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: Kevin Provance on 4 Aug 2010 12:53 "Thorsten Albers" <albersSKIP(a)THISuni-freiburg.de> wrote in message news:01cb33d0$4ae0c610$8901a8c0(a)thalk8s8x... : > the charter is just a lot of hot air to no purpose. : : The charta, and >>only the charta<< specifies what is on-topic in an : unmoderated group. Neither the participants in this group nor the big8 : moderators may decide what is on-topic in this group, only the charta which : has been established by a democratic polling act in the prescribed way : (RfD, CfV). <snip> Unfortunatly, the men in charge of the charter and the FAQ are dead or have long disappeared and no successor was named...so getting some resolution on this will take some time. Not to worry, the goal is twofold. 1) Have the charter updated to exclude dot next as ms has already set up a "superior and feature rich" forum for their questions, citing the only appripriate response is redirection only, or 2) have a classic vb group created and let this group fall prey to the dot next evengelists. But as I said before, they don't really want this group, they want the right to try and stomp the classic community out, as directed by their puppet string puller, MSFT. Once the charter is updated or a new group is established, it's going to clip their wings in a big way. And you can bet your bottom dollar I'm going to be heavily involved in whatever is best for the classic vb community, even if I have to rewrite the charter and/or the FAQ myself. All in all, I'd prefer a new group for classic vb, specifically so the dot next heads can be slapped down as needed when the attempt their typical invasion. And Tom, if you haven't noticed, I ignore your replies. It's a habit I've picked up over the years when dealing with trolls and bullies that tends to irk them...they can flap their lips all they want, but I never read or acknowledge it...so chances are I won't read any reply to this. But, you're notion that the successful combination of both versions is wrong and incorrect. Multiple versions of COM VB and VB were always in common because they shared the same syntax and engine (you know, COM). VB6 was the last VB. dot next has nothing to do with VB, no matter how much you squawk that it is. It's based on the next flamework, which is NOT COM. The syntax is not even remotely the same. More people have acknowledged this than not. You weak argument that because MSFT kept the VB name and slapped it on a different product does not hold water in this instance, where forums can support both "versions" as you put it, or as realists would put it, different languages. Delphi has more in common with VB than dot next does. I've used both, so I can make that claim. It's the same foolish belief that this country (America for you over the pond'ers) can become a bilingual nation so all the illegals are made to feel welcome and Dems can pander to the latino vote (now replace terms comparable to this situation). It isn't working, it's dividing the nation and creating hate and animosity, another parallel. The vb classic community doesn't much care for you dot next evangelists and you guys don't want us to even exists on the orders of your master. You know why the combination works in Dee's community (which I've visited on several occasions), one, it's smaller than Usenet, and two it's moderated. I personally believe Dee is not biased one way or the other, and that's why what works for them works. That kind of unbias does not exist here, on Usenet...which is why we need separation. Dee's suggestion, while a great one about tagging the questions with the language won't work *here*. The charter and the FAQ do not state or specify it, and those wandering through don't know to do it, and trolls from the next community will ignore it to start trouble, so it's a moot suggestion. If you were any kind of open minded free thinking individual (a stretch, I know), you would accept the fact the MSFT abondoned classic VB and gave you dot next heads your web forum. If you truly had no bias, which I do not believe for a second, you would accept that as fact as say "well, ok, we do have our own community that MSFT provided for us, while they did kick the classic vb community to the curb, on many levels...we should just let that community thrive on whatever usenet group they land in and allow them to redirect next questions to our web forum as needed, without all the bias". If you and your commrades would agree to this, you mind find our community would as well, and there would be PEACE. But since that is the last thing you obviously want, you continue to antagonize, as others besides Mike and I have pointed out. So let the community ponder that. This could all be resolved if *you* and your kind would agree to what is a very fair compromise. You won't, and have a zillion reasons why, all of which are the usual MSFT written bullshit to conquer the universe, you know "we want our web forum AND usenet, even tho we axed our server...we still want control of it all". Or, keep doing what you've been doing, and I'll get satisfaction the old fashioned way and get that charter rewritten...but either way, we're going to get our own place where your dot next ways will not be wanted or welcome. You should accept that as quickly as you accepted the way MSFT shoved dot next up your crawl.
From: Hojo Norem on 4 Aug 2010 12:54 On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 07:53:00 -0600, Tom Shelton wrote: > Hojo Norem expressed precisely : >> On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 20:40:11 -0600, Tom Shelton wrote: >> <KA-SNIP> >> Its just >> a shame that today you decline to follow the example you set for yourself >> back then: >> > > Back then, there was an alternative, so I went along with the feelings > of the majority. The msgroups have now been closed. And while they > still exist on servers other then MS - they are fast becomming a ghost > town. > > So, since the ms groups are becomming a not so valid option on usnet - > this is the only place in the usnet hiearchy left. If and when the > charter is changed or language specific groups are in place... Here we > are. Wow. You must use some shitty newsserver then because I just checked mine, one supplied by my ISP, and my newsreader sees it there plain as day... with posts no older than about 30 mins (of me posting this one). Certainly active. I suggest you find yourself a new newsserver or report to your current on e that is has a problem with it's group retention (or something like that). -- how many Slanneshi Cultists does it take to screw in a lightbulb? Well, two, of course, but don't ask me how they got in there. Please change 'no.spam' to 'jcomcp.plus' to reply. -- jcom.shorturl.com -- www.youtube.com/hojonorem --
From: Tom Shelton on 4 Aug 2010 13:16 Hojo Norem formulated the question : > On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 07:53:00 -0600, Tom Shelton wrote: > >> Hojo Norem expressed precisely : >>> On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 20:40:11 -0600, Tom Shelton wrote: >>> > <KA-SNIP> >>> Its just >>> a shame that today you decline to follow the example you set for yourself >>> back then: >>> >> >> Back then, there was an alternative, so I went along with the feelings >> of the majority. The msgroups have now been closed. And while they >> still exist on servers other then MS - they are fast becomming a ghost >> town. >> >> So, since the ms groups are becomming a not so valid option on usnet - >> this is the only place in the usnet hiearchy left. If and when the >> charter is changed or language specific groups are in place... Here we >> are. > > Wow. You must use some shitty newsserver then because I just checked mine, > one supplied by my ISP, and my newsreader sees it there plain as day... with > posts no older than about 30 mins (of me posting this one). Certainly > active. > > I suggest you find yourself a new newsserver or report to your current on e > that is has a problem with it's group retention (or something like that). I did not say I could not see it. I said it is becomming much less active. And with the state of usnet service in the US, and the apparent ignorance of the current usnet generation that their are alternative services, it is exactly as I suspected. Most major US ISP's do not supply usnet access anymore - not since 2008. Those that do, are limiting access to big8 only. As evidence - almost every thread in the last few days on the ms group has had the same op.... I really don't expect this group to get anymore active either now... but, I'm monitoring it just in case. -- Tom Shelton
From: Tom Shelton on 4 Aug 2010 13:19 on 8/4/2010, Kevin Provance supposed : > "Thorsten Albers" <albersSKIP(a)THISuni-freiburg.de> wrote in message > news:01cb33d0$4ae0c610$8901a8c0(a)thalk8s8x... >>> the charter is just a lot of hot air to no purpose. >> >> The charta, and >>only the charta<< specifies what is on-topic in an >> unmoderated group. Neither the participants in this group nor the big8 >> moderators may decide what is on-topic in this group, only the charta which >> has been established by a democratic polling act in the prescribed way >> (RfD, CfV). > > <snip> > > Unfortunatly, the men in charge of the charter and the FAQ are dead or have > long disappeared and no successor was named...so getting some resolution on > this will take some time. Not to worry, the goal is twofold. 1) Have the > charter updated to exclude dot next as ms has already set up a "superior and > feature rich" forum for their questions, citing the only appripriate > response is redirection only, or 2) have a classic vb group created and let > this group fall prey to the dot next evengelists. But as I said before, > they don't really want this group, they want the right to try and stomp the > classic community out, as directed by their puppet string puller, MSFT. > Once the charter is updated or a new group is established, it's going to > clip their wings in a big way. > > And you can bet your bottom dollar I'm going to be heavily involved in > whatever is best for the classic vb community, even if I have to rewrite the > charter and/or the FAQ myself. > > All in all, I'd prefer a new group for classic vb, specifically so the dot > next heads can be slapped down as needed when the attempt their typical > invasion. > > And Tom, if you haven't noticed, I ignore your replies. It's a habit I've > picked up over the years when dealing with trolls and bullies that tends to > irk them...they can flap their lips all they want, but I never read or > acknowledge it...so chances are I won't read any reply to this. But, you're > notion that the successful combination of both versions is wrong and > incorrect. Multiple versions of COM VB and VB were always in common because > they shared the same syntax and engine (you know, COM). VB6 was the last > VB. dot next has nothing to do with VB, no matter how much you squawk that > it is. It's based on the next flamework, which is NOT COM. The syntax is > not even remotely the same. More people have acknowledged this than not. > You weak argument that because MSFT kept the VB name and slapped it on a > different product does not hold water in this instance, where forums can > support both "versions" as you put it, or as realists would put it, > different languages. Delphi has more in common with VB than dot next does. > I've used both, so I can make that claim. > > It's the same foolish belief that this country (America for you over the > pond'ers) can become a bilingual nation so all the illegals are made to feel > welcome and Dems can pander to the latino vote (now replace terms comparable > to this situation). It isn't working, it's dividing the nation and creating > hate and animosity, another parallel. The vb classic community doesn't much > care for you dot next evangelists and you guys don't want us to even exists > on the orders of your master. > > You know why the combination works in Dee's community (which I've visited on > several occasions), one, it's smaller than Usenet, and two it's moderated. > I personally believe Dee is not biased one way or the other, and that's why > what works for them works. That kind of unbias does not exist here, on > Usenet...which is why we need separation. Dee's suggestion, while a great > one about tagging the questions with the language won't work *here*. The > charter and the FAQ do not state or specify it, and those wandering through > don't know to do it, and trolls from the next community will ignore it to > start trouble, so it's a moot suggestion. > > If you were any kind of open minded free thinking individual (a stretch, I > know), you would accept the fact the MSFT abondoned classic VB and gave you > dot next heads your web forum. If you truly had no bias, which I do not > believe for a second, you would accept that as fact as say "well, ok, we do > have our own community that MSFT provided for us, while they did kick the > classic vb community to the curb, on many levels...we should just let that > community thrive on whatever usenet group they land in and allow them to > redirect next questions to our web forum as needed, without all the bias". > If you and your commrades would agree to this, you mind find our community > would as well, and there would be PEACE. But since that is the last thing > you obviously want, you continue to antagonize, as others besides Mike and I > have pointed out. So let the community ponder that. This could all be > resolved if *you* and your kind would agree to what is a very fair > compromise. You won't, and have a zillion reasons why, all of which are the > usual MSFT written bullshit to conquer the universe, you know "we want our > web forum AND usenet, even tho we axed our server...we still want control of > it all". > > Or, keep doing what you've been doing, and I'll get satisfaction the old > fashioned way and get that charter rewritten...but either way, we're going > to get our own place where your dot next ways will not be wanted or welcome. > You should accept that as quickly as you accepted the way MSFT shoved dot > next up your crawl. You prove once agian that you are idiot. You don't even know how unicode api's work in vb.classic - i mean what a dumbass. -- Tom Shelton
From: Dee Earley on 4 Aug 2010 13:22
On 04/08/2010 17:53, Kevin Provance wrote: > You know why the combination works in Dee's community (which I've visited on > several occasions), one, it's smaller than Usenet, and two it's moderated. > I personally believe Dee is not biased one way or the other, and that's why > what works for them works. I am god (of my small corner :) -- Dee Earley (dee.earley(a)icode.co.uk) i-Catcher Development Team iCode Systems (Replies direct to my email address will be ignored. Please reply to the group.) |