[antispam-f] Re: The enabling variable PPP$Connected
- From: Jeremy Nicoll - freelists <jn.flists.73@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: antispam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 18:25:44 +0000
John Williams <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> In article <4f4f69ec4csteve.pampling@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> Steven Pampling <steve.pampling@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > What are the results?
>
> Thank you for trying to help, Steve, but there really isn't a problem to
> solve. PPP$Connected is whatever I set it to be.
So, Steve gets thanked because he finally manged to pry out of you what I've
been repeatedly asking you for, which is some explanation for how your
PPP$Connected variable has ended up with a TRUE value when other peoples'
variables don't.
And guess what, surprise surprise, we find out what I thought must be the
case - you have a problem because you SET a specific value in the variable
because YOU thought (for no documented reason) that that's what it had to
be. And it didn't work right because you don't set it up right.
> My reference to a 'solution' was merely a reference to Jeremy's assertion
> that he was 'contributing to a problem'.
I'm very inclined to suggest you eff off.
You posted describing, if not a problem, at least something that didn't
appear to be working 'properly'. Several people have tried by asking pointed
questions to find out why you've been having problems with a facility that's
worked fine for everyone else.
Your reaction to that has been rude, eg questioning why I should bother to
take an interest in the problem. Well, I wish I hadn't. You're the least
grateful enquirer I've had the misfortune to waste time replying to for a
very long time.
If you're going to play with semantics and say that your problem wasn't
really a problem, and/or that my questions as I tried to understand your
not-problem were not appreciated by you, or that in some way I wasn't
'contributing' or something, then I think there is another problem.
Don't expect any help in the future. Of course that probably doesn't matter
because you probably don't think anyone has "helped", but then, they didn't
have to because - oh yes I just remembered - there's no 'problem', is there?
>
> There is actually no problem here for me - it was for others I was
> concerned. But if no-one else has been affected, that's fine.
No-one who reads the documentation and believes it will have had a problem.
Only people who read into it things that are not there are going to have a
problem.
--
Jeremy Nicoll - my opinions are my own
Other related posts:
