I’ll summarize the thread, in as objective terms as possible:
You asked how to import a WSDL into VS.
Mark C. explained to use a static WSDL to import to VS for IS 6.5 and earlier. And that IS 7.1 can be queried for a WSDL dynamically.
Mark’s response confused you. You asked for clarification.
Mark responded with additional detail on making the resulting code workable. And provided high level info on making the WSDL discoverable.
No activity in the thread from 1/9 to 3/25.
You asked Mark for specific instructions for VS 2003.
Mark said search the net or review the online help.
You dismissed the MS docs as mumbo jumbo. And asked again for detailed steps.
Mark again referred you to documentation, adding “read up on adding a web reference to your project.”
Guna responded to the errors you encountered. You ignored that and instead asked for step-by-step instructions again, which Guna provided.
Talha Khan complimented Guna’s effort.
You stated that this is the sort of help that makes these forums valuable.
I posted what I found in a search. I commented that future questions might be answered more quickly if you demonstrate what you’ve done to help yourself (the thread was silent for almost 3 months).
You thought I was out of line making that observation.
That brings us to today.
After the first two posts, where you resolved the proxy error you encountered, you didn’t demonstrate in any way that you did any research yourself. You may have done plenty, or did a bunch of trial and error attempts, but there is no indication of such activity in the thread. Noone expects “chapter and verse” necessarily but zero citations is the other extreme.
You think I was being derogatory with the give a fish/learn to fish quote. You’ve misinterpreted the intent. There is nothing derogatory about needing to learn to fish. Mark and I were trying to help you to either fish or learn how to fish, rather than just give you a fish. Guna gave you a fish. I too gave you a fish and advised on how I caught that fish so that you might catch the next one yourself.
You seem to think I’ve taken the low road and that I’m attacking you. I agree that the comment “…a little more effort on your part…” and the followup yesterday morning may have drawn a hasty conclusion. But here’s what lead me to that conclusion:
No indication of research posted to the thread.
No resolution after many weeks.
Repeated requests for step-by-step instructions, but no info about what you did for yourself, what you may have tried, etc.
The conclusion may have been faulty but the advice given was still relevant and objective based on the data available. Not only is it important that you do self-help, it’s important that you post what you’ve done (in summary at least, though “chapter and verse” would be helpful too) so that we know you’re not just looking for someone to do your work for you.
I do understand, based on your initial perspective, your conclusion that I was “confused” and “dismissing/ignoring” certain answers, while all but asking someone else to do my work. Apologies for not sharing the details of this case, which is due in large part to its proprietary nature. Let it suffice to say that said conclusion is, by your own suggestion, “hasty” and “faulty.” To your choice of words: Perhaps it is from my background as a consultant, but I have in most cases found myself needing to be careful in my wording – even in the “heat of battle.” Cooler heads prevail in these instances, as diplomacy is key. Without knowing your background, it could very well be that you saw nothing wrong with your choice of words and that it is more my perception of what was implied versus what was explicitly intended. That said, and take it for what it’s worth, I would suggest previewing your posts as if you were the one receiving them – asking “does this offend?” Sticking to the “fishing” analogy: You could be the best angler in the world and still come away with nothing. As one still needs to eat, you sometimes have to ask for a fish. I still maintain that is a key benefit of forums like this. Users come to these forums to share ideas, comments, and to help one another. Asking users to prove they already “fished” with no luck first before “giving them a fish” is not the way to inspire them to return to the forum in my estimation. I see the point of wanting to get people to “fish for themselves,” but it is just not as simple as that sometimes – which separate forums like this from others that only repeat the same cookie-cutter information. Thank you for your insight. Food for thought….
“The main thing I like to see in a post is some evidence that the poster has put at least some effort into solving their own problem. If you can’t put any effort into solving it, why should I? Don’t just post a stack trace or log file without at least indicating what you’ve tried to do to interpret it. Most people do like to help somebody who’s putting forth some effort but is just stuck and needs a hand because we’ve all been there.”
[/color] You’re making it more and more difficult to take the high road here. Again, you are making conclusions that are, to borrow your terms, “hasty” and “faulty.” Your thinly-veiled insistence that I be lumped among those that want others to “do the work for me,” without any conclusive evidence to support the same, clearly shows a lack of objectivity - regardless of your insistence to the contrary. As we are grossly off-topic here, I again ask that you PM me if you feel the need to continue this "discussion.” Thank you….