Why Outer Class not Defined private or Protected?

aemi wrote:>Why Outer Class not Defined private or Protected?Why not do your own homework?(Warning:  That may actually require you to readat least some of the course materials!)-- Andrew Thompsonhttp://www.athompson.info/andrew/Message posted via JavaKB.comhttp://www.javakb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/java-general/200704/1

Andrew Thompson wrote:> aemi wrote:>> Why Outer Class not Defined private or Protected?> > Why not do your own homework?> (Warning:  That may actually require you to read> at least some of the course materials!)> Internet etiquette specifies message signatures to be no longer than 3 lines. Please refrain from posting messages with signatures longer than 3 lines so they doesn't waste my 6Mbps bandwidth.

Brandon McCombs wrote:> Andrew Thompson wrote:>> aemi wrote:>>> Why Outer Class not Defined private or Protected?>>>> Why not do your own homework?>> (Warning:  That may actually require you to read>> at least some of the course materials!)>>> > Internet etiquette specifies message signatures to be no longer than 3 > lines. Please refrain from posting messages with signatures longer than > 3 lines so they doesn't waste my 6Mbps bandwidth.Excuse my naive question, but do these 3 more lines with (max) 80 signs (=240 bytes!) really make a difference?

Brandon McCombs wrote:...>Internet etiquette specifies message signatures to be no longer than 3 >lines. ..A good 'rule of thumb' when replying to usenet postsis to have the slightest idea of what you are talking about.<http://www.physci.org/rfc/rfc1855.html#2_1_1>Can you find (link to) an RFC That suggests differently?-- Andrew Thompsonhttp://www.athompson.info/andrew/Message posted via http://www.javakb.com

Philipp wrote:> Brandon McCombs wrote:>> Andrew Thompson wrote:>>> aemi wrote:>>>> Why Outer Class not Defined private or Protected?>>>>>> Why not do your own homework?>>> (Warning:  That may actually require you to read>>> at least some of the course materials!)>>>>>>> Internet etiquette specifies message signatures to be no longer than 3 >> lines. Please refrain from posting messages with signatures longer >> than 3 lines so they doesn't waste my 6Mbps bandwidth.> > Excuse my naive question, but do these 3 more lines with (max) 80 signs > (=240 bytes!) really make a difference?It's not the bandwidth usage that is the problem. For some people, they have a 6+ line sig and their message may be 2 lines long. It just doesn't make sense to have a signature longer than your message.With all the complaining Andrew does concerning people's grammar, spelling, punctuation, etc. you would think he would fix his own signature before complaining about someone else.

Andrew Thompson wrote:> A good 'rule of thumb' when replying to usenet posts> is to have the slightest idea of what you are talking about.> <http://www.physci.org/rfc/rfc1855.html#2_1_1>>RFC 1855 3.1.1 item 6 

Jeff Higgins wrote:> Andrew Thompson wrote:> >> A good 'rule of thumb' when replying to usenet posts>> is to have the slightest idea of what you are talking about.>> <http://www.physci.org/rfc/rfc1855.html#2_1_1>>>> RFC 1855 3.1.1 item 6 > > Good one Jeff. :)

Jeff Higgins wrote:(Andrew Thompson wrote - re length of sig.)>> A good 'rule of thumb' when replying to usenet posts>> is to have the slightest idea of what you are talking about.>> <http://www.physci.org/rfc/rfc1855.html#2_1_1>>>RFC 1855 3.1.1 item 6<http://www.physci.org/rfc/rfc1855.html#3_1_1>Are you referring to this point?"Messages and articles should be brief and to the point.Don't wander off-topic, don't ramble and don't send mailor post messages solely to point out other people'serrors in typing or spelling. These, more than any otherbehavior, mark you as an immature beginner."What does that have to do with sigs.?-- Andrew Thompsonhttp://www.athompson.info/andrew/Message posted via JavaKB.comhttp://www.javakb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/java-general/200704/1