RS> You cant debug it anyway, the blemish doesnt happen on your system.

PE> Quite probably,

RS> Aint no 'quite probably' about it, if you use the single line
RS> that contains the QWK2PKT invokation on it, with the pair of MSGs,
RS> one which exhibits the fault on my system and one which does not,
RS> and both PKTs dont exhibit the fault, we have excellent evidence that
RS> its vastly more likely that its some difference in the environment
RS> thats producing the different result on your system than mine.

PE> If you're too thick to grasp what I've already told you,

NO ONE has much idea of what you 'tell' them, your stuff
is so cryptic and fogged up its just not possible to work
out what you think you are saying most of the time.

Very visible with the free Warp upgrade question where you didnt even
bother to mention that you were talking about a very recent Warp purchase.

PE> ie I have NOT run the same test that you did,

Yes, but the test you DID run, say by using the same QWK2PKT switches
that were clearly visible in the BAT file I did send you, is good
enough with that particular wart thats visible in the dud PKT. Its
MOST unlikely that a wart that specific would be due to say the
directory structure that is used. And easy to prove that it aint if
you want to get that anal, and I did, just like I did with the other
very unlikely possibility that it was the specific QWK2PKT.EXE too.

PE> because you didn't send me that test to run,

Yep, I noticed quite some time ago that kids who think they know
everything dont actually do so so the test they proclaim is the one
viable test aint necessarily the one viable test at all. Particularly
when I have been doing this stuff since before they were even born.

PE> that's entirely your problem.

Fraid not, your personality problems are yours in fact.
One day it might ultimately dawn on you that others have
been debugging software since before you were born and
that they might have worked out how to do it by now.

PE> although I didn't run exactly what you sent me,
PE> because I don't have exactly what you used (tpoint
PE> directories etc), so I haven't performed the exact test.

RS> Pity that a bit of difference on that directory structure is
RS> MOST unlikely to produce that PARTICULAR change in the PKT that
RS> was seen. And that its quite trivial to recreate that directory
RS> structure on your system to make quite sure that it isnt that if
RS> you really do want to cover the most unlikelys that thoroughly.

PE> It's quite trivial for you to give me what I asked for, actually.

Yes, and its quite trivial for me to stand on my head and whistle
Dixie if you claim that will work out whats causing the problem too.
And even more trivial for me to point out that its very unlikely to too.

I did bother with the QWK2PK.EXE which was MOST unlikely to be the what
produces that very specific blemish in the PKT, and you couldnt do that
yourself, look at the actual QWK2PKT.EXE I use without me sending it. You
can certainly do that specific test on the directory structure yourself
without me doing anything if you want to eliminate that very unlikely
possibility. AND I actually did the reverse, did it without the directory
structure that was first used here and it STILL produces the same result,
so I wasnt at all surprised that it wasnt the directory structure doing it.

PE> fine, silent deletion next time you send me a PKT with that glitch.

RS> Anyone ever told you that you are a complete fuckwit ?

PE> Not as many as have told you exactly the same thing.

RS> Odd, could have sworn that heaps have told you just that on
RS> your wild proclamations about software, bug testing, etc etc etc
RS> in here alone, and not one has actually said that to me on that.

PE> Only because they all have you twitted Rod, only because you're twitted.

Fraid not, every single one who has put the boot into your silly ideas
on software like Frank DONT. Nice theory, pity about the reality tho.

PE> Your loss, Rod.  It doesn't worry me one iota if I delete
PE> any out-of-spec packets left over because you've been warned
PE> about a problem and don't care enough about it to fix it.

RS> You really are a complete and utter fuckwit if you cant even
RS> grasp that I put considerable effort into looking at why that
RS> bad PKT was produced, producing a clear pair of datafiles, one
RS> of which produced the problem and one which did not. AND have
RS> the mental horsepower to notice that if that pair dont exhibit
RS> the problem on your system, you have a problem debugging that wart.

PE> You haven't given me what I asked for,

Yes, because you can produce 'what you asked for' from what you HAVE.
You never did say what you actually wanted anyway, and I dont read minds.

PE> in fact point-blank refused to do so. Your tough luck.

Nope, yours.

PE> You get to either:

PE> 1. Use different software (preferred option from my POV).

Soorree, not into mindless fascism, YOU demanded that I use THIS software.

PE> 2. Put up with silent deletion (4th preferred option from my POV).

Soorree, I call you a complete fuckwit instead.

PE> 3. Debug the problem yourself (2nd preferred option from my POV).

Which I get to do myself anyway, whatever you proclaim.

PE> 4. Give me what I asked for (3rd preferred option from my POV).

Or you can get off your arse and produce what you want yourself from
what you already have, which will take a LOT less time to to than
playing juvenile silly buggers like you are choosing to do instead.

And find that even when you do, you STILL dont get a dud
PKT from the MSG that produces a bad PKT on my system, and
then even you might notice that what you demand isnt exactly
very useful debugging wise. I noticed that quite some time ago.

RS> And if you seriously think that silent deletion of PKTs in that
RS> situation is anything remotely like a reliable mail system, you have an
RS> even more serious problem with dog shit between the ears than I thought.

PE> And if you seriously think that sending
PE> me out-of-spec mail DELIBERATELY

Soorree, you havent actually established that I AM sending you
out of spec messages DELIBERATELY you complete fucking fuckwit.

I am in fact CHECKING the outgoing PKTs manually to ensure that they
DONT have that particular problem. And would try producing different
MSGs with a different order of message if I see one, coz clearly
that blemish is sensitive to the order of the messages in the MSG.

So far, none have been seen at all since that one I deliberately
produced to demonstrate the bug and included in the BAD_PAUL.ZIP

In those circumstances, only a complete fuckwit would
think that silent deletion makes the slightest sense.

PE> rather than do the trivial steps you need to get the problem fixed,

Which I know damned well wont fix the problem
because I have ALREADY done the reverse test, show
that I still get the bad PKT in the situation you do not.

PE> I know I'd be VERY eager to fix the problem if
PE> Dave told me I was sending him out-of-spec packets.

RS> I'm ALSO eager to fix the problem you complete fuckwit.

PE> Not eager enough to give me what I asked for.

Coz I have been debugging software for long enough to know
that what you ask for wont help, and even bothered to prove
that in MY system, coz it was more convenient to do it that way.

PE> Doesn't sound very eager to me.

Yeah, well, you fuck up lost of other 'dont sounds' so why not this one ?

RS> Your lunatic ideas on how to go about fixing
RS> the problem are another matter entirely tho.

PE> Seems like you're far more interested in playing
PE> silly buggers than actually getting the problem fixed.

Fraid not, I actually do know a bit about how to debug software boy. Quite
a bit more than you do by the looks of it. So I there aint much point in
doing what you proclaim is the only viable way to look a that problem.

PE> Fine by me. There's nothing in it for me to fix a
PE> problem with a program I don't use myself and that
PE> I don't get paid any money for. She's all yours, Jim.

Always was boy, you clearly dont have of an idea about analysing a problem.

And you wont be able to debug a problem that
doesnt manifest itself on your system anyway.

RS> And then there's the tiny matter that he DOESNT just silently
RS> delete any PKT from your system which has the slightest blemish
RS> too. AND he doesnt run mindlessly anal software that chucks a
RS> wobbly about trivial blemishes either. Neither does the Bulldog.

PE> Actually, you have no idea on what he runs.

Actually, I do.

I ALSO know that messages with minor blemishes get THRU his system,
because Laurie commented on some that your software was producing.

PE> I do know that he doesn't have a system on 3:711/934
PE> that, when informed of out-of-spec messages coming from
PE> his system simply proclaims "Fix it yourself you fuckwit".

You dont either you complete fuckwit.

And I bet that if he did see messages that were causing a problem in
his system that he wouldnt be sending 'dickhead alert' messages either.

RS> Corse the authors of the software they run may just have more
RS> of an idea about what robust software is about than you do too.

PE> Whatever, Rod.  Run them instead.  There's nothing in it for me.

Just your pathetic ego tripping.
@EOT:

---