Re: test sory

David Bolt wrote:

David Bolt wrote:

There was no lie. The post itself was a success. The failure was to post
it to the wrong group.


No, it went to the intended group.

Which was the wrong group.

SO WHAT. There is NO REQUIREMENT THAT YOU MUST POST TO THE RIGHT GROUP.


Unless you can show an RFC that states
that test messages are REQUIRED to go to any particular group, they can go
to any group.


The test was a SUCCESS in ALL forms,

The actual post was a success, the destination group was the failure.

No, it was NOT a failure. Unless you can show a REQUIREMENT to show that it
is WRONG to do so.


the choice of which
group was IMPOLITE, but still a SUCCESS. Being impolite is Not the same
as "failure"

It was a failure. The OP chose the wrong group.

Just how do you know the REASONING for choosing the group? Perhaps he did
have a successful post to a test group but several posts failed to show up
in this group and he was trying to figure out why.


Can't wait to see what else you make up.

No need to. There's nothing to "make up."

Then way are you doing so?

You've already had some others
try and explain the reason for test groups existing.

"some others" are still WRONG.

You apparently
don't think there is a reason for them to exist,

I DO see a REASON, People can, if they are POLITE, post test messages to the
test groups. The fact that I see the REASON for the groups does not mean I
agree with your CONCLUSION that the post was a failure. They exsit for a
REASON but there is still NO REQUIREMENT to post ANYTHING to them.


and so I don't see any
more reason to try and discuss something with someone who is apparently
wilfully clueless.

Yes, I am totally clueless as to why you would make such bogus claims. IF
you could make a rational case, backing up your claims with DOCUMENTATION,
I might be able to understand. It is clear that you can not come up with a
single document that backs up your claims so you attack with your name
calling.



[0] Do comp.os.linux.security, alt.os.linux.mandrake and alt.os.linux
ring a bell?

You believe everything said in those groups? No wonder you're irrational. To
tell you the truth, if you listen to a lot of those people's advise, you
would end up with a poorly configured, less than secure system.

You and the others have yet to provide ANY documented evidence that posting
to a test group is REQUIRED. Until you do so, you, ALL OF YOU that make
such claims, are WRONG.


[1] Actually, I do have a good idea why you would do so. It's probably
the same reason you've done this sort of trolling in other newsgroups[0]
when someone complains about a test post going to a non-test group.

Ahhh, again with the name calling. Can't make a valid case so you name call,
FIGURES. The simple fact is, the SUCCESS of a test is determined by the
parameters being tested, NOTHING ELSE. As long as the test went to the
group it was intended to go to it was a success, and that does not change,
no matter how many name you call me.


Regards,
David Bolt


Do come back when you have learned at least SOME valid debating tactics.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: system return value makes for strange logic
    ... %%> of the failure. ... %% The reason is that systemreturns the exit status of the program it runs. ... %% exits with 0 on success and any number of non-zero values upon failure. ... that fails sets $? ...
    (comp.lang.perl.misc)
  • Re: XL2003: VBE Wont let me break into running code
    ... I see no reason not to share. ... Success or Failure! ... Health warning: ...
    (microsoft.public.excel.programming)
  • Re: exit()
    ... many Windows commands as well) return a status of 0 for success, ... non-0 for failure. ... The reason is that there's typically only one way for a program to ...
    (comp.lang.c)
  • Re: Why are some Folk Clubs thriving and some struggling?
    ... I think the reason that some clubs do well while others thrive has to ... be down to the way the club is run and the people who attend. ... that success or failure is usually attributed to one or ... changing or improving things until success is achieved. ...
    (uk.music.folk)
  • Re: whodunnit: motherboard dead
    ... You are correct that static electricity probably is not ... Just not a more likely reason for failure. ... supply manufacturer provide a long list of numerical specs. ...
    (sci.electronics.basics)