Simple login form with cookies

[PJ-14]

Tony Marston wrote:
> I do not follows rules which cannot be justified beyond the expression "It
> is there, so obey it!" Why is it there? What are the alternatives? What harm
> does it do? What happens if the rule is disobeyed?
Damn, isn't life frustrating... in case no one has noticed, 99 % of the
rules we have in society are made by idiots and power hungry dimwits...
how often do you see a politician or "leader" who is an intelligent
person, let alone an "intellectual" ?

Hate to say it, but "top posting" is about as rrelevant to our exixtence
as a bacterial fart. :-D
>  Top posting existed in
> the early days of the internet, and for a logical reason. Then some arrogant
> prat came along and said "I don't like this, so I am going to make a rule
> which forbids it!". I don't like this rule, so I choose to disobey it.
>
>  


--
Hervé Kempf: "Pour sauver la planète, sortez du capitalisme."
-------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Jourdan --- pj@...
   http://www.ptahhotep.com
   http://www.chiccantine.com/andypantry.php


--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

[PJ-14]

Paul M Foster wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 08, 2009 at 03:23:49PM -0400, Bob McConnell wrote:
>
>  
>> From: Tony Marston
>>
>>    
>>> I do not follows rules which cannot be justified beyond the expression
>>>      
>> "It
>>    
>>> is there, so obey it!" Why is it there? What are the alternatives?
>>>      
>> What harm
>>    
>>> does it do? What happens if the rule is disobeyed? Top posting existed
>>>      
>> in
>>    
>>> the early days of the internet, and for a logical reason. Then some
>>>      
>> arrogant
>>    
>>> prat came along and said "I don't like this, so I am going to make a
>>>      
>> rule
>>    
>>> which forbids it!". I don't like this rule, so I choose to disobey it.
>>>      
>> Daniel already explained to you why it is there. Long threads get too
>> confusing with top posting. When posted correctly they read
>> chronologically from top to bottom so they can be followed and
>> understood when referenced a year or two later.
>>
>> Top posting did not exist in the early days of the Internet. I was
>> active on email listserves and Usenet newsgroups 18 years ago, long
>> before Microsoft discovered them and decided that top posting should be
>> the norm. All of the other news and email clients I have ever used
>> defaulted to bottom posting. It was only in Outlook 2003 that Microsoft
>> finally removed that option completely. Previous versions allowed bottom
>> posting and even handled the attribution markup correctly.
>>    
>
> Also, Tony's mail reader is broken-- Microsoft Outlook Express 6.
>
> Paul
>
>  

Actually, I prefer "middle posting".... ;-)

--
Hervé Kempf: "Pour sauver la planète, sortez du capitalisme."
-------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Jourdan --- pj@...
   http://www.ptahhotep.com
   http://www.chiccantine.com/andypantry.php


--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

[Andrew Ballard]

On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 4:45 PM, PJ<af.gourmet@...> wrote:
> Andrew Ballard wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 11:53 AM, PJ<af.gourmet@...> wrote:
>>> I have a couple of questions/comments re all this:
>>>

[snip]

>>> 2. Cleaning is another bloody headache, for me anyway. I have found that
>>> almost every time I try to do some cleaning with trim and
>>> mysql_real_escape_string and stripslashes wipes out my usernames and
>>> passwords. I havent' been able to use them when doing the crypt and
>>> encrypt stuff with salt. Without cleaning it works fine... so, I'm a bit
>>> lost on this.
>>> Specifically, this wipes out my login and password... (I know, this is
>>> old code, but it is supposed to work, no? )
>>> //Function to sanitize values received from the form. Prevents SQL injection
>>>    function clean($str) {
>>>        $str = @trim($str);
>>>        if(get_magic_quotes_gpc()) {
>>>            $str = stripslashes($str);
>>>        }
>>>        return mysql_real_escape_string($str);
>>>    }
>>>
>>>    //Sanitize the POST values
>>>    $login = clean($_POST['login']);
>>>    $password = clean($_POST['password']);
>>>
>>> When I echoes the cleaned $login and $password, they looked like they
>>> had just gone through an acid bath before being hit by katerina
>>> (hurricane)... ;-) rather whitewashed and empty. There was nothing left
>>> to work with.
>>>
>>
>> One thing to check - I'm pretty sure that mysql_real_escape_string
>> will only work if you have an open connection to mysql,
> It's always open... I think.. do you mean within the active script (the
> one I'm working on) ? Yes. yes, it's open.

As long as you have called mysql_connect() prior to using
mysql_real_escape_string() and the result of the former was a valid
connection resource, then the latter should work. Otherwise
mysql_real_escape_string() will try to connect with the default
credentials stored in php.ini, and failing that will generate an
E_WARNING that it was unable to connect.

Also, if there is no active connection, mysql_real_escape_string()
returns the boolean value false.


> the user_name was just plain alphabet soup... no special characters...
> the password, though, had some uppercase weirdos... like @$$
> (backslashing doesn't seem to help)... oh, well.... :-\

You shouldn't need to escape those specific characters in a MySQL
query, so running them through addslashes(), mysql_escape_string(), or
mysql_real_escape_string() would not escape them, and manually
escaping them would not produce desired results.

>>  because it
>> uses that connection to figure out what character encoding
> Ohmygod.... not character encoding... it's such a mess for me. I try to
> only use utf8 but theres so much confusion with that that I have stopped
> thinking about it until a problem occurs... like in Firefox ... iget
> emails with the Western encoding and the utf8 so I often have to
> switch... and the prinouts don't follow either... lots of little black
> diamonds... a reat pita.

Here is a blog post that explains why it is important for
mysql_real_escape_string() to consider character sets.

>> is being
>> used so it can escape the string accordingly. (If unable to connect,
>> it should raise an E_WARNING.)
>>
>> I'm not sure why you would need to use @ with trim(), but that shouldn't matter.
>>
> Frankly, I don't know either. I borrowed the code somewhere; but I
> usually just 86 those @ts so I can see errors.
>> Otherwise, nothing in there should mangle the input.
>>
> mangle does as mangle can mangle... :-D

The function looks pretty straightforward. I'm curious what input you
are passing and how it's being "mangled" by the function.

Andrew

--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

[Andrew Ballard]

Try again, and include the actual link this time, dummy. :-)

On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 5:30 PM, Andrew Ballard<aballard@...> wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 4:45 PM, PJ<af.gourmet@...> wrote:
>> Andrew Ballard wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 11:53 AM, PJ<af.gourmet@...> wrote:
>>>> I have a couple of questions/comments re all this:
>>>>
>
> [snip]
>
>>>> 2. Cleaning is another bloody headache, for me anyway. I have found that
>>>> almost every time I try to do some cleaning with trim and
>>>> mysql_real_escape_string and stripslashes wipes out my usernames and
>>>> passwords. I havent' been able to use them when doing the crypt and
>>>> encrypt stuff with salt. Without cleaning it works fine... so, I'm a bit
>>>> lost on this.
>>>> Specifically, this wipes out my login and password... (I know, this is
>>>> old code, but it is supposed to work, no? )
>>>> //Function to sanitize values received from the form. Prevents SQL injection
>>>>    function clean($str) {
>>>>        $str = @trim($str);
>>>>        if(get_magic_quotes_gpc()) {
>>>>            $str = stripslashes($str);
>>>>        }
>>>>        return mysql_real_escape_string($str);
>>>>    }
>>>>
>>>>    //Sanitize the POST values
>>>>    $login = clean($_POST['login']);
>>>>    $password = clean($_POST['password']);
>>>>
>>>> When I echoes the cleaned $login and $password, they looked like they
>>>> had just gone through an acid bath before being hit by katerina
>>>> (hurricane)... ;-) rather whitewashed and empty. There was nothing left
>>>> to work with.
>>>>
>>>
>>> One thing to check - I'm pretty sure that mysql_real_escape_string
>>> will only work if you have an open connection to mysql,
>> It's always open... I think.. do you mean within the active script (the
>> one I'm working on) ? Yes. yes, it's open.
>
>
> As long as you have called mysql_connect() prior to using
> mysql_real_escape_string() and the result of the former was a valid
> connection resource, then the latter should work. Otherwise
> mysql_real_escape_string() will try to connect with the default
> credentials stored in php.ini, and failing that will generate an
> E_WARNING that it was unable to connect.
>
> Also, if there is no active connection, mysql_real_escape_string()
> returns the boolean value false.
>
>
>> the user_name was just plain alphabet soup... no special characters...
>> the password, though, had some uppercase weirdos... like @$$
>> (backslashing doesn't seem to help)... oh, well.... :-\
>
> You shouldn't need to escape those specific characters in a MySQL
> query, so running them through addslashes(), mysql_escape_string(), or
> mysql_real_escape_string() would not escape them, and manually
> escaping them would not produce desired results.
>
>>>  because it
>>> uses that connection to figure out what character encoding
>> Ohmygod.... not character encoding... it's such a mess for me. I try to
>> only use utf8 but theres so much confusion with that that I have stopped
>> thinking about it until a problem occurs... like in Firefox ... iget
>> emails with the Western encoding and the utf8 so I often have to
>> switch... and the prinouts don't follow either... lots of little black
>> diamonds... a reat pita.
>
> Here is a blog post that explains why it is important for
> mysql_real_escape_string() to consider character sets.

http://shiflett.org/blog/2006/jan/addslashes-versus-mysql-real-escape-string

>>> is being
>>> used so it can escape the string accordingly. (If unable to connect,
>>> it should raise an E_WARNING.)
>>>
>>> I'm not sure why you would need to use @ with trim(), but that shouldn't matter.
>>>
>> Frankly, I don't know either. I borrowed the code somewhere; but I
>> usually just 86 those @ts so I can see errors.
>>> Otherwise, nothing in there should mangle the input.
>>>
>> mangle does as mangle can mangle... :-D
>
> The function looks pretty straightforward. I'm curious what input you
> are passing and how it's being "mangled" by the function.
>
> Andrew
>

--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

[JasonCarson]

>
> The basic model for password authentication is to use one way crypt
> routines. MySql has several, PHP also has them. The basic algorithm
> would be like this:
>
> 1) read the password from the form.
> 2) read the password from you datastore that matches the user name or
> session
> 3) encrypt the password on the form.
> 4) do a string comparison between the database data and the encrypted
> password from the form.
>
> This is of course assumes that you have been encrypting your password
> when you store them (always good practice) so I think this translates to
> php as (forgive me if this is bogus, it's been a while since I've done
> any php)
>
> <?
> $salt = 'someglobalsaltstring'; # the salt should be the same salt used
> when storing passwords to your database otherwise it won't work
> $passwd = crypt($_GET['passwd'], $salt);
> if ($passwd == $userObject->getPassword) { return 1} else {return 0}
> ?>
>
> So I've not tested this obviously but you would have to have a
> $userObject which is your interface between your software and your user
> data.
>
> Hope it helps,
> Carl.
>

I am encrypting the stored password with SHA1.

I am new to programming and PHP so I am unsure what to do with this line
$userObject->getPassword



--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

[Tony Marston]

There are too many people in this newsgroup with the idea that you  MUST
obey the rules, whatever they are, WITHOUT QUESTION. I do not subscribe to
this notion. I have been working in IT (or DP as it was originally called)
for over 30 years, and in that time I have worked with many groups, and each
group has had its own version "the rules" (aka "guidelines" or "standards").
When moving to a new group the new rules will always be different, and will
sometimes contradict what you had before. Why is this? Why do some groups
say "do A instead of B" while others say "do B instead of A"? Does it make a
difference?

The problem partially lies in the way in which the rules are created. It
starts with some wise ass saying
(1) Without rules there will be anarchy, so we must have rules.
(2) There are no such things as bad rules.
(3) Do not allow any choices. If there is a choice between A and B then
choose one as the standard. It doesn't matter which one.
(4) Everybody must be the same, nobody is allowed to be different.
(5) The rules must be obeyed without question.
(6) If a rule causes a problem then you must work around it, you cannot
change the rule.

Item (5) usually exists because the author of the rule cannot justify its
existence. He just flipped a coin and it came down tails instead of heads,
so that's it. Any moron can make rules like this.

Some people just cannot understand that sometimes a rule was created for a
certain set of circumstances, but if the circumstances change then the rule
needs changing in order to keep up with the times. Because they do not
understand why the rule was created in the first place, they do not see that
it needs changing. They also do not have the intelligence to see how the
rule might be changed to suit the new circumstances.

I have fought against arbitrary and stupid rules for decades, and I will
keep fighting till the day I die. If you have a problem with that, then so
be it.

--
Tony Marston
http://www.tonymarston.net
http://www.radicore.org

"Andrew Ballard" <aballard@...> wrote in message
news:b6023aa40907081232k35fa7b1em4ba543ffbb65e176@......
> On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 3:06 PM, Tony
> Marston<tony@...> wrote:
> [snip]
>> I don't like this rule, so I choose to disobey it.
>
> Now that's some scary ideology.
>
> Andrew



--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

[Ashley Sheridan-3]

On Thursday 09 July 2009 09:39:11 Tony Marston wrote:

> There are too many people in this newsgroup with the idea that you  MUST
> obey the rules, whatever they are, WITHOUT QUESTION. I do not subscribe to
> this notion. I have been working in IT (or DP as it was originally called)
> for over 30 years, and in that time I have worked with many groups, and
> each group has had its own version "the rules" (aka "guidelines" or
> "standards"). When moving to a new group the new rules will always be
> different, and will sometimes contradict what you had before. Why is this?
> Why do some groups say "do A instead of B" while others say "do B instead
> of A"? Does it make a difference?
>
> The problem partially lies in the way in which the rules are created. It
> starts with some wise ass saying
> (1) Without rules there will be anarchy, so we must have rules.
> (2) There are no such things as bad rules.
> (3) Do not allow any choices. If there is a choice between A and B then
> choose one as the standard. It doesn't matter which one.
> (4) Everybody must be the same, nobody is allowed to be different.
> (5) The rules must be obeyed without question.
> (6) If a rule causes a problem then you must work around it, you cannot
> change the rule.
>
> Item (5) usually exists because the author of the rule cannot justify its
> existence. He just flipped a coin and it came down tails instead of heads,
> so that's it. Any moron can make rules like this.
>
> Some people just cannot understand that sometimes a rule was created for a
> certain set of circumstances, but if the circumstances change then the rule
> needs changing in order to keep up with the times. Because they do not
> understand why the rule was created in the first place, they do not see
> that it needs changing. They also do not have the intelligence to see how
> the rule might be changed to suit the new circumstances.
>
> I have fought against arbitrary and stupid rules for decades, and I will
> keep fighting till the day I die. If you have a problem with that, then so
> be it.
>
> --
> Tony Marston
> http://www.tonymarston.net
> http://www.radicore.org
>
> "Andrew Ballard" <aballard@...> wrote in message
> news:b6023aa40907081232k35fa7b1em4ba543ffbb65e176@......
>
> > On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 3:06 PM, Tony
> > Marston<tony@...> wrote:
> > [snip]
> >
> >> I don't like this rule, so I choose to disobey it.
> >
> > Now that's some scary ideology.
> >
> > Andrew

Tony,

No offense, but Daniel gave the reason why this rule existed, and it does seem
like a fairly good reason to be fair. The emails are archived on several
web-based lists. If a thread is made up of a mixture of top and bottom
posting, then it won't be easy to read a all online. It might be fine for
reading in a message-by-message basis in an email client if you've been
following the thread since its inception, but a lot of people will come into
a thread part way, or choose the digest method for email delivery rather than
one email per message.

Thanks,
Ash
http://www.ashleysheridan.co.uk

--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

[Stuart-47]

2009/7/9 Tony Marston <tony@...>:
> There are too many people in this newsgroup with the idea that you  MUST
> obey the rules, whatever they are, WITHOUT QUESTION. I do not subscribe to
> this notion. I have been working in IT (or DP as it was originally called)
> for over 30 years, and in that time I have worked with many groups, and each
> group has had its own version "the rules" (aka "guidelines" or "standards").
> When moving to a new group the new rules will always be different, and will
> sometimes contradict what you had before. Why is this? Why do some groups
> say "do A instead of B" while others say "do B instead of A"? Does it make a
> difference?

1) This is somebody elses property that you're walking all over and
they've asked you to remove your shoes. Yes it's arbitrary, no it
doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things but it's polite to
do what they've asked.

2) Correct summary and ordering of the key points in a discussion is
not arbitrary, it helps to create messages that you can dip in and out
of which needing to read an entire thread (backwards if it's all been
left after someone's contribution) to get the context. Plus it creates
an archive that has the same benefit.

3) Feel free to do your own thing because it's a free world, but the
minimal respect I had for you after our previous discussions on this
list has just been destroyed (and no I don't care that you don't
care).

-Stuart

--
http://stut.net/

> "Andrew Ballard" <aballard@...> wrote in message
> news:b6023aa40907081232k35fa7b1em4ba543ffbb65e176@......
>> On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 3:06 PM, Tony
>> Marston<tony@...> wrote:
>> [snip]
>>> I don't like this rule, so I choose to disobey it.
>>
>> Now that's some scary ideology.
>>
>> Andrew
>
>
>
> --
> PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>

--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

[Tony Marston]

Sometimes I use bottom posting, sometimes I use top posting, and sometimes I
use middle posting. It depends on the circumstances. If a post contains
several points that need separate responses, then I put my response under
each point,  and do not accumulate all at the bottom as this would make it
difficult to associate an answer with a question.

The fact that some people do not view a thread until nearly the end is
irrelevant. If a thread has 30 posts it would make the last post unreadable
if it contained everything from the start. Have you seen a post with 30
levels of indenting for each different post? That is why most newsreaders
and email clients group messages by conversation/thread so that you can step
through each post individually. Each post contains just the response so that
you don't have to scroll through huge volumes of text in order to pick out
the new message. Sometimes the only part of the previous post you leave in
is the part for which you are supplying an answer so as to avoid confusion.

Where I put my answers depends on the context, so saying that IT MUST ALWAYS
BE AT THE BOTTOM doesn't wash with me.

--
Tony Marston
http://www.tonymarston.net
http://www.radicore.org

"Ashley Sheridan" <ash@...> wrote in message
news:200907091022.12752.ash@......

> On Thursday 09 July 2009 09:39:11 Tony Marston wrote:
>> There are too many people in this newsgroup with the idea that you  MUST
>> obey the rules, whatever they are, WITHOUT QUESTION. I do not subscribe
>> to
>> this notion. I have been working in IT (or DP as it was originally
>> called)
>> for over 30 years, and in that time I have worked with many groups, and
>> each group has had its own version "the rules" (aka "guidelines" or
>> "standards"). When moving to a new group the new rules will always be
>> different, and will sometimes contradict what you had before. Why is
>> this?
>> Why do some groups say "do A instead of B" while others say "do B instead
>> of A"? Does it make a difference?
>>
>> The problem partially lies in the way in which the rules are created. It
>> starts with some wise ass saying
>> (1) Without rules there will be anarchy, so we must have rules.
>> (2) There are no such things as bad rules.
>> (3) Do not allow any choices. If there is a choice between A and B then
>> choose one as the standard. It doesn't matter which one.
>> (4) Everybody must be the same, nobody is allowed to be different.
>> (5) The rules must be obeyed without question.
>> (6) If a rule causes a problem then you must work around it, you cannot
>> change the rule.
>>
>> Item (5) usually exists because the author of the rule cannot justify its
>> existence. He just flipped a coin and it came down tails instead of
>> heads,
>> so that's it. Any moron can make rules like this.
>>
>> Some people just cannot understand that sometimes a rule was created for
>> a
>> certain set of circumstances, but if the circumstances change then the
>> rule
>> needs changing in order to keep up with the times. Because they do not
>> understand why the rule was created in the first place, they do not see
>> that it needs changing. They also do not have the intelligence to see how
>> the rule might be changed to suit the new circumstances.
>>
>> I have fought against arbitrary and stupid rules for decades, and I will
>> keep fighting till the day I die. If you have a problem with that, then
>> so
>> be it.
>>
>> --
>> Tony Marston
>> http://www.tonymarston.net
>> http://www.radicore.org
>>
>> "Andrew Ballard" <aballard@...> wrote in message
>> news:b6023aa40907081232k35fa7b1em4ba543ffbb65e176@......
>>
>> > On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 3:06 PM, Tony
>> > Marston<tony@...> wrote:
>> > [snip]
>> >
>> >> I don't like this rule, so I choose to disobey it.
>> >
>> > Now that's some scary ideology.
>> >
>> > Andrew
>
> Tony,
>
> No offense, but Daniel gave the reason why this rule existed, and it does
> seem
> like a fairly good reason to be fair. The emails are archived on several
> web-based lists. If a thread is made up of a mixture of top and bottom
> posting, then it won't be easy to read a all online. It might be fine for
> reading in a message-by-message basis in an email client if you've been
> following the thread since its inception, but a lot of people will come
> into
> a thread part way, or choose the digest method for email delivery rather
> than
> one email per message.
>
> Thanks,
> Ash
> http://www.ashleysheridan.co.uk 

--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

[Lester Caine]

Tony Marston wrote:
> Where I put my answers depends on the context, so saying that IT MUST ALWAYS
> BE AT THE BOTTOM doesn't wash with me.

That is a sentiment I would agree with - but for one flaw!
The number of people who seem to think that answering with a single line
at the top and then including all the advertising and dross that the
previous top posted failed to trim as well ....
Top posting has a bad press simply because people are too lazy to think,
and in many cases, INCLUDING the original message is a waste of
everybody's time ... the one liner is adaquate!

The rule should be - if you top post then CHECK that the the rest of the
message NEEDS to be included - please .....

--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-----------------------------
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk//
Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php

--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

[Stuart-47]

2009/7/9 Tony Marston <tony@...>:

> Sometimes I use bottom posting, sometimes I use top posting, and sometimes I
> use middle posting. It depends on the circumstances. If a post contains
> several points that need separate responses, then I put my response under
> each point,  and do not accumulate all at the bottom as this would make it
> difficult to associate an answer with a question.
>
> The fact that some people do not view a thread until nearly the end is
> irrelevant. If a thread has 30 posts it would make the last post unreadable
> if it contained everything from the start. Have you seen a post with 30
> levels of indenting for each different post? That is why most newsreaders
> and email clients group messages by conversation/thread so that you can step
> through each post individually. Each post contains just the response so that
> you don't have to scroll through huge volumes of text in order to pick out
> the new message. Sometimes the only part of the previous post you leave in
> is the part for which you are supplying an answer so as to avoid confusion.
>
> Where I put my answers depends on the context, so saying that IT MUST ALWAYS
> BE AT THE BOTTOM doesn't wash with me.

Quoting http://php.net/reST/php-src/README.MAILINGLIST_RULES...

3. Do not top post. Place your answer underneath anyone you wish to
quote and remove any previous comment that is not relevant to your
post.

That does not say "IT MUST ALWAYS BE AT THE BOTTOM". It says, quite
usefully IMHO, that you should quote relevant parts of previous posts
and place your response below them. That leaves scope for multiple
responses in a single message, each with the relevant part of the
previous post quoted.

I thought of a better analogy. You ever been on the London
Underground? There's a rule that says you stand on the right-hand side
of escalators. This has no benefit to you, the one who stands there
while the elevator does all the work, but it means those of us who
want to walk up the escalator can do so without having to ask everyone
to move out of the way. The benefit of this rule is to other people
not you, but does that make it a bad rule? I reckon it's the same with
the way you arrange your messages to this list. Top-posting is a lazy
and selfish way to "contribute" to the list, especially when you know
what the rule/convention is. It's worth noting that bottom-posting
without efficient quoting is just as bad IMHO as top-posting.

Anyway, it's clear that you're not willing to do the polite thing on
this issue, so I don't see any point in continuing to discuss it.

-Stuart

--
http://stut.net/

--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

[Tony Marston]

"Stuart" <stuttle@...> wrote in message
news:a5f019de0907090340k47216f7fh4d83434ef98ce888@......
2009/7/9 Tony Marston <tony@...>:
<snip>
> I thought of a better analogy. You ever been on the London
> Underground? There's a rule that says you stand on the right-hand side
> of escalators. This has no benefit to you, the one who stands there
> while the elevator does all the work, but it means those of us who
> want to walk up the escalator can do so without having to ask everyone
> to move out of the way. The benefit of this rule is to other people
> not you, but does that make it a bad rule?

Your analogy is urealistic as my choice of top posting has absolutely no
effect on any other message is the newsgroup. It has no absolutely no effect
on the reader unless the reader chooses to take offence.

The first newsgroups I visited after getting my first PC not only allowed
top posting, they actively encouraged it, yet no-one complained if someone
put  their post on the bottom. They were tolerant, you see, because it
didn't really matter.

Your intolerant attitude on this issue shows just what a small-minded person
you are.

> I reckon it's the same with
> the way you arrange your messages to this list. Top-posting is a lazy
> and selfish way to "contribute" to the list,

That is opinion, not fact. Other newsgroups allow top posting, so why not
this newsgroup? Just because someone says so? That's simply not good enough.

> especially when you know
> what the rule/convention is. It's worth noting that bottom-posting
> without efficient quoting is just as bad IMHO as top-posting.

There you go with your personal opinions again.

> Anyway, it's clear that you're not willing to do the polite thing on
> this issue, so I don't see any point in continuing to discuss it.
>
> -Stuart
>

Good. So stop discussing it.

--
Tony Marston
http://www.tonymarston.net
http://www.radicore.org 



--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

[Phpster]

On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 8:54 AM, Tony
Marston<tony@...> wrote:

>
> "Stuart" <stuttle@...> wrote in message
> news:a5f019de0907090340k47216f7fh4d83434ef98ce888@......
> 2009/7/9 Tony Marston <tony@...>:
> <snip>
>> I thought of a better analogy. You ever been on the London
>> Underground? There's a rule that says you stand on the right-hand side
>> of escalators. This has no benefit to you, the one who stands there
>> while the elevator does all the work, but it means those of us who
>> want to walk up the escalator can do so without having to ask everyone
>> to move out of the way. The benefit of this rule is to other people
>> not you, but does that make it a bad rule?
>
> Your analogy is urealistic as my choice of top posting has absolutely no
> effect on any other message is the newsgroup. It has no absolutely no effect
> on the reader unless the reader chooses to take offence.
>
> The first newsgroups I visited after getting my first PC not only allowed
> top posting, they actively encouraged it, yet no-one complained if someone
> put  their post on the bottom. They were tolerant, you see, because it
> didn't really matter.
>
> Your intolerant attitude on this issue shows just what a small-minded person
> you are.
>
>> I reckon it's the same with
>> the way you arrange your messages to this list. Top-posting is a lazy
>> and selfish way to "contribute" to the list,
>
> That is opinion, not fact. Other newsgroups allow top posting, so why not
> this newsgroup? Just because someone says so? That's simply not good enough.
>
>> especially when you know
>> what the rule/convention is. It's worth noting that bottom-posting
>> without efficient quoting is just as bad IMHO as top-posting.
>
> There you go with your personal opinions again.
>
>> Anyway, it's clear that you're not willing to do the polite thing on
>> this issue, so I don't see any point in continuing to discuss it.
>>
>> -Stuart
>>
>
> Good. So stop discussing it.
>
> --
> Tony Marston
> http://www.tonymarston.net
> http://www.radicore.org
>
>
>
> --
> PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>

Tony,

The only thing I don't agree with here is the name calling. Daniel is
a pretty darn bright guy here, and I feel that slighting him because
of an established convention is not the best approach to dealing with
this. We are all voluntary participants on this list and we all make
valuable contributions to the PHP community.

Conventions were implemented to make things easier for participants to
view a standard thread in the list. We don't have to like it, but that
is no reason to digress into a pissing match over how the rules are
not sensible to any specific point of view. I have found that moving
to the gmail client makes the rules more sensible as that is how gmail
displays the emails. Both hotmail and outlook make this tougher as
they don't logically display the thread. Might I suggest that you try
using gmail (some one posted that your client was outlook which is why
I suggest this)? Its a pain, if you have a history with the list that
you store on your machine, but it might be worthwhile exploring.


--

Bastien

Cat, the other other white meat

--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

[Eddie Drapkin]

I honestly think this is a case of the subject being broached in a
less-than-super-friendly-with-hugs-and-butterflies way and someone
getting unduly offended about that.  Why not chill out and look at
this objectively?  Mailing lists are historically, as I'm sure you
know, a nearly invaluable research for someone with a problem and a
search engine.  I would bet that there are few people who subscribe to
this list have never found a solution to a problem on a mailing list,
somewhere and somewhen.  I know I personally subscribed to this list
because quite a few questions I had when I was just starting out with
PHP came from here and I wasn't subscribing with a news reader at the
time.

I think you (the OP) is being unnecessarily short-sighted in assuming
that 1, everyone has a news reader and uses it to read this list and
2, the threads are only relevant for the duration of their life.  The
posts here are archived here forever and ever and a rule that suggests
posting on either the top or the bottom of the list keeps it consisten
for future readers.  Breaking that convention because you don't like
it is just being grumpy and stickly for no other reason than you can,
and potentially harming future developers who could find the
information from this list a valuable resource.  I like the escalator
analogy, because either side of the escalator would do to allow people
who want to stand and people who want to walk up to co-exist in
harmony, yet there's a standard.  Luckily for us, this isn't the New
York subway where you get cursed at for standing on the wrong side (I
learned that lesson the wrong way when I moved here!).

In other words, it's not that top posting is empirically and
inherently a worse method than bottom posting, it's that it's a
generally accepted standard that helps ensure the longevity of posts
on this list.  If it was top posting, I'm sure replying would be a lot
easier to most of us, but like a dozen people said in the first
thread, it takes two seconds to move the cursor each time.  Why choose
to be overly ornery about a point so trivial?  It seems like you're
trying to turn this into a "Fight the Power" battle, when the only
power you're fighting are your peers.

--Eddie

--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

[Tony Marston]

"Bastien Koert" <phpster@...> wrote in message
news:d7b6cab70907090623s6b37641dt90a564f1d80fe413@......
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 8:54 AM, Tony
Marston<tony@...> wrote:

>
> "Stuart" <stuttle@...> wrote in message
> news:a5f019de0907090340k47216f7fh4d83434ef98ce888@......
>> 2009/7/9 Tony Marston <tony@...>:
>> <snip>
>> The first newsgroups I visited after getting my first PC not only allowed
>> top posting, they actively encouraged it, yet no-one complained if
>> someone
>> put their post on the bottom. They were tolerant, you see, because it
>> didn't really matter.
>>
>> Your intolerant attitude on this issue shows just what a small-minded
>> person
>> you are.
>>
>>> I reckon it's the same with
>>> the way you arrange your messages to this list. Top-posting is a lazy
>>> and selfish way to "contribute" to the list,
>>
>> That is opinion, not fact. Other newsgroups allow top posting, so why not
>> this newsgroup? Just because someone says so? That's simply not good
>> enough.
>>
> Tony,
>
> The only thing I don't agree with here is the name calling.

I called him "intolerant" because he jumps on issues which other people just
don't care about.

I called him "small minded" because he concentrates on small issues which
simply don't matter in the great scheme of things. That sounds like fair
comment to me It's just like those people who have endless arguments about
when to use uppercase and when to use lower case. It simply doesn't matter,
so stop wasting your time in arguing about it.

> Daniel is
> a pretty darn bright guy here, and I feel that slighting him because
> of an established convention is not the best approach to dealing with
> this. We are all voluntary participants on this list and we all make
> valuable contributions to the PHP community.

Irrelevant. It does not matter how much good work anybody does if they go
and ruin it by trying to enforce some inconsequential petty rule.

> Conventions were implemented to make things easier for participants to
> view a standard thread in the list.

The conventions in other newsgroups are different, and I can't be bothered
to change my habits for different newsgroups just becase some internet Nazi
says so.

> We don't have to like it, but that
> is no reason to digress into a pissing match over how the rules are
> not sensible to any specific point of view.

No, I don't like stupid rules, which is why I choose not to obey them.

> I have found that moving
> to the gmail client makes the rules more sensible as that is how gmail
> displays the emails. Both hotmail and outlook make this tougher as
> they don't logically display the thread. Might I suggest that you try
> using gmail (some one posted that your client was outlook which is why
> I suggest this)? Its a pain, if you have a history with the list that
> you store on your machine, but it might be worthwhile exploring.

So not only are you dictating how I post, you are also dictating which
newsreader I should use? How arrogant!

--
Tony Marston
http://www.tonymarston.net
http://www.radicore.org

> --
>
> Bastien
>
> Cat, the other other white meat



--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

[Eddie Drapkin]

> I called him "intolerant" because he jumps on issues which other people just
> don't care about.
>
> I called him "small minded" because he concentrates on small issues which
> simply don't matter in the great scheme of things. That sounds like fair
> comment to me It's just like those people who have endless arguments about
> when to use uppercase and when to use lower case. It simply doesn't matter,
> so stop wasting your time in arguing about it.

And it's not just as small minded (I'm not agreeing with you, by the
way) to assume that your point is the only valid point in the
discussion?  Nor is it just as small minded to systematically attack
someone, and the community they take part in, because they have the
audacity to disagree with you?


> Irrelevant. It does not matter how much good work anybody does if they go
> and ruin it by trying to enforce some inconsequential petty rule.

It's obviously not inconsequential, as you're making such a fuss about
it.  If it's so inconsequential, why not bottom post and be done with
it?

>
> The conventions in other newsgroups are different, and I can't be bothered
> to change my habits for different newsgroups just becase some internet Nazi
> says so.
>

Congratulations, rule-abiding denizens of php-general, we're now all
Nazis!  Way to invoke Godwin, by the way, it clearly always wins these
internet argu-debates and doesn't make you look like a loon at all.
I'm going to take this opportunity to jump on the "no more respect"
bandwagon.

> So not only are you dictating how I post, you are also dictating which
> newsreader I should use? How arrogant!

"I don't like your rules, rules that existed before I got here and
will exist after I leave and are agreed on by the community, so I'll
not follow them!" is one of the most arrogant things I've ever seen on
this list.  He was making a suggestion, ffs, and you just want to be
an ass and take everything personally.  You're making an entire
mountain range out of the proverbial molehill.

--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

[Phpster]

On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 9:54 AM, Tony
Marston<tony@...> wrote:

>
> "Bastien Koert" <phpster@...> wrote in message
> news:d7b6cab70907090623s6b37641dt90a564f1d80fe413@......
> On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 8:54 AM, Tony
> Marston<tony@...> wrote:
>>
>> "Stuart" <stuttle@...> wrote in message
>> news:a5f019de0907090340k47216f7fh4d83434ef98ce888@......
>>> 2009/7/9 Tony Marston <tony@...>:
>>> <snip>
>>> The first newsgroups I visited after getting my first PC not only allowed
>>> top posting, they actively encouraged it, yet no-one complained if
>>> someone
>>> put their post on the bottom. They were tolerant, you see, because it
>>> didn't really matter.
>>>
>>> Your intolerant attitude on this issue shows just what a small-minded
>>> person
>>> you are.
>>>
>>>> I reckon it's the same with
>>>> the way you arrange your messages to this list. Top-posting is a lazy
>>>> and selfish way to "contribute" to the list,
>>>
>>> That is opinion, not fact. Other newsgroups allow top posting, so why not
>>> this newsgroup? Just because someone says so? That's simply not good
>>> enough.
>>>
>> Tony,
>>
>> The only thing I don't agree with here is the name calling.
>
> I called him "intolerant" because he jumps on issues which other people just
> don't care about.
>
> I called him "small minded" because he concentrates on small issues which
> simply don't matter in the great scheme of things. That sounds like fair
> comment to me It's just like those people who have endless arguments about
> when to use uppercase and when to use lower case. It simply doesn't matter,
> so stop wasting your time in arguing about it.
>
>> Daniel is
>> a pretty darn bright guy here, and I feel that slighting him because
>> of an established convention is not the best approach to dealing with
>> this. We are all voluntary participants on this list and we all make
>> valuable contributions to the PHP community.
>
> Irrelevant. It does not matter how much good work anybody does if they go
> and ruin it by trying to enforce some inconsequential petty rule.
>
>> Conventions were implemented to make things easier for participants to
>> view a standard thread in the list.
>
> The conventions in other newsgroups are different, and I can't be bothered
> to change my habits for different newsgroups just becase some internet Nazi
> says so.
>
>> We don't have to like it, but that
>> is no reason to digress into a pissing match over how the rules are
>> not sensible to any specific point of view.
>
> No, I don't like stupid rules, which is why I choose not to obey them.
>
>> I have found that moving
>> to the gmail client makes the rules more sensible as that is how gmail
>> displays the emails. Both hotmail and outlook make this tougher as
>> they don't logically display the thread. Might I suggest that you try
>> using gmail (some one posted that your client was outlook which is why
>> I suggest this)? Its a pain, if you have a history with the list that
>> you store on your machine, but it might be worthwhile exploring.
>
> So not only are you dictating how I post, you are also dictating which
> newsreader I should use? How arrogant!
>

No, Tony, not dictating at all. Merely sharing my experience. It may
or may not work for you, but that is for you to decide.

> --
> Tony Marston
> http://www.tonymarston.net
> http://www.radicore.org
>
>> --
>>
>> Bastien
>>
>> Cat, the other other white meat
>
>
>
> --
> PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>

--

Bastien

Cat, the other other white meat

--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

[John Butler-2]

my 2¢:

Wherever/whenever the feeling level has been damaged, then/there  
communication stops.
We can easily forget this in the dry environment of talking to  
computers..  but the important matter(s) will always come back to the  
*people* involved, sooner or later.
Real power is measured in terms of nourishing ability...  in  
nourishing the subtle feeling of those around us.

-Govinda
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

[Daniel Brown-7]

On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 09:54, Tony Marston<tony@...> wrote:
>
> I called him "intolerant" because he jumps on issues which other people just
> don't care about.

    Point #1: You're obviously wrong, as this thread has already
received more replies than most on-topic, PHP-centric threads.

> I called him "small minded" because he concentrates on small issues which
> simply don't matter in the great scheme of things. That sounds like fair
> comment to me It's just like those people who have endless arguments about
> when to use uppercase and when to use lower case. It simply doesn't matter,
> so stop wasting your time in arguing about it.

     Point #2: When attempting to prove your case, do your best to
keep your facts and players straight --- you did not call me either of
these things; you placed your unnecessary opinion of such on Stuart.
And while that really doesn't sit well with me, it's just becoming
more and more evident that you, like many others in the past, will
simply wind up being ignored by the majority of the list, save for
folks who don't know or don't care about your lack of respect for
them.

> Irrelevant. It does not matter how much good work anybody does if they go
> and ruin it by trying to enforce some inconsequential petty rule.

    Had I been a hippie as well, I might just be inclined to agree
with you.  So if we're throwing opinions around, let mine ring loud
and clear: thank God I'm not.  Besides, I couldn't have pulled off the
bellbottom look, and in all my years, I still can't grow a half-decent
beard (which means that joining al-Qaeda may be out of my future as
well.... darn).

> The conventions in other newsgroups are different, and I can't be bothered
> to change my habits for different newsgroups just becase some internet Nazi
> says so.

    You change the topic for each newsgroup, don't you?  And you do it
out of respect for the context of that particular group.  You wouldn't
(well, maybe *you* would) ask a question about a carburetor on a
mailing list for expectant mothers, which makes sense.  Following a
simple rule by not top-posting makes sense as well, which has been
outlined already.  Your greatest failure in this argument, Tony, is
not being able to articulate your proof as to *why* it's a stupid
rule.  All I've been able to ascertain to date is that you (ALWAYS)
have an opinion as to why the Establishment is a Bad Thing[tm], and
how The Man will never be able to keep you down.  Fight the power,
Marston.  Spread the word of the Revolution.  Manifest Destiny!  (What
was the argument again?)

> No, I don't like stupid rules, which is why I choose not to obey them.

    This is like a five-year-old saying, "I don't like your stupid
face, so I'm not gonna' look at it."  Reading your sentence, I
envisage the voice of a spoiled toddler.

> So not only are you dictating how I post, you are also dictating which
> newsreader I should use? How arrogant!

   Your arrogance toward the community and ignorance of fundamental,
purposeful guidelines is proof of how sanctimonious you truly are.
Besides, since you are still using PHP 4.4.9 on your server, it's
obvious that you don't like - and/or are afraid of - change, so no one
is trying to tell you what software to use.

    Anyway, since we're on the subject, while I have no interest in
ever using RADICORE, I may be able to convince someone else to use it
for free.  Wait, I would have to pay for a commercial?  That's a
stupid rule, I'm just going to take it for free anyway, and damn what
you say about it.

--
</Daniel P. Brown>
daniel.brown@... || danbrown@...
http://www.parasane.net/ || http://www.pilotpig.net/
Check out our great hosting and dedicated server deals at
http://twitter.com/pilotpig

--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

[Bob McConnell]

A quick search on Google indicates this argument has been active in
various forums for over ten years, so I don't expect it to be resolved
here.

While ego is the most apparent motivator in these discussions I suspect,
but have no way to confirm, that the two camps are divided by how their
[email|news] client posts by default. GroupWise was the first
significant email client I am aware of that top posted replies. Since
that was the competitive target Outlook was created to eliminate,
Outlook also top posted by default. But prior to the Office 2003 release
it could still be configured to both bottom post and automatically
insert the line prefixes for attribution.

At the office I have to use Outlook. I hate it. Not only do I have to
hand edit every message to construct the replay, there are many other
problems that make it totally unsuitable for intelligent users.
Unfortunately, that description fits far too few of the actual users.

Bob McConnell

A: Maybe because some people are too annoyed by top-posting.
Q: Why do I not get an answer to my question(s)?
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php