REPOST: Guru Challenge

[Scott M.]

You don't see how you can't seem to just accept that you didn't help me from
even YOUR last post?

My first *suggestion* to him was about hardware. That's true.

It took you 4 messages to "let go" of your "hardware" suggestion after
bickering with me about my specs. when I had told you hardware was ruled
out.

What *really* ticked him off was this comment by me :

No, actually what ticked me off what what I've been telling you all along
and what you continue to do right now, which is put words in my mouth and
come to assumptions that aren't true. Don't believe me? Just read what you
just wrote.

I followed that comment with this :


And, it was *precisely* a naming ambiguity
in his hosts file which was giving him problems.

And, where exactly in that bit of wisdom is a suggestion of something to
look at? This is the point, just because you said there are certain
characteristics to networked environments where the names of things are
important, doesn't translate into something tangible to look at. Yet, once
again, you just can't stand to be told that your advice wasn't what led me
to my solution.

In that same post, I asked him :


...and requested more information by asking :


But, he did not consider that important and did not reply.

Correct because there were no other applications running on localhost to
look at and "check your TCP/IP stacks" is again vauge and doesn't lead me to
anything specific to check. It wasn't until after I mentioned the hosts
file did you start trumpeting how you were right. It's easy to say you were
right, when you are saying things like, you've got a networking problem,
you've got a hardware problem or you've got an image problem.

That was *way* before ( 8 hours before )
George suggested that the OP check his hosts file

If he had been listening, instead of looking to fire back,
he could have solved his problem way earlier.

Not with the vauge information you were slinging.

Now, of course, he has to look good, and replies to Kevin that
I have "provided no constructive help in the process" and that
"ultimately coming up with the wrong answer" was what I did.

It feels so good to be right Juan, doesn't it?

Bollocks to that!

 

[Juan T. Llibre]

Please don't change your address to force me to
have to read your never ending arguments.

*This* address has been plonked, too.

You don't see how you can't seem to just accept that you didn't help me from even YOUR
last post?

My first *suggestion* to him was about hardware. That's true.

It took you 4 messages to "let go" of your "hardware" suggestion after bickering with me
about my specs. when I had told you hardware was ruled out.

What *really* ticked him off was this comment by me :

No, actually what ticked me off what what I've been telling you all along and what you
continue to do right now, which is put words in my mouth and come to assumptions that
aren't true. Don't believe me? Just read what you just wrote.

I followed that comment with this :


And, it was *precisely* a naming ambiguity
in his hosts file which was giving him problems.

And, where exactly in that bit of wisdom is a suggestion of something to look at? This
is the point, just because you said there are certain characteristics to networked
environments where the names of things are important, doesn't translate into something
tangible to look at. Yet, once again, you just can't stand to be told that your advice
wasn't what led me to my solution.

In that same post, I asked him :


...and requested more information by asking :


But, he did not consider that important and did not reply.

Correct because there were no other applications running on localhost to look at and
"check your TCP/IP stacks" is again vauge and doesn't lead me to anything specific to
check. It wasn't until after I mentioned the hosts file did you start trumpeting how
you were right. It's easy to say you were right, when you are saying things like,
you've got a networking problem, you've got a hardware problem or you've got an image
problem.

That was *way* before ( 8 hours before )
George suggested that the OP check his hosts file

If he had been listening, instead of looking to fire back,
he could have solved his problem way earlier.

Not with the vauge information you were slinging.

Now, of course, he has to look good, and replies to Kevin that
I have "provided no constructive help in the process" and that
"ultimately coming up with the wrong answer" was what I did.

It feels so good to be right Juan, doesn't it?

 

[Kevin Spencer]

I WILL have the last word in this thread!!!

;-),

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer
Ambiguity has a certain quality to it.

You don't see how you can't seem to just accept that you didn't help me
from even YOUR last post?

My first *suggestion* to him was about hardware. That's true.

It took you 4 messages to "let go" of your "hardware" suggestion after
bickering with me about my specs. when I had told you hardware was ruled
out.

What *really* ticked him off was this comment by me :

No, actually what ticked me off what what I've been telling you all along
and what you continue to do right now, which is put words in my mouth and
come to assumptions that aren't true. Don't believe me? Just read what
you just wrote.

I followed that comment with this :


And, it was *precisely* a naming ambiguity
in his hosts file which was giving him problems.

And, where exactly in that bit of wisdom is a suggestion of something to
look at? This is the point, just because you said there are certain
characteristics to networked environments where the names of things are
important, doesn't translate into something tangible to look at. Yet,
once again, you just can't stand to be told that your advice wasn't what
led me to my solution.

In that same post, I asked him :


...and requested more information by asking :


But, he did not consider that important and did not reply.

Correct because there were no other applications running on localhost to
look at and "check your TCP/IP stacks" is again vauge and doesn't lead me
to anything specific to check. It wasn't until after I mentioned the
hosts file did you start trumpeting how you were right. It's easy to say
you were right, when you are saying things like, you've got a networking
problem, you've got a hardware problem or you've got an image problem.

That was *way* before ( 8 hours before )
George suggested that the OP check his hosts file

If he had been listening, instead of looking to fire back,
he could have solved his problem way earlier.

Not with the vauge information you were slinging.

Now, of course, he has to look good, and replies to Kevin that
I have "provided no constructive help in the process" and that
"ultimately coming up with the wrong answer" was what I did.

It feels so good to be right Juan, doesn't it?

 

[Scott M.]

Before you go thinking how I must have done that to get you to read my post,
just consider that it might be possible to send a message from another
location.

Your analysis of this is right on par with your analysis of the rest of this
thread. Jump to conclusions without any facts.

 

[Scott M.]

Okay, you can have it.

I WILL have the last word in this thread!!!

;-),

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
.Net Developer
Ambiguity has a certain quality to it.

 

[Guest]

I'm glad you found the problem in the hosts file - I was going to suggest it
was a network config issue. Just out of curiosity, what was it? Did they
point localhost to somewhere strange?

 

[Scott M.]

Yes, localhost was mis-directed. I'm not sure if this was just a typo or
something that meant something during the image testing phase, but simply
correcting it to 127.0.0.1 did the trick.

 

[Scott M.]

It's really a shame that we have to dedicate so many posts

to explaining things which should be quite obvious, just
because someone has a distorted sense of what he is due.

What did I say I was due from you? Nothing. You are making things up now.

I've been here for years, before he suddenly appeared in all his "glory",
and I'll be here long after he stops wasting everybody's time with his
complaints.

Do you define "suddenly" as: for the last 4+ years? Again, you are
replacing fact with your ignorance. Did you do a NG search to see that I'm
haven't just sprung up here? No, because if you had, you'd know that your
last remark was just more untruths and comments without any prior knowldege
of what you speak.

I'd love to let this thread go, but I WILL NOT for one minute let you get
away with non-factual statements. If you want to make stuff up and call it
fact, go tell it to your local elementary school's kindergarden class,
because it won't work here.