Re: Post with redirect?


"Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:f5-dnSJsesL3_PvanZ2dnUVZ_oGjnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Steve wrote:
"Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:7OednUi2zIWvRvjanZ2dnUVZ_oOnnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Steve wrote:
I have posted a solution. I told him to use Javascript and pointed him
to the correct place to find it.
that's no solution. that's passing the buck.

It is a solution appropriate to this newsgroup.

you made it about javascript, not the op...you. i've suggested a way to
do it in php. another has suggested just handling in with standard html.
for some reason, you think js is the best way to go. whatever.


Exactly. He wanted a way to redirect a port with data to an external site
and I gave it to him. And yes, it is the better way to go - it doesn't
require the user to make an unnecessary click (which he/she may or may not
do).

you meant 'post' not 'port'...right. all i saw you give him was
comp.lang.php. i don't see where any unnecessary clicking would occur.
explain in real terms.

So far you haven't shown us how do to it in PHP.

i've given a way to post the items from the host server to the 3rd party
server. it's as simple as giving them a 'check out' button on a form,
posting certain inputs, with the 3rd party server as the target. not rocket
science. no real extra clicking going on there jer. and it doesn't upset the
natural order of the universe either.

But YOU MADE THE CLAIM - I DIDN'T. So it's up to YOU TO POST THE
CODE.
i made no claim other than you can use just php to get the job done.
you don't need redirection either. i posted sample code and a fairly
complete description of the approach. i owe no one here more than that.

You owe him a lot more than that. Your sample code doesn't do ***. And
your "fairly complete description of the approach" is even worse.

i don't owe anyone anything. sample code shows a way to post data to an
external source. he could parse the response, and never have to do a
redirect. and given your proposals, do you think i care what your opinion
is, jer?


ROFLMAO! Backpedaling again, huh, T.R.O.L.L.? We know you can't do it,
so that's no surprise.

whatever, jer. you are a projectionist-extrodenair.

So now you're backpeddling and we know you can't support your claims.

your claim, not mine. i see you're back to building strawmen.


Nope. I never claimed you could. But you did, and still haven't shown us
how to do it.

i've given a great start. the op can build on it.

Come on, T.R.O.L.L. Your weak attempts to defect the attention from your
claims doesn't work.

i wonder if you had a boat, would your trolling be easier? and i'm sure you
mean 'deflect'...people's attention probably don't want to desert, and i
don't consider their attention to be flawed either...just yours.

you'd probably be better off with 'divert'. it is what you're most familiar
with, in both verbage and action. lol.

But you can't, S.T.O.O.P.I.D. T.R.O.L.L. Because you cant find anyone
to write it for you, and you're incapable of doing it yourself.

So you're just trying to backpeddle and get others to write the code
for you, just like you always do.
doesn't mean i can't. and, i don't backpeddle. you've shown yourself
the master at that.

You are backpeddling, troll. And no, you can't do it.

whatever trolling strawman.


ROFLMAO! Can't back up your claims, T.R.O.L.L.? Backpedaling again?

No surprise here.

strawmen still, jer? trolling again? argumentum ad-nausium.

OTOH, I've done no backpeddling. I have supported every claim I have
made. Unlike you.

ROFLMFAO !!! aside from your constant demonstration of backpeddling in
this thread, you've completely dropped two others where i've shown you to
be a bafoon.


Not at all. I have not made the claims you have, and everyone reading
this thread can see it.

oh no, you've said it can't be done in php, said it was theoretically
possible using curl (a *PHP* extension...mooting your first claim), then you
claimed it can only be done using javascript. three people have shown you
wrong now, not just me. further, if i wanted to split hairs, *any*
client-side scripting language could be used for what you propose. so, on
two counts you unnecessarily usher the op away at your convenience to
comp.lang.javascript.

still waiting for you to find out who i am. and how using a .223 in any
rifle capable of firing a .223 changes the model of rifle doing the
firing. that is analogous to cgi + commandline. remember that? any of it?


I didn't say I wanted to find out who you are, T.R.O.L.L. It isn't worth
my time to try to find a liar and a user - like you do to the poor people
in your church. So desperate for acceptance. It's a shame.

nor did i say that either, strawman builder. i said you claim to be able to,
yet don't seem to be able to. again, when asked for proof, you either want
payment or say it's a waste of time. if that answer is valid for you, then
if i say i've given the op enough to go on, it doesn't mean i couldn't
program the whole solution. see how that works.

coward.


You're trying to remain anonymous, and you call ME a coward? ROFLMAO.
That's you projecting again. You're so afraid that someone here will find
how sorry your real life is. And you're also afraid we will find out
you're not a programmer with 25 years of experience.

according to you, my identity is easily had. so why would it matter whether
one posts anonymously or in any other fashion? apparently, you think my life
is sad and that i can't program...much less for 25 years. your thoughts seem
to be all you need in order for you to think you're right. your insults
obviously have had no effect on me. so, how is it that you figure i'm
afraid?

you're just providing argumentum adnausium.


And you're just backpedaling again. And by the way - it's AD NAUSEUM. Two
words, no 'i'.

note both the 'e' and 'i' are accessed using the middle finger. since i'm
sure that is a digit with which you are wholly familiar in receiving, you'll
be able to understand a type-o so easily made. lol.

YOU MADE THE CLAIM. NOT ME. IT'S UP TO YOU TO SUBSTANTIATE YOUR
CLAIM. NOT ME.
quote me, jerry. i think you think what i said and what you think i
claim are vastly different. it wouldn't be the first time we've seen
you ignore the obvious and substitute reality with delution.

OK, since you're memory is so short, and you seem to be too illiterate
to read you, yourself, wrote, here's your quote:

"don't let the misinformation fool you. it can be done with php. the
only thing jerry got right is that it would be a lot of work. what jerry
also mistakenly forgets is that just about anything you can do with
curl, you can do with native php functions...and in this case, the 'just
about anything' you'd need to be able to do becomes 'anything'. jerry's
'curl could theoretically' argument then logically negates and
invalidates his 'cant be done with php' claim. you're just in for a lot
of work. however, it can be done. "

So, let's see you do the redirect in PHP. That's what we were talking
about, after all."

'it' would be the operative here, jer. 'it' is solving the op's
problem...not assuming/adopting his suggested approach. 'it' is posting
data and getting a response back from an external server and handling the
results...no need to redirect.


"It" is providing a redirect with post. That's what he asked for. Let's
see you provide it. The entire PHP world is waiting for you to show us
how it can be done. In fact, I'll bet even the guys at Zend are waiting
for the S.T.O.O.P.I.D. T.R.O.L.L. to prove his claim.

again, noobile, people value experienced answers...not just getting their
delimmas handled, especially when the question is non-standard. i listened
to what his overall goal was and kept the solution within the realm of php
and html. remember, he also did NOT want to exclude users because he felt
forced to use js. you seemed to have not only avoided posting a solution of
your own, you also send him headlong into comp.lang.javascript.

as for the rest of your garbage, you can build all the strawmen you'd like,
and burn them as you will. more intelligent people won't be watching. have
fun at the bon-fire.

Or, even if you try to do it your way. Let's see you provide a complete
solution, not a piece of code you copied from someone else's tutorial.

listen, this is the final challenge on this little dig. if you think i
plagurized code, PROOVE it. otherwise, no one cares; least of all, me.

you provide *any* solution, jer. that'd be a great sign of good faith that
you're not JUST trolling.

<snippage>

if you want to continue with strawmen, ad-hom's, and trolling, i'll snip it
out. you won't have much content left in your posts. in fact, any.

We know you CAN'T. Because it requires intelligence and the capability to
program. You didn't provide ***.

you're right, what i gave was not ***. thanks for agreeing...so venerable
of you.

You say the parsing is the only thing left out? OK, let's see that end,
also. IOW, a complete solution.

IOW, any solution from you, in whole or part, and we'll know you're not just
trolling.


<snipage>

trolling some more, jer?

are you really that daft?! i see evidence, i make an assessment in direct
alignment with said evidence. you make wholly unqualified or otherwise
unsupported claims simply because you think they ought to be true. par
for the course, jer. anyone arguing with you is required to go without
proof from you...unless as you say, they pay you for proof. seems that
for you it is enough for something to be the way you want it, just
because you want it, and because you say it is so.


ROFLMAO! I have made no unqualified or unsupported claims here. I've
called a S.T.O.O.P.I.D. T.R.O.L.L. just that. We know you can't write
your own code.

saying i plagurize without proof is not only lying, it is an unsupported and
unqualified claim. that make that whole rant, another trolling endeavor.

And as for your other claim - I don't RTFM to someone who's too lazy to do
it themselves. If they want training, they can pay for it.

no, you claimed the kind of code in a script makes cgi, cli, or module
regarless of the executable that runs it. foolish, and wrong. it wasn't till
i made the rifle analogy that you suddenly dropped that thread. what's it
going to take in this thread i wonder?

But we know your claims are all just a bunch of hot air. But then we know
you're a major contributor to global warming.

damn, troll-boi!

funny how your demands on me are so vastly different. lol !


Not at all. You made the claim it could be done. We're still waiting for
you to show us how to do it.

then support the *many* claims you've made. i've been waiting on responses
with proof on two different usenet groups in at least three threads between
them. you have yet to produce. see any hypocracy there? any double-standard?
of course not. when jerry stuckle says he's right, then by god, he's
right...why triffle with proof at that point!

You're wrong. I care about people who are intelligent. I don't give a
damn about trolls like Stevie and don't waste my time on them.

hmmmm...so you're saying i'm NOT a troll because you've NOT wasted THREE
days on me posting all of your usual tripe?! and by consequence of your
premise and your actions, you consider me intelligent. your lack of
reason, or your illiteracy, has made you say the OPPOSITE of what you
intend, jer. you should have just stopped at "you're wrong"...we all know
that you can't prove you're right and that you aren't required to provide
any yourself. we'd have just left it as "jerry being right because he
says he's right".


I haven't wasted any time, troll Stevie. I'm having a lot of fun calling
you on your lies and false claims. I consider a rock to have more
intelligence than you do. At least a rock can be useful - as a door stop,
for instance.

And you haven't done a thing to support your claims. That's because we
know the S.T.O.O.P.I.D. T.R.O.L.L. can't do it.

then your time is obviously not being used, knuckle-dragger. sorry to see
that your claim of clients beating down your door for your instruction only
leaves you with such vast quantities of time on your hands.

your words don't line up with your actions...and you seem devoid of being
able to logic through anything...much less the statement you just made.


ROFLMAO! You're showing your ignorance again, Stevie.

hmmm, lemme help you out, oh iq-of-75-and-falling-boi.

jerry: i don't waste my time on trolls and i care about the intelligent.
jerry: i haven't wasted any time, troll stevie.

tell me jerry, how do you recognize intelligent people? dude, if you don't
feel you're wasting your time, then either i'm not a troll and you possibly
care about me (cuz i'm smart)...or you just lied again...or you're
illiterate...or you are just plain not-smart. either way, you don't win in
the smarts catagory here.

as i concluded, and just explained, you seem devoid of being able to logic
through anything...much less the statement (sad that you just restated it)
you just made.

damn. i keep looking for a scapegoat so i can give you a way out and give
you the benefit of the doubt...but, it seems you're just plain stupid...and
trolling. that's why i presume your projecting when you say that of me at
every turn. i'm obviously not either...must be projection. ever think of
going into the silver screen?

The only conclusion related to you are that you are not a programmer.
Your incompetence has shown that you have no abilities beyond that of
copying other peoples' code and calling it your own.

again, two statements not in fact rather, assumptions you think are
correct because you think they're correct. it's just getting sad now,
jer.


If they're not a fact, then prove it. You're the S.T.O.O.P.I.D.
T.R.O.L.L. who is afraid people will find out who he is. You're also the
one who can't back up his claims with code.

lol...this smacks of the gawd conversation again. lemme break it
down...again.

jerry: you copied code
steve: not true, hypothesis rejected
jerry: prove it then

and...

jerry: god exists
steve: not true, hypothesis rejected
jerry: prove it then

you are in a definite pattern here, jerry. you have the burden of proof. if
there is no logical reason to believe a claim, i.e. there is no proof to
support said claim, then it is fine to reject it without further
considersation.

both are your claims, not mine. i bear no responsibility in *dis*proving
you.


And the fact you try to remain anonymous also proves that. If you
really were a programmer, you wouldn't be afraid to post your real name.

actually, there are several here who have my email address and know who i
am, for whom i work, etc.. the biggest logical fallacy above is that of
confusing cause and effect. then again, at this point, i think you've
filled the annals of demonstrated logical fallacy.


Yea, right, Stevie. Good try, from a sorry loser.

hmmm...where's shelly (sheldon glicker) been? we email all the time. i
helped him get a job at my company. he's too busy these days. kinda blows
several of your claims out of the water.


And finally, we already know you are so desperate for any level of
acceptance by anyone that you will attend a church and lie to your
fellow parishioners and tell them you believe in their God. But you
have admitted you don't. That is one sorry-ass loser.

lol, red-herring lover.


Hey, you admitted it, loser.

jerry, jerry, jerry. post the quote so that everyone can share my
understanding of the depth of your illiteracy. i said i go to church. i said
i'm an atheist. i said i hope no one asks my beliefs - hint, such
aprehension insinuates that i don't intend on hiding my atheistic views. i
said i go for my kids.

beyond that, what exactly do you think i've admitted?

i don't tell them i believe in god. i just hope they don't ask. they've
no reason to anyway. my character and actions are consistent and
charitable. i blend right in even though i'm an atheist. if they ask,
i'll tell them. no big deal. and, it's not about acceptance...it's about
socialization skills that i want my children to learn. church is a great
place to not only pick up those skills, but to use them as well.


Yea, right. You lie by actions and omission. You're a liar and a loser.

oh, so you're saying that atheists don't act morally...or if someone does
act morally, they are a christian? perhaps you're right...if ONLY one acts
with this adjective slipped in: morally SUPERIOR. and omission is not a lie
when there is no thought of a question coming up. unless you meet everyone
like this: "hi, my name is jerry stuckle. i'm gay and a complete
***...good to meet you." over time, people will come to know all of that
about you...and by then, they'll have invested enough in you to care whether
any of that matters - if they even have to ask at that point. get the
picture?

And you have no socializing skills, or you wouldn't have to lie to your
fellow parishioners to find some semblance of acceptance from anyone.

really? you've found out who i am even though i seem to be highly anonymous
here? and, you know who i am enough to know my relationships with others?
carnack the great is at work again!

and on the same side of the coin, jerry. do you actually blend into your
church body? is this how christians act? remember, i am not under any
moral obligations save social graces. your religion on the other hand,
requires much better behavior than what you show.


ROFLMAO! I blend in fine with my church body. And we have no problem
with calling a S.T.O.O.P.I.D. T.R.O.L.L. just that. So don't even try to
tell me what my religion requires. You have no understanding at all of
it.

sure do, i grew up in the church. i went to christian universities. we had
chapel 3 times a week...mandatory. religion, theology, and philosophy at the
300 level were MANDATORY. to say i more than a cursory understanding of not
only christianity but of MOST world religious and viewpoints would be a
vaaaaasssst understatement. i know very well what your religion requires.
and, it resemembles NOTHING of the behavior you show here.

by saying you blen in fine, i can only assume birds-of-a-feather...your
enitre church must be assholes by association...that, or they make you feel
at home and pray for your behavior. they must be adept enough so that they
make you feel like they and you are the same in those respects.

But a liar like you would be thrown out of our church so fast your head
would spin. We don't put up with heretics.

uhmmm, hello! lying and herecy are two mutually exclusive things, numbnuts.
as everyone lies and most of the civilized world attends religious
ceremonies without such floggings, you seem to be wrong. even still, unless
one is catholic or islamic, herecy is fine as long as you are violent or
otherwise disruptive.

sorry, did you have a point to make here?

<more verbose trolling snippage>

Just as you claim you are a programmer, it's up to you to prove you are.

jerry: steve is not a programmer
steve: yes, i am. hypothesis rejected
jerry: proove it

you only catch half-logic. try running the gammut. you claim i'm not, it's
up to you to prove it. i simply reject your claim. not only on lack of
proof, but first hand knowledge that i do in fact work as a programmer and
have been for quite some time.

But I know that's too deep for someone of your limited intelligence.

projecting again. you're not even a good troll.

sorry jerry, that logic fails you! you made the original claim that i am
not a programmer. it's up to YOU to prove your point. i merely refuse
your claim. dense, dense, dense, jerry. go back to school and take some
logic courses or something.


Nope, we all know you aren't a programmer. I don't need to prove
anything.

why are we not surprised. jerry makes a claim and only offers his standard
"i don't need to prove anything". you're laughable.

Of course, if you were a programmer, you could prove it. But you can't
because you aren't.

you assume that you are worth me proving it to. don't give yourself such
credit.

And you are the one who needs some logic courses.

really? i've had them and it shows. you can't even figure out when you've
given me a compliment when aiming for an insult...all because of your
illogical mind.

More likely you flip burgers at McDonalds. Or you wouldn't be afraid
to hide your identity.
lots of freaks out there, jerry. you should know. you've now been moved
into my usenet kook book, btw. you're under the 'troll with projection
issues' category.

Yes, you always did project your problems on someone else, loser.

lol. is this all you've got, jerry?


The truth requires nothing else, loser.

getting religious on me again?

<snippage>

my fingers are wearing thin. and nothing snipped was anything new. you think
i'm this or that...and i just don't care jerry.


.

Quantcast