Show quote Hide quote Specifically his question involved clearing the session variables, values of
which he is using when he constructs HTML as a response.  Clearing session
variables is *obviously* a server-side affair.  The fact that, even more
specifically, he is using the values of those session variables to emit
value
attributes for input elements that are children of the form element he is
generating *would* be completely irrelevant, if not for the way he phrased
his question.

Now before I continue my rhetoric I want to point out that I totally respect
your contributions to the Usenet, Dave, I see substantial technical accuracy
and depth in your posts; you seem both knowledgeable and objective.  I have
no issues with you... and I'm sure we both have better things to do than
split hairs for this NG -- seriously! :-)

As for the OP, he might've phrased his question a little better, and if he
had quoted his earlier posts, the additional context might even have negated
your incentive to retort.  Otoh, I read most of this thread in one sitting,
had all the context fresh in mind, and to me the imperfections of his
request were slight.

To me the question does not justify a response that's constructed like this:
"[diminutive statement of the obvious] [cursory glance at the 'letter' (as
opposed to the spirit) of the question] [brush-off in the form of a trite
analogistic reference to what ASP does or does not 'know'] [explicitly void
of anything even remotely helpful to OP]"

Effective translation: "I'm replying to your foolish attempt at a post to
this NG for
the following reasons only:  a.) To spank you for your breach of
netiquette -- the importance of which transcends that of even the Net
itself, much less the topic at hand;
b.) To carelessly label your question as OT, having given it very little
thought, if any at all; c.) Just to say, 'p1ss on you', as I reassert my
standing as a know-nothing, industrial strength, reagent grade a$$h013,
99.7% pure, recognized by multiple cultures worldwide."

Personally, I object to replies that are 100% admonition.  Some people like
to suggest other NGs -- that's fine, but I also think it's pointless to
merely inform an OP that there is a line between server and client sides.
Often it's clear that the line is a blur to the OP -- why not try to help
them to sharpen their view of that line?  How are they better off posting to
a client-side oriented NG, at the same level of confusion with which they
posted to this one?

If it's clear enough that their confusion has server-side implications, so
what if they used client-side terminology to express it?

Anyway, I suspect that the core issue here is whether you (or anyone else)
is more offended by Evertjan's uniquely rude style and the utter lack of
anything useful in many of his posts, or by my vocal objections thereto.  I
like to think I'm open minded, and I surely do not stay where I'm unwanted;
I will defer to a consensus.  Anyone who thinks it would be more appropriate
for me to simply STFU about it, please speak freely.  I will respect the
wishes of the group.


Heh, why stop there?  Why not construct the entire HTTP request by hand and
write sockets code to send it up to the server without all that messy API
and object crap?  Heck, dust off MASM and drive yourself crazy!  :-)

But are you suggesting that knowledge of the underlying protocol somehow
proves that Request.Form is entirely unrelated to a form in an HTML document
that was used to submit the "Request"?  (I really wanted to avoid splitting
any more hairs but couldn't resist.)


-Mark


Show quoteHide quote

FORWARD: Nicely put, Mark. Though it deserves more, I do not have the time
to address more than a scattershot.

Mark J. McGinty wrote:
We will have to agree to disagree on this point.



Agreed.



Even so, I didn't think Evertjan responded unreasonably, much less rudely.
As you point out, some of us read the thread in full context, while others
did not. Evertjan's "this is not email, please quote" is concise and the
*opposite* of rude, in my opinion, while the rest of his response is
completely appropriate given the lack of context that quoting would have
provided.

I guess I'm saying that I did not see admonition in his response, but rather
an intent to educate the OP and perhaps a tone that suffers from translation
to both English (which I assume is not Evertjan's native tongue) and plain
text.

That said, I completely understand the urge to be curt with some types of
questions, and I acknowledge that his response may have been grounded in the
frustration that October 1, 1993 [1] will never arrive.



Speaking as someone who frequently offends more than I intend, I am
painfully aware of the limitations of plain text as a medium of expression.
I value an economy of language, which means I often choose words carefully
[2], and I can be impatient when those same words are read -- or used -- 
sloppily.

So I think Evertjan's style is neither unique nor rude. It is not everyone's
cup of tea, to be sure. But on balance, I think his helpfulness outweighs
whatever others find objectionable.



No. I am asserting crafting such a request proves that ASP does not know the
concept of a "form field". ASP understands requests, to be sure, and
requests are *usually* related to form fields. But ASP does not care about
that relationship.



I truly understand.



[1] On the day after Eternal September, new posters will lurk long enough to
play nicely when they post: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_September

[2] Even the words: "I often choose words carefully". I know it may be
tempting to counter with the boundless examples of words I have chosen
hastily, but while that may be entertaining for some and embarrassing for
me, it will fail to rebut my assertion.

How can I copy files to a web folder using ASP+VBSCRIPT
issues with MSXML2.FreeThreadedDOMDocument
Delete ASP Multidimensional Array
Request.form("max")
No syntax error msgs in the Browser