Just wanted to tell Breaker (in reference to an older, 'non-public' discussion) I was right all along: one of the members is younger than 5. That means all the 'current' dates are there and choosable for a good reason

Edited by Mr Creosote at 11:40 on September, 14th 2002

Here's a question: Why do some sites that require you to enter your age say that anything before 1925 is invalid? There are MANY people over 75, and quite a few of them use the web these days.
I don't think websites have any right to know anything about me other than my login name, password, and possibly an email address. Consequently, when a site insists that I put in my birthday, I customarily put in eiter 1/1/1919 or just pick a random date/month from the dropdown menus and pick 1919 as the year. Now while 1919 isn't my birthyear, it is a valid one, but I've had a couple sites say that it was invalid.

Good question! That was exactly the topic Breaker and I discussed about....

Well not exactly, what I sort of said (or ment too at least) was that any correct date that is entered before today (or if you wan't too, 2 or 3 years in the past) should be marked as invalid.

It is impossible for somebody to post that isn't even born. And besides, gathering data that is incorrect is useless so basic checks should be made, in my opnion.

Ha! You also claimed it would be useful to take the most current years out completely because (quote) "I don't think any person younger than 5 years would be able to use a Spam Board". That part has been proven wrong and that is all I said

Well then, we are both partly right

Yes, I never denied dates of the future are silly for the birthdays, but my argument against removing them is on another level: I'm too lazy

Well not a lot I can do about that

Indeed

On the other hand, how do you know that person is really 5? My profile is set to 1/1/1900 which would make me over 102 yrs old, but I'm really in my mid 20s.

I know it as much as I know you claiming you're in the mid 20s is the truth.

IOW you don't. Thank you for proving my point.

Whatever that's supposed to mean, add it to my list of pet hates in language detoriation