How to read a *.php file on the 2005 Pl CD

[MikeyS]

Hello Susan,
To clear any misunderstanding.

The "sm*rt *ss" I referred to is NEITHER in any way related to the PL2005CD
preparation team NOR to the PricelessWare site(s).

I never inferred "it" was.

T'was just a lurker or an occasional NG's participant.

Sorry if post led to assumption

Reiterating that I never got any of the 2.

Mike Savage

Hello Susan,

I offered to help.

The offer was acknowledged by you in this NG.

A man is not supposed to plead endlessly when offering his help.
Once should be/do it.

But it's okay to verbally abuse the person who actually *did* something to
help?

ATM I'm feeling a bit upset - which led me to post the info below with my
address in the clear (I've cancelled that message).

------

I used the URL you "sort of" supplied in your January 13, 2005 post which
showed this "from" address: "savegem[Enlever/Delete]"@sympatico.ca

In the post you said: Delete the obvious "[Enlever/Delete]"

I sent *two* emails with the download links to that address:

Subject: PL2005 CD -- COME AND GET IT!
From: Susan Bugher
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 15:56:00 -0500
To: (e-mail address removed)

<SNIP>

Subject: Re: PL2005 CD -- COME AND GET IT!
From: Susan Bugher
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 23:36:21 -0500
To: (e-mail address removed)

<SNIP>

I see that you changed your "from" address today. It now reads:
"savagem[DELETE]"@sympatico.ca

Could a small error on your part perhaps have been the reason for your not
getting the emails?

--------

Susan
--
Pricelessware & ACF: http://www.pricelesswarehome.org
ACF FAQ: http://clients.net2000.com.au/~johnf/faq.html
ACF wiki: http://www.markcarter.me.uk/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?AcfWiki
Pricelessware (not maintained): http://www.pricelessware.org

 

[Susan Bugher]

MikeyS wrote:

Could you please cancel your last post. It has my unmunged email address
in it.

TIA

Susan

 

[Susan Bugher]

Hi Susan,

SNAFU's happen.

They surely do.

I cancelled a post I made that contained my *unmunged* email address. I
asked you to cancel your response that also contained that information

AFAICT your post has not been cancelled.

I would appreciate a response to my request. I would appreciate it if
you would cancel your post.

Susan

 

[Jackdaw]

As Steven said, the PHP files on the CD are "plain vanilla" HTML (no
scripting). IMO the *easiest* way to open them is to start with the file
in the root directory named "index.html" and navigate from there.

Susan
--
Pricelessware & ACF: http://www.pricelesswarehome.org
ACF FAQ: http://clients.net2000.com.au/~johnf/faq.html
ACF wiki: http://www.markcarter.me.uk/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?AcfWiki
Pricelessware (not maintained): http://www.pricelessware.org

I'm sorry, but you can 'waffle' as much as you like about them being "plain
vanilla" but for me to read these .php files I *have* to "allow active
content from Cds to run on my computer" and like I said before, links that
reference within
individual pages will only work if the link on the page is opened in a 'new'
window.

To add more confusion to the pile, I don't need to have active content
enabled to read the files at the web-site (pricelessware.org). Strange eh?

Having said all that, I do admire and respect the work that goes into this
project, please keep it up. Despite the problems I encounter I still
support your efforts

respect to all

 

[Frank Hahn]

I'm sorry, but you can 'waffle' as much as you like about them being
"plain vanilla" but for me to read these .php files I *have* to "allow
active content from Cds to run on my computer" and like I said before,
links that reference within individual pages will only work if the link
on the page is opened in a 'new' window.

To add more confusion to the pile, I don't need to have active content
enabled to read the files at the web-site (pricelessware.org).
Strange eh?

Having said all that, I do admire and respect the work that goes into
this project, please keep it up. Despite the problems I encounter I
still support your efforts
respect to all

For those not familiar with the php scripting/programming language,
please see this web site:

http://www.php.net/

Files that end in the .php extension are just plain text .html files that
have had php coding added.

I don't understand the thing about having to enable active content. To
see the text in the .php files, all I have ever had to do was right click
on the file and choose either Open or Edit. I have done this on both
Windows 2000 and Windows XP.

Now, back to our regular programming.

 

[Jackdaw]

For those not familiar with the php scripting/programming language,
please see this web site:

http://www.php.net/

Files that end in the .php extension are just plain text .html files that
have had php coding added.

I don't understand the thing about having to enable active content. To
see the text in the .php files, all I have ever had to do was right click
on the file and choose either Open or Edit. I have done this on both
Windows 2000 and Windows XP.

Now, back to our regular programming.

I don't wish to argue with you over the validity of the PL2005CD or how its
pages are coded but anything that requires me to relax security in order to
participate is natuarally viewed with suspicion and until I had read through
and satified myself that they (the .php coded pages of the PL2005 CD) posed
no threat did I relax my settings. Obviously from your reply your milage
varies

Now, back to lurking )

 

[Susan Bugher]

I use XP home IE6 and have to set my browser security to allow active-x from
CD to be run on my computer

If you have to allow active-x to view the PL2005 CD your system is
screwed up. . .

and then individual page links can only be

followed by opening in a new page

That's a browser specific problem. The subcategory links work nicely in
Mozilla. They subcategory links don't work in IE. Pelo
<[email protected]> said: "A solution is to hold shift while clicking a link
or, right click the link and Open in a new window."

Susan

 

[Susan Bugher]

I'm sorry, but you can 'waffle' as much as you like about them being "plain
vanilla" but for me to read these .php files I *have* to "allow active
content from Cds to run on my computer" and like I said before, links that
reference within
individual pages will only work if the link on the page is opened in a 'new'
window.

LOL - Why would I lie about something that's so easy to check. You have
the files, open them in a text editor and take a look. If you *have* to
allow active content your system has problems.

To add more confusion to the pile, I don't need to have active content
enabled to read the files at the web-site (pricelessware.org). Strange eh?

Not strange. The Apache web server uses the PHP scripting instructions
to create an HTML web page. What you *view* is plain HTML - just like
the pages on the PL2005 CD. View the page source when you're online,
open the CD's web page in a text editor and compare them. . .

Having said all that, I do admire and respect the work that goes into this
project, please keep it up. Despite the problems I encounter I still
support your efforts

I'm sorry you are having problems. They don't seem be related to the
PL2005 CD.

Susan

 

[Susan Bugher]

I cancelled a post I made that contained my *unmunged* email address. I
asked you to cancel your response that also contained that information

I would appreciate a response to my request. I would appreciate it if
you would cancel your post.

I also emailed Mike. I've just received a reply saying he will *not*
cancel the post. This is a public "Thank you" to Mike Savage for being
so very, very helpful.

Susan

 

[MikeyS]

Hi Susan,

I never said I would not cancel the post.

I said it is (as far as I know) IMPOSSIBLE to do so after it made it to the
NewsGroups.

I'm quite willing to be the local laughting-stock if it is as simple as make
it to be.

You seem to be sure that right-clicking from my end on any post I made in
A.C.F. will make it disappear in thin air.

NOT SO. It is there forever.

YOU already right-clicked on the one YOU created and that contained some
private info and it is STILL here.

You do not have the power.

I do not possess some dark zappers that allow me to clear the WEB and
particularly the NG's.

If you insist on distorting the contents of the private mailings we
exchanged over that matter during the last few days then I'll post
everything as attachments right here and let the regulars and onlookers be
the final judges.
Pore over the words with a cool head.

You are distorting the facts and relying on both your reputation and weight
in here to call me the equivalent of a scumbag.

I am not the kind of individual you describe.
--------------------------------------------------------
Summary:
Herewith, YOU made YOUR "error" in a post.
I just replied to that post, not snipping as it was only a few lines long.
The error replicated. Normal.
Your post is here (NG) even if you tried to make it go away.
My reply is here and WE've got to live with both of them.
Right-clicking on the title(s) and/or the text(s) won't do anything.

THEY WILL NOT BE WIPED OF THE NG'S.

Facts of Life.

Mike Savage

 

[jo]

I never said I would not cancel the post.

I said it is (as far as I know) IMPOSSIBLE to do so after it made it to the
NewsGroups.

I'm quite willing to be the local laughting-stock if it is as simple as make
it to be.

It is entirely possible to cancel your own post.
You need a real newsreader that allows you to do it.
And you need to be fast. Very fast.

But newsservers tend to be faster, and most do not accept cancel
messages anyway. So the discussion is a trifle academic.

HTH

 

[MikeyS]

Hi Jo,
Re: Cancel a post etc...

So glad you dropped in.

My point is: "impossible to cancel AFTER it made it to the NG(s)".
Within a second or so of clicking the [send]==> OK.
Not hours later.
May be an hacker with some v. special tool"S".
Not Mister everybody.
That was exactly the gist of the private exchange between Susan B. and I.

She will not accept that and I can't understand why.

Mike Savage.

 

[jo]

So glad you dropped in.

Me glad you glad. Glad is good.

My point is: "impossible to cancel AFTER it made it to the NG(s)".
Within a second or so of clicking the [send]==> OK.

Depends on the server. After your post hits your server it goes
everywhere and most servers don't care if you send a 'cancel' chasing
after it.

Not hours later.

See above.

May be an hacker with some v. special tool"S".
Nope

Not Mister everybody.

Nor him, neither

That was exactly the gist of the private exchange between Susan B. and I.

She will not accept that and I can't understand why.

Perhaps you exhibit a bit of 'attitude' in respect of this thing, and
this inhibits Susie's ability to process your input?

 

[Frank Hahn]

I don't wish to argue with you over the validity of the PL2005CD or
how its pages are coded but anything that requires me to relax
security in order to participate is natuarally viewed with suspicion
and until I had read through and satified myself that they (the .php
coded pages of the PL2005 CD) posed no threat did I relax my settings.
Obviously from your reply your milage varies

No, I was not arguing. Some of the previous replies made it sound like
everyone was not familiar with the PHP scripting language used in web
pages. I just wanted to point it out to others. Your message just
happened to be the one I replied to.

That you have to allow the other changes to view these does not make
sense. I am guessing you might be using Internet Explorer and maybe that
is where the problem lies. I use Firefox and I have never had to make any
kind of change like you mentioned.

 

[Susan Bugher]

Hi Susan,

If you insist on distorting the contents of the private mailings we
exchanged over that matter during the last few days then I'll post
everything as attachments right here and let the regulars and onlookers
be the final judges.
Pore over the words with a cool head.

Feel free. Be sure to include the part where you say you saw my post
asking you to cancel and didn't bother to respond.

The text of my two emails to you:

1. Mike would you *please* cancel the post you made that contains my
unmunged email address.

2. Right click on the message and choose cancel.

 

[John Fitzsimons]

It is entirely possible to cancel your own post.
You need a real newsreader that allows you to do it.
And you need to be fast. Very fast.

But newsservers tend to be faster, and most do not accept cancel
messages anyway. So the discussion is a trifle academic.

Agreed, but he *could* have responded positively to Susan's quite
reasonable request. He chose not to. If he had then propagation
through servers that respond to "cancels" would have been slowed
down, or stopped altogether.

Certainly not a perfect situation, but better than doing nothing.

 

[MikeyS]

Hello,
He comes...
I do not spend all my free hours in the NG's.
I get an eMail
(#1 from S.B): Please delete...
I went to A.C.F.
My 1st letter is after I tried R-Clicking on my actual post and also on its
title (the one right after Susan discloses her info) in the NG. There's no
option to delete anywhere.
So I say I can not do it, tell me how...
#1 Mike.
Her way:
#2 Susan
Does NOT work
#2 Mike
After I read in the NG that I REFUSE.
#3 Mike

Both the *.EML's and the *.TXT are attached.
Sorry about the attachemnts but there seems to be no other way out

 

[MikeyS]

Hello Susan,

From what I understand, the part that seems the most rebellous/litigious is
enclosed here after the >>SNIP and in betwwen the double lines.

When I say that I elected not to do nothing in there
means simply that I did not add a reply to your request DIRECTLY in the NG
thereby making your error more noticable.

More messages make a thread/sub-thread more noticable.

I responded with a private eMail instead with: "Can't do it, tell me how"...

I figured it was safer for YOUR privacy not attracting attention to the slip
in HERE.
Simple as that.

I kept everything away and as "1 on 1" mailings until you came out "public"
with a v. sarcastic "THANKS*YOU".

I figured I was being delicate, just the two's involved!

Sorry, I SHOULD have worded it: "I elected not to reply in the NG" instead
of" "not do anything in there".
It was clear to me then but not you.


Mike Savage
From here

=====================================
Feel free. Be sure to include the part where you say you saw my post
asking you to cancel and didn't bother to respond.
======================================

Part ends here^

 

[Dewey Edwards]

On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 23:00:30 -0500, "MikeyS"

< all snipped>

Okay, sort of see your point. Right click didn't work for you. You
use OE, Susan uses Mozilla. Right click doesn't work for me either
(Agent), but a thirty second use of the help command showed my
newsreader's method of canceling a message.

Think of it, thirty, maybe sixty, seconds spent, and no one would be
reading this. And though it was Susan's original mistake, you would
have done the honorable thing. But instead I now see a pissing
contest between the two of you.

You're both wrong, but you are more wrong with this post. You
should have had the decency to redact it first.

 

[MikeyS]

Hello Dewey Edwards,

I tried to erase the stuff and that is factual.
No malicious intent ever.

Susan B. quotes me in A.C.F. as:
"I WILL not" when I told her "I CAN not".
I get the "THANK YOU" for not WANTING to.

It's been *HOURS* already since her fatefull post when I got her 1st eMail
to delete in A.C.F.

1) 30-60 seconds with OE's Help.
=======================

What went on here at home, what I tried is not mentionned.
I went thru all the "Help Tabs".
There is nothing about retracting post(s) in NG's....or it is well
camouflaged!
Truthfully, I tried to please, I wanted them gone, just would not go away.
The messages are hours-old, not seconds.
Can not catch them, retract them, do a "SF" time warp.

When I asked "Tell me how?", I really meant it.
I figured she knew something extra-fancy.

When I got the "Right-click on it...", I went "Oops, keep everything, Here
we go, This possibly can go sour".

Note that she already right-clicked on #1 to no avail.
It is still there for all to grab.

2) Decency to REDACT it first.
=====================

From my end, this was the last thing to do.
I would put myself in the sad position of defending "formatting" those files
to fit my allegations.
Left them as is.
Included *.TXT files along with *.EML's for non-OE users.

I carefully avoided the "address" word in the NG.
I used "private information" instead.

So, I left everything intact, errors and typos and all.

Simply put:
I got the request/eMail from Susan and this *HOURS* after she committed her
address in the NG in message (#1).

My post (#2) was also a few hours old.

In #2, I did not snip/edit her #1 (It was short at 1 K) so her addie can be
seen twice overall.

Two messages in the "sub-thread" are not very "visible/catchy" so I do not
post a third one in the NG telling her "I can not erase the stuff" as
obviously it would be counter-productive.
Instead I went "private" and intended to keep on doing so by not resorting
to the NG.

It's a pity how it degenerated.

Mike Savage