[cxS]

What don't you get that although things can be actively updated, they usually do NOT change completely, every time there is an update? Even if wrong information can be entered in, what I have seen for the way Invoking has been defined, described, and the way it has been used in context, has not changed for the last several years to my knowledge. You're missing the point entirely here, and you keep going back to the same thing over and over. I get what you are saying, but it has no relevancy to whether I am right or wrong here. The comments from others on many other sites and forums, do not change, and none of these developers would ever explain Invoking the way you have done.

I already told you, and shown you, that I am saying nothing different than all of the other people that have been referenced in the links I have given you, so if you are saying that I am wrong, that logically makes ALL of these other people wrong as well. You don't even have to say it for that to be a fact, because right or wrong is not based on the person you dumbass, it's based on the actual information being provided, and nothing that I have said in terms of information I have given you, has deviated from what ALL of these other people are saying. That effectively means that you are saying that these other people are wrong too.

I'm not saying MSDN and other 3rd party websites are wrong.

Where did I say you were? I said, that even though you are saying it is a possibility, you seem to be saying that I am wrong, based on the possibility that MSDN could be wrong. I've said this enough times now... If you don't understand what I am talking about then don't even try to reply.

Here is what I said:

• Okay, so after all these years, nobody has caught this error (assuming it does exist), and that all other sites other than MSDN (which say the same thing as MSDN essentially), are also wrong? Nobody knows what they are talking about, and you do? That is what you are saying here, whether you realize it or not.
  
  And thinking about the possibility that after all these years MSDN is wrong, including all other external sites, you are willing to take that, and accept it as a possibility, just in order to say that I am wrong?
  
  Please, lets just look at that for a second now. Have you no rationalization skills or, are you just that stupid? I have to be straightforward here.

Which basically meant:
1. Lets assume that MSDN did make a mistake
2. Now imagine the possibility of everybody else being wrong, in addition to MSDN

Rationality: It's highly unlikely, yet this seems to be THE reason you are using, for why I am wrong. This "possibility", and nothing else.

Regardless of where you look/search, or what date things have been posted by other developers, if you look at any high ranking dev site/forum, you will never see Invoke/Invoking described in the way you explain it as. That's the bottom line, because you are wrong...

Do you get it?

edit:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/invoking

6. Computer Science To activate or start (a program, for example).

>> a program, method, service, etc... To call, execute... There is no "listen" in any of that.

http://homepages.ius.edu/jfdoyle/c335/Html/Windows.htm

Document last modified: 08/25/2003 10:49:47

Even in that link, invoke is a direct alternative to the Call instruction. Because that is all invoking is; making a call, executing, taking action, or actually doing something. And for something so simple, for some reason you can't understand it.

Old information, all the way to new information posted, Invoke has not changed, because it is a basic concept. There is nothing complex about it, which further makes the possibility of some MSDN documentation having "wrong" information even less likely. It would be like getting the description of the sun, wrong. It never will mean to "listen" to anything because it already has a logical and well defined/understood definition. Think about how stupid it would be to have invoke as a alternative keyword for Call (in that above link), if it meant to "listen".

YES - Words have multiple meanings, but definitely not meanings that mean the complete opposite of each other. If that was the case, how would you use the word in context? Or how would the word even have any defined meaning? If word "Blah" meant both on and off in 2 different meanings for the word, how would you use that word, to explain something to somebody? You moron... Just further common sense to prove that you are wrong for what you think invoking is. We already know that Invoking means to call something (based on the links I have given), so by no means could it also mean to listen. It would be very unethical to have such contradicting definitions embedded within the same word.

And for you to be right here... That is what would have to happen. Invoke would have to mean both to call, and listen. These are both complete opposites. One is action based, and the other is not.

Now, the end. Hope you enjoyed looking like a fool, because you can't prove that I am wrong based on "possibility" of an "accident" as you so call it, you have not provided anything other than the fact that your friends believe the same as you. And I have provided you with many links to support my responses now, and if you take initiative to search this up on your own, you will find much more like the links that I have given out; none agree with your idea of Invoking.