Centralised MsgBox
in [Visual Basic]
|
Prev: crack for VSFlex8 in VB6.0
Next: Component Handles
From: Kevin Provance on 9 Oct 2009 19:07 | Of course, I'm wondering why you even saw this, as announced you kf'd me in | the other thread. The threat of killfile, and then not actually doing it is the mantra of the troll. They can't stand not knowing what is being said about them. Then you have trolls like McCarthy who get other people to do it for them, which is just as weak. So, it stands to reason that Scotty Troll is McCarhty current butt boy. I wonder if that job required an application.
From: Henning on 9 Oct 2009 20:05 "Scott M." <s-mar(a)nospam.nospam> skrev i meddelandet news:OzJ4kkSSKHA.4692(a)TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... > > "Henning" <computer_hero(a)coldmail.com> wrote in message > news:%23wmhwjHSKHA.4592(a)TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... >> When (If) you ever get the point, we will never see you in this group >> again, unless you can simply reply to a VBClassic Q w/o anything "Newer" >> slipping in. > > I don't seem to remember Microsoft appointing you or your point of view as > somehow the last word on how to use this newsgroup. Given that I prefer > to take your meaningless instructions on how to be helpful for exactly > what they are worth. > > -Scott > And neither you. If Microsoft ment this group to be also for dotnet, they surely woudn't have started the dotnet groups. It is unbeliveable you can't get that fact, since you seems devoted to facts. Thankfully the OP has got valid replies to his Q in the appropriate dotnet group. As it seems noone has hanged him for using Call in dotnet. /Henning
From: Scott M. on 9 Oct 2009 20:14 "DanS" <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t(a)r.o.a.d.r.u.n.n.e.r.c.o.m> wrote in message news:Xns9C9FC0ECFD63Dthisnthatroadrunnern(a)216.196.97.131... > No kidding. You indicated that using Call was req'd in VBc, which is > simply not the case. Well, clearly your understanding of Call is inaccurate, because depending on your use of parenthesis, Call may, in fact, be required. >> I really find it hard to believe that you could come to such a >> conclusion about me and my knowledge, since all you've ever done is >> attack me for reasons that do not, in any way relate to specific VB >> technical issues. And, despite your statements of what is absolutely >> true or not, your *facts* are not as solid as you belive them to be. >> Case in point: your above understanding of when Call is and is not >> required in VB 6. > > Uh....what to not understand ? Using Call disregards the return value. > > What am I missing ? That you need to use parens with Call ? Duh. Or, if you are using parens, you NEED Call. Which, makes the use of Call required, not optional. > > It's not rocket science like you want to make it out to be. You're right, it's not rocket science. I don't think I'm the one belaboring the possible NEED for Call. > >>> >>> I find it hard to see how you can be so adamant about the superiority >>> of VB.Net versus VBc when clearly you have little knowledge of VBc. >> >> As pointed out, you don't know anything about my knowledge of VB 6. >> And as has a also been pointed out, I have not advocated VB .NET at >> all in this thread. That is a *fact*. And for you to continue to >> dispute it only serves to prove my point that you like to make stuff >> up to serve your own purpose. > > You've got me confused with someone else, as, in this thread, as you say, > I > haven't said anything what-so-ever about advocating .Net. > > Should I now say something about you making stuff up ? Hmmm. You've accussed me of advocating .NET, yet I have not done so in this discussion. Who's making stuff up? > >> If you want to have a conversation/debate about VB 6 or VB .NET, I'm >> happy to particiapte. > > Well I don't have enough experience with .Net to make what you would > consider a valid argument, not about technicalities about it, and I'm not > afraid to admit that. > > I can make generalized arguments, like how come, the changed the object > model of the Treeview ? It was the same for how long, how many years ? And > across how many languages and compilers ? I have no idea. And, I also have no idea how or why that is relevant to anything being discussed. The only constant in life is that things change. > >> If you want to go off on a rant full of made up >> fantasies, you'll have to be prepared for people to call you out on >> them. > > Fine. Call me out. I stand by my opinions, and statements. When proven > wrong I am not above admitting it. You've said that Call is never required in VB 6., yet it is when using parenthesis when calling a sub. You've indicated that I've been adamant about promoting VB .NET's superiority over VB 6's, when I've not said a word about that in this thread. You've made statements about my VB 6 knowledge without knowing anything about me or my experience, only based on your flawed understanding of VB 6's Call keyword. > I certainly didn't make up fantasies. I calls it as I sees it. Whatever > you > thought I said, I don't know. See above. > > Of course, I'm wondering why you even saw this, as announced you kf'd me > in > the other thread. True, but I found that using the <plonk> list made it difficult to follow threads, so I removed the names on the list. -Scott
From: Scott M. on 9 Oct 2009 20:35 "Henning" <computer_hero(a)coldmail.com> wrote in message news:uMaUc1TSKHA.4408(a)TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... > > "Scott M." <s-mar(a)nospam.nospam> skrev i meddelandet > news:OzJ4kkSSKHA.4692(a)TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... >> >> "Henning" <computer_hero(a)coldmail.com> wrote in message >> news:%23wmhwjHSKHA.4592(a)TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... >>> When (If) you ever get the point, we will never see you in this group >>> again, unless you can simply reply to a VBClassic Q w/o anything "Newer" >>> slipping in. >> >> I don't seem to remember Microsoft appointing you or your point of view >> as somehow the last word on how to use this newsgroup. Given that I >> prefer to take your meaningless instructions on how to be helpful for >> exactly what they are worth. >> >> -Scott >> > And neither you. I don't seem to remember me getting on a high horse and telling others what they can't post here. > If Microsoft ment this group to be also for dotnet, they surely woudn't > have started the dotnet groups. Ok, fair point. But, you seem to take that to mean that it is wildly inappropriate for .NET to get mentioned in this group, which is hardly the same thing as using the group primarially for .NET purposes, which I have not done. How in the world can you belive that you can have a reasonable discussion of VB 6, without sometimes comparing it to its immediate successor? That's just ignorant. Seriously, if this were an NG about the 1967 Corvette, would you be so upset if someone were to post (as a PART of a reply) something like "I wish the old model had the new anti-lock brakes that were introduced in 2000." Or, "The '67 had great looks, but the fuel efficiency and responsiveness of the '07 model is superior." This is absolutely fine when you are looking for an open exchange of ideas. Now, this is NOT the same thing as someone starting a post with "Why I love the '07 Corvette..." in a '67 NG. I get that this would be inappropriate, but this has NOT happened here. You are simply trying to surpress relevant comparisons when they are brought up and that is just plain ingnorance for the sake of ignorance. > It is unbeliveable you can't get that fact, since you seems devoted to > facts. Thankfully the OP has got valid replies to his Q in the appropriate > dotnet group. As it seems noone has hanged him for using Call in dotnet. What amazes me is that you are so close minded to believe that the mere mention of .NET in a VB classic group is somehow inappropriate. One of the BEST possible ways to learn and understand something (which is the point of these NG's) is to compare and contrast it to other things. Despite the posts saying the contrary, I only bring .NET into the disucssion here to do just that. When pressed by others to justify why I've done so, yes I have touted the virtues of .NET, but to simply compare two languages that share a common history is not the herecy you claim it to be. To me you and others with your viewpoint come off as simply being uptight cronies that are so bitter that you didn't catch the train as it was leaving the station that now you are just resentful of those who did. Now, I MAY BE WRONG in that assesment, but from your statements that have no rational arguments to them, that is the conclusion I come to. -Scott
From: Henning on 9 Oct 2009 21:30
"Scott M." <s-mar(a)nospam.nospam> skrev i meddelandet news:%23ZhRkFUSKHA.1232(a)TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... > > "Henning" <computer_hero(a)coldmail.com> wrote in message > news:uMaUc1TSKHA.4408(a)TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... >> >> "Scott M." <s-mar(a)nospam.nospam> skrev i meddelandet >> news:OzJ4kkSSKHA.4692(a)TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... >>> >>> "Henning" <computer_hero(a)coldmail.com> wrote in message >>> news:%23wmhwjHSKHA.4592(a)TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... >>>> When (If) you ever get the point, we will never see you in this group >>>> again, unless you can simply reply to a VBClassic Q w/o anything >>>> "Newer" slipping in. >>> >>> I don't seem to remember Microsoft appointing you or your point of view >>> as somehow the last word on how to use this newsgroup. Given that I >>> prefer to take your meaningless instructions on how to be helpful for >>> exactly what they are worth. >>> >>> -Scott >>> >> And neither you. > > I don't seem to remember me getting on a high horse and telling others > what they can't post here. > >> If Microsoft ment this group to be also for dotnet, they surely woudn't >> have started the dotnet groups. > > Ok, fair point. But, you seem to take that to mean that it is wildly > inappropriate for .NET to get mentioned in this group, which is hardly the > same thing as using the group primarially for .NET purposes, which I have > not done. How in the world can you belive that you can have a reasonable > discussion of VB 6, without sometimes comparing it to its immediate > successor? That's just ignorant. > > Seriously, if this were an NG about the 1967 Corvette, would you be so > upset if someone were to post (as a PART of a reply) something like "I > wish the old model had the new anti-lock brakes that were introduced in > 2000." Or, "The '67 had great looks, but the fuel efficiency and > responsiveness of the '07 model is superior." This is absolutely fine > when you are looking for an open exchange of ideas. Now, this is NOT the > same thing as someone starting a post with "Why I love the '07 > Corvette..." in a '67 NG. I get that this would be inappropriate, but > this has NOT happened here. You are simply trying to surpress relevant > comparisons when they are brought up and that is just plain ingnorance for > the sake of ignorance. > >> It is unbeliveable you can't get that fact, since you seems devoted to >> facts. Thankfully the OP has got valid replies to his Q in the >> appropriate dotnet group. As it seems noone has hanged him for using Call >> in dotnet. > > What amazes me is that you are so close minded to believe that the mere > mention of .NET in a VB classic group is somehow inappropriate. One of > the BEST possible ways to learn and understand something (which is the > point of these NG's) is to compare and contrast it to other things. > Despite the posts saying the contrary, I only bring .NET into the > disucssion here to do just that. When pressed by others to justify why > I've done so, yes I have touted the virtues of .NET, but to simply compare > two languages that share a common history is not the herecy you claim it > to be. > > To me you and others with your viewpoint come off as simply being uptight > cronies that are so bitter that you didn't catch the train as it was > leaving the station that now you are just resentful of those who did. > Now, I MAY BE WRONG in that assesment, but from your statements that have > no rational arguments to them, that is the conclusion I come to. > > -Scott > Plz Scott, the people in this group _are_ using VB Classic. So, how on earth do you think comparing dotnet to classic is of any use? _If_ I, and I dare to say anyone else in this group, were using dotnet, we surely know where to find the help needed, and it would _not_ be in this group. In the company I work for, we have the main app written in Borland C++. One thoughtless programmer wrote some tightly connected addons in, guess what? Yes VB.Net!! So now we _are_ on the train desperately trying to get off! The guilty programmer is no longer with us. How can someone be that stupid? Now you know why _I_ disslike dotnet. Beeing a HW guy, writing som helper apps in VB6, I now have to rewrite all his dotnet apps in, guess what, yes VB6. So we can get rid of the not to be needed framework. Dotnet ofcause has its place, but not for everyone. And for me, and other programmers in this group, it does not make any sense, however hard you try to push it. /Henning |