Given what I saw for his code at the time, I couldn't understand what he said. I asked what he meant, giving my interpretation so he could correct it or let me know what I missed.
How is that derisive or treating someone (other than myself) as stupid?
| [reply] |
Given what I saw for his code at the time
and therein lies the problem. you did not see because you did not look. rather, you ASS-U-MEd that the OP was doing something St00Pid when you could have easily checked whether binmode was used (hint: your browser has a FIND capability that would let you search for binmode in the OPs posted code.
imo, you did not treat yourself as stupid. whether you acted stupidly is a matter of interpretation. for my money, you were a duckhead for shooting off your keyboard before you really checked what was in the OPs post.
| [reply]
[d/l]
[select] |
Why would I assume he didn't use binmode when he said he did? Sure I usually skim the post. But if I pointed something very specific was missing, it's because I looked for that very specific item and I didn't see it. I remember checking twice before posting, which is why I said I was blind: I looked twice, but I didn't see.
| [reply]
[d/l] |
Hm. I was in tune with your initial admonishment, but now you're belabouring the point. Ike is hardly the first, nor the most frequent (that'd probably be me!), person to have misread a post.
You'd do well to remember, that given 99 times out of 100 (made up statistic), you get the (correct) gist of a post at the first reading, (and he does), there is no trigger to cause you to doubt your interpretation of it. So why would you?
He acknowledged his error, so back off!
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
| [reply] |