On Sat, 2003-09-20 at 01:53, Dan Anderson wrote: > I find your responses to my e-mails quite humorous. Upon review -- > aside from a single WTF -- I don't think I was condescending in any way > shape or form. I was just trying to offer help.
The particular shape of your help was non newbie friendly. I think that, combined with your incorrect assessments made it all the more annoying. And yes, "WTF" and "you really need to read the documentation" played a key part also since they were quite condescending, and inappropriate given your incorrect answers and knowledge of functionality. > After reading about wrappers, I find it doubly humorous that you didn't > just disregard my e-mail when I asked you why you were using "php://". > It's not like I said: "php://" isn't a valid protocol. "http://"; and > "ftp://"; are all PHP supports. I just said "Why are you using php://" > below? > > And I also qualified my statements about fsockopen() and > set_stream_blocking by saying "I seem to remember" and "If I remember > correctly". And, yes, in PHP 3.0 or whatever it was that was true. > Hence the "if I remember". Yes a lovely weasel statement if ever I saw one. > > So, it would seem to me that as soon as you got to the WTF you should > have said, "This guy thinks I am a noob". And at that point you should > have just said "thanks but you're wrong". Actually at that point I thought, "this guy thinks I'm an noob" and he's being an arse about it. That's no way to treat noobs that post appropriate questions. > And, just for the record, you never explicitly stated that you needed a > reason to read in only one character at a time. You just sent a bunch > of code down the pipe. So it seems quite natural to assume you're just > making a noobish mistake -- reading a char at a time when a string will > do. I certainly explained quite well what the problem was. And as you assumed I was making a noobish mistake and sent a scathing response to my problem, I also assumed you were an ass, and needed some kind of clarification. > Anyways, you are running an infinite loop and I don't quite see how this > is exiting: YES, this is the original question. Why is it exiting. To which you gave me a whole set of unrequested answers that weren't even on the topic of my post. > while (1) > { > if () > else > } > > But, hey, more power to you if you've gotten to the level where you > don't understand why people who don't understand some esoteric function > are such muppets. If you don't understand the function, then why are you posting answers as though you do? Someone asks me about quantum physics, I don't pretend to know and confuse the whole issue. > > BTW: If you insist on keeping up with the flamethrowers kindly e-mail me > off list so as not to bother others on the listserv. Yes, if you reply I'll be sure to take the next one off list, but since you made this public, I'm sure readers would love to see the backdraft. The above statement is actually an underhanded attempt to get the last public word while preventing me from a public response. If you were so keen to have it off the list, then this email I'm responding to, should have been off-list itself. Cheers, Rob. -- .------------------------------------------------------------. | InterJinn Application Framework - http://www.interjinn.com | :------------------------------------------------------------: | An application and templating framework for PHP. Boasting | | a powerful, scalable system for accessing system services | | such as forms, properties, sessions, and caches. InterJinn | | also provides an extremely flexible architecture for | | creating re-usable components quickly and easily. | `------------------------------------------------------------' -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
