5 ms·

I didn't even bring up C++ - the article did, dlubarov commented about it, and you asserted that C++ references and Java references were the same. That's where

I didn't even bring up C++ - the article did, dlubarov commented about it, and you asserted that C++ references and Java references were the same. That's where I joined - to correct your fallacy. Perhaps it really is simple, and you are afraid to admit that maybe you didn't get a simple concept either, until your eyes were opened by the very posts you spend walls of text refuting. I know it is not a pleasant feeling, but it's acceptable to own up to it. No amount of text or thesaurus consultation will fix your mistake. Or, if that's too much pride for you to abandon, then you can continue to stand behind your original claim that references in C++ and Java are the same for this discussion (or any other - but I posit that there is no discussion, except for maybe "the word reference in both phrases has the same spelling"), then I feel for you. I really do. Good day!

mannykannot 12y ago
You were correct on the references issue (which was not as you present it here, which is typical), but mistaken over the cause of length of this thread, which comes from an unbroken series of faulty arguments you presented in an attempt to support the notion that using C++ was the only option in explaining the issue. The last one was a risible claim about the literally exponential complexity of the alternatives. So here's a difference between us: I freely acknowledge correct arguments, while you silently slink away from your mistakes, and try to pretend you never made them. I am happy to have third parties figure out who is being immature here. Top O' the morning to you!
- jjnoakes 12y ago
  Every one of my corrections was accurate. I also don't believe I ever claimed that C++ was the option. I own up to my mistakes the instant they are apparent. If you believe I should be owning up to something but I haven't yet, it is because either I wasn't wrong, or the argument against me wasn't coherent. But at least you finally capitulated. I didn't think you would, so you at least proved me wrong there.
  - mannykannot 12y ago
    I am hugely amused that you just could not resist making a statement that proves it is you who suffers from the obsession you accuse me of (not that there was any real doubt.) You remind me of the child who just cannot resist the marshmallow: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mWc1Y2dpmY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mWc1Y2dpmY
    - jjnoakes 12y ago
      Are you claiming that if I hadn't corrected your false statements quickly, and instead I had waited a short while, that you would have made additional false statements that you wouldn't otherwise have made? So that I could have enjoyed correcting you even more? If that's true then I wish you would have said that up front like the experimenter in the video. Unlike the subjects, I would have had no problem delaying that gratification. My prize would have beaten a marshmallow any day.
      - mannykannot 12y ago
        Most people figure out as children that claiming the truth of something that is demonstrably false is a losing strategy. It doesn't even count as a rhetorical ploy; 'Go directly to fail' would be a more appropriate characterization. A simple reading of this thread shows that I have merely been responding to specific claims of yours, in which the comparison of references was neither here nor there, once you chose to make an issue of whether your C++-comparison based explanation was the only feasible one remaining. When you could have left it as an amicable difference of opinions, you chose to double-down and insist that anything other than your opinion was flat-out wrong, which led you to make a series of increasingly poor arguments, culminating in the ridiculous claim that the alternatives would literally be exponentially more complex. In each case (including the last), after I pointed out the flaws in your claims, you have neither accepted the point, nor offered any counter-argument. Instead, you circled around and tried to make a different argument for the same claim, as if there was not already a growing pile of refutations stacking up against it. If there was any doubt before that you suffer from the obsession you accuse me of, you effectively removed it by this behavior. There is not much point in discussing anything with someone like you, but your sanctimonious rudeness to me and others makes it worthwhile. 'My prize would have beaten a marshmallow any day.' No surprise there - your juvenile motivations are plain for anyone to see.

mannykannot 12y ago

You were correct on the references issue (which was not as you present it here, which is typical), but mistaken over the cause of length of this thread, which comes from an unbroken series of faulty arguments you presented in an attempt to support the notion that using C++ was the only option in explaining the issue. The last one was a risible claim about the literally exponential complexity of the alternatives. So here's a difference between us: I freely acknowledge correct arguments, while you silently slink away from your mistakes, and try to pretend you never made them. I am happy to have third parties figure out who is being immature here. Top O' the morning to you!

jjnoakes 12y ago
Every one of my corrections was accurate. I also don't believe I ever claimed that C++ was the option. I own up to my mistakes the instant they are apparent. If you believe I should be owning up to something but I haven't yet, it is because either I wasn't wrong, or the argument against me wasn't coherent. But at least you finally capitulated. I didn't think you would, so you at least proved me wrong there.
- mannykannot 12y ago
  I am hugely amused that you just could not resist making a statement that proves it is you who suffers from the obsession you accuse me of (not that there was any real doubt.) You remind me of the child who just cannot resist the marshmallow: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mWc1Y2dpmY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mWc1Y2dpmY
  - jjnoakes 12y ago
    Are you claiming that if I hadn't corrected your false statements quickly, and instead I had waited a short while, that you would have made additional false statements that you wouldn't otherwise have made? So that I could have enjoyed correcting you even more? If that's true then I wish you would have said that up front like the experimenter in the video. Unlike the subjects, I would have had no problem delaying that gratification. My prize would have beaten a marshmallow any day.
    - mannykannot 12y ago
      Most people figure out as children that claiming the truth of something that is demonstrably false is a losing strategy. It doesn't even count as a rhetorical ploy; 'Go directly to fail' would be a more appropriate characterization. A simple reading of this thread shows that I have merely been responding to specific claims of yours, in which the comparison of references was neither here nor there, once you chose to make an issue of whether your C++-comparison based explanation was the only feasible one remaining. When you could have left it as an amicable difference of opinions, you chose to double-down and insist that anything other than your opinion was flat-out wrong, which led you to make a series of increasingly poor arguments, culminating in the ridiculous claim that the alternatives would literally be exponentially more complex. In each case (including the last), after I pointed out the flaws in your claims, you have neither accepted the point, nor offered any counter-argument. Instead, you circled around and tried to make a different argument for the same claim, as if there was not already a growing pile of refutations stacking up against it. If there was any doubt before that you suffer from the obsession you accuse me of, you effectively removed it by this behavior. There is not much point in discussing anything with someone like you, but your sanctimonious rudeness to me and others makes it worthwhile. 'My prize would have beaten a marshmallow any day.' No surprise there - your juvenile motivations are plain for anyone to see.