|
BillWoodruff wrote: cannot you not absorb a hint of genuine respect expressed in a light-hearted way
Sorry! I'm married - I'm not used to getting respect... 
I didn't assume you had reported the OP as abuse - it was just the "this post reported by" on your response which got me! 
I apologise profusely if I have offended you in any way, it was never my intention.
From how I read it, you reported your post (probably by mistake), but the main question was reported by Chris Maunder and SAKryukov and there is nothing there which implies that you were in any way involved. I again apologise (with grovelling if necessary) if I in any way implied your were - that was not something I meant to do.
Don't abandon the site! We have had too many of the White Hats leaving of late...
Ideological Purity is no substitute for being able to stick your thumb down a pipe to stop the water
|
|
|
|
|
The solution I posted at[^]: was pre-qualified by a comment to the OP asking him to clarify if he was using WinForms (which he did not respond to), and the solution I proposed was then further clarified by the OP's response to my comment in terms of the exact spec of the "image involved."
I then made a clear statement that the solution I presented only involved use of a PictureBox in WinForms. And, I posted tested code, that I tried out out an image I manufactured myself precisely to the spec described by the OP. Not only the code, but the link to the image were provided to the OP.
I also took the trouble to round out the answer by considering under what circumstances the technique shown might not be optimal, or relevant, or might be used in other ways. I'd say I spent a minimum of half-an-hour on this answer.
I find a first vote of of -16 quite puzzling, but it does fit in with regular -16 votes any time I post anything on the Lounge that is originally creative.
I guess I have to "eat my words" now that I once boasted, here, that "I never looked at reputation" 
thanks, Bill
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool." Richard Feynman
|
|
|
|
|
I'm puzzled that you reported your own message as Abusive...
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
....although, I've sadly done that to myself... 
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: I'm puzzled that you reported your own message as Abusive...
Hi Chris,
I never voted down, flagged, or reported as abuse the original question which was quite appropriate: why has the OP now been punished ?
I guess I interpreted the facility to report "abuse" as also appropriate to use to report a message ... in this case my solution ... "being abused," and I believe I indicated why I reported the message in the brief text message that you can add to the report. If that was inappropriate, or I did not clearly indicate the reason: sorry about that !
So, the only way to raise the issue of an "odd" down-vote, is to report it here ?
If that's the case, I can live with that: I'm certainly a strong believer that being abusive to oneself is not constructive
However, the original post was not abusive, and my comments to get the OP to clarify the question were appropriate. And my answer is appropriate.
So, I strongly suggest your reverse the draconian solution that has been carried out here, and re-open both the original post, my comments on the original post, and my answer.
Meanwhile I will write a personal message of apology to the OP that a quite possibly legitimate question has been evidently closed because of my mistake.
The OP acted in "good faith," and his question was more specific than most, and he did reply quickly to a clarifying comment from me. Please, let's not "take it out" on him !
best, Bill
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool." Richard Feynman
|
|
|
|
|
Everything's been re-opened and you're self flagellation has been removed.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
BillWoodruff wrote: I'd say I spent a minimum of half-an-hour on this answer.
There in lies your problem. The OP most likely didn't even spend 10 minutes trying to solve their own problem and you spent 3 times that solving theirs.
As for the down-vote, you will get these and hundreds of them for no real reason at all (and none will be given either). We have all said this before but you really have to get used to it.
"the meat from that butcher is just the dogs danglies, absolutely amazing cuts of beef." - DaveAuld (2011)
"No, that is just the earthly manifestation of the Great God Retardon." - Nagy Vilmos (2011)
"It is the celestial scrotum of good luck!" - Nagy Vilmos (2011)
|
|
|
|
|
Slacker007 wrote: There in lies your problem. The OP most likely didn't even spend 10 minutes trying to solve their own problem and you spent 3 times that solving theirs.
I didn't realize you were psychic !
If you had seen the comment by me on the question, and IbnKhaldun's clarifying response ... which are now both removed ... perhaps your crystal ball would be less cloudy; on the other hand you might have less of a little sadistic "frisson" to tweak yourself with
In many cases on QA we have no idea if the person asking has English as their native language, or how much time they may have spent ... or what they had to do to get assistance with ... to even frame the question.
My many attempts here on this forum to suggest a simple way to clean up the current mess that is QA by a simple pre-qualifying pop-up form that requires identifying the question on several simple parameters, prior to the question's being accepted for posting: have so far born no fruit : but, we can only hope
Some questions, of course, are so obviously "gimeez" and "homework," they can be stomped immediately.
Your assumptions about how much time the OP spent on the question are simply an example of stereotypical thinking: you might want to look up the word "schadenfreude."
I spent time on the answer because it's tied in to some work I am currently doing, and, in finding one possible answer, I helped myself, as well, as I hope, the person who asked the question.
And, I also spend time on my comments and answers on QA because of the sheer pleasure of refreshing my knowledge of .NET, and the good feeling I have about CP as a helpful community ... a community from which I have learned/taken so much, and wish, to the extent of my limited abilities and time, to give back to.
For me it is a point-of-honor to validate that any code example I post on QA actually compiles and runs.
As to the down-vote: there is a well-established practice now, of reporting unusual down-votes, or patterns of down-votes on this forum.
go in peace, Bill
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool." Richard Feynman
|
|
|
|
|
Take a chill pill, Bill.
Don't take your work here too seriously.
You speak like you are the only one who has ever given a sh*t about this site or the only one who has faced trials and tribulations in the forums. My crystal ball is always clear, clear as day.
"the meat from that butcher is just the dogs danglies, absolutely amazing cuts of beef." - DaveAuld (2011)
"No, that is just the earthly manifestation of the Great God Retardon." - Nagy Vilmos (2011)
"It is the celestial scrotum of good luck!" - Nagy Vilmos (2011)
|
|
|
|
|
The first thing I'd suggest doing is to not worry about votes on an internet website . I have never seen a website that has a more random voting style. I've given people 100% correct answers to their question and gotten a 1 vote for my trouble. Other times when I was a sarcastic douche and expected to be down voted, I would be hammered with a bunch of 5's. Its all very random.
You'd have better luck trying to understand women.
|
|
|
|
|
|
A discussion forum for "Win8" in general, has been strongly suggested before, but the suggestion has been ignored.
You will find discussion forums, however, for ".NET 4.5 and Visual Studio," and "Win API and Metro and WinRT."
For right now the most intelligent discussion of Win 8 issues is happening on StackOverFlow, and other sites.
But, please, post your articles: people will find them. Tag them with all relevant tags ... Metro ... WinRT ... Win8 ... Visual Studio 11, .NET 4.5 ... etc.
best, Bill
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool." Richard Feynman
|
|
|
|
|
Quick answers is more than capable of handling win8 questions. I'm honestly surprised, and I'll admit disappointed, that other sites are mentioned and the lack of a dedicated win8 forum bemoaned as a 'suggestion being ignored' when we have exactly what is on offer on other sites already.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Chris - the OP asked for a Windows 8 article section.
|
|
|
|
|
In that case I need to stop peering at the site through my iPhone while exhausted.
[Edit: Ah - but my reply to Bill, who was discussing a forum, was still on topic. For Bill's post. I'll reply to the poster directly]
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
I've moved the articles into the "Platforms, Frameworks & Libraries » Win32/64 SDK & OS » Windows General" section. We also have a Windows Runtime[^] section if that helps.
You should be able to edit and move your own articles - just click the "update my article" link at the top right of your articles.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks Chris.
Never be afraid to try something new. Remember, amateurs built the ark; Professionals built the Titanic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
It could be that the person who replied to the spam message removed their own message.
I've removed the spam.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
|
I thought that if a message had been replied too it couldn't be removed?
See Here[^]
No problems at all, just for clarification.
------------------------------------
I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
CCC Link[ ^]
Trolls[ ^]
modified 9-Feb-12 5:50am.
|
|
|
|
|
Are you sure you meant to link to that message?
|
|
|
|
|
oops
Thanks Pete, I will edit.
------------------------------------
I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
CCC Link[ ^]
Trolls[ ^]
|
|
|
|
|
when no child messages are present, a message can be deleted, i.e. taken away without leaving a trace.
when child messages are present, a message can't be deleted; the "delete" widget then replaces message body and subject line by a "message removed" sentence, which is a bit silly, as there still is a message. "original message content removed by author" would be more appropriate.
Luc Pattyn [My Articles] Nil Volentibus Arduum
Fed up by FireFox memory leaks I switched to Opera and now CP doesn't perform its paste magic, so links will not be offered. Sorry.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks Luc.
Enlightenment at lunchtime!
------------------------------------
I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
CCC Link[ ^]
Trolls[ ^]
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
