Dark Elf wrote:
DARKFOOL, WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?
Am I to take this that it, in fact, is
a security issue? If so, I was completely wrong, and will readily admit it; but let me then say, by way of apology (see what I did there?), that, in my ignorance of computer security, I relied on my good, old-fashioned common sense, which seemed to tell me that if this question could be left unanswered, and that is a security issue, it must be that it's supposed to prevent spambots from registering. The question above it, which takes the form 'What does it say about x
(linked) article?', seemed to me to be of the same form insofar as it is a non-standard question which a spambot may not be able to interpret, and which does
need an answer. Now, I don't understand how the question mentioned in the original post's not being answered is actually an issue, if the spambot can,
(1) Interpret this other
question, which appear more complex
(2) Open the link to the post
(3) Interpret the post and extract the relevant information
(4) Return to the registration page and answer the question,
since, to complete the first part of this process, it must be able to interpret a non-standard question and give a typed (not a 'ticked') answer; and since the spambot can presumably tick boxes (which would be the point of the question's having need to be answered), and
interpret non-standard questions, what further protection a necessary answer to that particular question (the original poster's mentioned one) would provide is beyond my level of understanding, currently. I honestly don't know, though!
wayne-scales #2 wrote:
Which part of me realising my mistake of forgetting how you work and assuming you would actually try to be useful rather then write pointless posts was unclear?
Since you can presuppose what you did, in the first place, I assume that you could've presupposed what I've written above (which may be incorrect), and wish that you'd addressed that
instead of just ignored it, or been open to the idea that perhaps you didn't really understand to what I was referring, both in the sense of your thinking that I, in fact, wasn't
properly contributing to the thread as best I could, and in that you may have misunderstood my reference to (rather than admonishing of) your figuring.
And she wasn't even the female with whom I have a telepathic relationship.