query error handling
Michael Costello
I have the following two PHP statements:
$query = "SELECT id, firstname, lastname, phone FROM members WHERE id
= $id";
$result = mysql_query($query) or die('SQL Select Error: '.mysql_error
());
In the members table there is no row with a 1 as the id value and id
is the primary key of the table. When I run the query with $id = 1,
instead of getting an expected not found error, a blank result is
returned and no error is shown.
Any assistance on this would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Mike
Erwin Moller
Hi
Make sure you have error_reporting on and you show all errors.
Probably something went wrong, but you don't see the error.
Regards,
Erwin Moller
--
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to
make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the
other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious
deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult."
-- C.A.R. Hoare
Johannes Keßler
Hash: SHA1
Hello,
the query was successfull executed.
The OR part is executed if the query itself is wrong eg. the syntax.
You have to check the result if there is any
there is a mysql_num_rows($query) function, which returns the number of rows for
a query.
regards,
johannes ke�ler
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.13 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAksrmDoACgkQE++2Zdc7Etd3VACgjzvEuaEyiyrR1Dnd+AW7T5nQ
7s8An1KCKzsEL19DkoalL1Jwm2tmQlsR
=IzN3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
matt
wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 18/12/09 15:44, Michael Costello wrote:
>
>
>
> > Hi,
>
> > I have the following two PHP statements:
>
> > $query = "SELECT id, firstname, lastname, phone FROM members WHERE id
> > = $id";
> > $result = mysql_query($query) or die('SQL Select Error: '.mysql_error
> > ());
[snip]
Please use mysql_real_escape_string() when using variables in your
queries. Better yet, use prepared statements.
> Hello,
>
> the query was successfull executed.
> The OR part is executed if the query itself is wrong eg. the syntax.
>
> You have to check the result if there is any
> there is a mysql_num_rows($query) function, which returns the number of rows for
> a query.
+1, except mysql_num_rows() takes a resource as an argument, in this
example that should read:
mysql_num_rows($result)
Matt
Jerry Stuckle
> On Dec 18, 9:56 am, Johannes Ke�ler <m...@bananas-playground.net>
> wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On 18/12/09 15:44, Michael Costello wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Hi,
>>> I have the following two PHP statements:
>>> $query = "SELECT id, firstname, lastname, phone FROM members WHERE id
>>> = $id";
>>> $result = mysql_query($query) or die('SQL Select Error: '.mysql_error
>>> ());
>
> [snip]
>
> Please use mysql_real_escape_string() when using variables in your
> queries. Better yet, use prepared statements.
>
Incorrect. "id" is obviously a numeric value; you do not use
mysql_real_escape_string() on numeric types.
Whether to use prepared statements or not is a matter of preference.
They have both advantages and disadvantages.
>> Hello,
>>
>> the query was successfull executed.
>> The OR part is executed if the query itself is wrong eg. the syntax.
>>
>> You have to check the result if there is any
>> there is a mysql_num_rows($query) function, which returns the number of rows for
>> a query.
>
> +1, except mysql_num_rows() takes a resource as an argument, in this
> example that should read:
>
> mysql_num_rows($result)
>
> Matt
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstu...@attglobal.net
==================
matt
> > wrote:
> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >> Hash: SHA1
>
> >> On 18/12/09 15:44, Michael Costello wrote:
>
> >>> Hi,
> >>> I have the following two PHP statements:
> >>> $query = "SELECT id, firstname, lastname, phone FROM members WHERE id
> >>> = $id";
> >>> $result = mysql_query($query) or die('SQL Select Error: '.mysql_error
> >>> ());
>
> > [snip]
>
> > Please use mysql_real_escape_string() when using variables in your
> > queries. Better yet, use prepared statements.
>
> Incorrect. "id" is obviously a numeric value; you do not use
> mysql_real_escape_string() on numeric types.
I'll concede that members.id is *likely* a numeric field...although I
don't see the harm in calling mysql_real_escape_string().
What I will not concede is the idea that $id obviously contains a
numeric value. I'm surprised that you would have made the suggestion
to remove a sanitizing function without providing an example or
reference on how you feel one should sanitize the variable for the
query.
In a known numeric field, I prefer filter_var().
> Whether to use prepared statements or not is a matter of preference.
> They have both advantages and disadvantages.
>
> >> Hello,
>
> >> the query was successfull executed.
> >> The OR part is executed if the query itself is wrong eg. the syntax.
>
> >> You have to check the result if there is any
> >> there is a mysql_num_rows($query) function, which returns the number of rows for
> >> a query.
>
> > +1, except mysql_num_rows() takes a resource as an argument, in this
> > example that should read:
>
> > mysql_num_rows($result)
>
> > Matt
>
> --
> ==================
> Remove the "x" from my email address
> Jerry Stuckle
> JDS Computer Training Corp.
> jstuck...@attglobal.net
> ==================
Jerry Stuckle
>>> wrote:
>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>> On 18/12/09 15:44, Michael Costello wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>> I have the following two PHP statements:
>>>>> $query = "SELECT id, firstname, lastname, phone FROM members WHERE id
>>>>> = $id";
>>>>> $result = mysql_query($query) or die('SQL Select Error: '.mysql_error
>>>>> ());
>>> [snip]
>>> Please use mysql_real_escape_string() when using variables in your
>>> queries. Better yet, use prepared statements.
>> Incorrect. "id" is obviously a numeric value; you do not use
>> mysql_real_escape_string() on numeric types.
>
> I'll concede that members.id is *likely* a numeric field...although I
> don't see the harm in calling mysql_real_escape_string().
>
> What I will not concede is the idea that $id obviously contains a
> numeric value. I'm surprised that you would have made the suggestion
> to remove a sanitizing function without providing an example or
> reference on how you feel one should sanitize the variable for the
> query.
>
It is very simple. Look at his query - it contains
"members WHERE id = $id";
If the id were non-numeric, this would throw an error.
> In a known numeric field, I prefer filter_var().
>
And exactly what is filter_var()? It's not a PHP nor a MySQL function.
And no, I didn't specify an alternate because I don't know that one is
required (i.e. maybe $id came from another query). And there are any
number of ways to filter - exactly which way to use depends on the type
of $id - is it integer or float, for instance?
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstu...@attglobal.net
==================
Doug Miller
>And exactly what is filter_var()? It's not a PHP nor a MySQL function.
Ummmm..... yes, it is.
http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=filter_var+php
Jerry Stuckle
Ah, new in PHP 5.2. But it still should be in my .chm file. I'll have
to figure out what's going on.
Doug Miller
>Doug Miller wrote:
>> In article <hgonql$9dp$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, Jerry Stuckle
> <jstu...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> And exactly what is filter_var()? It's not a PHP nor a MySQL function.
>>
>> Ummmm..... yes, it is.
>> http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=filter_var+php
>>
>> First hit:
>> http://php.net/manual/en/function.filter-var.php
>
>Ah, new in PHP 5.2.
Not exactly "new" -- 5.2.0 was released more than three years ago.
Jerry Stuckle
> In article <hgp69h$3ma$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, Jerry Stuckle <jstu...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>> Doug Miller wrote:
>>> In article <hgonql$9dp$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, Jerry Stuckle
>> <jstu...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>>>> And exactly what is filter_var()? It's not a PHP nor a MySQL function.
>>> Ummmm..... yes, it is.
>>> http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=filter_var+php
>>>
>>> First hit:
>>> http://php.net/manual/en/function.filter-var.php
>> Ah, new in PHP 5.2.
>
> Not exactly "new" -- 5.2.0 was released more than three years ago.
Please read what I said - new in 5.2. Or is plain English too difficult
for you?
Doug Miller
>Doug Miller wrote:
>> In article <hgp69h$3ma$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, Jerry Stuckle
> <jstu...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>>> Doug Miller wrote:
>>>> In article <hgonql$9dp$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, Jerry Stuckle
>>> <jstu...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>> And exactly what is filter_var()? It's not a PHP nor a MySQL function.
>>>> Ummmm..... yes, it is.
>>>> http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=filter_var+php
>>>>
>>>> First hit:
>>>> http://php.net/manual/en/function.filter-var.php
>>> Ah, new in PHP 5.2.
>>
>> Not exactly "new" -- 5.2.0 was released more than three years ago.
>
>Please read what I said - new in 5.2. Or is plain English too difficult
>for you?
>
and it has been for more than _three years_. And you didn't know about it, and
you're trying to conceal your ignorance by referring to it as "new".
Three years isn't "new", Jerry.
Malcolm Dew-Jones
: > > wrote:
: > >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
: > >> Hash: SHA1
: >
: > >> On 18/12/09 15:44, Michael Costello wrote:
: >
: > >>> Hi,
: > >>> I have the following two PHP statements:
: WHERE id
: > >>> =3D $id";
: > >>> =A0 =A0$result =3D mysql_query($query) or die('SQL Select Error: '.my=
: sql_error
: > >>> ());
: >
: > > [snip]
: >
: > > Please use mysql_real_escape_string() when using variables in your
: >
: > Incorrect. =A0"id" is obviously a numeric value; you do not use
: > mysql_real_escape_string() on numeric types.
: I'll concede that members.id is *likely* a numeric field...although I
: don't see the harm in calling mysql_real_escape_string().
: What I will not concede is the idea that $id obviously contains a
: numeric value. I'm surprised that you would have made the suggestion
: to remove a sanitizing function without providing an example or
: reference on how you feel one should sanitize the variable for the
: query.
I have to agree that at some point before it is used $id should be
sanitized.
Consider for example: if $id comes straight from an html form and is not
correctly validated then the end result from a malicious user could be
made equivalent to
$id = '1 into outfile /etc/passwd':
$query = "SELECT id, firstname, lastname, phone FROM members
WHERE id = $id";
$result = mysql_query($query) or die ...etc...
Personally I like bind variables for this. Databases such as Oracle have
them built in. To use bind variables with mysql within php I understand
you can use the ADODB library.
Jerry Stuckle
No, you stoopid asshole - I said it was "new in 5.2" - which it is,
according to the documentation. But you obviously cannot read plain
English. Most trolls can't, though.
And no, I never said I was familiar with every function in PHP. I don't
try to be. That's why I have the help files on my machine. But it
turns out this help file wasn't as new as it was supposed to be.
Now go away, idiot. Total fucking idiots like you aren't even worth
talking to. So I won't.
Jerry Stuckle
Row id's should NEVER come from an HTML form - sanitized or not, unless
there are other criteria included. Otherwise, it will allow access to
rows the user should not be able to access.
BTW, your query would fail anyway, because in a correctly configured
system, only root can write to /etc/passwd, and MySQL should NEVER be
run as root. But the point is well taken.
> Personally I like bind variables for this. Databases such as Oracle have
> them built in. To use bind variables with mysql within php I understand
> you can use the ADODB library.
>
As I said - it's a matter of preference. And you can also use bind
variables with the mysqli extension or PDO. You don't need ADODB.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstu...@attglobal.net
==================
Doug Miller
You'll go to *any* length to avoid admitting you were wrong, won't you?
Like I said: you're trying to conceal your ignorance of a feature that's been
in the language for more than three years by claiming it's "new", then abusing
me for pointing out (a) that you didn't know about it, and (b) that you lied
when you claimed it was "new".
You're an ignoramus, a liar, and an arrogant prick, Stuckup.
>And no, I never said I was familiar with every function in PHP. I don't
>try to be. That's why I have the help files on my machine. But it
>turns out this help file wasn't as new as it was supposed to be.
More shucking and jiving. Now you're blaming the help file for your ignorance.
It's *your* machine, dumbass -- it's not *my* fault you don't have the latest
files on it. But you'll probably find some way to blame that on someone else,
too.
>
>Now go away, idiot.
The "idiot" in this thread is the guy that said that filter_var() isn't a PHP
function, the guy that said it was "new" when it's actually more than three
years old, the guy that blamed his own ignorance on outdated help files.
That guy would be *you*, Stuckup.
>Total fucking idiots like you aren't even worth
>talking to. So I won't.
Yeah, right. You never let anyone else have the last word. You can't. You're
pathologically incapable of it -- just like you're pathologically incapable of
admitting a mistake.
Jerry Stuckle
What a fucking troll.
>> And no, I never said I was familiar with every function in PHP. I don't
>> try to be. That's why I have the help files on my machine. But it
>> turns out this help file wasn't as new as it was supposed to be.
>
> More shucking and jiving. Now you're blaming the help file for your ignorance.
> It's *your* machine, dumbass -- it's not *my* fault you don't have the latest
> files on it. But you'll probably find some way to blame that on someone else,
> too.
More fucking troll behavior. But that's not new for you, is it, Dougie?
You're a very well known troll.
>> Now go away, idiot.
>
> The "idiot" in this thread is the guy that said that filter_var() isn't a PHP
> function, the guy that said it was "new" when it's actually more than three
> years old, the guy that blamed his own ignorance on outdated help files.
>
> That guy would be *you*, Stuckup.
>
ROFLMAO! And you've never had an outdated file? What a fucking liar.
>> Total fucking idiots like you aren't even worth
>> talking to. So I won't.
>
> Yeah, right. You never let anyone else have the last word. You can't. You're
> pathologically incapable of it -- just like you're pathologically incapable of
> admitting a mistake.
In your case, this is all. You are a well-known troll who has to pull
his head out of his ass to speak. You have yet to contribute anything
positive to USENET - or probably the world as a whole.
Doug Miller
What a fucking idiot. You blame your own ignorance on others, and can't EVER
admit to being wrong about ANYTHING.
>
>>> And no, I never said I was familiar with every function in PHP. I don't
>>> try to be. That's why I have the help files on my machine. But it
>>> turns out this help file wasn't as new as it was supposed to be.
>>
>> More shucking and jiving. Now you're blaming the help file for your ignorance.
>> It's *your* machine, dumbass -- it's not *my* fault you don't have the latest
>> files on it. But you'll probably find some way to blame that on someone else,
>> too.
>
>More fucking troll behavior. But that's not new for you, is it, Dougie?
> You're a very well known troll.
Hey, Stuckup, whose fault is it you didn't know about a function that's been
in the language for more than three years? Whose fault is it you didn't have
the latest help files on your machine?
>
>>> Now go away, idiot.
>>
>> The "idiot" in this thread is the guy that said that filter_var() isn't a PHP
>> function, the guy that said it was "new" when it's actually more than three
>> years old, the guy that blamed his own ignorance on outdated help files.
>>
>> That guy would be *you*, Stuckup.
>>
>
>ROFLMAO! And you've never had an outdated file? What a fucking liar.
I never said that. I said that you're blaming your own ignorance on outdated
help files -- help files on YOUR OWN MACHINE.
What a fucking dumbass. And a liar besides.
>
>>> Total fucking idiots like you aren't even worth
>>> talking to. So I won't.
>>
>> Yeah, right. You never let anyone else have the last word. You can't. You're
>> pathologically incapable of it -- just like you're pathologically incapable of
>> admitting a mistake.
>
>In your case, this is all. You are a well-known troll who has to pull
>his head out of his ass to speak. You have yet to contribute anything
>positive to USENET - or probably the world as a whole.
>
>
Just like I said: you're pathologically incapable of letting anyone else have
the last word. Just like you're pathologically incapable of admitting you made
a mistake.
r0g
Doug, it feels deeply strange fighting Jerry's corner but you are
reading his comment "Ah, new in PHP 5.2" incorrectly here. It is clear
he is saying "Ah, this feature was introduced in PHP version 5.2". In
that sense it IS new, as of 5.2. You don't need to go misrepresenting
him to prove your subsequent assertions, it's not like there's a dearth
of other material to draw on ;)
Roger.
Doug Miller
>Doug, it feels deeply strange fighting Jerry's corner but you are
>reading his comment "Ah, new in PHP 5.2" incorrectly here. It is clear
>he is saying "Ah, this feature was introduced in PHP version 5.2". In
>that sense it IS new, as of 5.2. You don't need to go misrepresenting
>him to prove your subsequent assertions, it's not like there's a dearth
>of other material to draw on ;)
Actually, Roger, his subsequent responses make it pretty clear that I did read
his comment correctly: embarrassed at having his ignorance displayed, he tried
to excuse it as unfamiliarity with a "new" feature. After it was pointed out
that it wasn't exactly new, he then blamed his ignorance on "outdated help
files". He simply can't admit, EVER, to having made a mistake. Referring now,
in December 2009, to anything as being "new in PHP 5.2", is like referring,
now, to a car you bought in the fall of 2006 as "new". It was then. It isn't
now, not even remotely close.
Jerry Stuckle
ROFLAMO! My responses were 100% consistent. You just can't read. But
then trolls can't. And you're a well-known one.
Doug Miller
>The fucking troll Doug Miller opened his ass and out popped:
>> In article <hgr500$2qq$1...@aioe.org>, r0g <aioe...@technicalbloke.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Doug, it feels deeply strange fighting Jerry's corner but you are
>>> reading his comment "Ah, new in PHP 5.2" incorrectly here. It is clear
>>> he is saying "Ah, this feature was introduced in PHP version 5.2". In
>>> that sense it IS new, as of 5.2. You don't need to go misrepresenting
>>> him to prove your subsequent assertions, it's not like there's a dearth
>>> of other material to draw on ;)
>>
>> Actually, Roger, his subsequent responses make it pretty clear that I did read
>> his comment correctly: embarrassed at having his ignorance displayed, he tried
>> to excuse it as unfamiliarity with a "new" feature. After it was pointed out
>> that it wasn't exactly new, he then blamed his ignorance on "outdated help
>> files". He simply can't admit, EVER, to having made a mistake. Referring now,
>> in December 2009, to anything as being "new in PHP 5.2", is like referring,
>> now, to a car you bought in the fall of 2006 as "new". It was then. It isn't
>> now, not even remotely close.
>
>ROFLAMO! My responses were 100% consistent.
Consistently refusing to admit to being wrong, consistently blaming others for
your own ignorance (like it was someone else's fault that your files were
outdated?), consistently heaping abuse on anyone who points out any of your
numerous mistakes... yep, you're consistent all right. A consistent asshole.
>
Erwin Moller
Jeez Doug, give it up.
I have the same impression as r0g: that you are dragging this too much
and intentionally misinterpreting.
What is the point?
Jerry admitted he:
1) wasn't aware of that function
2) his helpfiles were outdated (that is why I only use www.php.net for
help. ;-))
So far for your claim that Jerry never admits he is wrong.
I also didn't see Jerry claim somebody else placed old helpfiles on his
computer.
So what is the point in this all?
What should he do next? Beg you to forgive him on his knees?
We all know that won't happen.
Just let it rest man and do something more fun instead. :-)
The Natural Philosopher
> He simply can't admit, EVER, to having made a mistake.
And that is the problem.
Any advice he does give that may incidentally be correct, is unreliable
because it may be wrong, but he will never admit it.
So in the end, its better to disregard it all.
Jerry Stuckle
The fact is, Erwin, that Dougie is a well-known troll. He has nothing
positive to contribute, so he has to make a fool of himself.
Doug Miller
>Jeez Doug, give it up.
>I have the same impression as r0g: that you are dragging this too much
>and intentionally misinterpreting.
>What is the point?
The point is that I've just had my fill of Stuckle's habit of heaping abuse on
people who disagree with him, and decided to give some of it back.
>
>Jerry admitted he:
>1) wasn't aware of that function
No, actually he never admitted that.
>2) his helpfiles were outdated (that is why I only use www.php.net for
>help. ;-))
An obvious attempt to shift the blame for his ignorance away from himself.
>So far for your claim that Jerry never admits he is wrong.
He doesn't. He didn't.
>
>I also didn't see Jerry claim somebody else placed old helpfiles on his
>computer.
No, but he certainly didn't acknowledge that it was his own fault, either.
>
>So what is the point in this all?
>What should he do next? Beg you to forgive him on his knees?
>We all know that won't happen.
>
>Just let it rest man and do something more fun instead. :-)
Yeah, you're right.
Doug Miller
>
>The fact is, Erwin, that Dougie is a well-known troll. He has nothing
>positive to contribute, so he has to make a fool of himself.
>
Speaking of making a fool of oneself.... have you figured out the right way to
format a TIN yet?
Jerry Stuckle
>
>> Jeez Doug, give it up.
>> I have the same impression as r0g: that you are dragging this too much
>> and intentionally misinterpreting.
>> What is the point?
>
> The point is that I've just had my fill of Stuckle's habit of heaping abuse on
> people who disagree with him, and decided to give some of it back.
The point is - you are a well known troll, famous in several circles of
usenet. And you have never contributed anything positive to this
newsgroup.
>> Jerry admitted he:
>> 1) wasn't aware of that function
>
> No, actually he never admitted that.
>
The troll can't read, can he. ROFLMAO!
>> 2) his helpfiles were outdated (that is why I only use www.php.net for
>> help. ;-))
>
> An obvious attempt to shift the blame for his ignorance away from himself.
>
The troll can't read, can he. ROFLMAO!
>> So far for your claim that Jerry never admits he is wrong.
>
> He doesn't. He didn't.
The troll can't read, can he. ROFLMAO!
>> I also didn't see Jerry claim somebody else placed old helpfiles on his
>> computer.
>
> No, but he certainly didn't acknowledge that it was his own fault, either.
The troll can't read, can he. ROFLMAO!
>> So what is the point in this all?
>> What should he do next? Beg you to forgive him on his knees?
>> We all know that won't happen.
>>
>> Just let it rest man and do something more fun instead. :-)
>
> Yeah, you're right.
But we know you can't let it go, Dougie. Trolls never can.
Peter H. Coffin
How else would you phrase it? It makes perfect sense to me.
--
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases
to be serious when people laugh.
-- George Bernard Shaw
Doug Miller
>On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 23:45:48 GMT, Doug Miller wrote:
>
>> In article <hgr500$2qq$1...@aioe.org>, r0g <aioe...@technicalbloke.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Doug, it feels deeply strange fighting Jerry's corner but you are
>>>reading his comment "Ah, new in PHP 5.2" incorrectly here. It is clear
>>>he is saying "Ah, this feature was introduced in PHP version 5.2". In
>>>that sense it IS new, as of 5.2. You don't need to go misrepresenting
>>>him to prove your subsequent assertions, it's not like there's a
>>>dearth of other material to draw on ;)
>>
>> Actually, Roger, his subsequent responses make it pretty clear that I
>> did read his comment correctly: embarrassed at having his ignorance
>> displayed, he tried to excuse it as unfamiliarity with a "new"
>> feature. After it was pointed out that it wasn't exactly new, he then
>> blamed his ignorance on "outdated help files". He simply can't admit,
>> EVER, to having made a mistake. Referring now, in December 2009, to
>> anything as being "new in PHP 5.2", is like referring, now, to a car
>> you bought in the fall of 2006 as "new". It was then. It isn't now,
>> not even remotely close.
>
>How else would you phrase it? It makes perfect sense to me.
>
new feature.
Jerry Stuckle
RODLMAO. I used "new" instead of "introduced" because I know you don't
understand large words, Dougie. Of course, it also looks like you don't
understand small words.
r0g
Doug, I understand and share your general frustration with Jerry, we
should both probably resist the urge to respond as it never leads
anywhere good but, like you, sometimes I find it irresistible. It's just
if you DO choose to retaliate you should at least do so factually, your
overall argument loses some credibility when you misrepresent your
adversary's statements, even slightly. If they are wrong you should be
able to show that without distorting the facts.
I think the use of the word "new" is not at all ambiguous in this case,
it's no different to saying NTFS was "new in Windows NT", there's no
implication that it is "new" in any wider sense. It's a small thing but
your argument would be stronger without it, that's all I was saying.
Besides, Jerry's statement _was_ an admission of error on his part, as
noted a rare thing in itself. To expect an apology as well, rather than
just an excuse / explanation would be a bit naive. The only thing I've
found that can silence people that stubborn is to make a big song and
dance about how they are so stubborn they won't be able to resist
replying to your post, the worst offenders will be too stubborn to cede
your point and won't reply ;)
Of course the proper solution would be to set up a filter / killfile, it
takes all of 2 minutes. The fact neither of has has done that yet hints
that you, like I, DO sometimes derive a bit of satisfaction from
thoroughly and publicly rebutting the spoutings of obnoxious internet
pundits. I'm not sure what the ratio between 'good done in correcting
factual errors for posterity' and 'annoyance caused by the noise of
endless pedantic squabbling' actually is in general. With Jerry though
it's like shooting fish in a barrel, and with the frequency of his posts
there's at least a dozen new barrels every day so I think in his case
responding just tends to just create noise.
With that in mind I'm going to butt out of this thread! Of course I am
certain neither of you possess the self restraint needed to not reply to
this post and get the last word in ;D
Happy holidays!
Roger.
Doug Miller
So much for your claim that you were going to stop responding to me.
Have you figured out yet how to format a TIN?