Re: Mattie's crappy sites...

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by smallfoot, Aug 18, 2005.

  1. smallfoot

    smallfoot Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    > On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 16:06:54 -0400, smallfoot <> wrote:
    >
    > >In article <>,
    > > 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.backwaterxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
    > >> >>
    > >> >> ^_^
    > >>
    > >> >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.
     
    smallfoot, Aug 18, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. smallfoot

    smallfoot Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    > On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 16:19:40 -0400, smallfoot <> wrote:
    >
    > >In article <>,
    > > says...
    > >> On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 16:06:54 -0400, smallfoot <> wrote:
    > >>
    > >> >In article <>,
    > >> > 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.backwaterxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
    > >> >> >>
    > >> >> >> ^_^
    > >> >>
    > >> >> >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.
     
    smallfoot, Aug 18, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 16:19:40 -0400, smallfoot <> wrote:

    >In article <>,
    > says...
    >> On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 16:06:54 -0400, smallfoot <> wrote:
    >>
    >> >In article <>,
    >> > 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.backwaterxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
    >> >> >>
    >> >> >> ^_^
    >> >>
    >> >> >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.
     
    dave hillstrom, Aug 18, 2005
    #3
  4. On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 16:38:04 -0400, smallfoot <> wrote:

    >In article <>,
    > says...
    >> On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 16:19:40 -0400, smallfoot <> wrote:
    >>
    >> >In article <>,
    >> > says...
    >> >> On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 16:06:54 -0400, smallfoot <> wrote:
    >> >>
    >> >> >In article <>,
    >> >> > 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.backwaterxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
    >> >> >> >>
    >> >> >> >> ^_^
    >> >> >>
    >> >> >> >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.
     
    dave hillstrom, Aug 18, 2005
    #4
  5. smallfoot

    mimus Guest

    On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 17:14:18 -0400, dave hillstrom wrote:

    > On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 16:19:40 -0400, smallfoot <> wrote:
    >
    >>In article <>,
    >> says...
    >>> On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 16:06:54 -0400, smallfoot <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>> >In article <>,
    >>> > 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.backwaterxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
    >>> >> >>
    >>> >> >> ^_^
    >>> >>
    >>> >> >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.

    --


    smeeter 11 or maybe 12

    mp 10

    mhm 29x13

    I wonder what I have been up to.

    < _Beyond Apollo_
     
    mimus, Aug 18, 2005
    #5
  6. On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 17:17:30 -0400, mimus <>
    wrote:

    >On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 17:14:18 -0400, dave hillstrom wrote:
    >
    >> On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 16:19:40 -0400, smallfoot <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>In article <>,
    >>> says...
    >>>> On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 16:06:54 -0400, smallfoot <> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> >In article <>,
    >>>> > 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.backwaterxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
    >>>> >> >>
    >>>> >> >> ^_^
    >>>> >>
    >>>> >> >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.
     
    dave hillstrom, Aug 18, 2005
    #6
  7. On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 13:46:09 -0700, Onideus Mad Hatter
    <> wrote:

    >On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 16:38:04 -0400, smallfoot <> wrote:
    >
    >>In article <>,
    >> says...
    >>> On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 16:19:40 -0400, smallfoot <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>> >In article <>,
    >>> > says...
    >>> >> On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 16:06:54 -0400, smallfoot <> wrote:
    >>> >>
    >>> >> >In article <>,
    >>> >> > 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.backwaterxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
    >>> >> >> >>
    >>> >> >> >> ^_^
    >>> >> >>
    >>> >> >> >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.
     
    dave hillstrom, Aug 18, 2005
    #7
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. anthonyberet

    Crappy CDR's?

    anthonyberet, May 11, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    16
    Views:
    905
    Fanny Fisher
    May 19, 2004
  2. neville stanikk

    My crappy Fuji S2 Pro

    neville stanikk, Sep 19, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    509
  3. CQ

    HP makes a lot of crappy stuff

    CQ, Oct 8, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    28
    Views:
    628
    George
    Oct 16, 2003
  4. Steven C \(Doktersteve\)

    Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras that use film?

    Steven C \(Doktersteve\), Jan 23, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    22
    Views:
    946
  5. Mike Henley

    what's the sweetest crappy camera you had?

    Mike Henley, May 17, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    25
    Views:
    779
Loading...

Share This Page