Re: Generic Delegate Types explained (example)

**Peter Duniho** · Aug 18 '08, 05:05 PM

Re: Generic Delegate Types explained (example)

On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 09:17:48 -0700, raylopez99 <raylopez99@yah oo.com>
wrote:

On Aug 18, 2:45Â am, "Jon Skeet [C# MVP]" <sk...@pobox.co mwrote:
>

>>
>Ask an honest question in an honest way, without pretending to know
>more than you do, and I'll respond. Take the ridiculous tone you've
>taken in the past, and I'll ignore it.
>>

>
WHy do you value honesty? What an as s. Perhaps it's your myopic
'anglo-saxon' mindset.

Actually, it's a sign of maturity and integrity.

There's a world of things you, a twenty-
something, has to learn before you get off your high horse--do some
traveling outside of your merry old England and learn about different
cultures.

I don't know whether Jon would even bother to address that ridiculous
statement of yours, but suffice to say: he's got far more "worldly"
experience than you are likely ever to have.

Where I'm posting from, acting honest all the time is the
sign of an idiot or child, who typically are said to 'speak the
truth' (to their detriment).

Where you're posting from? And where would that be? Federal prison? A
halfway-house for feral children? A terrorist training camp? Because it
sure isn't any place that has any notion of civilized behavior.

Your IP address suggests you're posting from Greece, but none of the Greek
people I've met over the years have exhibited the kind of sociopathy,
self-aggrandizement, egomania, and blissful ignorance that you do here.
Unless you're actually in one of the aforementioned facilities, or
something like them, there is no way that your behavior is considered
acceptable or normal, even by those around you.

[...]
If I never hear from you again Jon, it's not a great loss.
Just .killfile me and be done with it.

Frankly, it is beyond me why anyone has been willing to continue
responding to you as long as they have. You demonstrated a long time ago
your inability to understand the limitations of your understanding, never
mind to be able to learn anything new that would help that understanding,
and your vast capacity for self-delusion and argumentativene ss based on
same.

Others have been very patient with you, trying to help guide you to an
understanding of the technical issues you get wrong time and time again,
but you're obviously immune to that.

And it's ludicrous that you
suggest to others what to do--are they part of your but kissing
posse? LOL. At least Marc Gravell answers my posts with specific
examples instead of just 'preaching' in your 'guess the magic number'
style.

Jon and Marc have _both_ been very patient with you, trying to take your
posts seriously and answering them in kind. You have no appreciation for
that, and it's pretty clear you've worn out your welcome. As you know,
you exhausted my patience with you long ago, as I have very little of it
to start with when it comes to dealing with fools. Jon's and Marc's
patience and maturity exceeds my own, but even they have their limits and
they've been in this muck you've been throwing about for a long time
already.

I seriously doubt that Marc is going to be investing much more effort in
responding to you either.

It's unfortunate that you've now managed to sucker GÃ¶ran, Arne, and Jeroen
(to name a few). My recollection is that they haven't been as involved in
threads with you in the past, and so they may not be so close to
exhausting their patience. It's my hope that they'll see what's going on
and not wait until they're fed up to just stop bothering with you.

Even in rejecting you, Jon's showed more tolerance than I would. He
clearly is open to resuming discussion with you if and when you start
behaving yourself.

I'll go one further: I believe this newsgroup will be best served if no
one ever responds to any post you make ever again. Even if you make a
post now and again that is civil and sensible, I do not believe you are
capable of reform and it's clear you will continue to willfully be
disruptive and dishonest. We just don't need that kind of behavior around
here. Nothing short of an unequivocable, contrite and sincere apology for
your behavior and a promise to never again act that way would justify any
response from anyone here.

Pete

**Chris Dunaway** · Aug 18 '08, 06:25 PM

Re: Generic Delegate Types explained (example)

On Aug 18, 12:04 pm, "Peter Duniho" <NpOeStPe...@nn owslpianmk.com>
wrote:

I'll go one further: I believe this newsgroup will be best served if no
one ever responds to any post you make ever again. Even if you make a

But that could be dangerous too. The first line he wrote in this
thread was:

<quote>
Here is a good example that shows generic delegate types.
</quote>

And Jon and Goran and others have shown that not to be the case.
Sometimes you have to refute a post, even if you know it will result
in a long discussion like this one. Without some sort of refutation,
those who come here to learn (like me) might get some erroneous
information.

Chris

**Paul E Collins** · Aug 18 '08, 07:05 PM

Re: Generic Delegate Types explained (example)

"Peter Duniho" <NpOeStPeAdM@nn owslpianmk.comw rote:

Frankly, it is beyond me why anyone has been willing to continue
responding to you as long as they have.

So take the hint and killfile him already. You certainly won't be the only
one.

Eq.

**raylopez99** · Aug 18 '08, 08:35 PM

Re: Generic Delegate Types explained (example)

On Aug 18, 11:23 am, Chris Dunaway <dunaw...@gmail .comwrote:

And Jon and Goran and others have shown that not to be the case.
Sometimes you have to refute a post, even if you know it will result
in a long discussion like this one. Without some sort of refutation,
those who come here to learn (like me) might get some erroneous
information.
>
Chris

There was no refutation. Simply put, a workaround I suggested was
sufficient to solve the problem, but Marc suggested another
workaround, and I implemented it and it also works (note the return
type was also changed from 'void' to 'T').

It's part of the lerning process.

RL

**raylopez99** · Aug 18 '08, 09:05 PM

Re: Generic Delegate Types explained (example)

On Aug 18, 10:04 am, "Peter Duniho" <NpOeStPe...@nn owslpianmk.com>
wrote:

WHy do you value honesty? What an as s. Perhaps it's your myopic
'anglo-saxon' mindset.

>
Actually, it's a sign of maturity and integrity.

No, it's a sign of the environment he posts in--he's in the UK, where
they try and maintain such a patina of 'honesty' as part of their
culture (never mind behind closed doors they are as dishonest as the
rest of us). "Honesty is the best policy" (not). His employers,
Sergey and Larry, from one of the most disingenuous countries on earth
(like the Balkans, and cut from the same cloth) don't believe in
integrity--'do no evil' is a marketing ploy for Anglo-Saxons fairy
tale believers--maybe that's why they are so successful; Russian
expats are #1 in the world on a per capita basis for wealth.

>

There's a world of things you, a twenty-
something, has to learn before you get off your high horse--do some
traveling outside of your merry old England and learn about different
cultures.

>
I don't know whether Jon would even bother to address that ridiculous
statement of yours, but suffice to say: he's got far more "worldly"
experience than you are likely ever to have.

You seem to know him pretty well, for somebody who has probably never
met him in person and relies on his online persona. From his
incessant postings 24/7 he might be a real intolerable geek in the
flesh. His wife would know, not you.

>

Where I'm posting from, acting honest all the time is the
sign of an idiot or child, who typically are said to 'speak the
truth' (to their detriment).

>
Where you're posting from? And where would that be? Federal prison? A
halfway-house for feral children? A terrorist training camp? Because it
sure isn't any place that has any notion of civilized behavior.
>
Your IP address suggests you're posting from Greece, but none of the Greek
people I've met over the years have exhibited the kind of sociopathy,
self-aggrandizement, egomania, and blissful ignorance that you do here.

Well you should get out more. "None"? C'mon. All of human activity
is scaled; there are no 'good guys' and 'bad guys' in races, unless
you are a racist. You racist Pete?

Unless you're actually in one of the aforementioned facilities, or
something like them, there is no way that your behavior is considered
acceptable or normal, even by those around you.

It's perfectly normal, even respectable, in unmoderated Usenet groups.

>

[...]
If I never hear from you again Jon, it's not a great loss.
Just .killfile me and be done with it.

>
Frankly, it is beyond me why anyone has been willing to continue
responding to you as long as they have. You demonstrated a long time ago
your inability to understand the limitations of your understanding, never
mind to be able to learn anything new that would help that understanding,
and your vast capacity for self-delusion and argumentativene ss based on
same.

No, I post good stuff. You by contrast talk down to people and drive
them away. I notice besides the 'regulars' who largely talk to each
other about trivial stuff, the only people who post here are
programmers who temporarily run into a bug they can't fix--and this
forum becomes a resource of last resort. In a day or two, often the
OP find a solution to their problem, with no help from anybody here,
and post their solution. There's no glory in fixing bugs for
anonymous strangers. By contrast, I provide real value--not only
asking the important questions, but often providing solutions to my
own questions for future generations. While I appreciate your input
(you seem to know a tad more about C# than I do), if you choose to
debug other's code rather than help me, that's your choice, and this
forum will simply degenerate further into a place to get bug fixes
(aside from the advert spam for selling shoes, designer clothes, etc,
which strangely this newsgroup is thankfully so far free of).

>
Others have been very patient with you, trying to help guide you to an
understanding of the technical issues you get wrong time and time again,
but you're obviously immune to that.
>

No, I've made good progress in understanding C#, thanks to my books,
online help, and even a few people here. I figure I knew 60% of C#
before I posted here, and now I know 80%, a few months later. The
remainder is always more difficult, a sort of asymptotic curve, but
you get most utility from the first 80% and less from the remaining
20% (the 80/20 rule), with 100% taking a lifetime to achieve and often
not worth the effort.

>
Jon and Marc have _both_ been very patient with you, trying to take your
posts seriously and answering them in kind. You have no appreciation for
that, and it's pretty clear you've worn out your welcome.

No I doubt it. My welcome is still warm. If it gets too cold, I can
always change monikers, but I'm too lazy to do that.

As you know,
you exhausted my patience with you long ago, as I have very little of it
to start with when it comes to dealing with fools.

Ah, I see. You suffer no fools gladly, like Great Men throughout the
ages (snicker, snicker...what a fool).

> Jon's and Marc's
patience and maturity exceeds my own, but even they have their limits and
they've been in this muck you've been throwing about for a long time
already.

So you admit to being immature? Noted.

>
I seriously doubt that Marc is going to be investing much more effort in
responding to you either.

Why, did you send him an email in private asking him to boycott me?
You'd make a mean maven in a coffee klatch, you hostess with the
mostest.

>
It's unfortunate that you've now managed to sucker Göran, Arne, and Jeroen
(to name a few). My recollection is that they haven't been as involvedin
threads with you in the past, and so they may not be so close to
exhausting their patience. It's my hope that they'll see what's going on
and not wait until they're fed up to just stop bothering with you.

No, PT Barnum said there's a sucker born every minute. And a Good
Samaritan. Plus they might be learning as much teaching newbies like
me as I am learning from them. Something about the teacher learning
from teaching comes to mind.

>
Even in rejecting you, Jon's showed more tolerance than I would. He
clearly is open to resuming discussion with you if and when you start
behaving yourself.

"Clearly"? How do you know so much? You sure you're not Jon posting
with another name? What a rhetorical fool you are.

>
I'll go one further: I believe this newsgroup will be best served if no
one ever responds to any post you make ever again.

Good. Killfile me and good riddance (for the both of us). Your
replies largely are worthless most of the time anyway.

Even if you make a
post now and again that is civil and sensible, I do not believe you are
capable of reform and it's clear you will continue to willfully be
disruptive and dishonest. We just don't need that kind of behavior around
here. Nothing short of an unequivocable, contrite and sincere apology for
your behavior and a promise to never again act that way would justify any
response from anyone here.

OK, OK. "I'm sorry, sincerely, and contritely". Good enuf? Nuff
said.

RL

**Peter Duniho** · Aug 18 '08, 11:25 PM

Re: Generic Delegate Types explained (example)

On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 11:23:07 -0700, Chris Dunaway <dunawayc@gmail .com>
wrote:

[...]
Sometimes you have to refute a post, even if you know it will result
in a long discussion like this one. Without some sort of refutation,
those who come here to learn (like me) might get some erroneous
information.

I'm of a mixed mind on the topic. For sure, there is no need to reply
with anything other than "that post was entirely incorrect". An extended
discussion is not necessary.

But beyond that, this is an unmoderated forum and readers _should_ be
taking care to consider the source when reading a post. There is already
ample evidence that Ray doesn't have a clue about C#, and any reader
paying attention should be able to pick up on that easily just by reading
past threads that involve him.

The real problem is that responding to the trolling posts just encourages
the troll. Even if all you say is "that was entirely incorrect", that
provides an opportunity to the troll for him to respond with another
post. People need the intestinal fortitude to just let him post
ridiculous things, and trust that they are so ridiculous that any reader
paying attention will recognize them as ridiculous.

I agree with you that there is some risk that some people will be misled.
But there's a lot of great content in this newsgroup if you ignore Ray's
additions, and anyone having trouble trying to figure out something Ray
might have suggested can be quickly brough back on track if and when they
post a follow-up question that someone who knows what they're talking
about can help with.

I don't have any solid proof, but it's my belief that the risk to the
quality of the newsgroup related to replying is greater than that related
to not replying. In the long run, I believe we'll be better off not
replying at all.

Pete

**raylopez99** · Aug 18 '08, 11:45 PM

Re: Generic Delegate Types explained (example)

On Aug 18, 4:25 pm, "Peter Duniho" <NpOeStPe...@nn owslpianmk.com>
wrote:

On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 11:23:07 -0700, Chris Dunaway <dunaw...@gmail .com
wrote:
>

[...]
Sometimes you have to refute a post, even if you know it will result
in a long discussion like this one. Without some sort of refutation,
those who come here to learn (like me) might get some erroneous
information.

>
I'm of a mixed mind on the topic. For sure, there is no need to reply
with anything other than "that post was entirely incorrect". An extended
discussion is not necessary.

Your assumption is flawed: that my OP was troll bait. It was not. I
was learning about generic delegate types, and I actually learned a
lot (and so would others) by doing the exercise I posted. A beginner
would learn a lot too. And it's not found in any textbook. Often the
textbooks have a lame example where something, like an int, is being
squared. By contrast, I showed not just an int, but how to write for
an object, even if the delegate template returns "void" and still get
the job done, and, with the help of Marc, how to modify the delegate
template to work. Invaluable, not at all a troll post. But, having
said that, my original (troll) intuition was correct: try and avoid
generic delegates when possible--they just confuse your code.

>
But beyond that, this is an unmoderated forum and readers _should_ be
taking care to consider the source when reading a post. There is already
ample evidence that Ray doesn't have a clue about C#, and any reader
paying attention should be able to pick up on that easily just by reading
past threads that involve him.

Not true. I have a big clue about C#, and have written useful
programs even last year. this year I'm even more proficient. Again,
you're talking down to me and the reader. You teach perhaps? Sounds
like a junior lecturer at some community college that thinks he knows
it all.

>
The real problem is that responding to the trolling posts just encourages
the troll. Even if all you say is "that was entirely incorrect", that
provides an opportunity to the troll for him to respond with another
post. People need the intestinal fortitude to just let him post
ridiculous things, and trust that they are so ridiculous that any reader
paying attention will recognize them as ridiculous.

Well, let's see if you practice what you preach--I just left an
innocent comment on your blog about some redundant programming
exercise you wrote on text boxes and reinventing the same--let's see
if you post it.

>
I agree with you that there is some risk that some people will be misled.
But there's a lot of great content in this newsgroup if you ignore Ray's
additions, and anyone having trouble trying to figure out something Ray
might have suggested can be quickly brough back on track if and when they
post a follow-up question that someone who knows what they're talking
about can help with.

That's assuming people ignore your suggestion that I be boycotted. I
guess you haven't thought that through, kinda like your code. Unless
you suggest people only reply to people replying to my posts. Don't
know how you can configure your .kill file newsreader to do that
without missing the original post and losing context, but I guess it's
possible.

>
I don't have any solid proof, but it's my belief that the risk to the
quality of the newsgroup related to replying is greater than that related
to not replying. In the long run, I believe we'll be better off not
replying at all.
>

You seem to contradict your previous paragraph. Guess your state of
mind is unstable?

RL

Re: Generic Delegate Types explained (example)

Re: Generic Delegate Types explained (example)

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment