@***.com> wrote:
> Andreas Leitgeb wrote:
> > [implied insult deleted]
>
> [implied insult deleted]

None of the nasty things that either of you have said or implied about
me are at all true.

java-programmer >> the MI 5 spammer email***@***.com wrote:
>> [implied insult deleted]
What implied insult? I stated that you twice responded to something not
mentioning you by name with your boilerplate response, which anyone who
can read the group can plainly see...

> None of the nasty things that either of you have said or implied about
> me are at all true.
Except in this case it is true.

java-programmer >> the MI 5 spammer email***@***.com <email***@***.com> wrote:
> On Jan 7, 1:37 am, Andreas Leitgeb <email***@***.com> wrote:

Snipped context restored:
<< << fragrant, verbally overflowing friend.
<< > None of the nasty things ...
<< Interesting to see, that you identified yourself with that description.

> Do not misquote me again. Your post contained supposed "quoted
> material" that did not occur in the post that you followed up to nor
> summarize material that did.

It's not indented by '>', so it's not even implied to have been in your
previous posting, and where I get my cites else from is my own choice.

Anyway, you most obviously *did* take the mention of a "fragrant, verbally
overflowing friend" as referring to you, although your name wasn't mentioned.

java-programmer >> the MI 5 spammer Joe Attardi wrote:
> email***@***.com wrote:
>>> [implied insult deleted]
> What implied insult? I stated that you twice responded to something not
> mentioning you by name with your boilerplate response, which anyone who
> can read the group can plainly see...
>
>> None of the nasty things that either of you have said or implied about
>> me are at all true.
> Except in this case it is true.

OK, now you've destroyed this thread.

--
Lew

java-programmer >> the MI 5 spammer Andreas Leitgeb wrote:
> email***@***.com <email***@***.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 7, 1:37 am, Andreas Leitgeb <email***@***.com> wrote:
>
> Snipped context restored:
> << << fragrant, verbally overflowing friend.
> << > None of the nasty things ...
> << Interesting to see, that you identified yourself with that description.
>
>> Do not misquote me again. Your post contained supposed "quoted
>> material" that did not occur in the post that you followed up to nor
>> summarize material that did.
>
> It's not indented by '>', so it's not even implied to have been in your
> previous posting, and where I get my cites else from is my own choice.
>
> Anyway, you most obviously *did* take the mention of a "fragrant, verbally
> overflowing friend" as referring to you, although your name wasn't mentioned.

OK, now you've destroyed another thread.

--
Lew

java-programmer >> the MI 5 spammer Lew <email***@***.com> wrote:
> OK, now you've destroyed another thread.

You're right, and it was more of a "scnr", than anything
else, but as an afterthought, this being the "MI5..."
thread, the damage isn't all that high.

java-programmer >> the MI 5 spammer Andreas Leitgeb wrote:
> Lew <email***@***.com> wrote:
>> OK, now you've destroyed another thread.
>
> You're right, and it was more of a "scnr", than anything
> else, but as an afterthought, this being the "MI5..."
> thread, the damage isn't all that high.

True, but it had been entertaining.

--
Lew

java-programmer >> the MI 5 spammer Lew <email***@***.com> wrote:
> Andreas Leitgeb wrote:
>> Lew <email***@***.com> wrote:
>>> OK, now you've destroyed another thread.
>> You're right, and it was more of a "scnr", than anything
>> else, but as an afterthought, this being the "MI5..."
>> thread, the damage isn't all that high.
> True, but it had been entertaining.

It's rather likely, that its entertaining qualities are going
to go further up, now, at the cost of any informational qualities
the thread might have had before.

java-programmer >> the MI 5 spammer Andreas Leitgeb wrote:
> It's rather likely, that its entertaining qualities are going
> to go further up, now, at the cost of any informational qualities
> the thread might have had before.

I find your optimism and good spirits to be quite engaging.

Speaking of information, I've been thinking about how so many people describe
anonymous class syntax as "ugly", especially when there are helper methods
involved.

I actually like anonymous class syntax.

Am I just weird? No, there is definitely more to it than that.

There is an aesthetic as a maintenance programmer more than as an original
author. That means structures that may be annoying to write, or to write
around such as checked Exceptions, are a true comfort to the sweep-up person.

Anonymous classes, particularly in their main use case of single-method,
no-arg constructed functors like Runnable, provide a locality of reference to
one-off logic that offsets the psychic diversion from logic to declaration
with nested logic. Even that diversion is part of the linguistic experience
of source-code reading, like an appositive (or even parenthetical) remark -
the very interruption and subsequent resumption of the cognitive thread helps
structure one's understanding.

The aesthetic that calls that "ugly" perhaps is more linear - resentful of
side roads. Ironically this leads to idioms that separate the declaration so
far from the logic that it becomes a more egregious interruption, following
separate class definitions or even files.

With a little practice anonymous class definitions are really a breeze to read
and use, and well worth it. It's sort of like learning to read Charles
Dickens when you've been weaned on Stephen King. There is a point to all that
wordiness.

--
Lew

java-programmer >> the MI 5 spammer Lew <email***@***.com> wrote:
> Andreas Leitgeb wrote:
>> It's rather likely, that its entertaining qualities are going
>> to go further up, now, at the cost of any informational qualities
>> the thread might have had before.
> I find your optimism and good spirits to be quite engaging.

It seems you don't follow the "SWT..." mega thread.
I'd say it's less a matter of "optimism" than of "experience" :-)

Of course, this prognose can be easily thwarped by randomly
introducing a new topic into this thread:

> Speaking of information, I've been thinking about how so many people describe
> anonymous class syntax as "ugly", especially when there are helper methods
> involved.
> I actually like anonymous class syntax.

I actually do find it ugly, but I like the concept behind it, and
furthermore, I have no idea, how to do it better (for my particular
personal definition of "better").

> Am I just weird? No, there is definitely more to it than that.

I wouldn't dare to judge your weirdness :-)

> There is an aesthetic as a maintenance programmer more than as an original
> author. That means structures that may be annoying to write, or to write
> around such as checked Exceptions, are a true comfort to the sweep-up person.

That's true, but in many cases I'd think that a better compromise would still
be a bit nearer to the "original author"-side. That is: some less
typing woudl do more good to the author than hurt the maintainer.

> Anonymous classes, particularly in their main use case of single-method,
> no-arg constructed functors like Runnable, provide a locality of reference to
> one-off logic that offsets the psychic diversion from logic to declaration
> with nested logic.

This almost beats my english.

Having that extra "public void run() {" is, what I do dislike about
current state (but whose change I'm not holding my breath for).

When reading code, it irritates me to find a nested method-declaration
(which generally sticks out more than the preceding "new Interface() {").

> Even that diversion is part of the linguistic experience
> of source-code reading, like an appositive (or even parenthetical) remark -
> the very interruption and subsequent resumption of the cognitive thread helps
> structure one's understanding.

I find that it distracts me into a syntactic extra level. As if
stack-levels in brain weren't generally a scarce ressource :-)

> The aesthetic that calls that "ugly" perhaps is more linear - resentful of
> side roads. Ironically this leads to idioms that separate the declaration so
> far from the logic that it becomes a more egregious interruption, following
> separate class definitions or even files.

I see this consequence to be not at all interrupting. Not more than
normal calling of methods implemented elsewhere.

> With a little practice anonymous class definitions are really a breeze to read
> and use, and well worth it. It's sort of like learning to read Charles
> Dickens when you've been weaned on Stephen King. There is a point to all that
> wordiness.

I'm spoilt from C's philosophy, where anything longer than "strrchr()",
"puts(...)" and "main() { ... }" is source-bloat. :-)

java-programmer >> the MI 5 spammer Andreas Leitgeb wrote:
> It seems you don't follow the "SWT..." mega thread.
> I'd say it's less a matter of "optimism" than of "experience" :-)

Not only do I not follow it, I suppressed it from my newsreader a couple of
months ago. I am so sick of that nonsense, or was back then - I have no idea
what's transpired in it since, but I strongly suspect it remains as useless to
me now as it was then.

--
Lew

java-programmer >> the MI 5 spammer Lew <email***@***.com> wrote:
> Andreas Leitgeb wrote:
>> It seems you don't follow the "SWT..." mega thread.
>> I'd say it's less a matter of "optimism" than of "experience" :-)
>
> Not only do I not follow it, I suppressed it from my newsreader a couple of
> months ago. I am so sick of that nonsense, or was back then - I have no idea
> what's transpired in it since, but I strongly suspect it remains as useless to
> me now as it was then.

If you haven't yet changed your preferences for that type of entertainment, then
your back-then choice is still the one I'd recommend to you, now.

Be prepared to suppress this thread as well, from your newsreader, once
the show starts. (That is: once some particular loony finds his way back
to this thread)

java-programmer >> the MI 5 spammer Andreas Leitgeb wrote:
> Lew <email***@***.com> wrote:
>> Andreas Leitgeb wrote:
>>> It seems you don't follow the "SWT..." mega thread.
>>> I'd say it's less a matter of "optimism" than of "experience" :-)
>>
>> Not only do I not follow it, I suppressed it from my newsreader a couple of
>> months ago. I am so sick of that nonsense, or was back then - I have no idea
>> what's transpired in it since, but I strongly suspect it remains as useless to
>> me now as it was then.
>
> If you haven't yet changed your preferences for that type of entertainment, then
> your back-then choice is still the one I'd recommend to you, now.
>
> Be prepared to suppress this thread as well, from your newsreader, once
> the show starts.

Given that this thread isn't likely to provide any more opportunities
for entertainment than the Great SWT Program thread, it would probably
be polite to refrain from encouraging him in this one.