Curtis Zimmerman wrote:

> 
> First of all, thanks for helping me out. I had a problem that I
> personally couldn't solve, and needed help. Second, I hadn't touched
> Ruby before about six hours ago, so this is completely new territory.
> Despite the fact that it was a miserably simple mistake, it didn't pop
> right out at me. Third, I'm not sure where you're going with your
> insistence about querying the origins of this code?

I wanted to know whether the IBM site contained code with an error in it, or
the error came in after the code was downloaded.

> Would I imply that I 
> (me, myself) was doing something wrong if the code had been taken
> *directly* from an IBM site?

I don't care about that. I only wanted to know where the error originated.
If the code on the IBM site was in error, I would want to let them know.
That way, tomorrow, we won't be answering the same query about the same
code.

> I didn't bill myself as being in any way 
> associated with IBM. I thought this was "rather obvious" that it was
> "transcribed", modified code, that it wasn't taken directly from an IBM
> site.

Here is what you said in your original message:

> Here's the code (taken from a tutorial site by IBM):

With no other comments, certainly not the word "transcribed". This strongly
suggests that the code was "taken from a tutorial site by IBM." In fact, it
is difficult to give it any other interpretation.

Please don't take this the wrong way. Errors are common in computer
programming. I just wanted to know where the error originated.

-- 
Paul Lutus
http://www.arachnoid.com