Frank,

>> > My guess was/is that the 'command interpreter' (Rudy doesn't say
>> > how he invokes his commands)
>>
>> I didn't ?
>>
>> [quote first post]
>> I tried to redirect some commandline output into a vbscript
>> [/quote]
>>
>> Besides that, the "echo hello | ..." and "... < data.txt" should have
>> been
>> dead give-aways.
>
> As you didn't specifically say you invoked from cmd.exe, I said
> 'command interpreter', i.e. the general term. That's all.

(I quoted everything. Otherwise you will just complain I snipped important
stuff)

Really ?

You said : "Rudy doesn't say how he invokes his commands".

And I responded with quoting from my first post. So yes, I did say it.
There was nothing to guess at.

> just confirms what others and I have been saying about your style
> of communication ("Rudy's problem is that he can't imagine that
> someone interprets his posts in any other way than he does.").

To which I wrote a response - which you have not wanted to quote or
even refer to, as it doesn't fit your "you're /bad/, and you father reeks of
elderberries" narrative. One in which condemned the idiots who post what I
explicitily mentioned *NOT* to want - wasting their and my time.

But I assume you think that as someone who's asking I'm not allowed to (try
to) limit the type/scope of responses. The only thing I'm allowed to do is
to say "thank you", no matter what gets posted.

Well, "thank you"

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

Frank,

> It's not about filetype association, etc., but about what translates
> <filename> to <filename>.vbs *before* filetype association takes places,

Only for you and John. For me its absolutily irrelevant.

If you think its causing the stated problem than just add the ".vbs"
extension to the two lines in my first example see if it changes anything.

Newsflash : It doesn't.

>> He discovered the solution was to specify the .vbs extension on the
>> filename to get that handler to read the text file to run the script.
>
> Nope, he 'discovered' no such thing. He specified the .vbs extension
> *and* he added wscript.exe to interpret the .vbs file.

He's quite the moron, isn't he ? Still enjoying yourself trying to get him
to even just fully read what is infront of his nose (let alone correctly
interpret it) ? Yeah, me neither.

But "no" to the "he added wscript.exe to interpret the .vbs file" part.

The "wscript.exe" and than the ".vbs" extension can be removed (see the
first example). The vbscript gets run (interpreted by wscript.exe) in all
cases.

Which means that the reason I, in the second example, added "wscript.exe"
must have been quite different.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

Vanguard,

> He wants to pipe or redirect files into files, like:
>
> textfile1 | textfile2
> textfile2 < textfile1

Lol.

Just keep claiming that whatever bounces between your ears is what what I
actually ment - even if it looks in no way like the two examples I provided.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

And oh yeah, "thank you"

R.Wieser <address@is.invalid> wrote:
> Frank,
>
> > It's not about filetype association, etc., but about what translates
> > <filename> to <filename>.vbs *before* filetype association takes places,
>
> Only for you and John. For me its absolutily irrelevant.

Incorrect interpretation. It was (and is) never a problem for *me*
either, but as John and VanguardLH brought it up, I addressed it.

Moral: It's not your thread. Posters are free to respond to anything
any poster said.

> If you think its causing the stated problem than just add the ".vbs"
> extension to the two lines in my first example see if it changes anything.
>
> Newsflash : It doesn't.

Newsflash: *I* never said or implied it did.

[...]

R.Wieser <address@is.invalid> wrote:
> Frank,
>
> >> > My guess was/is that the 'command interpreter' (Rudy doesn't say
> >> > how he invokes his commands)
> >>
> >> I didn't ?
> >>
> >> [quote first post]
> >> I tried to redirect some commandline output into a vbscript
> >> [/quote]
> >>
> >> Besides that, the "echo hello | ..." and "... < data.txt" should have
> >> been dead give-aways.
> >
> > As you didn't specifically say you invoked from cmd.exe, I said
> > 'command interpreter', i.e. the general term. That's all.
>
> (I quoted everything. Otherwise you will just complain I snipped important
> stuff)
>
> Really ?
>
> You said : "Rudy doesn't say how he invokes his commands".
>
> And I responded with quoting from my first post. So yes, I did say it.
> There was nothing to guess at.

Sigh!

Not that, despite your aggressive, confrontational, insulting
communication style, you still deserve a response, but saying
"commandline" is not unambiguous. You may think it is, but it isn't.
That why I said what I said. Like I said "... That's all.". Time to get
over it.

[More of the same communication 'style' deleted. There's just no point.]

Frank,

>> > It's not about filetype association, etc., but about what
>> > translates <filename> to <filename>.vbs *before* filetype
>> > association takes places,
>>
>> Only for you and John. For me its absolutily irrelevant.
>
> Incorrect interpretation. It was (and is) never a problem for *me*
> either, but as John and VanguardLH brought it up, I addressed it.

Incorrect interpretation yourself : Who said anything about a /problem/ ?

> Moral: It's not your thread. Posters are free to respond to
> anything any poster said.

Second Incorrect interpretation : I have not said anything to the contrary.

Funny how you want to teach me a lesson, only to have it thrown back into
your face. Maybe pay more attention next time ?

>> If you think its causing the stated problem than just add the ".vbs"
>> extension to the two lines in my first example see if it changes
>> anything.
>>
>> Newsflash : It doesn't.
>
> Newsflash: *I* never said or implied it did.

Third Incorrect interpretation : I did not say or imply that either.

Instead I gave you a suggestion to possibly/likely cut that discussion of
you two short.

Regards, and "thank you"
Rudy Wieser.

Frank,

>> >> > My guess was/is that the 'command interpreter' (Rudy doesn't say
>> >> > how he invokes his commands)
>> >>
>> >> I didn't ?
>> >>
>> >> [quote first post]
>> >> I tried to redirect some commandline output into a vbscript
>> >> [/quote]
>> >>
>> >> Besides that, the "echo hello | ..." and "... < data.txt" should have
>> >> been dead give-aways.
>> >
>> > As you didn't specifically say you invoked from cmd.exe, I said
>> > 'command interpreter', i.e. the general term. That's all.
>>
>> (I quoted everything. Otherwise you will just complain I snipped
>> important
>> stuff)
>>
>> Really ?
>>
>> You said : "Rudy doesn't say how he invokes his commands".
>>
>> And I responded with quoting from my first post. So yes, I did say it.
>> There was nothing to guess at.
>
> Sigh!
>
> Not that, despite your aggressive, confrontational, insulting
> communication style, you still deserve a response, but saying
> "commandline" is not unambiguous.

So, now you changing your tune frm "he didn't say" to "he didn't specify the
exact one he used" ? Great going kid. Really, great going.

A bit obvious though.

But, if you think its ambiguous you can /ofcourse/ tell us *how* its
ambiguous - and follow that up with how its relevant.

Although I'm sure you can come up with the former, you will be hard-pressed
with the latter - in regard to the current subject ofcourse. Take a wild
guess how I know that.

> That why I said what I said. Like I said "... That's all.". Time to
> get over it.

"get over" that you claim untrue stuff about what I said ? While you even
refuse to acknowledge that you made a mistake there ? Yeah, I think that
would make your life a bit/lot easier, wouldn't it ?

I suggest you "get over" the idea that you can make mistakes and than "make
them go away" by simply ignoring them when they are pointed out to you. It
doesn't work that way.

You wanted to talk about "insulting" ? Than don't try to demand that I
ignore your mistakes toward me - while you still try to pick upon the ones
you think I made.

Regards, and "thank you"
Rudy Wieser

Frank,

I almost forgot. You mis-quoted something yourself.

Or should I just be "insulting, agressive and confrontational" by saying
that you just snipped me pointing out another mistake of yours (in an
attempt to "make it go away" ?) :

>> Nope, he 'discovered' no such thing. He specified the .vbs extension
>> *and* he added wscript.exe to interpret the .vbs file.
....
> But "no" to the "he added wscript.exe to interpret the .vbs file" part.
[followed by an explanation to why not]

Got nothing to say to either the mistake or the snipping ?

Shucks, I could not have forseen that you would try to play the "one rule
for me, another one for you" game. No, really. No way. /s

Regards, and "thank you"
Rudy Wieser

R.Wieser <address@is.invalid> wrote:

[More of the same aggro and compulsive arguing deleted.]

(Quite a bit) Earlier I said "EOT." and you said "Goodbye Frank.".

Let's stick to that. (So I won't respond to your other two new
responses either.)

Not to trigger more (non-)'discussion', just a summary of my view on
events:

I only called you on the logical fallacy of your demand to Newyana2 to
"back up" his "unsolvable puzzles" statement.

All other responses were triggered by *your* responses to my responses
to *others* (VanguardLH and John).

As implied by my 'Disclaimer:', I never addressed the problem you
described in your OP. (So any complaints on that are misplaced.)

Everyone in this thread has similar opinions as I do, on your
aggressive, confrontational, insulting communication style. There's a
lesson in there.

(Also) Enroll in Usenet 101 and Reading for Comprehension 101.

"Goodbye Rudy."

Frank,

> I only called you on the logical fallacy of your demand to Newyana2
> to "back up" his "unsolvable puzzles" statement.

And I called bullshit on that "logical fallacy" of yours - and explained
why. I have not seen you respond to that. Another example of your "if I
ignore it hard enough it never happened" methodology.

> All other responses were triggered by *your* responses to my responses
> to *others* (VanguardLH and John).

Ah yes, when you specifically talk about me than any response of mine is
*ofcourse* on my head, and /not at all/ provoked by you.

Examples of you talking about me :

[quote]
My guess was/is that the 'command interpreter' (Rudy doesn't say
how he invokes his commands)
[/quote]

[quote]
Rudy's problem is that he can't imagine that someone interprets his
posts in any other way than he does. If there's another interpretation,
it's the other guy's fault and things go downhill from there.
[/quote]

[quote]
Nope, he 'discovered' no such thing. He specified the .vbs extension
*and* he added wscript.exe to interpret the .vbs file.
[/quote]

The below one was actualy directed at me, even though I wasn't talking at
you. IOW, *you* butted into my talking to /someone else/. Yes indeed,
exactly that which you now try to accuse me of. Hypocricy much ?

[quote]
If you think Newyana2 needs to "back up" his "unsolvable puzzles"
statement, you may want to enroll in Logic 101.
[/quote]

> As implied by my 'Disclaimer:', I never addressed the problem you
> described in your OP.

True, you didn't addres the problem I presented. Noone here did. But you
talked about everything I had posted about it. As prrof see above.

> (So any complaints on that are misplaced.)

Did I make any ? Can you quote one ? No, I didn't think so.

And do yourself a favour : before you quote one do check if the complaint
was about you. So, no "people that post work-arounds when I explicitily
said not to want them" quoting.

> (Also) Enroll in Usenet 101 and Reading for Comprehension 101.

As you have not posted any reasoning and/or underbuilding for those
suggestions I'm going to efectivily ignore them as the hot air they are.

But hey, if you want to be respectfully adresed than you only have to be
respectfull yourself. And that includes responding when some asks you to
clarify yourself. And ofcourse acknowledge and fix mistakes you make.

If you cannot get yourself to do that than you should not complain about the
inevitable result. Thats also "usenet 101"

> "Goodbye Rudy."

:-) "Imitation is the Sincerest Form of Flattery"

But yes, I think its a good idea, seeing how you refuse to respond to quoted
and underbuild "are you sure about that ?" posts of mine.

Goodbye frank.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

[As this one is simple, let's get it out of the way:]

R.Wieser <address@is.invalid> wrote:
> Frank,
>
> > I only called you on the logical fallacy of your demand to Newyana2
> > to "back up" his "unsolvable puzzles" statement.
>
> And I called bullshit on that "logical fallacy" of yours - and explained
> why. I have not seen you respond to that. Another example of your "if I
> ignore it hard enough it never happened" methodology.

That was after my hints dropped dead on the floor. But let's rewind:

Logic 101 says "One can not prove a negative.". In this case: One can
not prove a puzzle is unsolvable, hence Newyana2 does not have to prove
anything.

In your response, you reworded things a bit, but that did not change
the essence, so I replied "Sorry, same logical fallacy.".

Case closed.

[...]