Bryce quotes BLuke:

[Referring to [link|http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/wlg/1322|this blog entry]:] An OO approach would be to have a credit card object that could be asked are you valid, and charge this amount....the [EJB] credit card object is just a dumb data holder

To which Bryce replies:

Note that not every OO affectionado agrees that OO is about "self-handling nouns". Majority? I don't know.

Whu, whoo, what???

Now what orifice did you pull this shit out of?!?

When and where did you gain the impression that "not every OO affectionado [sic] agrees that OO is about 'self-handling nouns'"?

That's THE most basic trait of OOP; pretty much the DEFINITION of it.

I can't see how anyone can BE an "OO 'affectionado'" without agreeing with at least THAT.

Unless you show references, I'm going to assume that you either:

A) have misunderstood what some "OO 'affectionado'" was saying [you DO realise that Dion Almaer was arguing FOR "self-handling nouns"?]; or

B) mistook some non-"OO 'affectionado'" for an "OO 'affectionado'"; or

C) are intentionally PRETENDING to have got something wrong à la A or B, in order to (make [even more of] an ass out of yourself by trying to) bolster the pathetic arguments of your moronic anti-OO crusade.


Give us verifiable references of a bona fide "OO 'affectionado'" arguing that "OO is NOT about 'self-handling nouns'", or tell us which of the above it is.

Personally, I'm guessing it's C.