Bundling VB Files?
in [Visual Studio]
|
Prev: hooking into a window and peeking/poking memory
Next: Mike Williams' ideal world (Was: Bundling VB Files?)
From: Mike Williams on 3 Aug 2010 12:13 "Tom Shelton" <tom_shelton(a)comcast.invalid> wrote in message news:i39chi$15s$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > When you actually have the athority to moderate this > unmoderated group or to more importantly decide > what is or is not vb - then I'll listen to what you have > to say. Until then... LOL... Well, the fact that it is unmoderated means that, as with all unmoderated groups, it eventually becomes infested with trolls such as yourself. Sad, but true. Mike
From: Tom Shelton on 3 Aug 2010 12:30 Mike Williams formulated on Tuesday : > "Tom Shelton" <tom_shelton(a)comcast.invalid> wrote in message > news:i39bib$sfv$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > >> And I'll say it once again... Visual Basic is a proprietary platform whose >> sysntax is >> soley owned by a single mega-corp. Because it is >> proprietary, on Microsoft gets to decide what is or is >> not Visual Basic - not you. Period. > > Well that in fact is part of the problem, and it is because consumer laws > regarding software are more than a quarter of a century behind consumer laws > regarding tangible goods and services. If a food company sold a product that > they called Micro$oft Curried Chicken and if after selling it for a number of > years they decided to reduce the amount of chicken and add something > different, perhaps pork belly and hog fat, and if they continued to call it > Microsoft Curried Chicken, or perhaps Micro$oft Curried Chicken 2008, then > they would be required to stop calling it by that name and they would find > themselves subject to heavy fines in a Court of Law, and in many countries > they would even face imprisonment if they continued to do it regardless. > Luckily, though, we here in the EU are working on that one. One day the > consumer laws regarding software will be brought into line with consumer laws > regarding other products. > Well, Goody for you. Still doesn't change the fact that VB is what MS says it is - not you. You might want to move to a language that is controled by an international standards body if this bugs you - like C++ or C# :) >> Your free to do that... And if I'm around and I feel >> like it - I'm going to answer their questions - since >> this is a VB group. > > That's because you are a troll and what you do is deliberately designed to > annoy people. No, Mike I'm here to help people. If that annoys you then to bad. -- Tom Shelton
From: Tom Shelton on 3 Aug 2010 12:32 It happens that Mike Williams formulated : > "Tom Shelton" <tom_shelton(a)comcast.invalid> wrote in message > news:i39chi$15s$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > >> When you actually have the athority to moderate this >> unmoderated group or to more importantly decide >> what is or is not vb - then I'll listen to what you have >> to say. Until then... LOL... > > Well, the fact that it is unmoderated means that, as with all unmoderated > groups, it eventually becomes infested with trolls such as yourself. Sad, but > true. Then kill file me and all is well - or continue with your childish tirades. Either way, makes no difference to me. -- Tom Shelton
From: Thorsten Albers on 3 Aug 2010 12:58 Mike Williams <Mike(a)WhiskyAndCoke.com> schrieb im Beitrag <i39d3k$o9l$1(a)speranza.aioe.org>... > It is abundantly clear that you, Mr Shelton, are here to deliberately cause > trouble, and it would appear that Dee Early is doing the same. I really > don't know what pleasure you trolls get out of deliberately annoying the > users of Classic VB and attempting to destroy their group, but I'm sure you > must get something out of it. It really is disgraceful behaviour. It makes > me feel like going to the pretend VB groups and forums and doing the same, > but I am trying hard to resist doing that. I just wish you dotnet trolls > would try as hard to resist annoying us. First of all: - I don't like VB.net - I don't think that VB.net has developed from VB.classic - I don't like how MS has tried to propagate the use of VB.net and has behaved as if there never has been a Visual Basic before But: I agree with Tom in that the charta of this group does >>not<< exclude VB.net. According to its name, its tag-line, and its charta this group is for 'Visual Basic' and 'Visual Basic for Applications'. And both VB.classic and VB.net have been named 'Visual Basic' by MS. If there are people who don't want to discuss VB.classic side-by-side with VB.net, they should start a RfD in order - to change the charta of this group, or - to create a new group comp.lang.basic.visual.classic, or - to create a new group comp.lang.basic.visual.net (or maybe comp.lang.cil.basic.visual or something alike) I would support that in the RfD discussion as well as in the CfV. -- Thorsten Albers albers (a) uni-freiburg.de
From: Tom Shelton on 3 Aug 2010 13:05
Thorsten Albers brought next idea : > Mike Williams <Mike(a)WhiskyAndCoke.com> schrieb im Beitrag > <i39d3k$o9l$1(a)speranza.aioe.org>... >> It is abundantly clear that you, Mr Shelton, are here to deliberately cause >> trouble, and it would appear that Dee Early is doing the same. I really >> don't know what pleasure you trolls get out of deliberately annoying the >> users of Classic VB and attempting to destroy their group, but I'm sure you >> must get something out of it. It really is disgraceful behaviour. It makes >> me feel like going to the pretend VB groups and forums and doing the same, >> but I am trying hard to resist doing that. I just wish you dotnet trolls >> would try as hard to resist annoying us. > > First of all: > > - I don't like VB.net > - I don't think that VB.net has developed from VB.classic > - I don't like how MS has tried to propagate the use of VB.net and has > behaved as if there never has been a Visual Basic before > > But: > > I agree with Tom in that the charta of this group does >>not<< exclude > VB.net. According to its name, its tag-line, and its charta this group is > for 'Visual Basic' and 'Visual Basic for Applications'. And both VB.classic > and VB.net have been named 'Visual Basic' by MS. > > If there are people who don't want to discuss VB.classic side-by-side with > VB.net, they should start a RfD in order > - to change the charta of this group, or > - to create a new group comp.lang.basic.visual.classic, or > - to create a new group comp.lang.basic.visual.net > (or maybe comp.lang.cil.basic.visual or something alike) > > I would support that in the RfD discussion as well as in the CfV. I would also support this. -- Tom Shelton |