Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > HTML > Oh Mr. Miller kind sir

Reply
Thread Tools

Oh Mr. Miller kind sir

 
 
richard
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-28-2013
On Mon, 27 May 2013 22:18:42 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller wrote:

> richard <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
> news:ubebv4oflxeg.fh0z1ijqz0be$(E-Mail Removed):
>
>> On Mon, 27 May 2013 13:03:10 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller wrote:
>>
>>> richard <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>>> news:rr3kr3szg57i$.14liqqdmm5hx2$.dlg@ 40tude.net:
>>>
>>>> www.mroldies.net/test3.html
>>>>
>>>> Could you kindly explain how's come this page does NOT
>>>> validate now?
>>>
>>> The output of the validator explains pretty clearly why it
>>> doesn't validate.
>>>
>>>> According to you, and Jerry Stuckle, it is supposed to be
>>>> <script />.
>>>
>>> No, it is *not* "supposed to be <script />" -- and I never said
>>> that. I have no idea what Stuckle might have said, since I've
>>> had him killfiled for a year or so.
>>>
>>>> However, when I include the /, the validator chucks out 2
>>>> errors.
>>>
>>> Yes, it does -- along with the explanations of *why* they are
>>> errors.
>>>>
>>>> 1)
>>>> putting text directly in the body of the document without
>>>> wrapping it
>>>> in a container element [...]
>>>
>>> That's because this line
>>>
>>> jwplayer.key="NIVuLjgvvzyNMt01wZFisaXc1W0uST73rr9H 8g==";
>>>
>>> isn't inside <script> ... </script> tags.
>>>>
>>>> 2)
>>>> Line 13, Column 9: end tag for element "script" which is not
>>>> open
>>>
>>> That's because you opened and closed <script ... /> in the same
>>> tag, then closed </script> again.
>>>>
>>>> Now come on dougie boy, give me your excuse as to why you were
>>>> so hell bent on proving me wrong that you just got your ass
>>>> slapped big time.
>>>
>>> First, I never made the statement that you attributed to me.
>>> Second, the reason your page doesn't validate is -- as usual --
>>> you don't know how to write valid HTML.
>>>>
>>>> I don't want to hear your BS like, "Oh I was just pointing out
>>>> that you are RtS and don't know jack ****.".
>>>
>>> That's still a valid observation, RtS.

>>
>> Just as I figured.
>> When you get called on your BS, you suddenly back down and claim
>> you never said it.

>
> So now we need to call you "Richard the Liar" as well as "Richard
> the Stupid."
>
> I NEVER SAID THAT. You claim I did -- so prove it. Or apologize.
>>
>> I knew beforehand the page would not validate with the "/".

>
> I never claimed it would, Richard the Liar.


Of course not.
You implied that one had a "src" while the other did not.
"src" is optional, it is not mandatory.
You asked what were the differences.
I said none and that IS correct.
As you had left out the part where there was script properly wrapped as
required.

You're just a smartass shithead who just has to take pot shots at those who
are less educated.
In your insane world that is.

Sieg Heil, meinen fuhrer!
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Doug Miller
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-28-2013
richard <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in newsy44cgpeh9lq.1i3hmokocbvt2.dlg@
40tude.net:

> On Mon, 27 May 2013 22:18:42 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller wrote:
>
>> richard <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>> news:ubebv4oflxeg.fh0z1ijqz0be$(E-Mail Removed):
>>
>>> On Mon, 27 May 2013 13:03:10 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller wrote:
>>>
>>>> richard <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>>>> news:rr3kr3szg57i$.14liqqdmm5hx2$.dlg@ 40tude.net:
>>>>
>>>>> www.mroldies.net/test3.html
>>>>>
>>>>> Could you kindly explain how's come this page does NOT
>>>>> validate now?
>>>>
>>>> The output of the validator explains pretty clearly why it
>>>> doesn't validate.
>>>>
>>>>> According to you, and Jerry Stuckle, it is supposed to be
>>>>> <script />.
>>>>
>>>> No, it is *not* "supposed to be <script />" -- and I never said
>>>> that. I have no idea what Stuckle might have said, since I've
>>>> had him killfiled for a year or so.
>>>>
>>>>> However, when I include the /, the validator chucks out 2
>>>>> errors.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, it does -- along with the explanations of *why* they are
>>>> errors.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1)
>>>>> putting text directly in the body of the document without
>>>>> wrapping it
>>>>> in a container element [...]
>>>>
>>>> That's because this line
>>>>
>>>> jwplayer.key="NIVuLjgvvzyNMt01wZFisaXc1W0uST73rr9H 8g==";
>>>>
>>>> isn't inside <script> ... </script> tags.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2)
>>>>> Line 13, Column 9: end tag for element "script" which is not
>>>>> open
>>>>
>>>> That's because you opened and closed <script ... /> in the same
>>>> tag, then closed </script> again.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now come on dougie boy, give me your excuse as to why you were
>>>>> so hell bent on proving me wrong that you just got your ass
>>>>> slapped big time.
>>>>
>>>> First, I never made the statement that you attributed to me.
>>>> Second, the reason your page doesn't validate is -- as usual --
>>>> you don't know how to write valid HTML.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't want to hear your BS like, "Oh I was just pointing out
>>>>> that you are RtS and don't know jack ****.".
>>>>
>>>> That's still a valid observation, RtS.
>>>
>>> Just as I figured.
>>> When you get called on your BS, you suddenly back down and claim
>>> you never said it.

>>
>> So now we need to call you "Richard the Liar" as well as "Richard
>> the Stupid."
>>
>> I NEVER SAID THAT. You claim I did -- so prove it. Or apologize.


I'm still waiting for your apology, Richard the Liar.
>>>
>>> I knew beforehand the page would not validate with the "/".

>>
>> I never claimed it would, Richard the Liar.

>
> Of course not.
> You implied that one had a "src" while the other did not.


I implied nothing of the kind, Richard the Liar.

> "src" is optional, it is not mandatory.


I never claimed it was mandatory, Richard the Liar.

> You asked what were the differences.
> I said none and that IS correct.


That is NOT correct, Richard the Liar. There IS a difference, and you STILL haven't figured
out what it is.

Not an *important* difference, to be sure -- but the fact that you don't see *any* difference is
part of your problem: you can't even proofread, Richard the Stupid.

> As you had left out the part where there was script properly wrapped as
> required.


I included all the parts that were relevant to the difference I wanted to point out, Richard the
Stupid.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Denis McMahon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-28-2013
On Tue, 28 May 2013 10:38:50 +0000, Doug Miller wrote:

>> As you had left out the part where there was script properly wrapped as
>> required.

>
> I included all the parts that were relevant to the difference I wanted
> to point out, Richard the Stupid.


Doug, I stated what the difference was in the second post in the thread,
he still hasn't noticed it.

--
Denis McMahon, http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)
 
Reply With Quote
 
Doug Miller
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-28-2013
Denis McMahon <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in news:ko2hdr$qpq$2@dont-
email.me:

> On Tue, 28 May 2013 10:38:50 +0000, Doug Miller wrote:
>
>>> As you had left out the part where there was script properly wrapped as
>>> required.

>>
>> I included all the parts that were relevant to the difference I wanted
>> to point out, Richard the Stupid.

>
> Doug, I stated what the difference was in the second post in the thread,
> he still hasn't noticed it.
>

.... which of course is further evidence that his nickname is well-deserved indeed.

I first encountered RtS in alt.html about three years ago, and at first I thought that other
posters were being unduly harsh in applying that moniker. After a few months of observing
his inability to learn either from experience or from instruction, and his belligerent and
truculent attitude toward those whom he's asking for help, I decided the name was, if
anything, unduly gentle.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Lewis
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-29-2013
In message <rr3kr3szg57i$.14liqqdmm5hx2$(E-Mail Removed)>
richard <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> www.mroldies.net/test3.html


> Could you kindly explain how's come this page does NOT validate now?
> According to you, and Jerry Stuckle, it is supposed to be <script />.


No one ever said that.

--
Never age. Never die. Live for ever in that one last white-hot moment,
when the crowd screamed. When every note was a heartbeat. Burn across
the sky. You will never grow old. They will never say you died. --Soul
Music
 
Reply With Quote
 
Evan Platt
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-29-2013
On Tue, 28 May 2013 17:44:01 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>... which of course is further evidence that his nickname is well-deserved indeed.
>
>I first encountered RtS in alt.html about three years ago, and at first I thought that other
>posters were being unduly harsh in applying that moniker. After a few months of observing
>his inability to learn either from experience or from instruction, and his belligerent and
>truculent attitude toward those whom he's asking for help, I decided the name was, if
>anything, unduly gentle.


Want a good laugh? He spammed another group with his mroldies site.

I called him on it (he used a fake alias).

His reply:

"You see Evan dear, that little old site of mine is hand written by
ME!,
The scroll bar is my script. Because I didn't like the JW player's
flash
scroll. And I have set it up so that I can pull videos from
practically any
source including my own site."
--
To reply via e-mail, remove The Obvious and .invalid from my e-mail address.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Doug Miller
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-29-2013
Doug Miller <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:XnsA1CE4440DCB35dougmilmaccom@78.46.70.116:

> richard <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in newsy44cgpeh9lq.1i3hmokocbvt2.dlg@
> 40tude.net:
>
>> On Mon, 27 May 2013 22:18:42 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller wrote:
>>
>>> richard <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>>> news:ubebv4oflxeg.fh0z1ijqz0be$(E-Mail Removed):
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 27 May 2013 13:03:10 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> richard <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>>>>> news:rr3kr3szg57i$.14liqqdmm5hx2$.dlg@ 40tude.net:
>>>>>
>>>>>> According to you, and Jerry Stuckle, it is supposed to be
>>>>>> <script />.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, it is *not* "supposed to be <script />" -- and I never said
>>>>> that.


I'm still waiting for your apology, Richard the Liar.
 
Reply With Quote
 
richard
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-29-2013
On Tue, 28 May 2013 21:23:50 -0700, Evan Platt wrote:

> On Tue, 28 May 2013 17:44:01 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>... which of course is further evidence that his nickname is well-deserved indeed.
>>
>>I first encountered RtS in alt.html about three years ago, and at first I thought that other
>>posters were being unduly harsh in applying that moniker. After a few months of observing
>>his inability to learn either from experience or from instruction, and his belligerent and
>>truculent attitude toward those whom he's asking for help, I decided the name was, if
>>anything, unduly gentle.

>
> Want a good laugh? He spammed another group with his mroldies site.


gee, thanks for spamming for me.
I have posted the site here many times,asswipe.
under "richard".


>
> I called him on it (he used a fake alias).
>
> His reply:
>
> "You see Evan dear, that little old site of mine is hand written by
> ME!,
> The scroll bar is my script. Because I didn't like the JW player's
> flash
> scroll. And I have set it up so that I can pull videos from
> practically any
> source including my own site."


oh brother.
what an ass you are evan.
I posted that in the other group under THIS very same nick and you say I
made up a fake name to post with?
barf!

If you would kindly check out the JW player at longtailvideo.com, you will
find that the player script is easily changed to handle sources outside of
youtube, vimeo and even dailymail or any other video site.
As the vast majority of other players limit you to.

When you open my site, the very first video shown is from MY site.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCspiH5zIhI

www.mroldies.net/videos/1960/1960-001.flv

Now what's the difference between the youtube version and my site's?
There is no YOUTUBE logo on it.

 
Reply With Quote
 
richard
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-29-2013
On Wed, 29 May 2013 03:31:03 +0000 (UTC), Lewis wrote:

> In message <rr3kr3szg57i$.14liqqdmm5hx2$(E-Mail Removed)>
> richard <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> www.mroldies.net/test3.html

>
>> Could you kindly explain how's come this page does NOT validate now?
>> According to you, and Jerry Stuckle, it is supposed to be <script />.

>
> No one ever said that.


then what did he say?
As I pointed out, validation does not happen with the <script/> when there
is script within the wrappers.
 
Reply With Quote
 
dorayme
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-29-2013
> >>... which of course is further evidence that his nickname is well-deserved
....
> > Want a good laugh

....
> I have posted the site here many times,asswipe.
> under "richard".

....
> > I called him on it (he used a fake alias).
> >

....
> oh brother.
> what an ass you are evan.
> ...
> made up a fake name to post with?
> barf!
>


When Richard posts, the gang that chase him around always pop up, the
various individuals joining up as each emerges from different streets.
Bit like some of those zany movies and cartoons that we would see at
the flicks on Saturday matinees.

--
dorayme
 
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
Hooray! Barney Miller is shipping Stan Brown DVD Video 4 01-24-2004 05:45 PM
Barney Miller: Season DVD Set Review @ GENRE ONLINE.NET! Writer R5 DVD Video 0 01-09-2004 03:45 AM
MR. Miller please reply Bryan Computer Support 25 10-14-2003 09:48 PM
DVD Verdict reviews: SCORCHER, DENNIS MILLER: THE RAW FEED, and more! DVD Verdict DVD Video 0 10-02-2003 09:02 AM
New Dennis Miller release Dr. Shavers DVD Video 13 09-15-2003 05:12 AM



Advertisments