Contact yourself !

Lorne Kates

Outside of the official documentation, php.net is useless. The code examples in the docs aren't even that good, but at least they work. The comments are just a pit of despair.

They're not bad, you've just been spoiled by this site. Now, any comments without inflammitory tags and dick jokes just can't satisfy the Morbs anymore.

bstorer

@Lorne Kates said:

@morbiuswilters said:
Outside of the official documentation, php.net is useless. The code examples in the docs aren't even that good, but at least they work. The comments are just a pit of despair.

They're not bad, you've just been spoiled by this site. Now, any comments without inflammitory tags and dick jokes just can't satisfy the Morbs anymore.

No, they are quite bad. I don't use PHP very often at all, but when I have, I quickly become disgusted by the comments. There is enough stupid on display there to make me long for a technocracy. Yes, a glorious future where those who stand upon the bleeding edge of technology are looked at as holy men. Eventually a full religion would form around these people and the technology they wield against our enemies. Anyone desiring to enter the technopriesthood would be required to undergo the Rituals of Judgement, proving themselves worthy through a series of tests designed to determine the traits necessary to program well. All those who fail would be cast into a literal Pit of Despair, where they would toil to turn the wheels of the Great Machine which powers the capital city, Teknos. Those who pass would become Initiates of the First Order, where they would still be kept under close scrutiny. Eventually they would be called upon to take their next round of the Rituals to move out of the Initiate ranks and become full Priests of the First Order. At this point, naturally, they would be granted permission to take a concubine.

Lorne Kates

@bstorer said:

No, they are quite bad. I don't use PHP very often at all, but when I have, I quickly become disgusted by the comments. There is enough stupid on display there to make me long for a technocracy. Yes, a glorious future where those who stand upon the bleeding edge of technology are looked at as holy men. Eventually a full religion would form around these people and the technology they wield against our enemies. Anyone desiring to enter the technopriesthood would be required to undergo the Rituals of Judgement, proving themselves worthy through a series of tests designed to determine the traits necessary to program well. All those who fail would be cast into a literal Pit of Despair, where they would toil to turn the wheels of the Great Machine which powers the capital city, Teknos. Those who pass would become Initiates of the First Order, where they would still be kept under close scrutiny. Eventually they would be called upon to take their next round of the Rituals to move out of the Initiate ranks and become full Priests of the First Order. At this point, naturally, they would be granted permission to take a concubine.

The King requires entertainment! Send in the court jesture, the town idiot, and the VB Programmer

dhromed

@Lorne Kates said:

court jesture, the town idiot, and the VB Programmer

You have revealed yourself to be one of these three!

dhromed

@bstorer said:

There is enough stupid on display there to make me long for a technocracy. Yes, a glorious future where [...]

Hey, do you have a newsletter? I might be interested in subscribing to it.

bstorer

@dhromed said:

@bstorer said:
There is enough stupid on display there to make me long for a technocracy. Yes, a glorious future where [...]

Hey, do you have a newsletter? I might be interested in subscribing to it.

I do, but it's mostly pictures of drunken farm animals trying to mate with other species (or occasionally a fence post) and rambling tirades against the guy who does my dry cleaning.

dhromed

I'm still interested.

belgariontheking

@bstorer said:

I do, but it's mostly pictures of drunken farm animals trying to mate with other species (or occasionally a fence post) and rambling tirades against the guy who does my dry cleaning.

Sounds like this other one I used to read from a certain weasel who lives in a cylindrical void of some sort.

Wait a minute. I know who you are now! How long have you been lying to me?

morbiuswilters

@tgape said:

@morbiuswilters said:
@BC_Programmer said:
supposedly this matches any RFC 2822 E-mail address.
No, it doesn't. It's impossible for a regex to match all valid RFC 2822 addresses. Of course, if someone is including nested comments or other rarely-used features in their email address, I say fuck 'em.

Presence of mind check: why would anyone want RFC 2822 (or, for that matter, RFC 822) email address validation? It's RFC 2821.4.1.2 (previously RFC 821.4.1.2) that states what email addresses are valid for delivery. RFC 2821 email addresses can't have comments, period, so they're much easier to validate with a regex.

There are several RFCs that cover email addresses. Regardless, several MTAs go for the lowest common denominator or permit just about anything because the RFCs are a goddamned mess. The point is that validating with a regex (other than the most cursory check) is the wrong way to go about it.

dhromed

Sometimes you have a problem validating an email address. You think about using regular expressions.

Now your user has a problem.

tgape

@morbiuswilters said:

There are several RFCs that cover email addresses.

I know there's several RFCs that cover email addresses, I mentioned four of them in my post. My point was, there's some of these that one needs to worry about when getting email addresses online, and others that you don't. The primary focus I've seen online is for the ones that are of special interest only, despite the fact that most of the people using them do not have said special needs.

When you are trying to send email to someone, you care most about the envelope headers. They're covered by RFC 821 and RFC 2821. They are much simpler than the others. I've just verified that RFC 2821 can be validated with a regex. ISTR RFC 821 can also, but I can't be bothered right now to verify.

Of course, I agree that it shouldn't be validated with one, in most cases; it's hard enough trying to validate it using code generated from the nasty fractional grammar I pointed y'all to in my earlier post. (For those that missed it, it doesn't actually define all the terms. Text elsewhere in the standard suggests that it probably intended to leave those bits effectively the same as RFC 821, despite the fact that it changed the names of the terms.)

(My reason is, however, different from Morbs: my reason is "experts only". If you can't figure out why BC_Programmer's regex won't work, you shouldn't be using regexes for email validation - either you can't read the RFC or you can't read the regex. While I can ~~sympathize with~~ envy either condition, either one disqualifies you, IMHO, from using regexes to validate email addresses. Even if you're just using someone else's email validation regex, it means you can't maintain it. If I complain you're rejecting my perfectly valid postmaster@[::1] address, you need to be able to determine what I mean, and why it's broken. There may even be situations where you find a conflict of standards...)

bstorer

@belgariontheking said:

@bstorer said:
I do, but it's mostly pictures of drunken farm animals trying to mate with other species (or occasionally a fence post) and rambling tirades against the guy who does my dry cleaning.
Sounds like this other one I used to read from a certain weasel who lives in a cylindrical void of some sort.
Wait a minute. I know who you are now! How long have you been lying to me?

For the record, I'm not ranting about the guy who does my dry cleaning because he's Chinese. They built the railroad, invented ninjas, manufactured Hyundai cars, and imprisoned John McCain; I respect that. Without them, produce from California would arrive slightly less fresh, pirates would roam unchecked, we'd be stuck driving cheap American cars, and the world would have never been introduced to the genius of Sarah Palin. What an awful place that would be.

I rant about my dry cleaner because the fucker has some bizarre definition of "light starch" that equates to "so stiff I could fold it up like a paper airplane and let it catch an air current to Mexico." It's like wearing a straight jacket crossed with a cardboard box. Both bring back bad memories, man. I haven't worn a straight jacket since I gnawed mine off and jumped the fence at the hospital. And I haven't been in a cardboard box since I met a wealthy Richard Gere who was in need of some company while he was in town. He swept me off my feet and made me feel like a princess, if only for a week. So you can understand the hurt I feel every time I get my stuff back. But what can I do? He gets my tuxedo shirts so white they'd make David Duke proud, and when I ask him how he does it, he tells me it's an ancient Chinese secret.

PJH

@tgape said:

If I complain you're rejecting my perfectly valid postmaster@[::1] address, you need to be able to determine what I mean, and why it's broken.

I do hope you're implying that it's the email address that's invalid, and not that whatever checking it is. Because I'd probably refuse it. RFC compliancy is not the only measure of whether an email address is valid. Nor should it be.

Then again, this brings me full circle round to exactly how much checking should you be doing before actually attempting to email the address in question with a token...

Zemm

@morbiuswilters said:

The code examples in the docs aren't even that good, but at least they work. The comments are just a pit of despair.

I've made some comments on php.net, now I get spam in German. One of my comments was fixing the code posted by another commenter. My comment was deleted and the original wrong code is still available (I'm looking at you, matt at mattbostock dot com).

belgariontheking

@bstorer said:

manufactured Hyundai cars

Hyundai is Korean, but I'm sure some of the manufacturing occurs in China, just like some of it occurs in the US, so touché, douchebag.

You still haven't explained how to get farm animals drunk. Crazy fuckers with pitchforks at your front door want to know!

Lorne Kates

@Zemm said:

@morbiuswilters said:
The code examples in the docs aren't even that good, but at least they work. The comments are just a pit of despair.

I've made some comments on php.net, now I get spam in German. One of my comments was fixing the code posted by another commenter. My comment was deleted and the original wrong code is still available (I'm looking at you, matt at mattbostock dot com).

Gotta love how spelling out "at" and "dot" prevents spam, huh?

dhromed

@Zemm said:

WTF took several seconds to "upload" when submitting? ISP or Chrome or TDWTF WTF?<input name="ctl00$ctl00$bcr$bcr$ctl00$PostList$ctl15$ctl23$ctl01" id="ctl00_ctl00_bcr_bcr_ctl00_PostList_ctl15_ctl23_ctl01_State" value="value:Filed%20under%3A%20%3Ca%20href%3D%22%2Ftags%2FWTF%2Btook%2Bseveral%2Bseconds%2Bto%2B_2600_quot_3B00_upload_2600_quot_3B00_%2Bwhen%2Bsubmitting_3F00_%2BISP%2Bor%2BChrome%2Bor%2BTDWTF%2BWTF_3F00_%2Fdefault.aspx%22%20rel%3D%22tag%22%3EWTF%20took%20several%20seconds%20to%20%22upload%22%20when%20submitting%3F%20ISP%20or%20Chrome%20or%20TDWTF%20WTF%3F%3C%2Fa%3E" type="hidden">

Might be the tags.

blakeyrat

@PJH said:

@tgape said:
If I complain you're rejecting my perfectly valid postmaster@[::1] address, you need to be able to determine what I mean, and why it's broken.
I do hope you're implying that it's the email address that's invalid, and not that whatever checking it is. Because I'd probably refuse it. RFC compliancy is not the only measure of whether an email address is valid. Nor should it be.

Then again, this brings me full circle round to exactly how much checking should you be doing before actually attempting to email the address in question with a token...

That point is that every email address that's correct in the eyes of the RFC (including the above one) *could* be valid. You don't know for sure until you try to send email to it.

This should be called the "benefit of the doubt" principle. Actually, I guess the old HTML ethos (before the XHTML nazis took control) works pretty well: "be liberal in what you accept, and conservative in what you send."

Mason_Wheeler

@blakeyrat said:

This should be called the "benefit of the doubt" principle. Actually, I guess the old HTML ethos (before the XHTML nazis took control) works pretty well: "be liberal in what you accept, and conservative in what you send."

It's actually called the "Robustness Principle," and it doesn't work pretty well. It sounds good, but in actual practice it's a bunch of crap, and it's directly responsible for us having no meaningful, agreed-upon and universally implemented HTML standards today.

We have known, since the 1950s at least, how to get a computer to read code: you pass it through a strict parser with formal rules, and if the code does not follow the rules, the parser bails out with an error message. Do not pass Go, do not collect $200, and for the love of all that is binary DO NOT be "liberal in what you accept" and get some computer program to try to read the original writer's mind! Why the HTML people abandoned decades of experience with a good principle that works well in favor of one that does not is beyond me.

SQLDave

@Mason Wheeler said:

@blakeyrat said:
This should be called the "benefit of the doubt" principle. Actually, I guess the old HTML ethos (before the XHTML nazis took control) works pretty well: "be liberal in what you accept, and conservative in what you send."

It's actually called the "Robustness Principle," and it doesn't work pretty well. It sounds good, but in actual practice it's a bunch of crap, and it's directly responsible for us having no meaningful, agreed-upon and universally implemented HTML standards today.
We have known, since the 1950s at least, how to get a computer to read code: you pass it through a strict parser with formal rules, and if the code does not follow the rules, the parser bails out with an error message. Do not pass Go, do not collect $200, and for the love of all that is binary DO NOT be "liberal in what you accept" and get some computer program to try to read the original writer's mind! Why the HTML people abandoned decades of experience with a good principle that works well in favor of one that does not is beyond me.

Probably because that's old-timey ivory tower mainframe thinking, Grandpa. There's no need nor room for your strict rules and harsh "parser mentality" in the new-age. "Teacher don't you tie me, down with your rules. Cuz everybody knows that ....etc."

blakeyrat

@Mason Wheeler said:

It's actually called the "Robustness Principle," and it doesn't work pretty well. It sounds good, but in actual practice it's a bunch of crap, and it's directly responsible for us having no meaningful, agreed-upon and universally implemented HTML standards today.
We have known, since the 1950s at least, how to get a computer to read code: you pass it through a strict parser with formal rules, and if the code does not follow the rules, the parser bails out with an error message. Do not pass Go, do not collect $200, and for the love of all that is binary DO NOT be "liberal in what you accept" and get some computer program to try to read the original writer's mind! Why the HTML people abandoned decades of experience with a good principle that works well in favor of one that does not is beyond me.

I like a loose parser (like your mom!) because I think ordinary human beings should be able to write HTML.

Besides, no matter how much the W3C pimps XHTML, it's not as if HTML 4 (or, for that matter, 3, 2, or 1) are ever going away-- all it does is make browser authors have to write more code, and a completely different XML-based parser. HTML 5 has always been a much, much better solution to this problem, and we could have had it years ago if the XML Nazis hadn't invaded the W3C.

Then again, the W3C is so incompetant at everything... probably not. I'm still waiting for them to make DOM into something non-shitty, but I'll be old and grey before that happens.

dhromed

@blakeyrat said:

I guess the old HTML ethos works pretty well: "be liberal in what you accept, and conservative in what you send."

It's not an HTML ethos, and it most certainly does not apply to the processing of computer code.

dhromed

@blakeyrat said:

I like a loose parser (like your mom!) because I think ordinary human beings should be able to write HTML.

-1

Giving them loose parsing doesn't mean they can write the code.

If you want to support ordinary human beings, root for meaningful error messages in case of malformed markup.

@blakeyrat said:

HTML 5 has always been a much, much better solution to this problem, and we could have had it years ago if the XML Nazis hadn't invaded the W3C.

+1

blakeyrat

@dhromed said:

Giving them loose parsing doesn't mean they can write the code.
If you want to support ordinary human beings, root for meaningful error messages in case of malformed markup.

Possibly, but they sure as he'll aren't going to be able to do XHTML strict.

Xyro

@dhromed said:

@Zemm said:
WTF took several seconds to "upload" when submitting? ISP or Chrome or TDWTF WTF?

Might be the tags.
Filed under: 400 kilobyte of tags.

Looks like someone has been cleaning up. It's under 32k now, down 90% from a few days ago. I suppose that's a good thing, but I feel sad for the loss.

EDIT: wait a second... but not on this page! Do some forum pages return more than others?
EDIT 2: Apparently it depends on which board the post is in. Bewildering.

morbiuswilters

@Xyro said:

EDIT: wait a second... but not on this page! Do some forum pages return more than others?

Each forum has its own collection of tags. For obvious reasons, the Sidebar is the largest.

dhromed

@Xyro said:

EDIT: wait a second... but not on this page! Do some forum pages return more than others?

This page still weighs in at a total of 500+ K.

If cleaning has been done, it's been done in a most remarkably selective way, so as to not, euh, delete any tags.

tgape

@PJH said:

@tgape said:
If I complain you're rejecting my perfectly valid postmaster@[::1] address, you need to be able to determine what I mean, and why it's broken.
I do hope you're implying that it's the email address that's invalid, and not that whatever checking it is. Because I'd probably refuse it. RFC compliancy is not the only measure of whether an email address is valid. Nor should it be.

Email RFC guys didn't parse the IPv6 RFCs correctly, apparently - and they didn't have the presence of mind to just reference it. Also, I don't care how valid it is, I'm not going to accept you submitting to my site "your" email address of postmaster@localhost, no matter how you try to conceal it. (I actually even do a DNS lookup, because Email::Valid made it easy, so I'll catch you there, too.) And, finally, at least one of the sites I've done rejects domain literal addresses (with an error message indicating domain literal addresses aren't allowed, rather than simply complaining it's invalid.)

@PJH said:

Then again, this brings me full circle round to exactly how much checking should you be doing before actually attempting to email the address in question with a token...

To a certain extent, I agree with you. But there's also the concept of being a good netizen, and not chunking obvious crap at other people's MTAs. (Of course, it's a whole 'nother story if you send your generated email to your own MTA first, it already checks reasonably well, and you trust it to be robust against the possible crap addresses you're giving it. If you don't trust your own MTA to be robust against possible crap addresses, you probably shouldn't have one...) I use Email::Valid, as indicated above, because it was easy enough for me and the rest of the group involved to install and use, and I can maintain it in a pinch. I don't recommend that anyone who isn't both an RFC and Perl "regex" expert use it, however. I also don't condone gurus installing it on someone's site if they aren't intending to be around to maintain it and the people who will be maintaining it are not up to the task. It's better to just check for '@' and something before and after, than it is to be unable to accept a legitimate customer's valid email address. (Temporary glitches are one thing. Not being able to fix it once the problem is reported is very different.)

PJH

@tgape said:

@PJH said:
@tgape said:
If I complain you're rejecting my perfectly valid postmaster@[::1] address, you need to be able to determine what I mean, and why it's broken.
I do hope you're implying that it's the email address that's invalid, and not that whatever checking it is. Because I'd probably refuse it. RFC compliancy is not the only measure of whether an email address is valid. Nor should it be.

[...]Also, I don't care how valid it is, I'm not going to accept you submitting to my site "your" email address of postmaster@localhost, no matter how you try to conceal it.

I'm missing something here - you appear to be indicating you're disagreeing with me, when you're repeating the exact same argument I made to begin with against your initial example of postmaster@[::1].

RogerWilco

Hmmmm chocolate...

P.S. why doesn't the Firefox spell checker work in this editor while it works fine in any other forum I visit???

Mole

Every other forum you visit probably isn't using CS...

PJH

@RogerWilco said:

P.S. why doesn't the Firefox spell checker work in this editor while it works fine in any other forum I visit???

Right click in edit box > Check Spelling checked?

Lorne Kates

@PJH said:

@RogerWilco said:
P.S. why doesn't the Firefox spell checker work in this editor while it works fine in any other forum I visit???
Right click in edit box > Check Spelling checked?

The checkbox does clear each time the page is reloaded. I noticed the reply section is actually an iframe. Don't know if that matters or not.

blakeyrat

@RogerWilco said:

Hmmmm chocolate...

P.S. why doesn't the Firefox spell checker work in this editor while it works fine in any other forum I visit???

It works in Chrome, but that's only because the rich text editor completely and utterly fails to work in Chrome, thus you get a plain-jane textbox.

belgariontheking

@dhromed said:

@blakeyrat said:
I like a loose parser (like your mom!) because I think ordinary human beings should be able to write HTML.

-1
Giving them loose parsing doesn't mean they can write the code.

I was thinking about this, and I came up with the following comment:

If other languages were as loose as HTML, we'd end up with parseable (idk, let's say Ruby) statements like "alright, give me the fucking directory listing with filenames, filesizes, and last modified dates and put them in this array named my_goddamn_dir_listing plz?kthx;

That is all.

blakeyrat

@belgariontheking said:

I was thinking about this, and I came up with the following comment:
If other languages were as loose as HTML, we'd end up with parseable (idk, let's say Ruby) statements like "alright, give me the fucking directory listing with filenames, filesizes, and last modified dates and put them in this array named my_goddamn_dir_listing plz?kthx;
That is all.

If you could type that in, and the computer did what you meant, I would see that as a good thing.

I don't believe in the "high priesthood of technology", I think it should be as easy as possible for everybody.

Besides, HyperTalk already pretty much did that. :)

MichelD

@Lorne Kates said:

@derula said:
@ltouroumov said:
if om ($nom=="" || $nom=="Nom")

Wow, those French people must be missing out on all the Cookie Monster jokes.
"He eats a biscuit saying 'Name, name, name'! Why is that funny?"

Well, it compensates for americans believing that the chef in the Muppets Show is swedish (he's french, the character was inspired by a BBC cooking TV show made by famous french chef Raymond Oliver in the 70s).

PJH

@MichelD said:

Well, it compensates for americans believing that the chef in the Muppets Show is swedish (he's french, the character was inspired by a BBC cooking TV show made by famous french chef Raymond Oliver in the 70s).

^{[citation required]}

The_Assimilator

@belgariontheking said:

@dhromed said:
@blakeyrat said:
I like a loose parser (like your mom!) because I think ordinary human beings should be able to write HTML.

-1
Giving them loose parsing doesn't mean they can write the code.
I was thinking about this, and I came up with the following comment:
If other languages were as loose as HTML, we'd end up with parseable (idk, let's say Ruby) statements like "alright, give me the fucking directory listing with filenames, filesizes, and last modified dates and put them in this array named my_goddamn_dir_listing plz?kthx;
That is all.

ORLY?

blakeyrat

@The_Assimilator said:

If other languages were as loose as HTML, we'd end up with parseable (idk, let's say Ruby) statements like "alright, give me the fucking directory listing with filenames, filesizes, and last modified dates and put them in this array named my_goddamn_dir_listing plz?kthx;

I miss HyperTalk.

But slightly more seriously, you're saying that as if it's a bad thing. If I could type: "fill this text box with filenames, sizes, and last modified dates of the user's default documents folder", and that actually worked, why would it be a bad thing?

The way I see it, if it allows one single office grunt doing repetitive tasks on a computer because they don't know how to program/script to program/script away their workload, that's a great thing and should be embraced. This is why things like Hypercard, VBA, email filters were so game-changingly huge when they came out.

Of course, a lot of geeks (especially of the Linux variety) still want to see the "high priesthood of technology" where people have to come to them to get the answers, because they are the all-holy beings who hold the secrets to the magic boxes beneath every desk. Fuck that attitude.

ltouroumov

I think it would come like this:

HAI
IZ FORM OK ?
    AWSUM THX
        CONNECT TO LOL_DATABASE
        SAYS TO DATABASE "INSERT FORM DATA INTO YOU !;"
        DICONNECT
    O NOES
        SAYS "FAIL !"
KTHBYE

MichelD

@PJH said:

^{[citation required]}

Actually, I was kind of counting on you (or any Brit > 40 y.o) to provide the reference, because I learned that when I lived in London, only a few years after said show. At the time, everybody seemed to think the link was obvious, kind of common knowledge, so I didn't investigate further. Alas, Wikipedia only quotes Julia Child as a possible inspiration, although it could be argued that Oliver's show in the 70s derived from the success of Child's in the 60s. In any case, a one minute Google search yielded nothing so I guess I was wrong (or my english friends were, er... pulling my leg).

@blakeyrat said:

But slightly more seriously, you're saying that as if it's a bad thing. If I could type: "fill this text box with filenames, sizes, and last modified dates of the user's default documents folder", and that actually worked, why would it be a bad thing?

Because nobody would be able to write complete documentation for such a language. Which means that first, users won't be able to determine what's supposed to work and what isn't, and second, other implementations will have to guess a lot, leading to poor interoperability. Imagine that you execute your example in an independent/older version of an interpreter and it just silently ignores "user's default documents" because it doesn't know how to interpret possessives or does not know which user you are talking about, so the current directory gets used instead.

Loose parsing works for HTML (and even then it makes the browser makers expend additional resources on being able to plough through tagsoup for no discernible benefit except compatibility with old Geocities pages) because the worst that could happen is rendering glitches, but in programming languages it will eventually result in trashed data, and you don't want that.

Medezark

@Qwerty said:

@dhromed said:
YOU'RE A MODEM

Quick! Call me a taxi!

You are a Cab, Sir. If you weren't so ugly, I'd call you a hansom cab.

Medezark

Of course, we all know wikipedia is the ultimate authority on all things muppetish -->

Swedish Chef - Wikipedia

I see references for a German, a Swede, a Britt and no-one, but not one reference to a French Swedish Chef as an inspiration.

PJH

@Medezark said:

Of course, we all know wikipedia is the ultimate authority on all things
muppetish -->

Swedish Chef - Wikipedia

How uncanny. That looks exactly like the link I posted directly after the post concerned. Though expecting most denizens of this board to read replies to posts made a while ago is probably a non-starter...

BTW, WTF is a 'Britt'?

LeeRain

And addslashes IS NOT safe against SQL injection. You need to use mysql_real_escape_string for that.

								    </p>

ltouroumov

I would say that using parametrized queries is the best option

Medezark

@PJH said:

@Medezark said:
Of course, we all know wikipedia is the ultimate authority on all things muppetish -->

Swedish Chef - Wikipedia

How uncanny. That looks exactly like the link I posted directly after the post concerned. Though expecting most denizens of this board to read replies to posts made a while ago is probably a non-starter...

BTW, WTF is a 'Britt'?

Argh!! Caught skipping posts again... Sorry for unintentionally showing you a lack of respect. Also, I have spelling issues. And keyboard issues. But I thought the British liked Tea, so I gave them two.