🚀 go-pugleaf

The sad side of reality!
"May all the great brains of our world live in a truly great place."

However, until we reach that, we just have to live in the one supplied by the
WinTel monopoly.

AT

David A. Mann wrote:

> On 25 Apr 1998 21:55:04 GMT, paulsy@ihug.co.nz (paul) wrote:
>
> > I think Intel and Microsoft have this agreement where Intel makes faster
> > processors and Microsoft makes the programming languages that slow them down
> > again.
>
>  And computer users are so gullible they soak it up without question.
>
>  I just love the Intel ad that claims the PII enables us to watch
> full-screen DVD video.  Yeah, right.  MPEG-2 decompression is done by
> the hardware - to do it in software requires about a 433MHz Alpha
> workstation to get a full 30fps frame rate, according to the DVD FAQ.
>
>  I've seen basic shell functions such as File|Open boxes take a few
> *seconds* to load on a ppro180 running NT.  I don't see how you could
> even intentionally make it run that slow without adding
> Intel-Microsoft conspiracy delay-loops!
>
> - Dave.
>
> David A. Mann, aka Pooky- on irc
> My email address is not postmaster@localhost
> nor is it abuse@localhost or root@localhost
> it's *pooky*at*caverock*net*nz <--- changed!

Andrew <andrewa@hotline.com.au> wrote:

>The sad side of reality!
>"May all the great brains of our world live in a truly great place."

>However, until we reach that, we just have to live in the one supplied by the
>WinTel monopoly.

>AT

>David A. Mann wrote:

>> On 25 Apr 1998 21:55:04 GMT, paulsy@ihug.co.nz (paul) wrote:
>>
>> > I think Intel and Microsoft have this agreement where Intel makes faster
>> > processors and Microsoft makes the programming languages that slow them down
>> > again.
>>
>>  And computer users are so gullible they soak it up without question.

Fine, fine; but can we get back onto the subject of Sausage Software,
folks? I need some input.

Had a bit of a fiddle with the basic version; mocked up a Web-page
with basic headings and spiel and a pic of self and business partner.
Sausage insisted on placing the two pics cheek-by-jowl, and when I
tried to drag the dummy icon over to put some space between them, it
wouldn't go; it kept snapping back.

There seems to be no way of introducing white (or transparent) space.
The help I find woefully inadequate.

But this is clearly a novice's teething problem. I'm interested in the
thoughts of seasoned users.

Steve B.

>Fine, fine; but can we get back onto the subject of Sausage Software,
>folks? I need some input.


Sausages are great to eat and Hot Dogs are even better ? Sausages are best
done on the BBQ...

>Sausage insisted on placing the two pics cheek-by-jowl, and when I
>tried to drag the dummy icon over to put some space between them, it
>wouldn't go; it kept snapping back.


Yep, I hate the way those sausages roll together cheek-by-jowl on the BBQ. I
drag the dummy sausage back over but it keeps snapping back, and the result
is one side ends up as hardware, and the other side as software, whereas the
whole sausage should be firmware.

>There seems to be no way of introducing white (or transparent) space.
>The help I find woefully inadequate.


You can't brown a sausage in a microwave. They always come out white and
scungy. And the onions for your Hot Dog come out transparent.  Perhaps you
should try the microwave instead of the BBQ ??

>But this is clearly a novice's teething problem.

Yep, you gotta eat a lot of sausages before you can get past the teething
problems. The worst are the ones straight off the BBQ grill....

>I'm interested in the thoughts of seasoned users.

My preference is for tomato sauce as well as salt and pepper seasoning.


(Sorry, totally off subject, but the temptation was too great)

Keith Davidson

Steve Bell (s.bell@iecho.co.nz) wrote:
: I am writing an article on the rise and fall (and rise again?) of
: Sausage Software.

Doubt it. Even with HDPro4, Sausage can't compete with FrontPage and 
Microvision WebExpress for ease of use and on the fly WYSIWYG editing. 
WebExpress takes half the time it took to create pages on HotDog.
Nobody has time to bother with html editing anymore. It's purely for 
freaks who have lots of time to waste.

Sausage is just a short term grab for cash. Evident in that the whole 
company's existence depended on one product. Now that they have flogged it 
to death it's probably time to close shop. One hit wonder that will end 
pretty soon with competition from Homesite, WebExpress, Frontpage and Coffee 
Cup etc. 

-
j.n.    http://netspace.net.au/~nguyen/

Jim Nguyen wrote in message <6i21cd$9ou$1@otis.netspace.net.au>...

>Nobody has time to bother with html editing anymore. It's purely for
>freaks who have lots of time to waste.


Or people who have better things to do with their time than
spend weeks learning yet another Microsoft program which
will be obsolete within months at the rate the Internet is
progressing; and have learned how to wordprocess, cut
and paste.

Regards

Dave Joll

http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~jollian/
(100% my own HTML code - no Front Page here!)
"When it looks like there are two sides to an issue, there
are probably at least three"  -  Mark Gruenwald

Jim Nguyen wrote in message <6i21cd$9ou$1@otis.netspace.net.au>...

[...]

>Doubt it. Even with HDPro4, Sausage can't compete with FrontPage and
>Microvision WebExpress for ease of use and on the fly WYSIWYG editing.
>WebExpress takes half the time it took to create pages on HotDog.
>Nobody has time to bother with html editing anymore. It's purely for
>freaks who have lots of time to waste.


You moron.  I rely almost exclusively on HTML editing.  I need the control
over the code to ensure things like greater compatibility with older
browsers and so forth than FrontPage et al can give me.  WYSIWYG is good for
amateurs and those of us who use it as a prototyping tool, but with 57
varieties of HTML still floating around the good old text editor has a long
life ahead of it.

--

Beware of the Spam-Dog

DRS (simpsond@removethis.tig.com.au) wrote:
>You moron.  I rely almost exclusively on HTML editing.  I need the control
>over the code to ensure things like greater compatibility with older
>browsers and so forth than FrontPage et al can give me.  WYSIWYG is good for
>amateurs and those of us who use it as a prototyping tool, but with 57
>varieties of HTML still floating around the good old text editor has a long
>life ahead of it.

Personally I've only ever used vi and pico (Unix rules!) for writing HTML,
however I have found Netscape Composer 4 to write very clean HTML, MUCH
cleaner than MS FrontPage, and almost as clean as I write by hand.

Cheers
David

What exactly has been added to the original html that enhances the web 
experience.
MOst of the new stuff, if not all, is just uneccessary ( god I hate that 
word...I forget how many n's and s's and c's all the time ) garbage.
Decent web page CONTENT seems to be a thing of the past. All we get now are 
stupid wasteful pages that serve no purpose other then to look good and even 
then 90% of pages fail to do even that.

Paul


 In article <6i3mt8$ehs$1@newsource.ihug.co.nz>, 
simpsond@removethis.tig.com.au says...
>
>Jim Nguyen wrote in message <6i21cd$9ou$1@otis.netspace.net.au>...
>
>[...]
>
>>Doubt it. Even with HDPro4, Sausage can't compete with FrontPage and
>>Microvision WebExpress for ease of use and on the fly WYSIWYG editing.
>>WebExpress takes half the time it took to create pages on HotDog.
>>Nobody has time to bother with html editing anymore. It's purely for
>>freaks who have lots of time to waste.
>
>
>You moron.  I rely almost exclusively on HTML editing.  I need the control
>over the code to ensure things like greater compatibility with older
>browsers and so forth than FrontPage et al can give me.  WYSIWYG is good for
>amateurs and those of us who use it as a prototyping tool, but with 57
>varieties of HTML still floating around the good old text editor has a long
>life ahead of it.
>
>--
>
>Beware of the Spam-Dog
>
>

In article <6i21cd$9ou$1@otis.netspace.net.au>,
nguyen@netspace.net.au (Jim Nguyen) wrote:
>Steve Bell (s.bell@iecho.co.nz) wrote:
>: I am writing an article on the rise and fall (and rise again?) of
>: Sausage Software.
>
>Doubt it. Even with HDPro4, Sausage can't compete with FrontPage and 
>Microvision WebExpress for ease of use and on the fly WYSIWYG editing. 
>WebExpress takes half the time it took to create pages on HotDog.
>Nobody has time to bother with html editing anymore. It's purely for 
>freaks who have lots of time to waste.
>
>Sausage is just a short term grab for cash. Evident in that the whole 
>company's existence depended on one product. Now that they have flogged it 
>to death it's probably time to close shop.

Frankly, I don't know anyone who actually used it.
I had a look for patriotic reasons, and found it worse than
the add-on to Word 6, what was it, "Word Internet Assistant"

>One hit wonder that will end
>pretty soon with competition from Homesite, WebExpress,
>Frontpage and Coffee Cup etc. 

Personally I like Net Objects Fusion better those,

Anyway, didn't they sell out to Microsoft ?

Frankie

Joe Spanicek (joe@resptk.bhp.com.au) wrote:

: I guess you are one of those people who do not understand HTML at all and how to
: apply it or use a
: simple editor to write it.
: Your saving grace is WYSIWYG editors that do the code for you.

Oh spare me please. I was writing html off the top of my head way back in 
94. It's not a hard "language" to learn. Any idiot can learn to code html 
in a week. The question is do we really want to learn html? Is it 
important? I can be doing something else instead of getting intimate 
with html. Html is time consuming especially for lay people so a WYSIWYG 
editor was the answer.

Again your attitude is that of a typical elitist (wannabe). You think 
you're some hardcore net wizard because you can tap-out raw html. "Hey 
babe I can code raw html." isn't going to get you in bed with anyone. I'm 
sorry but html is a sinch to learn.

Yes our saving grace is the WYSIWYG editor which is a blow to your elitist 
paradise because everybody can now produce top notch webpages without 
having to bother with html. 

: In anycase HTML is a form of programming language.

Very basic it is too and not particularly challenging either.

-
j.n.    http://netspace.net.au/~nguyen/

Patrick Dunford <patrick_dunford@hotmail.com.nz> wrote:
>(I thought the later versions of Lynx supported frames/tables :)
>
Yep. Tables were added in 2.5 and frames in 2.6 IIRC. Last time I
checked the current version had jumped from 2.7.2 to 2.8.

>I use FrontPage Express plus the HTMLib to do my coding.
>
I use vi :) Although I did orginally use NS 3 Gold to set the colours
...and still managed to stuff it up :)
--
snail | snail@careless.net.au | http://www.careless.net.au/~snail/
  I'm a man of my word. In the end, that's all there is. - Avon

On 29 Apr 1998 13:40:53 GMT, nguyen@netspace.net.au (Jim Nguyen)
wrote:

> Again your attitude is that of a typical elitist (wannabe). You think 
> you're some hardcore net wizard because you can tap-out raw html. "Hey 
> babe I can code raw html." isn't going to get you in bed with anyone. I'm 
> sorry but html is a sinch to learn.

 Damn.  There goes my trump card, I can speak not only raw html, but
also raw irc, pop3 and smtp.  I was going to learn nntp but never had
the need to :)  Tonight I sleep alone again... :(

> Yes our saving grace is the WYSIWYG editor which is a blow to your elitist 
> paradise because everybody can now produce top notch webpages without 
> having to bother with html. 

 To be honest I'd want to check the HTML output of any editor just to
make sure it hasn't added 50  's with no purpose, as I've seen
before.  It certainly pays to have an understanding of the nuts &
bolts of what you're trying to use.

[someone else wrote:]
> : In anycase HTML is a form of programming language.

HTML = HyperText _Markup_ Language (ie, not a programming language).

> Very basic it is too and not particularly challenging either.

 You got it, it's not too difficult for us (well me anyway) net-nerds
to grasp :)  But never ever overestimate the intelligence of the
newbie who just unpacked their brand new $5000 machine they got from
Dick Smith... and are wondering what bit the mouse is.

- Dave (pooky a@t caverock d.t net d.t nz)

"And you can dream, so dream out loud
 You know that your time is coming 'round
 So don't let the bastards grind you down" - U2 "Acrobat"

On 29 Apr 1998 13:23:56 GMT, nguyen@netspace.net.au (Jim Nguyen)
wrote:

> Yes I know. I use IBrowse on the Amiga. Unfortunately I wasn't satisfied 
> with it's security features because I do a lot of credit card 
> transactions over the net so *sigh* I bought a wintel box to use Netrape 
> and Microsloth Exploder. I still don't like Windoze. 

 You might want to check out the Amiga port of Linux.  Saves you
buying an intel box anyway :)

[those like myself who can't afford the latest-and-greatest]
> Well my heart bleeds for them but what do you want to do? I know! Maybe we 
> all can write to Intel, Motorola, Sun, Digital, Microsoft, Apple etc... and 
> ask them to STOP any research that might lead to better and faster 
> processors and OS technologies so everybody can catch up? 

 Heheh... well the processors are certainly getting better and faster,
but I don't think the same applies to MS bloatware :)  In fact, I
don't even see what's so fantastic about Intel processors.  The whole
architecture is screwed right from the start.

 Dear Intel,  you've turned my PC into an oven.  No longer do I need
to run a heater as my computer now keeps my feet toasty warm while I
browse the 'net.

> That's a noble cause but the implementation is another story. I'm not 
> saying that you shouldn't be on the net because you got a crap box. If 
> you want the net then you get it the way your machine delivers it. If you 
> miss out on a few things then thats too bad. If can't view www gfx then 
> you'll have to settle for lynx. If you've got no ppp you settle for a 
> terminal screen. Technology waits for no one.

 That's all very well, but the web page (to use your example) has to
actually work on the "alternative" browsers, and that's very important
for reference or commercial sites (as Lin pointed out very well in her
post).  It's not my fault for using my old version of Lynx if someones
page throws out noframes or messes up on non-graphical browsers.

[bloatware]
> Probably not but when you have huge hd and plenty of memory who cares?

 Tell me, what is it that's forced you to put such a huge hd and so
much memory in your pc in the first place :)  It's a question of
efficiency.  My linux machine is a dx4-100 and runs a web server, ftp
server, file/print server, dial-on-demand and gateway/proxy/routing
services, web cache and shell access and lots more.  It's got 16Mb of
ram and only ever hits the swap space if I run a few X apps (notably
netscape v3.01) or compile a kernel.  To offer the same services on NT
(if possible) would be a nightmare on such a machine.  In fact, the
only reason that machine isn't still an sx/33 with 8Mb is because I
didn't like waiting an hour for a kernel to compile :)

> That's technological progress for you. You keep up or 
> you get left behind. 

 I find that attitude funny (sorry) :)  I see it this way:  You fork
out thousands to be kept behind by the MS-Intel conspiracy, or you
find a more [cost|time] efficient way to get your work/play done.

 I shudder to think about what kind of hardware we'll be using 10
years from now though :)  "I can't believe I spent $1500 on a PII
chip!" :)

- Dave (pooky a@t caverock d.t net d.t nz)

"And you can dream, so dream out loud
 You know that your time is coming 'round
 So don't let the bastards grind you down" - U2 "Acrobat"

On Wed, 29 Apr 1998 19:12:51 +1200, "Cliff Pratt"
<Cliff.Pratt@vuw.ac.nz> wrote:

>I agree with you. Flashy stuff in a commercial web page
>gets in the way of the message, and wastes bandwidth
>and may be unreadable by a large proportion of your
>potential clients.

When it comes to the elements of Web pages - anything that isn't
helping is hurting.

----
Don't use REPLY - use the form at http://aardvark.co.nz/contact
Aardvark Daily:  http://aardvark.co.nz  *NOW TWICE DAILY*
Just added: Domain Name News and Net-Marketing News

On 29 Apr 1998 06:50:45 GMT, motorcicle@dont.want.no.pickle (Steve)
wrote:

>Back to Sausage.  During the height of its hype, I had a go of Hotdog, and
>wondered what the big deal was.  Basically just "notepad" with a few HTML
>helpers scattered here and there.  I must say I'm fairly amazed that people
>thought it good enough to warrant making the author a millionaire as result. 
>AOL-Press is IMHO a far better editor that has both WYSIWYG and raw-coding
>modes, and is completely free.  Failling that, using Netscape's built-in
>editor with notepad to optimise the (bloody messy) HTML that it generates.

Right time, right place, right people.  Never underestimate the
importance of "luck" when analysing business success.

There are startups in the USA (based on incredibly ill-conceived ideas
and projections) which are receiving (quite literally) *millions* of
seed-capital and VC funding - while I, who have a product and service
with a proven audience of 18 million users a month (that's half as
many as Yahoo and more than CNN), can't raise a bean (locally).

>Which brings me to another problem with most WYSIWYG editors.  They are
>often horribly inefficient.  I've seen some that generate code that treats
>_every_ letter separately when settings modes such as bolding etc.  (It's
>been months since I bothered writing HTML, so these references are bound to
>be wrong), e.g. instead of <UL>This text is supposed to be underlined</UL>
>it'd have <UL>T</UL><UL>h</UL><UL>i</UL> etc. etc.  Now, how dumb is this!? 
>I suspect that such ratshit HTML is much of the reason why 5Kb of text is
>downloaded to produce about 1Kb worth of characters on some pages I've
>seen.  I used to take great pride in my code, while not being stunning in
>it's appearance, being heavily optimised so that a fairly large page would
>still load quickly.

Exactly right.  The problem with WYSIWYG editors is that HTML was
simply never designed to implement a true WYSIWYG environment. It's
only a very simple mark-up language and, unlike Postscript, doesn't
offer the flexibility of accurate page-element positioning without the
use of "kludges" such as using image files to perform micro-spacing (a
practice which causes extensive code-bloat and can make pages look
god-awful for those who surf with their images turned off).

For this reason, hand-coded pages (or hand-tuning) are almost always
smaller and more efficient (faster loading, faster to display, etc).

I wonder why it is that very few professional Web designers rely
solely on WYSIWYG HTML editors?

>Sausage _should_ never have succeeded with their software, but then, IMO,
>neither should Micro$oft with their "quality" - marketing, luck and being
>there "first" plays a big part in success.  The product doesn't have to be
>good, you just have to _convince_ people that it's good.

Precisely.  The Net still attracts a lot of people who believe
everything they read and who are certain the Information Superhighway
is paved with gold.  They should look at my bank account for a dose of
cold, hard, reality ;-)

----
Don't use REPLY - use the form at http://aardvark.co.nz/contact
Aardvark Daily:  http://aardvark.co.nz  *NOW TWICE DAILY*
Just added: Domain Name News and Net-Marketing News

On Wed, 29 Apr 1998 12:07:09 +1000, "DJ!" <derek.j@sia.com.au> wrote:

>I will not cripple my web pages for the sake of the bandwidth-lame or
>browser-inept.

You're not from an advertising agency are you?  :-))

----
Don't use REPLY - use the form at http://aardvark.co.nz/contact
Aardvark Daily:  http://aardvark.co.nz  *NOW TWICE DAILY*
Just added: Domain Name News and Net-Marketing News

Patrick Dunford (patrick_dunford@hotmail.com.nz) wrote:
> 
> (I thought the later versions of Lynx supported frames/tables :)

It does upto a point.  The frames appear as a list of links at
the top left of the screen, one link for each frame.  It's easy
enough to select the frame containing the information needed
to access the site most of the time but occasionally you strike
a site that is absolutely appalling.

-- 
/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/
tich@.timevault-2000.co.nz         |   Beauty is only skin deep 
http://www.wn.planet.gen.nz/~tich  |    Ugly goes to the bone 
http://www.timevault-2000.co.nz    |
/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/

In article <893830367.70980@totara.its.vuw.ac.nz>,
  "Cliff Pratt" <Cliff.Pratt@vuw.ac.nz> wrote:
> There are two major browsers, right, but about three or four
> different versions of each. Many people just take the ISP's
> install disks and NEVER upgrade the browser.
>
> Then add on to that the various versions of Javascript, Java
> and so on. It's next to impossible for a WYSIWYG editor to
> provide code compatible to many let alone all combinations.
> Some of the ones I've tried make really bad guesses as a
> result, and you have to go in and fudge the code by hand.

And you get funny things like the I told you the other day, Cliff.

I have a frameset with the left frame being set to 135 pixels wide.  The
right is relative in size.  Now you'd think any frames-capable browser could
intrepret and measure out 135 pixels correctly.  But no, Netscape seems to
think that when you say 135 pixels you really mean 136 if the browser isn't
maximised.  If it is maxed it thinks you mean 134.  How hard can it be to get
it right???

As an age-old Navigator user (I still have the Navigator 0.9beta disk at
home..... shyeah, ONE disk...... now you need a Zip!), I've become
disheartened a bit with it.

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/   Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading

Scott Kane - MSA (msa@micronexus.net) wrote:
>>Your saving grace is WYSIWYG editors that do the code for you.
>>
>>In anycase HTML is a form of programming language.
>>
>>From a programmer's perspective
>
>HTML is a _programming language_  ?  What twot.  It barely rates as a macro
>language.  Would you call RTF a "programming language" as well?   <LOL>

Some people seem to have forgotten what the ML stands for.

Cheers
David

David A. Mann (dam45@address.in.sig) wrote:

:  That's all very well, but the web page (to use your example) has to
: actually work on the "alternative" browsers, and that's very important
: for reference or commercial sites (as Lin pointed out very well in her
: post).  It's not my fault for using my old version of Lynx if someones
: page throws out noframes or messes up on non-graphical browsers.

But the thing is I don't care if some people can't see my page properly. 
Other people might care but I can't be bothered. I'm not saying other web 
page builders shouldn't care. It's up to the individual. 

: > Probably not but when you have huge hd and plenty of memory who cares?

:  Tell me, what is it that's forced you to put such a huge hd and so
: much memory in your pc in the first place :)  It's a question of
: efficiency.  My linux machine is a dx4-100 and runs a web server, ftp
: server, file/print server, dial-on-demand and gateway/proxy/routing
: services, web cache and shell access and lots more.  It's got 16Mb of
: ram and only ever hits the swap space if I run a few X apps (notably
: netscape v3.01) or compile a kernel.  To offer the same services on NT
: (if possible) would be a nightmare on such a machine.  In fact, the
: only reason that machine isn't still an sx/33 with 8Mb is because I
: didn't like waiting an hour for a kernel to compile :)

Well windoze is just the most fuck-up OS in the world but unfortunately 
I've given in to the dark side because there are some applications I need 
to use on the platform. I'm no advocate of win95. It sucks. It stinks. 
For some reason money keeps disappearing everytime I run it. I'm waiting 
for an official release of the PowerPC Amiga or BeBox in Australia. Then 
I'm going smash the PC to smithers. :)

: out thousands to be kept behind by the MS-Intel conspiracy, or you
: find a more [cost|time] efficient way to get your work/play done.

It all boils down to the availability of the software I need on the platform.

-
j.n.    http://netspace.net.au/~nguyen/

Steve (motorcicle@dont.want.no.pickle) wrote:

: Sausage _should_ never have succeeded with their software, but then, IMO,
: neither should Micro$oft with their "quality" - marketing, luck and being
: there "first" plays a big part in success.  The product doesn't have to be
: good, you just have to _convince_ people that it's good.

What do you expect in the PC Wintel world? On which other platform would 
you pay $99 for partitioning programs which you'd use probably once or 
twice, $70 bucks for a deleting program that supposedly cleans and free 
up disk space whilst taking up 10MB itself and other totally pointless 
programs like Dogz for example. The moral is, on the Wintel market you 
can release the most absurd crap and still make money!

-
j.n.    http://netspace.net.au/~nguyen/

Verily, verily snail@careless.netOOPS.au (snail) didst write on 29 Apr
1998 14:25:52 GMT in
nz.comp:<slrn6kee76.b93.snail@jinx.silas.unsw.edu.au>...

>Patrick Dunford <patrick_dunford@hotmail.com.nz> wrote:
>>(I thought the later versions of Lynx supported frames/tables :)
>>
>Yep. Tables were added in 2.5 and frames in 2.6 IIRC.

But I was browsing my home page in Lynx the other day and it didn't
actually display the frames, instead it just gave me options of which
frame to display.

--------------------------------------------------
Patrick Dunford, Christchurch, NZ
Home Page: http://www.caverock.net.nz/~pdunford/
Modify e-mail address by removing .nz
****************************************************
Oppose the NZ Government's back-door ID Card plans
http://www.caverock.net.nz/~pdunford/privacy/

Joe Spanicek wrote:
> As for 'programming' - if you write code in any form is it programming. And I
> prefer to write queeky clean code that I know will work given that I follow
> strict HTML methodology.

Programming implies certain things such as being able to use control flow
constructs etc... and be actual able to process data. HTML is data...there's
no programming in it at all. It's a markup language and has nothing to do
with programming. It's not code, it's data. Anyone who thinks otherwise
has never programmed in anything.

-- 
Andy Newman

Mike McBain wrote:
<...about HTML, SGML and XML...>

Maybe that's where HTML is heading and where it once was when it
was simple but in the "browser wars" lots of presentation control
has been added to HTML. And they do stupid things like measure
distance in pixels. One of the big mistakes was assuming that
content providers (read that as "advertising agencies") are okay
with the viewers (web surfers) controlling the presentation
(via their browser). These people want control over the look.
They don't want Johnny using 15pt Times-Splendido-Offputting
for headings, they want their product to look the way they
want it to look. Hence the huge numbers of images embedded
in pages or pages that only contain one large image map which
the graphic artist prepared in PhotoShop. Now of course these
people aren't the only ones using HTML but they're out there
and structural markup without style sheets to control its
look (which is where HTML is mostly at today giving the number
of older browsers in use) doesn't cut it for them. The idea
is sound but the implementation was lousy.

-- 
Andy Newman

Patrick Dunford <patrick_dunford@hotmail.com.nz> wrote:
>Verily, verily snail@careless.netOOPS.au (snail) didst write on 29 Apr
>>Yep. Tables were added in 2.5 and frames in 2.6 IIRC.
>
>But I was browsing my home page in Lynx the other day and it didn't
>actually display the frames, instead it just gave me options of which
>frame to display.
>
Yep. Given that lynx assumes a vt100 setup IIRC, it can't do much in
terms of screen display, however it does at least give you access to
the information. I think it's a compromise that works quite well. The
main difficulty I come across is working out which frame has the links
and which has the information. This usually occurs when pages are
named: frame01.html, frame02.html, etc. 

I believe Lynx also supports some imagemaps as well...been a while since
I last read the features list. On the other hand when some javascript
is trying to open multiple windows, Lynx ignores it, which I think is
a bit of a blessing :-)
--
snail | snail@careless.net.au | http://www.careless.net.au/~snail/
  I'm a man of my word. In the end, that's all there is. - Avon

G'day all.

dbromage@metz.une.edu.au (David Bromage) writes:

>If HTML is a programming language, then so is LaTeX and Postscript.

I hate to butt in here, but TeX and PostScript are both Turing-hard.
You can't get much more "programming language" than that.

HTML doesn't even have the power of primitive recursion, although
the XML/SGML DTD recogniser has at least the parsing power of a
nondeterministic pushdown automaton.  I guess that counts as a
programming language.

Cheers,
Andrew Bromage

Dean (dk@home) wrote:  to chicken to post with a real address.

: > I was writing html off the top of my head way back in 94.

: Wow !   U must B *really* clever Jim

Yep I am certainly am. It's just that I'm so naturally gifted and adept 
at EVERYTHING I do. It amazes me how intelligent I am sometimes. I'm just 
so brilliant.

: > Any idiot can learn to code html in a week.

: And your living evidence of that !

Yep. I certainly am. As a matter of fact I learnt html in about 2 hours. 
I figured this is because I'm so intelligent. 

: > I can be doing something else instead of getting intimate with html.

: Yes and I think U'd be better off doing something else, judging by the
: state of your home page.

Yes. My webpage is so brilliant. Naturally reflecting my own personal 
brilliance. Where's yours?

: Here's some classic's from Jim's home page (
: http://netspace.net.au/~nguyen/ )

: > I went to Deakin University and did almost two years of three in 
: > BSc in Microprocessor Applications. Some career considerations 
: > later and I thought fuck that and the proceeding year I was doing 
: > a Bachelor of Arts degree at Victoria. That lasted two weeks. 

: No much of a finisher are U Jimbo?

No I didn't finish uni. Naturally I could have lied about it. It's just 
that I'm so brilliant and the lecturer's capacity was far inferior to 
mine. I felt like Einstein in Romper Room so I left. But because of my 
brilliance I'm doing quite fine without a piece of paper. 

: > Now I just enrol at these institutions to get student IDs for software 
: > discounts and stuff. Oh, okay so I'm a drop-out but so were a lot of
: geniuses. 

: How very modest...

It's just that I'm so brilliant you see. I could've compared myself to 
Einstein, Oppenhimer, Newton etc but even with their combined 
intelligence they'd still be no match for me and that wouldn't do me any 
justice.

: > I'm the guy that be-friends the quiet people nobody wants to befriend 

: Because they aren't bold enough to tell U to PISS OFF !

You're a coward. My personal homepage tells something about myself. I 
reveal such information out of honesty and good faith but it takes a 
loser and coward to use it to character assassinate in a arguement you're 
losing.

: Very *plain english* Jim, and not the sort of exposure too many
: organisations would want. The best thing about your home page is reading
: the usenet postings slagging him off, read 'em here if U've got time to
: kill...

So what does that have to do with the html editor vs WYSIWYG debate? Not 
much. The fact that you've forged your address and hiding behind an 
anonymous viel proves that you're a fucking loser. Panzy. Skitz.

-
j.n.    http://netspace.net.au/~nguyen/

Steve wrote in message ...

>Try writing software with HTML, won't work.


Try programming a web page in C++, it probably
won't work either.

Different languages for different programming.

Regards

Dave Joll

http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~jollian/
"When it looks like there are two sides to an issue, there
are probably at least three"  -  Mark Gruenwald

Verily, verily snail@careless.netOOPS.au (snail) didst write on 30 Apr
1998 06:53:02 GMT in
nz.comp:<slrn6kg827.f8s.snail@jinx.silas.unsw.edu.au>...

>Patrick Dunford <patrick_dunford@hotmail.com.nz> wrote:
>>Verily, verily snail@careless.netOOPS.au (snail) didst write on 29 Apr
>>>Yep. Tables were added in 2.5 and frames in 2.6 IIRC.
>>
>>But I was browsing my home page in Lynx the other day and it didn't
>>actually display the frames, instead it just gave me options of which
>>frame to display.
>>
>Yep. Given that lynx assumes a vt100 setup IIRC, it can't do much in
>terms of screen display, however it does at least give you access to
>the information. I think it's a compromise that works quite well. 

Does Unix have any standards for graphics? When I started using
computers the big powerful stuff was a PDP11 with that type, or
similar, terminals. No graphics as such.

Or to put it another way, how many people are likely to be using
text-only clients on anything, including Unix?

--------------------------------------------------
Patrick Dunford, Christchurch, NZ
Home Page: http://www.caverock.net.nz/~pdunford/
Modify e-mail address by removing .nz
****************************************************
Oppose the NZ Government's back-door ID Card plans
http://www.caverock.net.nz/~pdunford/privacy/

On Thu, 30 Apr 1998 19:14:23 +1200, "Dave Joll" <jollian@es.co.nz>
wrote:

> Try programming a web page in C++, it probably
> won't work either.

 It's certainly possible if you don't mind hard-coding it into a web
server :)

- Dave (pooky a@t caverock d.t net d.t nz)

"And you can dream, so dream out loud
 You know that your time is coming 'round
 So don't let the bastards grind you down" - U2 "Acrobat"

Patrick Dunford <patrick_dunford@hotmail.com.nz> wrote:
>Verily, verily snail@careless.netOOPS.au (snail) didst write on 30 Apr
>>Yep. Given that lynx assumes a vt100 setup IIRC, it can't do much in
>>terms of screen display, however it does at least give you access to
>>the information. I think it's a compromise that works quite well. 
>
>Does Unix have any standards for graphics? When I started using

I wouldn't know. Although I'd imagine it's dealt with in some of the
X stuff. However I'm not a programmer so I'd be a wee bit out of my
depth if I took this any further :)

>Or to put it another way, how many people are likely to be using
>text-only clients on anything, including Unix?
>
Don't know, although it'd be nice to see figures. For example lynx is
quite popular with the blind, as there is s/w that converts text to
speech which works quite well with Lynx, but tends to fall over with
a graphical browser. Certainly text-only clients would be a fairly
small minority these days, limited mainly to uni students (and even
then many edu sites offer graphical access these days) and the
disabled. I personally prefer using lynx as I find the graphics
confusing and generally inhibit my search for information. Bad
page design doesn't help.
--
snail | snail@careless.net.au | http://www.careless.net.au/~snail/
  I'm a man of my word. In the end, that's all there is. - Avon

Bruce Simpson wrote in message
<41269C8D26208987.D6B41EB5F77572E1.E5872D738715337A@library-proxy.airnews.ne
t>...

[...]

>I wonder why it is that very few professional Web designers rely
>solely on WYSIWYG HTML editors?


Don't you mean... wannabe's... :-)

--

Beware of the Spam-Dog

Scott Kane - MSA wrote:

> >Your saving grace is WYSIWYG editors that do the code for you.
> >
> >In anycase HTML is a form of programming language.
> >
> >From a programmer's perspective
>
> HTML is a _programming language_  ?  What twot.  It barely rates as a macro
> language.  Would you call RTF a "programming language" as well?   <LOL>
>
> From a programmers perspective (to use your words) - what "languages" are
> you proficient in?  What methodologies do you use?
>
> Scott Kane
> MicroNexus Software Australia
> http://www.micronexus.com.au

  HTML - Hyper Text Markup Language

As for 'programming' - if you write code in any form is it programming. And I
prefer to write
queeky clean code that I know will work given that I follow strict HTML
methodology.

Jim-dickhead-Nguyen <nguyen@netspace.net.au> wrote...
> I was writing html off the top of my head way back in 94.

Wow !   U must B *really* clever Jim

> Any idiot can learn to code html in a week.

And your living evidence of that !

> I can be doing something else instead of getting intimate with html.

Yes and I think U'd be better off doing something else, judging by the
state of your home page.

>The way I see it if the user's browser isn't up to scratch or still using 
>win3 fuck'em.
.....
> I'm not saying that you shouldn't be on the net because you got a crap
box

Sounds like that's exactly what your saying

>I will not cripple my web pages for the sake of the bandwidth-lame or
browser-inept

You don't need a special reason to cripple your pages Jim, your doing a
grand job of it as it is.

Here's some classic's from Jim's home page (
http://netspace.net.au/~nguyen/ )

> I went to Deakin University and did almost two years of three in 
> BSc in Microprocessor Applications. Some career considerations 
> later and I thought fuck that and the proceeding year I was doing 
> a Bachelor of Arts degree at Victoria. That lasted two weeks. 

No much of a finisher are U Jimbo?

> Now I just enrol at these institutions to get student IDs for software 
> discounts and stuff. Oh, okay so I'm a drop-out but so were a lot of
geniuses. 

How very modest...

> I'm the guy that be-friends the quiet people nobody wants to befriend 

Because they aren't bold enough to tell U to PISS OFF !

> We have been active on the internet for five years and can offer plain 
> English advice on establishing a presence on the internet and giving 
> your business or organisation internet exposure.

Very *plain english* Jim, and not the sort of exposure too many
organisations would want. The best thing about your home page is reading
the usenet postings slagging him off, read 'em here if U've got time to
kill...

	http://www.netspace.net.au/~nguyen/stuff/flame.HTML

cheers,
Dean

"Scott Kane - MSA" <msa@micronexus.net> writes:

>>Your saving grace is WYSIWYG editors that do the code for you.
>>
>>In anycase HTML is a form of programming language.
>>
>>From a programmer's perspective


>HTML is a _programming language_  ?  What twot.  It barely rates as a macro
>language.  Would you call RTF a "programming language" as well?   <LOL>


HTML is a derivative of SGML in which tags are defined by its DTD. SGML's focus
is definitely on the packaging of *information* content, not on the means
to achieve a particularly appearance. To believe otherwise is to misunderstand
what SGML (and its successor XML) was designed for.
-- 
Mike McBain                                 Faculty of Business & Economics
mjm@silas.cc.monash.edu.au                  Monash University - Caulfield
+61 3 9903 2646                             Australia    3145
*** No junk mail please - I will hunt you down

Joe Spanicek (joe@resptk.bhp.com.au) wrote:
>
>As for 'programming' - if you write code in any form is it programming. And I
>prefer to write
>queeky clean code that I know will work given that I follow strict HTML
>methodology.

If HTML is a programming language, then so is LaTeX and Postscript.

Cheers
David

Patrick Dunford wrote:
> 
> Verily, verily "DRS" <simpsond@removethis.tig.com.au> didst write on
> Wed, 29 Apr 1998 22:54:21 +1000 in
> nz.comp:<6i77ro$aie$1@newsource.ihug.co.nz>...
> 
> >Patrick Dunford wrote in message <354689ef.3479752@news.caverock.co.nz>...
> >
> >[...]
> >
> >>>The way I see it if the user's browser isn't up to scratch or still using
> >>>win3 fuck'em.
> >>
> >>Very considerate of you :)
> >>
> >>> Obviously they're not interested in any fancy stuff and
> >>>probably run on a crap machine.
> >>

I'm using a p2 233, running w95, and netscape communicator 4.something,
but I'd prefer looking at a page written nice and simple without all the
bells and whistles anyday, not only is it faster to load - a major
consideration for anyone with a web page - but invariably it is easier
to read.  People think, great, I can put in this that or the other and
my page will look stunning, but then forget to make the damn thing
readable or navigatable.  Unless I really want to look at a particular
page, I'm not going to wait while it downloads 1/2 a meg of crap to make
it look pretty.


> >>Or a machine that they can afford to buy. Schools and community
> >>organisations come to mind.
> >

Most of the problems associated with download time are due to slow
access speeds through ISP's - their really isn't that much time
difference writing a file to a hard drive on a 486 or a p2, it's the
time it takes to get the file from the server that takes up most of the
downloading time.

> 
> Lots of businesses thought 95 was a dog and waited for 98 or NT.
> 

I also think w95 is crap ( but have to use it, because m$ have coerced
software companies to write things only for this incompetant SHELL).

-- 
                                     -/\_
            +                       -/\  \___    --==>
Quentin Christensen            ####//_\\___\_              +
0921939@enemy.swin.edu.au      ####\\ //___/
You must make your enemy your bud   -\/ _/          +     --==>
and all will be well...              -\/
http://www.ozramp.net.au/~minx/index.html

David Bromage wrote:

> Joe Spanicek (joe@resptk.bhp.com.au) wrote:
> >
> >As for 'programming' - if you write code in any form is it programming. And I
> >prefer to write
> >queeky clean code that I know will work given that I follow strict HTML
> >methodology.
>
> If HTML is a programming language, then so is LaTeX and Postscript.
>
> Cheers
> David

  Well - of course it is. NOT to say it is a programming language in its own
right (like C/C++),
just like perl is not a programming language but an interpreter. So Netscape and
IE can be viewed
as an interpreter to HTML.

Verily, verily robking@voyager.co.nz didst write on Wed, 29 Apr 1998
19:58:14 -0600 in nz.comp:<6i8ib6$qig$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...

>In article <893830367.70980@totara.its.vuw.ac.nz>,
>  "Cliff Pratt" <Cliff.Pratt@vuw.ac.nz> wrote:
>> There are two major browsers, right, but about three or four
>> different versions of each. Many people just take the ISP's
>> install disks and NEVER upgrade the browser.
>>
>> Then add on to that the various versions of Javascript, Java
>> and so on. It's next to impossible for a WYSIWYG editor to
>> provide code compatible to many let alone all combinations.
>> Some of the ones I've tried make really bad guesses as a
>> result, and you have to go in and fudge the code by hand.
>
>And you get funny things like the I told you the other day, Cliff.
>
>I have a frameset with the left frame being set to 135 pixels wide.  The
>right is relative in size.  Now you'd think any frames-capable browser could
>intrepret and measure out 135 pixels correctly.  But no, Netscape seems to
>think that when you say 135 pixels you really mean 136 if the browser isn't
>maximised.  If it is maxed it thinks you mean 134.  How hard can it be to get
>it right???

Why are you using absolute numbers of pixels?

Are you not aware that on different resolution screens the frame width
may not be able to cope with the change in relative font sizes?

Use %widths whereever at all possible.

--------------------------------------------------
Patrick Dunford, Christchurch, NZ
Home Page: http://www.caverock.net.nz/~pdunford/
Modify e-mail address by removing .nz
****************************************************
Oppose the NZ Government's back-door ID Card plans
http://www.caverock.net.nz/~pdunford/privacy/

Verily, verily Quentin Christensen <minx@ozramp.net.au> didst write on
Thu, 30 Apr 1998 11:22:04 +1000 in
nz.comp:<3547D23C.AD120E34@ozramp.net.au>...

>Patrick Dunford wrote:
>> 
>> Verily, verily "DRS" <simpsond@removethis.tig.com.au> didst write on
>> Wed, 29 Apr 1998 22:54:21 +1000 in
>> nz.comp:<6i77ro$aie$1@newsource.ihug.co.nz>...
>> 
>> >Patrick Dunford wrote in message <354689ef.3479752@news.caverock.co.nz>...
>> >
>> >[...]
>> >
>> >>>The way I see it if the user's browser isn't up to scratch or still using
>> >>>win3 fuck'em.
>> >>
>> >>Very considerate of you :)
>> >>
>> >>> Obviously they're not interested in any fancy stuff and
>> >>>probably run on a crap machine.
>> >>
>
>I'm using a p2 233, running w95, and netscape communicator 4.something,
>but I'd prefer looking at a page written nice and simple without all the
>bells and whistles anyday, not only is it faster to load - a major
>consideration for anyone with a web page - but invariably it is easier
>to read.  People think, great, I can put in this that or the other and
>my page will look stunning, but then forget to make the damn thing
>readable or navigatable.  Unless I really want to look at a particular
>page, I'm not going to wait while it downloads 1/2 a meg of crap to make
>it look pretty.

Yes, pain in the ... have you noticed so often they don't put
alternate text for all the buttons and things (I nearly always browse
these days with the images off)

>
>
>> >>Or a machine that they can afford to buy. Schools and community
>> >>organisations come to mind.
>> >
>
>Most of the problems associated with download time are due to slow
>access speeds through ISP's - their really isn't that much time
>difference writing a file to a hard drive on a 486 or a p2, it's the
>time it takes to get the file from the server that takes up most of the
>downloading time.

No, but not only may it be a 486 but also running Windows 3.1 which is
anathema to this person.

--------------------------------------------------
Patrick Dunford, Christchurch, NZ
Home Page: http://www.caverock.net.nz/~pdunford/
Modify e-mail address by removing .nz
****************************************************
Oppose the NZ Government's back-door ID Card plans
http://www.caverock.net.nz/~pdunford/privacy/

Demand on the net, for cheap net based development products is something
that most business people still don't understand. 

Check out this new OZ company set to BBQ Sausage at www.riada.com or
www.riada.com.au

WAKE UP AUSTRALIA
The above company does not market this product to Australia...because
they don't have to.... the rest of the world love thier products.


MAF
UDS

Demand on the net, for cheap net based development products is something
that most business people still don't understand. 

Check out this new OZ company set to BBQ Sausage at www.riada.com or
www.riada.com.au

WAKE UP AUSTRALIA
The above company does not market this product to Australia...because
they don't have to.... the rest of the world love thier products.


MAF
UDS

Demand on the net, for cheap net based development products is something
that most business people still don't understand. 

Check out this new OZ company set to BBQ Sausage at www.riada.com or
www.riada.com.au

WAKE UP AUSTRALIA
The above company does not market this product to Australia...because
they don't have to.... the rest of the world love thier products.


MAF
UDS

snail wrote in message ...

[...]

>disabled. I personally prefer using lynx as I find the graphics
>confusing and generally inhibit my search for information.

Ah, then you won't be wanting to lok at the art gallery site I'm working on
at the moment :-)

--

Beware of the Spam-Dog

DRS <simpsond@removethis.tig.com.au> wrote:
>snail wrote in message ...
>>disabled. I personally prefer using lynx as I find the graphics
>>confusing and generally inhibit my search for information.
>
>Ah, then you won't be wanting to lok at the art gallery site I'm working on
>at the moment :-)
>
I was wondering when someone was going to bring that up :-) 

If a site is likely to have interesting artwork, I'll fire up netscape
and check it out that way. Text only goes so far :-)
--
snail | snail@careless.net.au | http://www.careless.net.au/~snail/
  I'm a man of my word. In the end, that's all there is. - Avon

Jim Nguyen wrote in message <6idlrh$hc7$1@otis.netspace.net.au>...

[...]

>Hey man internet flaming is an art. It's not meant to be taken seriously.
>The fact that you're cheesed up about means you're a newby who don't
>really understand it.


This is a flame from another group:

"What a sorry ass excuse you are for even a fucking NEWBIE, you Aerosmith
worshipping little acne-scarred never-even-smelled-a-pussy closet
FISTFUCKER. Why don't we talk about how adolescent it is to hero-worship
rock bands you wanking retard? Or how funny it is to make drunk driving
jokes!
  What a pleasure it is to have another fart-lighting pre-pubescent sack of
pus like you on usenet! I heard there's a shortage of parking valets and
you're shaping up for a fine candidate for TRAINING, once you get your
learner's permit! Then again after your folks find out how you abused your
netcom TOS that might be a while.
  You should be really proud--it hardly took you any time at all to make a
complete and utter ass of yourself on usenet. Most pathetic trolling morons
take some time to get up to speed, but you, you, got connected and went
right to work. If you can ever find a woman stupid or desperate enough for
your paper route money to actually fuck you perhaps we'll see if eugenics
theory works on MICR0-DICKED ACROMEGALIC SHIT-STAINED JACKOFFS.
   What a sickening idiotic exhibitionist you are, and how transparent your
own insecurities."

You're just a moron who thinks that 'fuckwit' is flaming.

--

Beware of the Spam-Dog

On Sat, 2 May 1998 23:39:34 +1000, "DRS"
<simpsond@removethis.tig.com.au> wrote:

>This is a flame from another group:
>
>"What a sorry ass excuse you are for even a fucking NEWBIE, you Aerosmith
>worshipping little acne-scarred never-even-smelled-a-pussy closet
>FISTFUCKER. Why don't we talk about how adolescent it is to hero-worship
>rock bands you wanking retard? Or how funny it is to make drunk driving
>jokes!
>  What a pleasure it is to have another fart-lighting pre-pubescent sack of
>pus like you on usenet! I heard there's a shortage of parking valets and
>you're shaping up for a fine candidate for TRAINING, once you get your
>learner's permit! Then again after your folks find out how you abused your
>netcom TOS that might be a while.
>  You should be really proud--it hardly took you any time at all to make a
>complete and utter ass of yourself on usenet. Most pathetic trolling morons
>take some time to get up to speed, but you, you, got connected and went
>right to work. If you can ever find a woman stupid or desperate enough for
>your paper route money to actually fuck you perhaps we'll see if eugenics
>theory works on MICR0-DICKED ACROMEGALIC SHIT-STAINED JACKOFFS.
>   What a sickening idiotic exhibitionist you are, and how transparent your
>own insecurities."
>
>You're just a moron who thinks that 'fuckwit' is flaming.

Don't pussy-foot around!  Don't mince your words!  Don't be so
reluctant to say what you mean.  Why not just tell him what you think
of him.

Some people are  too kind by far ;-)

<just kidding guys>

----
Don't use REPLY - use the form at http://aardvark.co.nz/contact
Aardvark Daily:  http://aardvark.co.nz  *NOW TWICE DAILY*
Just added: Domain Name News and Net-Marketing News

In article <354838c5.18819744@news.caverock.co.nz>,
patrick_dunford@hotmail.com.nz (Patrick Dunford) wrote:
>>Yep. Given that lynx assumes a vt100 setup IIRC, it can't do much in
>>terms of screen display, however it does at least give you access to
>>the information. I think it's a compromise that works quite well. 
>
>Does Unix have any standards for graphics?

All the major graphics standards. other than perhaps GIF and Quicktime
were developed on Unix machines, (and GIF may have been, I just
don't know for sure )

The X-terminal standard with X-Window is a portable, remotable,
display and windowing format that can even work on WinTel machines
and was developed in the late 70's - early 80's, and was in widespread
use in the mid to late eighties.

Most Unix workstations still use this standard.

>When I started using
>computers the big powerful stuff was a PDP11 with that type, or
>similar, terminals. No graphics as such.

For a start I refuse to believe you're that old, :-) 
and secondly you're wrong.  PDP11s and their predecessors
were _never_ the "big. powerful, stuff", they were always
the "mid to low range stuff". 

By the time the PDP11 was released graphics terminals
were quite common in the areas where they were needed.
Sure, by today's standards they were primitive, in fact
some even used direct beam tracing rather than
rasterization, but they did exist.

>Or to put it another way, how many people are likely to be using
>text-only clients on anything, including Unix?

All those people who still work on machines that do not support
or need graphic terminals. An example is the large
installed base of AS400s, S390s and the DEC, Unisys, and
Fuijitsu equivalents.

Up until recently, for a large number of IBM employees
the only web access they had was a green screen browser
known as "Charlotte"

-- 
Frankie
    

Jim Nguyen wrote:

> Joe Spanicek (joe@resptk.bhp.com.au) wrote:
>
> :   I have seen your web page - nothing exciting.
>
> : As for your comments, they are rude and obnoxious.
>
> I think you're just jealous of my brilliance.
>
> : I also read your webpage where you state that you get off by been an asshole
> : in your responses.
> : If anybody is ever going to take you seriously, grow up and act your age.
>
> Hey man internet flaming is an art. It's not meant to be taken seriously.
> The fact that you're cheesed up about means you're a newby who don't
> really understand it.
>
> -
> j.n.    http://netspace.net.au/~nguyen/

  There is NO brilliance.

As for your own comment:

    "Hey man internet flaming is an art. It's not meant to be taken seriously."

It does say it all about you - you will never be taken seriously.

And to clear one point, I am not a newby and I do understand.

Joe

Joe Spanicek (joe@resptk.bhp.com.au) wrote:

:   There is NO brilliance.

Yes there is. You're just jealous and EVERYBODY knows it. Be a man 
and admit it.

: As for your own comment:

:     "Hey man internet flaming is an art. It's not meant to be taken seriously."

: It does say it all about you - you will never be taken seriously.

Hmmpf. No sense of humor. Typical.

: And to clear one point, I am not a newby and I do understand.

Yes you are and no you don't.

-
j.n.    http://netspace.net.au/~nguyen/