Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Computer Support > Re: Mattie's crappy sites...

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: Mattie's crappy sites...

 
 
smallfoot
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-18-2005
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) says...
> On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 16:06:54 -0400, smallfoot <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> >In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> >(E-Mail Removed) says...
> >> On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 13:38:24 +0100, Mimic <dev@null> wrote:
> >>
> >> >>>Like you need a survey to figure that out...
> >>
> >> >> Not when he's pulling figures out of his ass anyway. *sigh* I wish
> >> >> the lurkers supported ME in email, I REALLY do...*snicker*...
> >> >>
> >> >> *Hatter hums to himself*
> >> >> http://www.backwaterxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx...xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> >>
> >> >> ^_^
> >>
> >> >Looking better, you know what would make that look nice.. extend the
> >> >width to 100%, so you get a "widescreen" effect.
> >>
> >> An interesting idea, I'll test it out, see if I like it. Did you try
> >> moving your mouse on the frog?
> >>
> >> >_____________________
> >> >|////////////////////|
> >> >| |
> >> >| |
> >> >|////////////////////|
> >> >
> >> >type effect, also maybe onload the mouseover images at the body.
> >>
> >> Actually I'm seriously considering doing the whole thing in Flash. I
> >> keep trying to think of reasons not to, but every time I start
> >> exploring them I just keep running back to where I started.
> >>
> >> Flash Downsides
> >> ==========
> >> Some people may not have Flash downloaded...but then if they don't
> >> it's set to redirect them to the Flash download page...
> >>
> >> Some people may have disabled Flash...but the number of people who
> >> have Flash disabled (probably around .001%) is even less than the
> >> number of people who have JavaScript disabled (probably around .01%).
> >>
> >> People using text only browsers won't be able to see the content...but
> >> then they couldn't see it anyway because I use all pictures and I
> >> don't really care about people who pretend to be blind. I mean, BW is
> >> a production company, blind people aren't exactly our target
> >> audience...hence the reason why movie trailer sites are more often
> >> than not all Flash based.
> >>
> >> I figure, if no one in these froups can formulate a halfway coherent
> >> reason that I can't counter for not using Flash...I'm just gonna go
> >> ahead and do the whole thing like that.

> >
> >It doesn't matter what you use, in the long run, since nobody is going
> >to see it after you quit spamming Usenet with the URL.

>
> I'm<SLAP>


Opinion rejected.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
smallfoot
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-18-2005
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
(E-Mail Removed) says...
> On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 16:19:40 -0400, smallfoot <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> >In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> >(E-Mail Removed) says...
> >> On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 16:06:54 -0400, smallfoot <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> >> >(E-Mail Removed) says...
> >> >> On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 13:38:24 +0100, Mimic <dev@null> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >>>Like you need a survey to figure that out...
> >> >>
> >> >> >> Not when he's pulling figures out of his ass anyway. *sigh* I wish
> >> >> >> the lurkers supported ME in email, I REALLY do...*snicker*...
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> *Hatter hums to himself*
> >> >> >> http://www.backwaterxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx...xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> ^_^
> >> >>
> >> >> >Looking better, you know what would make that look nice.. extend the
> >> >> >width to 100%, so you get a "widescreen" effect.
> >> >>
> >> >> An interesting idea, I'll test it out, see if I like it. Did you try
> >> >> moving your mouse on the frog?
> >> >>
> >> >> >_____________________
> >> >> >|////////////////////|
> >> >> >| |
> >> >> >| |
> >> >> >|////////////////////|
> >> >> >
> >> >> >type effect, also maybe onload the mouseover images at the body.
> >> >>
> >> >> Actually I'm seriously considering doing the whole thing in Flash. I
> >> >> keep trying to think of reasons not to, but every time I start
> >> >> exploring them I just keep running back to where I started.
> >> >>
> >> >> Flash Downsides
> >> >> ==========
> >> >> Some people may not have Flash downloaded...but then if they don't
> >> >> it's set to redirect them to the Flash download page...
> >> >>
> >> >> Some people may have disabled Flash...but the number of people who
> >> >> have Flash disabled (probably around .001%) is even less than the
> >> >> number of people who have JavaScript disabled (probably around .01%).
> >> >>
> >> >> I figure, if no one in these froups can formulate a halfway coherent
> >> >> reason that I can't counter for not using Flash...I'm just gonna go
> >> >> ahead and do the whole thing like that.
> >> >
> >> >It doesn't matter what you use, in the long run, since nobody is going
> >> >to see it after you quit spamming Usenet with the URL.
> >>
> >> I'm<SLAP>

> >
> >Opinion rejected.

>
> What's<SLAP>


Query rejected.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
dave hillstrom
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-18-2005
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 16:19:40 -0400, smallfoot <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
>(E-Mail Removed) says...
>> On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 16:06:54 -0400, smallfoot <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
>> >(E-Mail Removed) says...
>> >> On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 13:38:24 +0100, Mimic <dev@null> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >>>Like you need a survey to figure that out...
>> >>
>> >> >> Not when he's pulling figures out of his ass anyway. *sigh* I wish
>> >> >> the lurkers supported ME in email, I REALLY do...*snicker*...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> *Hatter hums to himself*
>> >> >> http://www.backwaterxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx...xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >> >>
>> >> >> ^_^
>> >>
>> >> >Looking better, you know what would make that look nice.. extend the
>> >> >width to 100%, so you get a "widescreen" effect.
>> >>
>> >> An interesting idea, I'll test it out, see if I like it. Did you try
>> >> moving your mouse on the frog?
>> >>
>> >> >_____________________
>> >> >|////////////////////|
>> >> >| |
>> >> >| |
>> >> >|////////////////////|
>> >> >
>> >> >type effect, also maybe onload the mouseover images at the body.
>> >>
>> >> Actually I'm seriously considering doing the whole thing in Flash. I
>> >> keep trying to think of reasons not to, but every time I start
>> >> exploring them I just keep running back to where I started.
>> >>
>> >> Flash Downsides
>> >> ==========
>> >> Some people may not have Flash downloaded...but then if they don't
>> >> it's set to redirect them to the Flash download page...
>> >>
>> >> Some people may have disabled Flash...but the number of people who
>> >> have Flash disabled (probably around .001%) is even less than the
>> >> number of people who have JavaScript disabled (probably around .01%).
>> >>
>> >> People using text only browsers won't be able to see the content...but
>> >> then they couldn't see it anyway because I use all pictures and I
>> >> don't really care about people who pretend to be blind. I mean, BW is
>> >> a production company, blind people aren't exactly our target
>> >> audience...hence the reason why movie trailer sites are more often
>> >> than not all Flash based.
>> >>
>> >> I figure, if no one in these froups can formulate a halfway coherent
>> >> reason that I can't counter for not using Flash...I'm just gonna go
>> >> ahead and do the whole thing like that.
>> >
>> >It doesn't matter what you use, in the long run, since nobody is going
>> >to see it after you quit spamming Usenet with the URL.

>>
>> I'm<SLAP>

>
>Opinion rejected.


that technique has always struck me as childish. its like peeing around
your desk at work to "assert your dominance over your territory"
--
dave hillstrom

this space under construction. donations accepted.

the belgians are thieves.
 
Reply With Quote
 
dave hillstrom
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-18-2005
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 16:38:04 -0400, smallfoot <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
>(E-Mail Removed) says...
>> On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 16:19:40 -0400, smallfoot <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
>> >(E-Mail Removed) says...
>> >> On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 16:06:54 -0400, smallfoot <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
>> >> >(E-Mail Removed) says...
>> >> >> On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 13:38:24 +0100, Mimic <dev@null> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >>>Like you need a survey to figure that out...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Not when he's pulling figures out of his ass anyway. *sigh* I wish
>> >> >> >> the lurkers supported ME in email, I REALLY do...*snicker*...
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> *Hatter hums to himself*
>> >> >> >> http://www.backwaterxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx...xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> ^_^
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >Looking better, you know what would make that look nice.. extend the
>> >> >> >width to 100%, so you get a "widescreen" effect.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> An interesting idea, I'll test it out, see if I like it. Did you try
>> >> >> moving your mouse on the frog?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >_____________________
>> >> >> >|////////////////////|
>> >> >> >| |
>> >> >> >| |
>> >> >> >|////////////////////|
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >type effect, also maybe onload the mouseover images at the body.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Actually I'm seriously considering doing the whole thing in Flash. I
>> >> >> keep trying to think of reasons not to, but every time I start
>> >> >> exploring them I just keep running back to where I started.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Flash Downsides
>> >> >> ==========
>> >> >> Some people may not have Flash downloaded...but then if they don't
>> >> >> it's set to redirect them to the Flash download page...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Some people may have disabled Flash...but the number of people who
>> >> >> have Flash disabled (probably around .001%) is even less than the
>> >> >> number of people who have JavaScript disabled (probably around .01%).
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I figure, if no one in these froups can formulate a halfway coherent
>> >> >> reason that I can't counter for not using Flash...I'm just gonna go
>> >> >> ahead and do the whole thing like that.
>> >> >
>> >> >It doesn't matter what you use, in the long run, since nobody is going
>> >> >to see it after you quit spamming Usenet with the URL.
>> >>
>> >> I'm<SLAP>
>> >
>> >Opinion rejected.

>>
>> What's<SLAP>

>
>Query rejected.


this is turning into quite a little habit of yours. do you act like
this at work and home too?
--
dave hillstrom

this space under construction. donations accepted.

the belgians are thieves.
 
Reply With Quote
 
mimus
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-18-2005
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 17:14:18 -0400, dave hillstrom wrote:

> On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 16:19:40 -0400, smallfoot <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
>>(E-Mail Removed) says...
>>> On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 16:06:54 -0400, smallfoot <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>> >In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
>>> >(E-Mail Removed) says...
>>> >> On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 13:38:24 +0100, Mimic <dev@null> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> >>>Like you need a survey to figure that out...
>>> >>
>>> >> >> Not when he's pulling figures out of his ass anyway. *sigh* I wish
>>> >> >> the lurkers supported ME in email, I REALLY do...*snicker*...
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> *Hatter hums to himself*
>>> >> >> http://www.backwaterxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx...xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> ^_^
>>> >>
>>> >> >Looking better, you know what would make that look nice.. extend the
>>> >> >width to 100%, so you get a "widescreen" effect.
>>> >>
>>> >> An interesting idea, I'll test it out, see if I like it. Did you try
>>> >> moving your mouse on the frog?
>>> >>
>>> >> >_____________________
>>> >> >|////////////////////|
>>> >> >| |
>>> >> >| |
>>> >> >|////////////////////|
>>> >> >
>>> >> >type effect, also maybe onload the mouseover images at the body.
>>> >>
>>> >> Actually I'm seriously considering doing the whole thing in Flash. I
>>> >> keep trying to think of reasons not to, but every time I start
>>> >> exploring them I just keep running back to where I started.
>>> >>
>>> >> Flash Downsides
>>> >> ==========
>>> >> Some people may not have Flash downloaded...but then if they don't
>>> >> it's set to redirect them to the Flash download page...
>>> >>
>>> >> Some people may have disabled Flash...but the number of people who
>>> >> have Flash disabled (probably around .001%) is even less than the
>>> >> number of people who have JavaScript disabled (probably around .01%).
>>> >>
>>> >> People using text only browsers won't be able to see the content...but
>>> >> then they couldn't see it anyway because I use all pictures and I
>>> >> don't really care about people who pretend to be blind. I mean, BW is
>>> >> a production company, blind people aren't exactly our target
>>> >> audience...hence the reason why movie trailer sites are more often
>>> >> than not all Flash based.
>>> >>
>>> >> I figure, if no one in these froups can formulate a halfway coherent
>>> >> reason that I can't counter for not using Flash...I'm just gonna go
>>> >> ahead and do the whole thing like that.
>>> >
>>> >It doesn't matter what you use, in the long run, since nobody is going
>>> >to see it after you quit spamming Usenet with the URL.
>>>
>>> I'm<SLAP>

>>
>>Opinion rejected.

>
> that technique has always struck me as childish. its like peeing around
> your desk at work to "assert your dominance over your territory"


That keeps snakes away, too.

--
(E-Mail Removed)

smeeter 11 or maybe 12

mp 10

mhm 29x13

I wonder what I have been up to.

< _Beyond Apollo_
 
Reply With Quote
 
dave hillstrom
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-18-2005
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 17:17:30 -0400, mimus <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 17:14:18 -0400, dave hillstrom wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 16:19:40 -0400, smallfoot <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
>>>(E-Mail Removed) says...
>>>> On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 16:06:54 -0400, smallfoot <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
>>>> >(E-Mail Removed) says...
>>>> >> On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 13:38:24 +0100, Mimic <dev@null> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> >>>Like you need a survey to figure that out...
>>>> >>
>>>> >> >> Not when he's pulling figures out of his ass anyway. *sigh* I wish
>>>> >> >> the lurkers supported ME in email, I REALLY do...*snicker*...
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> *Hatter hums to himself*
>>>> >> >> http://www.backwaterxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx...xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> ^_^
>>>> >>
>>>> >> >Looking better, you know what would make that look nice.. extend the
>>>> >> >width to 100%, so you get a "widescreen" effect.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> An interesting idea, I'll test it out, see if I like it. Did you try
>>>> >> moving your mouse on the frog?
>>>> >>
>>>> >> >_____________________
>>>> >> >|////////////////////|
>>>> >> >| |
>>>> >> >| |
>>>> >> >|////////////////////|
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >type effect, also maybe onload the mouseover images at the body.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Actually I'm seriously considering doing the whole thing in Flash. I
>>>> >> keep trying to think of reasons not to, but every time I start
>>>> >> exploring them I just keep running back to where I started.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Flash Downsides
>>>> >> ==========
>>>> >> Some people may not have Flash downloaded...but then if they don't
>>>> >> it's set to redirect them to the Flash download page...
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Some people may have disabled Flash...but the number of people who
>>>> >> have Flash disabled (probably around .001%) is even less than the
>>>> >> number of people who have JavaScript disabled (probably around .01%).
>>>> >>
>>>> >> People using text only browsers won't be able to see the content...but
>>>> >> then they couldn't see it anyway because I use all pictures and I
>>>> >> don't really care about people who pretend to be blind. I mean, BW is
>>>> >> a production company, blind people aren't exactly our target
>>>> >> audience...hence the reason why movie trailer sites are more often
>>>> >> than not all Flash based.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> I figure, if no one in these froups can formulate a halfway coherent
>>>> >> reason that I can't counter for not using Flash...I'm just gonna go
>>>> >> ahead and do the whole thing like that.
>>>> >
>>>> >It doesn't matter what you use, in the long run, since nobody is going
>>>> >to see it after you quit spamming Usenet with the URL.
>>>>
>>>> I'm<SLAP>
>>>
>>>Opinion rejected.

>>
>> that technique has always struck me as childish. its like peeing around
>> your desk at work to "assert your dominance over your territory"

>
>That keeps snakes away, too.


not the kind you find in corporate america.
--
dave hillstrom

this space under construction. donations accepted.

the belgians are thieves.
 
Reply With Quote
 
dave hillstrom
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-18-2005
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 13:46:09 -0700, Onideus Mad Hatter
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 16:38:04 -0400, smallfoot <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
>>(E-Mail Removed) says...
>>> On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 16:19:40 -0400, smallfoot <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>> >In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
>>> >(E-Mail Removed) says...
>>> >> On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 16:06:54 -0400, smallfoot <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> >In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
>>> >> >(E-Mail Removed) says...
>>> >> >> On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 13:38:24 +0100, Mimic <dev@null> wrote:
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> >>>Like you need a survey to figure that out...
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> Not when he's pulling figures out of his ass anyway. *sigh* I wish
>>> >> >> >> the lurkers supported ME in email, I REALLY do...*snicker*...
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> *Hatter hums to himself*
>>> >> >> >> http://www.backwaterxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx...xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> ^_^
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> >Looking better, you know what would make that look nice.. extend the
>>> >> >> >width to 100%, so you get a "widescreen" effect.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> An interesting idea, I'll test it out, see if I like it. Did you try
>>> >> >> moving your mouse on the frog?
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> >_____________________
>>> >> >> >|////////////////////|
>>> >> >> >| |
>>> >> >> >| |
>>> >> >> >|////////////////////|
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >type effect, also maybe onload the mouseover images at the body.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Actually I'm seriously considering doing the whole thing in Flash. I
>>> >> >> keep trying to think of reasons not to, but every time I start
>>> >> >> exploring them I just keep running back to where I started.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Flash Downsides
>>> >> >> ==========
>>> >> >> Some people may not have Flash downloaded...but then if they don't
>>> >> >> it's set to redirect them to the Flash download page...
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Some people may have disabled Flash...but the number of people who
>>> >> >> have Flash disabled (probably around .001%) is even less than the
>>> >> >> number of people who have JavaScript disabled (probably around .01%).
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> I figure, if no one in these froups can formulate a halfway coherent
>>> >> >> reason that I can't counter for not using Flash...I'm just gonna go
>>> >> >> ahead and do the whole thing like that.
>>> >> >
>>> >> >It doesn't matter what you use, in the long run, since nobody is going
>>> >> >to see it after you quit spamming Usenet with the URL.
>>> >>
>>> >> I'm<SLAP>
>>> >
>>> >Opinion rejected.
>>>
>>> What's<SLAP>

>>
>>Query rejected.

>
>Snip and run fan boi, it suits your cowardice. ^_^


next thing you know, hell be post editing.
--
dave hillstrom

this space under construction. donations accepted.

the belgians are thieves.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
how to get rid of crappy characters boneless HTML 9 09-22-2004 05:34 PM
Grammer for crappy HTML. TLOlczyk HTML 4 07-02-2004 11:16 AM
Crappy CDR's? anthonyberet Computer Support 16 05-19-2004 10:17 PM
Suggestion for HTML Editor to get past the crappy IDE one Lloyd Sheen ASP .Net 13 01-25-2004 10:42 PM
My crappy Fuji S2 Pro neville stanikk Digital Photography 8 09-20-2003 08:05 AM



Advertisments