Which version in LH for?

[Jane Withnolastname]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Which version in LH for?

On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 20:07:15 +0000, Isofarro
<spamblock@spam detector.co.uk> wrote:
[color=blue]
>Jane Withnolastname wrote:
>[color=green]
>> On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 20:25:16 +0000, Isofarro
>> <spamblock@spam detector.co.uk> wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>>>>Download a 50Mb+ browser to visit _one_ website? You must be joking!
>>>>
>>>> Are you telling me that my site is the *only* site on the entire www
>>>> that is optimized for IE?
>>>
>>>Care to provide a list of them, then I'll tell you if I've visited them.[/color]
>>
>> A list of what?[/color]
>
>A list of websites that are "optimised" to work only in Internet Explorer.[/color]

That would be a bloody long list. Haven't you seen any?

[Jane Withnolastname]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Which version in LH for?

On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 21:12:09 -0400, "EightNineThree "
<eightninethree @REMOVEeightnin ethree.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>One word for you - chickenshit.[/color]

Ooh, oh yeah, that'll make me post it. Why do you care so much,
seriously?

[John]

Re: Re: Re: Which version in LH for?

In article <82ggjvg3lqvcck 149i8qh5jrb19om pa5g2@4ax.com>,
JaneWithnolastn ameNOSPAM@yahoo .com says...[color=blue]
> On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 00:49:38 -0500, John <jcliff@delete. email.com>
> wrote:
>[color=green]
> >In article <qkqdjvsi3l406p 6nonsn4uc4p5q51 fevma@4ax.com>,
> >JaneWithnolast nameNOSPAM@yaho o.com says...[color=darkred]
> >>
> >> I'm sorry. Did you want to visit it? No, I didn't think so. If you
> >> did, I would have heard from you long ago.[/color]
> >
> >I'd like to visit it, but I can't find the URL. What is it?[/color]
>
> You have no idea what my site is about. Why would you want to visit
> it?[/color]

I have IE6. Why wouldn't I?

_______________ _______________ _______________ ________
She was only a whiskey maker, but he loved her still.

[Tim]

Re: Which version in LH for?

Tim wrote:
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>>> To which I can only say, "fuckwit."[/color][/color][/color]


Jane wrote:
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>> Such are the problems of a limited vocabulary.[/color][/color][/color]


On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 00:59:15 +0930, Tim <admin@sheerhel l.lan> wrote:
[color=blue][color=green]
>> It's a perfect one word summary of you. Nothing further really needed
>> to be said, but if you need the longer version, you should read:
>>
>> <http://members.optusne t.com.au/~night.owl/morons.html>[/color][/color]


On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 01:36:02 GMT,
Jane Withnolastname <JaneWithnolast nameNOSPAM@yaho o.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> More reading. Seriously folks, I hate reading on the internet.[/color]

Really? Then why are you still here? Why do you persist in being a
pain in the neck?
[color=blue]
> Most people who write on the internet cannot spell* or have no grasp of
> proper grammar. Or both. The other folks seem to be journalists paid
> by the word, whose point is buried deep in the third or fourth page of
> whatever article they've written.
> I don't wanna read these articles.[/color]

It's clear that you just don't want to learn. Incidentally, the morons
page is spelt properly, uses proper grammar and punctuation (most of
which a lot people really do not know about), is technically correct,
and I can't think of a more deserving person to read it, than you.

--
My "from" address is totally fake. (Hint: If I wanted e-mails from
complete strangers, I'd have put a real one, there.) Reply to usenet
postings in the same place as you read the message you're replying to.

[Tim]

Re: Which version in LH for?

Tim wrote:
[color=blue][color=green]
>> You made a fool of yourself in a public place, and attracted the
>> attention that you deserved.[/color][/color]


On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 01:36:02 GMT,
Jane Withnolastname <JaneWithnolast nameNOSPAM@yaho o.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> I didn't realize that asking a simple question was tantamount to
> making a fool of oneself. If I had known that this group was so
> elitist ... well, I still would have asked the question, but at least
> I would have been prepared for what followed.[/color]

What you've been doing, is arguing that you should do something dumb,
and justifying it, just for the sake of it. The one being "elitist" is
you (producing pages that only work in some cases). Something that's
otherwise known as "cutting off your own nose, to spite your own face."

You're a fool, you've thoroughly proved it. We know that now, go away.

--
My "from" address is totally fake. (Hint: If I wanted e-mails from
complete strangers, I'd have put a real one, there.) Reply to usenet
postings in the same place as you read the message you're replying to.

[Isofarro]

Re: Re: Re: Which version in LH for?

Jane Withnolastname wrote:
[color=blue]
> Then everybody
> pounced on me and won't let me leave.[/color]

How is anyone here preventing you from leaving?


--
Iso.
FAQs: http://html-faq.com http://alt-html.org http://allmyfaqs.com/
Recommended Hosting: http://www.affordablehost.com/
Web Standards: http://www.webstandards.org/

[Isofarro]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Which version in LH for?

Jane Withnolastname wrote:
[color=blue]
> On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 20:07:15 +0000, Isofarro
> <spamblock@spam detector.co.uk> wrote:
>[color=green]
>>A list of websites that are "optimised" to work only in Internet Explorer.[/color]
>
> That would be a bloody long list. Haven't you seen any?[/color]

Nope. You'd be the first.


--
Iso.
FAQs: http://html-faq.com http://alt-html.org http://allmyfaqs.com/
Recommended Hosting: http://www.affordablehost.com/
Web Standards: http://www.webstandards.org/

[Isofarro]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Which version in LH for?

Jane Withnolastname wrote:
[color=blue]
> On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 20:08:14 +0000, Isofarro
> <spamblock@spam detector.co.uk> wrote:
>[color=green]
>>Jane Withnolastname wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 20:26:21 +0000, Isofarro
>>> <spamblock@spam detector.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Jane Withnolastname wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I think if you buy the overpriced piece of garbage, it comes with the
>>>>> 50Mb+ browser, so no download involved. There's your incentive.
>>>>
>>>>When can I expect a cheque from you to cover that - since it is your
>>>>website that's demanding it for some very obscure reason that defies
>>>>logic.
>>>
>>> Uh, I was being facetious.[/color]
>>
>>There's nothing funny at all about blatant discrimination. But then that's
>>your problem.[/color]
>
> My problem is that I'm not funny?[/color]

The responsibility and repercussions of blatant discrimination are problems
you have to deal with.


--
Iso.
FAQs: http://html-faq.com http://alt-html.org http://allmyfaqs.com/
Recommended Hosting: http://www.affordablehost.com/
Web Standards: http://www.webstandards.org/

[Jane Withnolastname]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Which version in LH for?

On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 22:03:29 -0400, "EightNineThree "
<eightninethree @REMOVEeightnin ethree.com> wrote:
[color=blue][color=green]
>> Ooh, oh yeah, that'll make me post it. Why do you care so much,
>> seriously?[/color]
>
>Since honesty is a virtue, and I happen to be a virtuous man, I hope to get
>you to post a link to your site to further discredit you and expose you for
>the imbecile that you truly are.[/color]

I think if you ask around, people will tell you that I've already been
exposed and no URL is going to change that....
[color=blue]
>Despite your egocentric rants about your site and your untrue claims that
>you've been making websites for 7 years, a look at your site's sourcecode[/color]

You call yourself honest and then lie about my claims?
[color=blue]
>would reveal the bald truth that you don't know WTF you're talking about and
>you'd be better off shutting your piehole and listening to the helpful
>advice from the many experienced and knowledgable regulars on this group.[/color]

I do know what I'm talking about. Having you visit my site is not
going to change my mind about that. Everyone else here is likely in
agreement with you, that I don't know what I'm talking about, and
visiting my site is not likely to change their minds, either.
I didn't ask for advice. Please stop giving it, now.
[color=blue]
>Despite your supposed 7-years of experience, *nothing* you have said during
>your posting history to this newsgroup has displayed even the slightest clue
>that you know anything about web design, the Internet, or its users. Nothing[/color]

You emphasize the word "nothing". I bet I have said *something* that
displayed I had at least a slight clue....
[color=blue]
>you have said has resembled an understanding of how & why people interact
>with web pages. The reason you're reluctant to post an URL to the group is
>because you're afraid of confirming that you're the clueless idiot that
>everyone here has come to regard you as.[/color]

The reason I will not post the URL is because I am not interested in
hundreds of meaningless hits that could end up knocking my site
offline for a time, thereby preventing it from being seen by people
who actually *want* to see it.

[Jane Withnolastname]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Which version in LH for?

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 00:52:21 -0500, John <jcliff@delete. email.com>
wrote:
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>> >> I'm sorry. Did you want to visit it? No, I didn't think so. If you
>> >> did, I would have heard from you long ago.
>> >
>> >I'd like to visit it, but I can't find the URL. What is it?[/color]
>>
>> You have no idea what my site is about. Why would you want to visit
>> it?[/color]
>
>I have IE6. Why wouldn't I?[/color]

It's not a site about IE6.

[Jane Withnolastname]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Which version in LH for?

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 21:39:02 +0000, Isofarro
<spamblock@spam detector.co.uk> wrote:
[color=blue]
>Jane Withnolastname wrote:
>[color=green]
>> You have no idea what my site is about. Why would you want to visit
>> it?[/color]
>
>To see what its about.[/color]

.... but you don't have IE6. How could you see it anyway?

[Jane Withnolastname]

Re: Re: Which version in LH for?

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 07:04:27 -0500, kchayka <kcha-ns-yka@sihope.com>
wrote:
[color=blue]
>Jane Withnolastname wrote:
>[color=green]
>> On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 14:44:23 +0100, Jim Dabell
>> <jim-usenet@jimdabel l.com> wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>>You _do_ however care if somebody sees that your page is invalid.[/color]
>>
>> Well, yeah. If I'm saying it's valid, it has to actually *be* valid,
>> right?[/color]
>
>This is the part I don't get. Why do you even care that it's valid code?[/color]

You didn't read my previous posts, did you?

The text of the page in question, from memory:

You are here because this site does not display well in your browser.
This site is written for IE6 and validates.
If it doesn't work in your browser, try IE6.

Now, I'd look awfully foolish if they happened to go to W3C and run my
page through the Validator and it didn't validate, wouldn't I?

[Jane Withnolastname]

Re: Re: Which version in LH for?

On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 01:47:56 +0930, Tim <admin@sheerhel l.lan> wrote:
[color=blue][color=green]
>> More reading. Seriously folks, I hate reading on the internet.[/color]
>
>Really? Then why are you still here? Why do you persist in being a
>pain in the neck?[/color]

Why do you keep reading my posts?
[color=blue][color=green]
>> Most people who write on the internet cannot spell* or have no grasp of
>> proper grammar. Or both. The other folks seem to be journalists paid
>> by the word, whose point is buried deep in the third or fourth page of
>> whatever article they've written.
>> I don't wanna read these articles.[/color]
>
>It's clear that you just don't want to learn. Incidentally, the morons[/color]

I have no time to learn right now. Please do read all my posts before
launching into something you know so little about (me). I've said
before that when I have finished everything and am bored, I'll learn
how to do other things. Right now, I have no time.
[color=blue]
>page is spelt properly, uses proper grammar and punctuation (most of
>which a lot people really do not know about), is technically correct,
>and I can't think of a more deserving person to read it, than you.[/color]

I may be deserving, I'm just not interested.

[Jane Withnolastname]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Which version in LH for?

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 21:43:08 +0000, Isofarro
<spamblock@spam detector.co.uk> wrote:
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>>A list of websites that are "optimised" to work only in Internet Explorer.[/color]
>>
>> That would be a bloody long list. Haven't you seen any?[/color]
>
>Nope. You'd be the first.[/color]

I'm not gonna give you a long list, but here's a few I can think of:

http://www.headpins.net/

https://www.aucd.org/nirs/db/index.cfm

http://www.apmp-nca.org/apmplibrary.html

http://www.ricfierabracci.com/

http://www.ca.inter.net/en/help/navigate.php?topic=7

http://www.pro-techpainting.com/

http://www.hannabery.com/bestviewed.shtml (this one is very much like
the page on my site that is causing everyone conniptions)

[Daniel R. Tobias]

Re: Which version in LH for?

Jane Withnolastname wrote:[color=blue]
> You are here because this site does not display well in your browser.
> This site is written for IE6 and validates.
> If it doesn't work in your browser, try IE6.
>
> Now, I'd look awfully foolish if they happened to go to W3C and run my
> page through the Validator and it didn't validate, wouldn't I?[/color]

So you're using validation as a meaningless figurehead to flaunt in the
faces of anybody who dares take you to task for your lack of browser-
and platform-neutral code. You're complying, just barely, with the
letter of the standards of the validator by doing things that flout the
*spirit* of the standards, like hiding nonstandard tags from the
validator by outputting them via JavaScript. And you're doing it not
because you care in the slightest whether you're following the standards
of the World Wide Web so that your documents are likely to be broadly
usable (if you did, you'd expect them to be best viewed in a more
standards-compliant browser like Mozilla), but only because when your
pages fall apart in any browser other than your own preferred one, you
can stick out your tongue at the user and say, "Well, it *validates*, so
it's *your* problem!" Did I peg you right?

My own page about validators:

http://webtips.dan.info/validators.html

Validators are a great tool, but they're hardly the be-all and end-all
of good Web development.

--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/