Printable View
BULLS**T! you don't know JACK about java you FRAUD..Quote:
Originally posted by oblio
Remote Access way to show me up with your PL/SQL knowledge as pasted from http://www-db.stanford.edu/~ullman/f.../or-plsql.html
As for the java code, that obviously is stolen from a book and requires knowledge of a specific, non-sun package. .
just STFU I laugh at your ignorance!
Ok. So i couldnt remember the definition right off the top of my head. So, I went to Google.com.... now,how do you think obio fount the EXACT same web site that i fount my informatin from?? My guesss would be Google.com.... He thinks he some how fooled you into thinking he knows something about SQL... what a bafooon. haha.
Remote_Access_
I found that url by doing a string match on google with a line of text from your paste as the argument. Larryj, I do happen to know java, it doesn't take a genius, it is probably the easiest language to learn due to the enormous api.
Well alrighty then....I know from your previous postings that you are not stupid...You do have a lousy attitude though bro.Quote:
Originally posted by oblio
I found that url by doing a string match on google with a line of text from your paste as the argument. Larryj, I do happen to know java, it doesn't take a genius, it is probably the easiest language to learn due to the enormous api.
Larry was just going OFF on you. He wrote half of that code I posted. I just wanted to show that even with your knowledge of Java you could not tell exacly what the code does. This should discourage you from allying yourself with chemical when she makes the outrageous statement that "all antionliners are of average intelligence". My stanford-binet is 163...I think thats a little better than average..by the way ...the only non-sun code that you need to understand in the code I posted is what Larry has written. Why don't you try to make some friends around here? <sarcasm>I mean you know so much<sarcasm/> there is nothing more for you to learn. And those are the only reasons to stay...Friends and to learn.... well ..UNTIL YOUR LIGHT TURNS GREEN! later
so i'm waiting for my dev wkst to dump memory and reboot (been getting bsod alot lately on that guy), and i decide to use the time to continue reading/researching (as i often do)....and i come across this thread. considering the nature of it's dense but distant wounds, i thought i would query those that are still here and participated in this what their reaction would be had they read it today.
would you respond differently? if so, then how? my only curiosity is that there seems to be a change in mentality across the board as reflected in posting style, choice of wording, etc. also, the people/personalities that participated were, at best guess, fairly new to AO - and are now senior members. so it's interesting to see the changes made with that respect. it might even serve as a mental maturity map for those who are new here (or new anywhere) and, at the risk of exploiting one of the original points, want to be more like the senior members.
and i'll add my own comments having read this for the first time:
while the original post is rather derogatory and condemning; i do see some valid points. AO, like most boards and forums, has almost a bell-curve distribution of experience and insight amongst its members. from the 0-day "how do i get to dos?" to the veteran "eax holds the return". and includes the alternating ripples of experience between those who place their technological based background above their own ability to interrogate and make decisions and vice-versa. and for the most part the majority of the mass sits there in those ripples (i know i do).
i find the point made towards the motivational properties of the population of 'hackers' or people in general, with regard to learning, to be common among people who either a) were not alive during the psychodelic period(s) and/or live in a community that supported this type of lifestyle -or- b) are so close-minded to truely believe that their own underlying reasons for action are not only a commonality but a definition.
(note that the suggestion of drug-use above, is inferred, not implied)
but what is most interesting to me about this is the multiple levels of irony that took place throughout the whole thing. chemical's purpose was served - it received the reactions he/she was looking for. it got the support from some members, more than likely those that fell into the category of wanting recognition, who believed it was easier to turn face and be something that they probably weren't. it also got the negative feedback (some well composed, others not so well composed) that all ultimately helped to illustrate the original points that were made. and the original post didn't even escape the laws of damnation that it described. it was the epitomy of alterior motivation while promoting itself as the truth.