FUDforum: comp.lang.php » problem saving date fields

Home » Imported messages » comp.lang.php » problem saving date fields

Show: Today's Messages :: Polls :: Message Navigator

Re: problem saving date fields [message #174140 is a reply to message #174139]

Mon, 23 May 2011 00:21

Jerry Stuckle
Messages: 2598
Registered: September 2010

Karma:

Senior Member

On 5/22/2011 7:01 PM, Jeff North wrote:
> On Sun, 22 May 2011 13:47:29 -0400, in comp.lang.php Jerry Stuckle
> <jstucklex(at)attglobal(dot)net>
> <irbi7i$gqk$2(at)dont-email(dot)me> wrote:
>
>> | On 5/22/2011 10:08 AM, Jeff North wrote:
>> |> On Sun, 22 May 2011 08:26:48 -0400, in comp.lang.php Jerry Stuckle
>> |> <jstucklex(at)attglobal(dot)net>
>> |> <irave9$qdq$1(at)dont-email(dot)me> wrote:
>> |>
>> |>> | On 5/22/2011 12:28 AM, Jeff North wrote:
>> |>> |> On Sat, 21 May 2011 20:01:17 -0400, in comp.lang.php Jerry Stuckle
>> |>> |> <jstucklex(at)attglobal(dot)net>
>> |>> |> <ir9jom$663$1(at)dont-email(dot)me> wrote:
>> |>
>> |> [snip]
>> |>
>> |>> |> http://www.apps.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3676.html#sec-4.3
>> |>> |> "There is a long-standing convention in Usenet news which also
>> |>> |> commonly appears in Internet mail of using "-- " as the separator line
>> |>> |> between the body and the signature of a message. When generating a
>> |>> |> Format=Flowed message containing a Usenet-style separator before the
>> |>> |> signature, the separator line is sent as-is."
>> |>> |
>> |>> | Which RFC is that?
>> |>
>> |> Have a look at the hyperlink provided but incase you can't read
>> |> hyperlinks it is RFC 3676 - the one that YOU provided - remember?
>> |>
>> |>> |> Now where does it state "It needs to be exactly
>> |>> |> hyphen-hyphen-space-newline."
>> |>> |
>> |>> | In the RFC. But you can't read either, so we also know you are an idiot.
>> |>
>> |> Which RFC is that - it isn't in the one you provided (3676 or 3736).
>> |> Care to provide another RFC?
>> |
>> | 3767. Learn to read, idiot. But we already know that is beyond your
>> | limited capabilities.
>
> First it was 3736, then 3676 and on the third attempt we have 3767!!!
>
> What on earth has "Securely Available Credentials Protocol" got to do
> with the signature line format?

What an idiot. Sure, it was a typo. It's 3676, but it really doesn't
make any difference anyway, because the rfc has words of more than one
syllable, so you can't understand it, anyway.

Once again you prove what an idiot you are. Can't even learn to google
for yourself.

Does your mommy read books to you? And maybe even these usenet posts?

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex(at)attglobal(dot)net
==================

Report message to a moderator

[Message index]

		problem saving date fields By: Co on Fri, 20 May 2011 18:38
		Re: problem saving date fields By: Luuk on Fri, 20 May 2011 18:50
		Re: problem saving date fields By: Co on Fri, 20 May 2011 21:00
		Re: problem saving date fields By: Jerry Stuckle on Fri, 20 May 2011 22:24
		Re: problem saving date fields By: Co on Fri, 20 May 2011 22:52
		Re: problem saving date fields By: Jerry Stuckle on Sat, 21 May 2011 02:30
		Re: problem saving date fields By: Luuk on Sat, 21 May 2011 07:57
		Re: problem saving date fields By: Co on Sat, 21 May 2011 08:34
		Re: problem saving date fields By: Luuk on Sat, 21 May 2011 09:29
		Re: problem saving date fields By: Co on Sat, 21 May 2011 12:12
		Re: problem saving date fields By: Luuk on Sat, 21 May 2011 13:46
		Re: problem saving date fields By: Luuk on Sat, 21 May 2011 14:02
		Re: problem saving date fields By: Co on Sat, 21 May 2011 14:09
		Re: problem saving date fields By: Luuk on Sat, 21 May 2011 14:34
		Re: problem saving date fields By: Jeff North on Fri, 20 May 2011 22:58
		Re: problem saving date fields By: Jerry Stuckle on Sat, 21 May 2011 02:35
		Re: problem saving date fields By: Jeff North on Sat, 21 May 2011 03:13
		Re: problem saving date fields By: Co on Sat, 21 May 2011 06:47
		Re: problem saving date fields By: Co on Sat, 21 May 2011 07:18
		Re: problem saving date fields By: Luuk on Sat, 21 May 2011 07:54
		Re: problem saving date fields By: Jerry Stuckle on Sat, 21 May 2011 14:37
		Re: problem saving date fields By: Co on Sat, 21 May 2011 15:07
		Re: problem saving date fields By: Jerry Stuckle on Sat, 21 May 2011 23:55
		Re: problem saving date fields By: Co on Sun, 22 May 2011 21:20
		Re: problem saving date fields By: Jerry Stuckle on Sun, 22 May 2011 21:28
		Re: problem saving date fields By: Jerry Stuckle on Sat, 21 May 2011 14:32
		Re: problem saving date fields By: Jeff North on Sat, 21 May 2011 16:08
		Re: problem saving date fields By: Jerry Stuckle on Sun, 22 May 2011 00:01
		Re: problem saving date fields By: Twayne on Sun, 22 May 2011 00:30
		Re: problem saving date fields By: Jerry Stuckle on Sun, 22 May 2011 03:13
		Re: problem saving date fields By: Jeff North on Sun, 22 May 2011 04:28
		Re: problem saving date fields By: Thomas 'PointedEars' on Sun, 22 May 2011 10:45
		Re: problem saving date fields By: Jerry Stuckle on Sun, 22 May 2011 12:26
		Re: problem saving date fields By: Twayne on Sun, 22 May 2011 13:20
		Re: problem saving date fields By: Jeff North on Sun, 22 May 2011 14:08
		Re: problem saving date fields By: Jerry Stuckle on Sun, 22 May 2011 17:47
		Re: problem saving date fields By: me on Sun, 22 May 2011 18:17
		Re: problem saving date fields By: Jerry Stuckle on Sun, 22 May 2011 18:26
		Re: problem saving date fields By: me on Sun, 22 May 2011 20:27
		Re: problem saving date fields By: Jeff North on Sun, 22 May 2011 23:01
		Re: problem saving date fields By: Jerry Stuckle on Mon, 23 May 2011 00:21
		Re: problem saving date fields By: me on Mon, 23 May 2011 01:36
		Re: problem saving date fields By: Jerry Stuckle on Mon, 23 May 2011 01:46
		Re: problem saving date fields By: Jeff North on Mon, 23 May 2011 02:20
		Re: problem saving date fields By: Jerry Stuckle on Mon, 23 May 2011 02:30
		Re: problem saving date fields By: Co on Mon, 23 May 2011 04:51
		Re: problem saving date fields By: Jerry Stuckle on Mon, 23 May 2011 11:13
		Re: problem saving date fields By: Co on Mon, 23 May 2011 17:18
		Re: problem saving date fields By: Co on Mon, 23 May 2011 17:27
		Re: problem saving date fields By: Jerry Stuckle on Mon, 23 May 2011 18:16
		Re: problem saving date fields By: Co on Mon, 23 May 2011 19:17
		Re: problem saving date fields By: Jerry Stuckle on Mon, 23 May 2011 22:00
		Re: problem saving date fields By: Co on Tue, 24 May 2011 05:30
		Re: problem saving date fields By: Jerry Stuckle on Tue, 24 May 2011 09:45
		Re: problem saving date fields By: Co on Thu, 26 May 2011 09:10
		Re: problem saving date fields By: Jerry Stuckle on Thu, 26 May 2011 09:43
		Re: problem saving date fields By: Co on Mon, 23 May 2011 21:26
		Re: problem saving date fields By: Jerry Stuckle on Mon, 23 May 2011 22:01
		Re: problem saving date fields By: Thomas 'PointedEars' on Mon, 23 May 2011 21:59
		Re: problem saving date fields By: Twayne on Sun, 22 May 2011 13:11

Previous Topic:	is dis da place?
Next Topic:	foreach in reverse

Goto Forum:

-=] Back to Top [=-

[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [

]

Current Time: Sat Nov 23 01:34:47 GMT 2024

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.31811 seconds