>Michael,
>
>I've placed your comments in italics and Ed's in courier.
>
>Once you've sorted out the deliberate errors in the above code, beware that it does no check for a path in the filename, this could be a particular problem if someone typed in something like "..\filename.ext", where filename.ext exists in the current directory - the fcreate followed by erase would ensure that it was deleted & let you know the filename was valid.
>
>How do you know that his post was intentionally inaccurate? The answer is that you don't. This is your assumption. It assumes a willful desire to mislead the person Ed was responding to. To me this is an insult. I've known Ed for a couple of years and I know him to be someone of the highest integrity. Yet you call this into question. I can't speak for Ed, but to me, this is a willful insult. There's no way around it. It's what you said.
>
>Let's look at Ed's response.

Deliberate? I may have accidentally put in a typo, but if you're accusing me of intentionally misleading people, well, get a life. I don't get my jollies intentionally causing people grief.

And now your's
>
>I was not accusing you of anything...
>
>You didn't accuse him of anything? I beg your pardon. You most certainly did. You accused him of deliberately posting something that wasn't correct. The problem is, you don't admit it.
>
>Let's look at some of the other things you've said in this thread.
>
>What I was pointing out was that it was an incredibly bad piece of code because it could, unintentionally of course, cause serious problems if it was used to check a filename which had a downward relative path. I felt that anyone using a bit of code, which must be good because it came from the great Ed Rauh, who is never wrong, should take a little care.
>
>Now you back off. Or do you? For some reason I don't think so. I may be reading something into this that isn't there. Then again, there's no other way to interpret your original statement.
>
>As I've observed before, this reply is typical of the attitude of certain people in UT. They feel that they are the experts & should not be criticised in any form. Though they feel free to criticise any slight fault of anybody elses.
>
>Let's see...you've insulted someone, and now go crying when they fire back and defend themselves.
>
>Let's also count up one other thing. Both Ed and I provide free support (help) to folks here. We've done this by answering questions, we've done this by providing files that are in the public domain, and we've done this by writing articles that are freely available to the community. We don't ask for anything in return. What we expect is the respect that's due any human being. Yet you insult. You accuse us of having an "attitiude". You fail to grant us the same respect that you expect us to have for others.
>
>There's a word for this, Michael. The word is "hypocrite" and I think it applies.

Thanks for reminding me of the word "hypocrite". I thought I was just taking your advice & pointing out the potential problems in the solution suggested by someone. If you don't remember your comment to me, then I'll remind you :

Second, we're not operating in a vacuum here. The original poster was not and will not be the only person to read it. Someone else, with less experience and knowledge may someday come along, and take a look, and might some dreadful design decisions based simply on the problem and the solution. It was, and is important to point out not only the solutions to problems, but any potential dangers that might exist with a given solution. In this case, the potential for later problems is quite large.

All I was doing was pointing out "any potential dangers that might exist with a given solution".

As to the "deliberate errors", do I have to explain the concept of humour here.