Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.php > #1696 > unrolled thread

problem saving date fields

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.php

Contents

  problem saving date fields Co <vonclausowitz@gmail.com> - 2011-05-20 11:38 -0700
    Re: problem saving date fields Luuk <Luuk@invalid.lan> - 2011-05-20 20:50 +0200
    Re: problem saving date fields Jeff North <jnorthau@yahoo.com.au> - 2011-05-21 08:58 +1000
      Re: problem saving date fields Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2011-05-20 22:35 -0400
        Re: problem saving date fields Jeff North <jnorthau@yahoo.com.au> - 2011-05-21 13:13 +1000
          Re: problem saving date fields Co <vonclausowitz@gmail.com> - 2011-05-20 23:47 -0700
            Re: problem saving date fields Co <vonclausowitz@gmail.com> - 2011-05-21 00:18 -0700
              Re: problem saving date fields Luuk <Luuk@invalid.lan> - 2011-05-21 09:54 +0200
              Re: problem saving date fields Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2011-05-21 10:37 -0400
                Re: problem saving date fields Co <vonclausowitz@gmail.com> - 2011-05-21 08:07 -0700
                  Re: problem saving date fields Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2011-05-21 19:55 -0400
                    Re: problem saving date fields Co <vonclausowitz@gmail.com> - 2011-05-22 14:20 -0700
                      Re: problem saving date fields Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2011-05-22 17:28 -0400
          Re: problem saving date fields Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2011-05-21 10:32 -0400
            Re: problem saving date fields Jeff North <jnorthau@yahoo.com.au> - 2011-05-22 02:08 +1000
              Re: problem saving date fields Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2011-05-21 20:01 -0400
                Re: problem saving date fields "Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> - 2011-05-21 20:30 -0400
                  Re: problem saving date fields Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2011-05-21 23:13 -0400
                Re: problem saving date fields Jeff North <jnorthau@yahoo.com.au> - 2011-05-22 14:28 +1000
                  Re: problem saving date fields Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2011-05-22 12:45 +0200
                  Re: problem saving date fields Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2011-05-22 08:26 -0400
                    Re: problem saving date fields "Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> - 2011-05-22 09:20 -0400
                    Re: problem saving date fields Jeff North <jnorthau@yahoo.com.au> - 2011-05-23 00:08 +1000
                      Re: problem saving date fields Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2011-05-22 13:47 -0400
                        Re: problem saving date fields Bill B <me@privacy.net> - 2011-05-22 14:17 -0400
                          Re: problem saving date fields Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2011-05-22 14:26 -0400
                            Re: problem saving date fields Bill B <me@privacy.net> - 2011-05-22 16:27 -0400
                        Re: problem saving date fields Jeff North <jnorthau@yahoo.com.au> - 2011-05-23 09:01 +1000
                          Re: problem saving date fields Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2011-05-22 20:21 -0400
                            Re: problem saving date fields Bill B <me@privacy.net> - 2011-05-22 21:36 -0400
                              Re: problem saving date fields Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2011-05-22 21:46 -0400
                            Re: problem saving date fields Jeff North <jnorthau@yahoo.com.au> - 2011-05-23 12:20 +1000
                              Re: problem saving date fields Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2011-05-22 22:30 -0400
                                Re: problem saving date fields Co <vonclausowitz@gmail.com> - 2011-05-22 21:51 -0700
                                  Re: problem saving date fields Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2011-05-23 07:13 -0400
                                    Re: problem saving date fields Co <vonclausowitz@gmail.com> - 2011-05-23 10:18 -0700
                                    Re: problem saving date fields Co <vonclausowitz@gmail.com> - 2011-05-23 10:27 -0700
                                      Re: problem saving date fields Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2011-05-23 14:16 -0400
                                        Re: problem saving date fields Co <vonclausowitz@gmail.com> - 2011-05-23 12:17 -0700
                                          Re: problem saving date fields Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2011-05-23 18:00 -0400
                                            Re: problem saving date fields Co <vonclausowitz@gmail.com> - 2011-05-23 22:30 -0700
                                              Re: problem saving date fields Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2011-05-24 05:45 -0400
                                                Re: problem saving date fields Co <vonclausowitz@gmail.com> - 2011-05-26 02:10 -0700
                                                  Re: problem saving date fields Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2011-05-26 05:43 -0400
                                      Re: problem saving date fields Co <vonclausowitz@gmail.com> - 2011-05-23 14:26 -0700
                                        Re: problem saving date fields Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2011-05-23 18:01 -0400
                              Re: problem saving date fields Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2011-05-23 23:59 +0200
                  Re: problem saving date fields "Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> - 2011-05-22 09:11 -0400

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#1764

On 5/22/2011 12:28 AM, Jeff North wrote:
> On Sat, 21 May 2011 20:01:17 -0400, in comp.lang.php Jerry Stuckle
> <jstucklex@attglobal.net>
> <ir9jom$663$1@dont-email.me>  wrote:
>
>> | On 5/21/2011 12:08 PM, Jeff North wrote:
>> |>  On Sat, 21 May 2011 10:32:20 -0400, in comp.lang.php Jerry Stuckle
>> |>  <jstucklex@attglobal.net>
>> |>  <ir8idn$ojm$1@dont-email.me>   wrote:
>> |>
>
> [snip]
>
>> |>  There is no need to have variables in the code that aren't being used.
>> |
>> | Yes, there is.  In fact, it is quite common to have variables in the
>> | code which are not being use *at this time*.  And very good reasons for
>> | *not* initializing them - as a *programmer* would know.
>
> Programmers who know more that just PHP know that you are full of
> crap.
>

I've probably forgotten more languages than you ever learned - starting 
with autocoder.

> [snip]
>
>> |>>  |>   The SQL statement should be ok - it's the "When I change of them the
>> |>>  |>   other one gets set back to default: 00-00-0000" I'm considering.
>> |>>  |
>> |>>  | The SQL statement is NOT ok.  As he would find if he printed it out as
>> |>>  | was suggested.
>> |>
>> |>  If the SQL statement was not ok then the record wouldn't be updated.
>> |
>> | Or the row (tables have ROWS, not RECORDS) is not being updated with the
>> | correct data - which is the case here.  But then a *programmer* would
>> | understand that.
>
> A row, or record, would NOT be updated if the SQL statement is NOT ok
> - even a moron like you can understand that - oh you do that is why
> you chose to answer the question the way you did.
>

What an idiot.  An incorrect SQL statement can cause the row to be 
inserted or updated with incorrect data also, as is the case here.

However, it takes intelligence to understand that, which you obviously 
do not have.

>> |>>  |>>   | BTW - your sig separator is broken.  It needs to be exactly
>> |>>  |>>   | hyphen-hyphen-space-newline.
>
> [snip]
>
>> |>>  | It has nothing to do with Thunderbird.  It has EVERYTHING to do with
>> |>>  | following usenet standards, in this case RFC 3736.
>> |>
>> |>  Please highlight the line(s) from RFC 3736 that can back up your
>> |>  claim.
>> |>
>> |>>  | But I see you're as clueless about rfcs as you are programming.
>> |>  -- -------------------------------------------------
>> |>  The supplied code is for guideline purposes only.
>> |
>> | Typo - the rfc is 3676,
>
> 3676 and 3736 is NOT a typo not matter how you try to spin it. If you
> are going to speak with the voice of authority then get your facts
> correct first.
>

OK, now we know you are a troll and an anal orifice.

>> | which you could find if you knew how to do a
>> | simple google search.
>
> Everyone would know that they needed to search for "The Text/Plain
> Format and DelSp Parameters" to get to the relevant information that
> you got wrong in the first place - right?
>

Ditto.

>> | But that looks to be beyond your capability, also.
>
> http://www.apps.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3676.html#sec-4.3
> "There is a long-standing convention in Usenet news which also
> commonly appears in Internet mail of using "-- " as the separator line
> between the body and the signature of a message. When generating a
> Format=Flowed message containing a Usenet-style separator before the
> signature, the separator line is sent as-is."
>

Which RFC is that?


> Now where does it state "It needs to be exactly
> hyphen-hyphen-space-newline."
>

In the RFC.  But you can't read either, so we also know you are an idiot.

> [snip]
> -- -----------------------------------------------------------
> "Pr0r3p"<pr0r3p@yahoo.com>  wrote:
> I said I was aiming at your stupidity, not your brain.
>
> "Johnny"<wxpprofessional@msn.com>  writes:
> You missed. You can not hit a non-existent thing.
> -- -----------------------------------------------------------

So, in one post you've proven you are all three.  Good job - even 
"Pointed Head" hasn't managed that.

-- 
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1767

In news:irave9$qdq$1@dont-email.me,
Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> typed:
> On 5/22/2011 12:28 AM, Jeff North wrote:
>> On Sat, 21 May 2011 20:01:17 -0400, in comp.lang.php
>> Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net>
>> <ir9jom$663$1@dont-email.me>  wrote:
>>
>>>> On 5/21/2011 12:08 PM, Jeff North wrote:
>>>>>  On Sat, 21 May 2011 10:32:20 -0400, in comp.lang.php
>>>>>  Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net>
>>>>>  <ir8idn$ojm$1@dont-email.me>   wrote:
>>>>>
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>>>>  There is no need to have variables in the code that
>>>>> aren't being used.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, there is.  In fact, it is quite common to have
>>>> variables in the code which are not being use *at this
>>>> time*.  And very good reasons for *not* initializing
>>>> them - as a *programmer* would know.
>>
>> Programmers who know more that just PHP know that you
>> are full of crap.
>>
>
> I've probably forgotten more languages than you ever
> learned - starting with autocoder.

That's irrelevant and means nothing to the OPs query. Who cares what other 
languages you know or don't know?

>
>> [snip]
>>
>>>>>>  |>   The SQL statement should be ok - it's the
>>>>>>  "When I change of them the |>   other one gets set
>>>>>>  back to default: 00-00-0000" I'm considering. |
>>>>>>  | The SQL statement is NOT ok.  As he would find if
>>>>>>  he printed it out as | was suggested.
>>>>>
>>>>>  If the SQL statement was not ok then the record
>>>>> wouldn't be updated.
>>>>
>>>> Or the row (tables have ROWS, not RECORDS) is not
>>>> being updated with the correct data - which is the
>>>> case here.  But then a *programmer* would understand
>>>> that.
>>
>> A row, or record, would NOT be updated if the SQL
>> statement is NOT ok - even a moron like you can
>> understand that - oh you do that is why you chose to
>> answer the question the way you did.
>
> What an idiot.

Yes, you are, suckle.

  An incorrect SQL statement can cause the
> row to be inserted or updated with incorrect data also,
> as is the case here.
> However, it takes intelligence to understand that, which
> you obviously do not have.

Too bad that's not the only thing you're lacking! Your rants can only be 
described as stupid and irrelevant. Have you EVER actually helped anyone? I 
know I seldom read your posts unless  I have the time for a bit of 
entertainment by a powerless, groping idiot.


>
>>>>>>  |>>   | BTW - your sig separator is broken.  It
>>>>>>  needs to be exactly |>>   |
>>>>>> hyphen-hyphen-space-newline.
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>>>>>  | It has nothing to do with Thunderbird.  It has
>>>>>>  EVERYTHING to do with | following usenet standards,
>>>>>> in this case RFC 3736.
>>>>>
>>>>>  Please highlight the line(s) from RFC 3736 that can
>>>>>  back up your claim.
>>>>>
>>>>>>  | But I see you're as clueless about rfcs as you
>>>>>> are programming.
>>>>>  -- -------------------------------------------------
>>>>>  The supplied code is for guideline purposes only.
>>>>
>>>> Typo - the rfc is 3676,
>>
>> 3676 and 3736 is NOT a typo not matter how you try to
>> spin it. If you are going to speak with the voice of
>> authority then get your facts correct first.
>>
>
> OK, now we know you are a troll and an anal orifice.
>
>>>> which you could find if you knew how to do a
>>>> simple google search.
>>
>> Everyone would know that they needed to search for "The
>> Text/Plain Format and DelSp Parameters" to get to the
>> relevant information that you got wrong in the first
>> place - right?
>
> Ditto.
>
>>>> But that looks to be beyond your capability, also.
>>
>> http://www.apps.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3676.html#sec-4.3
>> "There is a long-standing convention in Usenet news
>> which also commonly appears in Internet mail of using
>> "-- " as the separator line between the body and the
>> signature of a message. When generating a Format=Flowed
>> message containing a Usenet-style separator before the
>> signature, the separator line is sent as-is."
>
> Which RFC is that?
>
>
>> Now where does it state "It needs to be exactly
>> hyphen-hyphen-space-newline."
>>
>
> In the RFC.  But you can't read either, so we also know
> you are an idiot.

Maybe blatherskite and a total lack of interpersonal skills are better 
descrips for suckie; and apparently it hurts his feelings to be called on 
it. One must never let a usenet post bug them.

>
>> [snip]
>> --
>> -----------------------------------------------------------
>> "Pr0r3p"<pr0r3p@yahoo.com>  wrote: I said I was aiming at your stupidity, 
>> not your brain.
>>
>> "Johnny"<wxpprofessional@msn.com>  writes:
>> You missed. You can not hit a non-existent thing.
>> --
>> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> So, in one post you've proven you are all three.  Good
> job - even "Pointed Head" hasn't managed that.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1769

On Sun, 22 May 2011 08:26:48 -0400, in comp.lang.php Jerry Stuckle
<jstucklex@attglobal.net>
<irave9$qdq$1@dont-email.me> wrote:

>| On 5/22/2011 12:28 AM, Jeff North wrote:
>| > On Sat, 21 May 2011 20:01:17 -0400, in comp.lang.php Jerry Stuckle
>| > <jstucklex@attglobal.net>
>| > <ir9jom$663$1@dont-email.me>  wrote:

[snip]

>| > http://www.apps.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3676.html#sec-4.3
>| > "There is a long-standing convention in Usenet news which also
>| > commonly appears in Internet mail of using "-- " as the separator line
>| > between the body and the signature of a message. When generating a
>| > Format=Flowed message containing a Usenet-style separator before the
>| > signature, the separator line is sent as-is."
>| 
>| Which RFC is that?

Have a look at the hyperlink provided but incase you can't read
hyperlinks it is RFC 3676 - the one that YOU provided - remember?
 
>| > Now where does it state "It needs to be exactly
>| > hyphen-hyphen-space-newline."
>| 
>| In the RFC.  But you can't read either, so we also know you are an idiot.

Which RFC is that - it isn't in the one you provided (3676 or 3736).
Care to provide another RFC?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1773

On 5/22/2011 10:08 AM, Jeff North wrote:
> On Sun, 22 May 2011 08:26:48 -0400, in comp.lang.php Jerry Stuckle
> <jstucklex@attglobal.net>
> <irave9$qdq$1@dont-email.me>  wrote:
>
>> | On 5/22/2011 12:28 AM, Jeff North wrote:
>> |>  On Sat, 21 May 2011 20:01:17 -0400, in comp.lang.php Jerry Stuckle
>> |>  <jstucklex@attglobal.net>
>> |>  <ir9jom$663$1@dont-email.me>   wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> |>  http://www.apps.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3676.html#sec-4.3
>> |>  "There is a long-standing convention in Usenet news which also
>> |>  commonly appears in Internet mail of using "-- " as the separator line
>> |>  between the body and the signature of a message. When generating a
>> |>  Format=Flowed message containing a Usenet-style separator before the
>> |>  signature, the separator line is sent as-is."
>> |
>> | Which RFC is that?
>
> Have a look at the hyperlink provided but incase you can't read
> hyperlinks it is RFC 3676 - the one that YOU provided - remember?
>
>> |>  Now where does it state "It needs to be exactly
>> |>  hyphen-hyphen-space-newline."
>> |
>> | In the RFC.  But you can't read either, so we also know you are an idiot.
>
> Which RFC is that - it isn't in the one you provided (3676 or 3736).
> Care to provide another RFC?

3767.  Learn to read, idiot.  But we already know that is beyond your 
limited capabilities.

-- 
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1775

On 5/22/2011 1:47 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> 3767. Learn to read, idiot. But we already know that is beyond your
> limited capabilities.

You can make your point without being a bully, Mr. Stuckle.

Bill B

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1776

On 5/22/2011 2:17 PM, Bill B wrote:
> On 5/22/2011 1:47 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> 3767. Learn to read, idiot. But we already know that is beyond your
>> limited capabilities.
>
> You can make your point without being a bully, Mr. Stuckle.
>
> Bill B

You can take your self-righteous attitude and stuff it where the sun 
doesn't shine.  That way it will be right next to your head.

But like all trolls, you never have anything to add to a conversation 
but feel you have to stick your ass in anyway.

-- 
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1780

On 5/22/2011 2:26 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> On 5/22/2011 2:17 PM, Bill B wrote:
>> On 5/22/2011 1:47 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>> 3767. Learn to read, idiot. But we already know that is beyond your
>>> limited capabilities.
>>
>> You can make your point without being a bully, Mr. Stuckle.
>>
>> Bill B
>
> You can take your self-righteous attitude and stuff it where the sun
> doesn't shine. That way it will be right next to your head.
>
> But like all trolls, you never have anything to add to a conversation
> but feel you have to stick your ass in anyway.

Grape Nuts, Mr. Stuckle.

Bill B

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1787

On Sun, 22 May 2011 13:47:29 -0400, in comp.lang.php Jerry Stuckle
<jstucklex@attglobal.net>
<irbi7i$gqk$2@dont-email.me> wrote:

>| On 5/22/2011 10:08 AM, Jeff North wrote:
>| > On Sun, 22 May 2011 08:26:48 -0400, in comp.lang.php Jerry Stuckle
>| > <jstucklex@attglobal.net>
>| > <irave9$qdq$1@dont-email.me>  wrote:
>| >
>| >> | On 5/22/2011 12:28 AM, Jeff North wrote:
>| >> |>  On Sat, 21 May 2011 20:01:17 -0400, in comp.lang.php Jerry Stuckle
>| >> |>  <jstucklex@attglobal.net>
>| >> |>  <ir9jom$663$1@dont-email.me>   wrote:
>| >
>| > [snip]
>| >
>| >> |>  http://www.apps.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3676.html#sec-4.3
>| >> |>  "There is a long-standing convention in Usenet news which also
>| >> |>  commonly appears in Internet mail of using "-- " as the separator line
>| >> |>  between the body and the signature of a message. When generating a
>| >> |>  Format=Flowed message containing a Usenet-style separator before the
>| >> |>  signature, the separator line is sent as-is."
>| >> |
>| >> | Which RFC is that?
>| >
>| > Have a look at the hyperlink provided but incase you can't read
>| > hyperlinks it is RFC 3676 - the one that YOU provided - remember?
>| >
>| >> |>  Now where does it state "It needs to be exactly
>| >> |>  hyphen-hyphen-space-newline."
>| >> |
>| >> | In the RFC.  But you can't read either, so we also know you are an idiot.
>| >
>| > Which RFC is that - it isn't in the one you provided (3676 or 3736).
>| > Care to provide another RFC?
>| 
>| 3767.  Learn to read, idiot.  But we already know that is beyond your 
>| limited capabilities.

First it was 3736, then 3676 and on the third attempt we have 3767!!!

What on earth has "Securely Available Credentials Protocol" got to do
with the signature line format?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1788

On 5/22/2011 7:01 PM, Jeff North wrote:
> On Sun, 22 May 2011 13:47:29 -0400, in comp.lang.php Jerry Stuckle
> <jstucklex@attglobal.net>
> <irbi7i$gqk$2@dont-email.me>  wrote:
>
>> | On 5/22/2011 10:08 AM, Jeff North wrote:
>> |>  On Sun, 22 May 2011 08:26:48 -0400, in comp.lang.php Jerry Stuckle
>> |>  <jstucklex@attglobal.net>
>> |>  <irave9$qdq$1@dont-email.me>   wrote:
>> |>
>> |>>  | On 5/22/2011 12:28 AM, Jeff North wrote:
>> |>>  |>   On Sat, 21 May 2011 20:01:17 -0400, in comp.lang.php Jerry Stuckle
>> |>>  |>   <jstucklex@attglobal.net>
>> |>>  |>   <ir9jom$663$1@dont-email.me>    wrote:
>> |>
>> |>  [snip]
>> |>
>> |>>  |>   http://www.apps.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3676.html#sec-4.3
>> |>>  |>   "There is a long-standing convention in Usenet news which also
>> |>>  |>   commonly appears in Internet mail of using "-- " as the separator line
>> |>>  |>   between the body and the signature of a message. When generating a
>> |>>  |>   Format=Flowed message containing a Usenet-style separator before the
>> |>>  |>   signature, the separator line is sent as-is."
>> |>>  |
>> |>>  | Which RFC is that?
>> |>
>> |>  Have a look at the hyperlink provided but incase you can't read
>> |>  hyperlinks it is RFC 3676 - the one that YOU provided - remember?
>> |>
>> |>>  |>   Now where does it state "It needs to be exactly
>> |>>  |>   hyphen-hyphen-space-newline."
>> |>>  |
>> |>>  | In the RFC.  But you can't read either, so we also know you are an idiot.
>> |>
>> |>  Which RFC is that - it isn't in the one you provided (3676 or 3736).
>> |>  Care to provide another RFC?
>> |
>> | 3767.  Learn to read, idiot.  But we already know that is beyond your
>> | limited capabilities.
>
> First it was 3736, then 3676 and on the third attempt we have 3767!!!
>
> What on earth has "Securely Available Credentials Protocol" got to do
> with the signature line format?

What an idiot.  Sure, it was a typo.  It's 3676, but it really doesn't 
make any difference anyway, because the rfc has words of more than one 
syllable, so you can't understand it, anyway.

Once again you prove what an idiot you are.  Can't even learn to google 
for yourself.

Does your mommy read books to you?  And maybe even these usenet posts?

-- 
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1789

On 5/22/2011 8:21 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> What an idiot. Sure, it was a typo. It's 3676, but it really doesn't
> make any difference anyway, because the rfc has words of more than one
> syllable, so you can't understand it, anyway.
>
> Once again you prove what an idiot you are. Can't even learn to google
> for yourself.
>
> Does your mommy read books to you? And maybe even these usenet posts?

No pass for being a bully, Mr. Stuckle. You can make your point using a 
civil tongue.

Bill B

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1790

On 5/22/2011 9:36 PM, Bill B wrote:
> On 5/22/2011 8:21 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> What an idiot. Sure, it was a typo. It's 3676, but it really doesn't
>> make any difference anyway, because the rfc has words of more than one
>> syllable, so you can't understand it, anyway.
>>
>> Once again you prove what an idiot you are. Can't even learn to google
>> for yourself.
>>
>> Does your mommy read books to you? And maybe even these usenet posts?
>
> No pass for being a bully, Mr. Stuckle. You can make your point using a
> civil tongue.
>
> Bill B
>

You can take your self-righteous attitude and stuff it where the sun 
doesn't shine.  That way it will be right next to your head.

But you're just a typical troll - lots of hot air but nothing positive 
to add to the conversation.

-- 
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1791

On Sun, 22 May 2011 20:21:14 -0400, in comp.lang.php Jerry Stuckle
<jstucklex@attglobal.net>
<irc99s$50v$1@dont-email.me> wrote:

>| On 5/22/2011 7:01 PM, Jeff North wrote:
>| > On Sun, 22 May 2011 13:47:29 -0400, in comp.lang.php Jerry Stuckle
>| > <jstucklex@attglobal.net>
>| > <irbi7i$gqk$2@dont-email.me>  wrote:
>| >
>| >> | On 5/22/2011 10:08 AM, Jeff North wrote:
>| >> |>  On Sun, 22 May 2011 08:26:48 -0400, in comp.lang.php Jerry Stuckle
>| >> |>  <jstucklex@attglobal.net>
>| >> |>  <irave9$qdq$1@dont-email.me>   wrote:
>| >> |>
>| >> |>>  | On 5/22/2011 12:28 AM, Jeff North wrote:
>| >> |>>  |>   On Sat, 21 May 2011 20:01:17 -0400, in comp.lang.php Jerry Stuckle
>| >> |>>  |>   <jstucklex@attglobal.net>
>| >> |>>  |>   <ir9jom$663$1@dont-email.me>    wrote:
>| >> |>
>| >> |>  [snip]
>| >> |>
>| >> |>>  |>   http://www.apps.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3676.html#sec-4.3
>| >> |>>  |>   "There is a long-standing convention in Usenet news which also
>| >> |>>  |>   commonly appears in Internet mail of using "-- " as the separator line
>| >> |>>  |>   between the body and the signature of a message. When generating a
>| >> |>>  |>   Format=Flowed message containing a Usenet-style separator before the
>| >> |>>  |>   signature, the separator line is sent as-is."
>| >> |>>  |
>| >> |>>  | Which RFC is that?
>| >> |>
>| >> |>  Have a look at the hyperlink provided but incase you can't read
>| >> |>  hyperlinks it is RFC 3676 - the one that YOU provided - remember?
>| >> |>
>| >> |>>  |>   Now where does it state "It needs to be exactly
>| >> |>>  |>   hyphen-hyphen-space-newline."
>| >> |>>  |
>| >> |>>  | In the RFC.  But you can't read either, so we also know you are an idiot.
>| >> |>
>| >> |>  Which RFC is that - it isn't in the one you provided (3676 or 3736).
>| >> |>  Care to provide another RFC?
>| >> |
>| >> | 3767.  Learn to read, idiot.  But we already know that is beyond your
>| >> | limited capabilities.
>| >
>| > First it was 3736, then 3676 and on the third attempt we have 3767!!!
>| >
>| > What on earth has "Securely Available Credentials Protocol" got to do
>| > with the signature line format?
>| 
>| What an idiot.  Sure, it was a typo.  It's 3676, 

IOW your full of crap.

>| but it really doesn't 
>| make any difference anyway, because the rfc has words of more than one 
>| syllable, so you can't understand it, anyway.
>| 
>| Once again you prove what an idiot you are.  Can't even learn to google 
>| for yourself.
>| 
>| Does your mommy read books to you?  And maybe even these usenet posts?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1792

On 5/22/2011 10:20 PM, Jeff North wrote:
> On Sun, 22 May 2011 20:21:14 -0400, in comp.lang.php Jerry Stuckle
> <jstucklex@attglobal.net>
> <irc99s$50v$1@dont-email.me>  wrote:
>
>> | On 5/22/2011 7:01 PM, Jeff North wrote:
>> |>  On Sun, 22 May 2011 13:47:29 -0400, in comp.lang.php Jerry Stuckle
>> |>  <jstucklex@attglobal.net>
>> |>  <irbi7i$gqk$2@dont-email.me>   wrote:
>> |>
>> |>>  | On 5/22/2011 10:08 AM, Jeff North wrote:
>> |>>  |>   On Sun, 22 May 2011 08:26:48 -0400, in comp.lang.php Jerry Stuckle
>> |>>  |>   <jstucklex@attglobal.net>
>> |>>  |>   <irave9$qdq$1@dont-email.me>    wrote:
>> |>>  |>
>> |>>  |>>   | On 5/22/2011 12:28 AM, Jeff North wrote:
>> |>>  |>>   |>    On Sat, 21 May 2011 20:01:17 -0400, in comp.lang.php Jerry Stuckle
>> |>>  |>>   |>    <jstucklex@attglobal.net>
>> |>>  |>>   |>    <ir9jom$663$1@dont-email.me>     wrote:
>> |>>  |>
>> |>>  |>   [snip]
>> |>>  |>
>> |>>  |>>   |>    http://www.apps.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3676.html#sec-4.3
>> |>>  |>>   |>    "There is a long-standing convention in Usenet news which also
>> |>>  |>>   |>    commonly appears in Internet mail of using "-- " as the separator line
>> |>>  |>>   |>    between the body and the signature of a message. When generating a
>> |>>  |>>   |>    Format=Flowed message containing a Usenet-style separator before the
>> |>>  |>>   |>    signature, the separator line is sent as-is."
>> |>>  |>>   |
>> |>>  |>>   | Which RFC is that?
>> |>>  |>
>> |>>  |>   Have a look at the hyperlink provided but incase you can't read
>> |>>  |>   hyperlinks it is RFC 3676 - the one that YOU provided - remember?
>> |>>  |>
>> |>>  |>>   |>    Now where does it state "It needs to be exactly
>> |>>  |>>   |>    hyphen-hyphen-space-newline."
>> |>>  |>>   |
>> |>>  |>>   | In the RFC.  But you can't read either, so we also know you are an idiot.
>> |>>  |>
>> |>>  |>   Which RFC is that - it isn't in the one you provided (3676 or 3736).
>> |>>  |>   Care to provide another RFC?
>> |>>  |
>> |>>  | 3767.  Learn to read, idiot.  But we already know that is beyond your
>> |>>  | limited capabilities.
>> |>
>> |>  First it was 3736, then 3676 and on the third attempt we have 3767!!!
>> |>
>> |>  What on earth has "Securely Available Credentials Protocol" got to do
>> |>  with the signature line format?
>> |
>> | What an idiot.  Sure, it was a typo.  It's 3676,
>
> IOW your full of crap.

IOW, your mommy isn't around to read it to you.

>
>> | but it really doesn't
>> | make any difference anyway, because the rfc has words of more than one
>> | syllable, so you can't understand it, anyway.
>> |
>> | Once again you prove what an idiot you are.  Can't even learn to google
>> | for yourself.
>> |
>> | Does your mommy read books to you?  And maybe even these usenet posts?


-- 
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1793

On 23 mei, 04:30, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> On 5/22/2011 10:20 PM, Jeff North wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 22 May 2011 20:21:14 -0400, in comp.lang.php Jerry Stuckle
> > <jstuck...@attglobal.net>
> > <irc99s$50...@dont-email.me>  wrote:
>
> >> | On 5/22/2011 7:01 PM, Jeff North wrote:
> >> |>  On Sun, 22 May 2011 13:47:29 -0400, in comp.lang.php Jerry Stuckle
> >> |>  <jstuck...@attglobal.net>
> >> |>  <irbi7i$gq...@dont-email.me>   wrote:
> >> |>
> >> |>>  | On 5/22/2011 10:08 AM, Jeff North wrote:
> >> |>>  |>   On Sun, 22 May 2011 08:26:48 -0400, in comp.lang.php Jerry Stuckle
> >> |>>  |>   <jstuck...@attglobal.net>
> >> |>>  |>   <irave9$qd...@dont-email.me>    wrote:
> >> |>>  |>
> >> |>>  |>>   | On 5/22/2011 12:28 AM, Jeff North wrote:
> >> |>>  |>>   |>    On Sat, 21 May 2011 20:01:17 -0400, in comp.lang.php Jerry Stuckle
> >> |>>  |>>   |>    <jstuck...@attglobal.net>
> >> |>>  |>>   |>    <ir9jom$66...@dont-email.me>     wrote:
> >> |>>  |>
> >> |>>  |>   [snip]
> >> |>>  |>
> >> |>>  |>>   |>    http://www.apps.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3676.html#sec-4.3
> >> |>>  |>>   |>    "There is a long-standing convention in Usenet news which also
> >> |>>  |>>   |>    commonly appears in Internet mail of using "-- " as the separator line
> >> |>>  |>>   |>    between the body and the signature of a message. When generating a
> >> |>>  |>>   |>    Format=Flowed message containing a Usenet-style separator before the
> >> |>>  |>>   |>    signature, the separator line is sent as-is."
> >> |>>  |>>   |
> >> |>>  |>>   | Which RFC is that?
> >> |>>  |>
> >> |>>  |>   Have a look at the hyperlink provided but incase you can't read
> >> |>>  |>   hyperlinks it is RFC 3676 - the one that YOU provided - remember?
> >> |>>  |>
> >> |>>  |>>   |>    Now where does it state "It needs to be exactly
> >> |>>  |>>   |>    hyphen-hyphen-space-newline."
> >> |>>  |>>   |
> >> |>>  |>>   | In the RFC.  But you can't read either, so we also know you are an idiot.
> >> |>>  |>
> >> |>>  |>   Which RFC is that - it isn't in the one you provided (3676 or 3736).
> >> |>>  |>   Care to provide another RFC?
> >> |>>  |
> >> |>>  | 3767.  Learn to read, idiot.  But we already know that is beyond your
> >> |>>  | limited capabilities.
> >> |>
> >> |>  First it was 3736, then 3676 and on the third attempt we have 3767!!!
> >> |>
> >> |>  What on earth has "Securely Available Credentials Protocol" got to do
> >> |>  with the signature line format?
> >> |
> >> | What an idiot.  Sure, it was a typo.  It's 3676,
>
> > IOW your full of crap.
>
> IOW, your mommy isn't around to read it to you.
>
>
>
> >> | but it really doesn't
> >> | make any difference anyway, because the rfc has words of more than one
> >> | syllable, so you can't understand it, anyway.
> >> |
> >> | Once again you prove what an idiot you are.  Can't even learn to google
> >> | for yourself.
> >> |
> >> | Does your mommy read books to you?  And maybe even these usenet posts?
>
> --
> ==================
> Remove the "x" from my email address
> Jerry Stuckle
> JDS Computer Training Corp.
> jstuck...@attglobal.net
> ==================

Wow you guys really love each other.

Marco

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1799

On 5/23/2011 12:51 AM, Co wrote:
>> ==================
>
> Wow you guys really love each other.
>
> Marco

Yea, unfortunately, you have to put up with some trolls on usenet.

-- 
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1805

On 23 mei, 13:13, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> On 5/23/2011 12:51 AM, Co wrote:
>
> >> ==================
>
> > Wow you guys really love each other.
>
> > Marco
>
> Yea, unfortunately, you have to put up with some trolls on usenet.
>
> --
> ==================
> Remove the "x" from my email address
> Jerry Stuckle
> JDS Computer Training Corp.
> jstuck...@attglobal.net
> ==================

So Jerry I maneged to get the values of the query:

Array ( [firstname] =>  [lastname] =>  [gender] => m [country] =>
Netherlands [rank] =>  [service] => [position] =>  [arrival_day] => 5
[arrival_month] => April [arrival_year] => 2005 [departure_day] => 10
[departure_month] => 08 [departure_year] => 2008 [birthday_day] => 6
[birthday_month] => 11 [birthday_year] => 1980 [partner] => 2
[updateBtn2] => Update [parse_var] => location [thisWipit] =>
-231125644 ) 208

I took out the information that don't matter.
The results printed here are from an update of the Date of departure
and Birthday.
The arrival date was already set before.

What are your thoughts?
Marco

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1806

On 23 mei, 13:13, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> On 5/23/2011 12:51 AM, Co wrote:
>
> >> ==================
>
> > Wow you guys really love each other.
>
> > Marco
>
> Yea, unfortunately, you have to put up with some trolls on usenet.
>
> --
> ==================
> Remove the "x" from my email address
> Jerry Stuckle
> JDS Computer Training Corp.
> jstuck...@attglobal.net
> ==================

So when one of the three dates is not changed it returns the month
written.
Than this code:
$arrival_month = preg_replace('#[^0-9]#i', '',
$_POST['arrival_month']);
ruins the date and it gets set back to 00-00-0000.
Is there a way to detect changes? because than I could set an if
statement before
running the UPDATE query and we leave out the dates that were not
changed.

Marco

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1811

On 5/23/2011 1:27 PM, Co wrote:
> On 23 mei, 13:13, Jerry Stuckle<jstuck...@attglobal.net>  wrote:
>> On 5/23/2011 12:51 AM, Co wrote:
>>
>>>> ==================
>>
>>> Wow you guys really love each other.
>>
>>> Marco
>>
>> Yea, unfortunately, you have to put up with some trolls on usenet.
>>
>
> So when one of the three dates is not changed it returns the month
> written.
> Than this code:
> $arrival_month = preg_replace('#[^0-9]#i', '',
> $_POST['arrival_month']);
> ruins the date and it gets set back to 00-00-0000.
> Is there a way to detect changes? because than I could set an if
> statement before
> running the UPDATE query and we leave out the dates that were not
> changed.
>
> Marco

OK, the question is, where is it getting the month name instead of the 
number?  It has to be coming from your html code.  Look at the page 
source and see where you're putting 'April' in there instead of 4.

As for detecting when the data changed - the only way is to do something 
like save the current data in your $_SESSION and compare when it is 
retrieved.  However, that isn't necessary if you get your problem with 
the month name being retrieved.  It doesn't hurt to update a value in 
the database with the same value.

-- 
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1813

On 23 mei, 20:16, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> On 5/23/2011 1:27 PM, Co wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 23 mei, 13:13, Jerry Stuckle<jstuck...@attglobal.net>  wrote:
> >> On 5/23/2011 12:51 AM, Co wrote:
>
> >>>> ==================
>
> >>> Wow you guys really love each other.
>
> >>> Marco
>
> >> Yea, unfortunately, you have to put up with some trolls on usenet.
>
> > So when one of the three dates is not changed it returns the month
> > written.
> > Than this code:
> > $arrival_month = preg_replace('#[^0-9]#i', '',
> > $_POST['arrival_month']);
> > ruins the date and it gets set back to 00-00-0000.
> > Is there a way to detect changes? because than I could set an if
> > statement before
> > running the UPDATE query and we leave out the dates that were not
> > changed.
>
> > Marco
>
> OK, the question is, where is it getting the month name instead of the
> number?  It has to be coming from your html code.  Look at the page
> source and see where you're putting 'April' in there instead of 4.
>
> As for detecting when the data changed - the only way is to do something
> like save the current data in your $_SESSION and compare when it is
> retrieved.  However, that isn't necessary if you get your problem with
> the month name being retrieved.  It doesn't hurt to update a value in
> the database with the same value.
>
> --
> ==================
> Remove the "x" from my email address
> Jerry Stuckle
> JDS Computer Training Corp.
> jstuck...@attglobal.net
> ==================

It is getting the name of the month when the pulldown menu is filled.

<select name="arrival_month" class="formFields" id="arrival_month">
<option value="<?php print "$arrival_month"; ?>"><?php print
"$arrival_month"; ?></option>
<option value="01">January</option>
<option value="02">February</option>
<option value="03">March</option>
<option value="04">April</option>
<option value="05">May</option>
<option value="06">June</option>
<option value="07">July</option>
<option value="08">August</option>
<option value="09">September</option>
<option value="10">October</option>
<option value="11">November</option>
<option value="12">December</option>
</select>

The problem is that during the Post it returns the name instead of the
number.

I tried this code but when I don't change the month it doesn't pass
the code:
if(!is_numeric($arrival_month)) {

for($i=1;$i<=12;$i++){
   if(strtolower(date("M", mktime(0, 0, 0, $i, 1, 0))) ==
strtolower($arrival_month)){
	        $arrival_month = $i;
					 }
   				}
print $arrival_month;
}

Marco

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1818

On 5/23/2011 3:17 PM, Co wrote:
> On 23 mei, 20:16, Jerry Stuckle<jstuck...@attglobal.net>  wrote:
>> On 5/23/2011 1:27 PM, Co wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 23 mei, 13:13, Jerry Stuckle<jstuck...@attglobal.net>    wrote:
>>>> On 5/23/2011 12:51 AM, Co wrote:
>>
>>>>>> ==================
>>
>>>>> Wow you guys really love each other.
>>
>>>>> Marco
>>
>>>> Yea, unfortunately, you have to put up with some trolls on usenet.
>>
>>> So when one of the three dates is not changed it returns the month
>>> written.
>>> Than this code:
>>> $arrival_month = preg_replace('#[^0-9]#i', '',
>>> $_POST['arrival_month']);
>>> ruins the date and it gets set back to 00-00-0000.
>>> Is there a way to detect changes? because than I could set an if
>>> statement before
>>> running the UPDATE query and we leave out the dates that were not
>>> changed.
>>
>>> Marco
>>
>> OK, the question is, where is it getting the month name instead of the
>> number?  It has to be coming from your html code.  Look at the page
>> source and see where you're putting 'April' in there instead of 4.
>>
>> As for detecting when the data changed - the only way is to do something
>> like save the current data in your $_SESSION and compare when it is
>> retrieved.  However, that isn't necessary if you get your problem with
>> the month name being retrieved.  It doesn't hurt to update a value in
>> the database with the same value.
>>
>> --
>> ==================
>> Remove the "x" from my email address
>> Jerry Stuckle
>> JDS Computer Training Corp.
>> jstuck...@attglobal.net
>> ==================
>
> It is getting the name of the month when the pulldown menu is filled.
>
> <select name="arrival_month" class="formFields" id="arrival_month">
> <option value="<?php print "$arrival_month"; ?>"><?php print
> "$arrival_month"; ?></option>
> <option value="01">January</option>
> <option value="02">February</option>
> <option value="03">March</option>
> <option value="04">April</option>
> <option value="05">May</option>
> <option value="06">June</option>
> <option value="07">July</option>
> <option value="08">August</option>
> <option value="09">September</option>
> <option value="10">October</option>
> <option value="11">November</option>
> <option value="12">December</option>
> </select>
>
> The problem is that during the Post it returns the name instead of the
> number.
>
> I tried this code but when I don't change the month it doesn't pass
> the code:
> if(!is_numeric($arrival_month)) {
>
> for($i=1;$i<=12;$i++){
>     if(strtolower(date("M", mktime(0, 0, 0, $i, 1, 0))) ==
> strtolower($arrival_month)){
> 	        $arrival_month = $i;
> 					 }
>     				}
> print $arrival_month;
> }
>
> Marco

Of course it will.  You have:

<option value="<?php print "$arrival_month"; ?>"><?php print 
"$arrival_month"; ?></option>

Which has the month name as its option value.  If the arrival month were 
April, you would have two Aprils - the first one in the SELECT element 
with a value of 'April', then one later with a value of '4'.

You need to straighten out your HTML.  You only need one  APRIL.  Look 
up the SELECT/OPTION element and learn how to display the previously 
selected value instead of the first value (hint: look for the SELECTED 
keyword).

-- 
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.php

csiph-web