Graphic attachments in a test group

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
442 messages Options
123456 ... 23
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Graphic attachments in a test group

defaria
On 08/15/2010 07:40 AM, Jay Garcia wrote:
Yes, understood completely. I just never use the start page feature, always has been "blank page".
I don't use it for any serious browsing either but I set it to Google's news page just incase something interesting is happening...
--
Andrew DeFaria
I'm trying to figure out why kamikaze pilots wore helmets.

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Graphic attachments in a test group

»Q«
In reply to this post by Jay Garcia
In <news:[hidden email]>,
Jay Garcia <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 14.08.2010 19:16, »Q« wrote:
>
> > In <news:[hidden email]>,
> > JoeS <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >> On 8/14/2010 7:26 PM, »Q« wrote:
> >> > Sending the html to a newsgroup is an awful way to "test" web
> >> > pages.
> >>
> >> I think you are forgetting the "learning" aspects of using a
> >> newsgroup.
> >
> > I see no advantages whatsoever over putting it on the web.
> >
> >> Thunderbird renders html and css very close to that of
> >> Firefox. If you want to bat ideas back and forth in realtime, a
> >> newsgroup can be very helpful.
> >
> > Is it *that* much quicker to attach and html file to a news post
> > than it is to upload it to a web server?  And Philip's goal, to
> > which I was responding, was about getting people to test the pages
> > in different browsers;  surely you agree having it on a web server
> > is better for that?
>
> Absolutely but I think Phillip means that we use the group do discuss
> suggestions, put on web site, return to group for more discussion.

I doubt that's what he meant, because he seems so adamant about the
need to post the html to a newsgroup instead of putting it on the web.
What you describe only needs a text-only group, unacceptable to him.

If he wants help the way you describe (which is the way other groups
for html help work) he could just use mozilla.general, but he's looking
for a group where he can post his html.

--
»Q«                                                              /"\
                                    ASCII Ribbon Campaign        \ /
                                     against html e-mail          X
                                 <http://www.asciiribbon.org/>   / \
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Graphic attachments in a test group

Jay Garcia
On 15.08.2010 23:06, »Q« wrote:

 --- Original Message ---

> In <news:[hidden email]>,
> Jay Garcia <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> On 14.08.2010 19:16, »Q« wrote:
>>
>> > In <news:[hidden email]>,
>> > JoeS <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 8/14/2010 7:26 PM, »Q« wrote:
>> >> > Sending the html to a newsgroup is an awful way to "test" web
>> >> > pages.
>> >>
>> >> I think you are forgetting the "learning" aspects of using a
>> >> newsgroup.
>> >
>> > I see no advantages whatsoever over putting it on the web.
>> >
>> >> Thunderbird renders html and css very close to that of
>> >> Firefox. If you want to bat ideas back and forth in realtime, a
>> >> newsgroup can be very helpful.
>> >
>> > Is it *that* much quicker to attach and html file to a news post
>> > than it is to upload it to a web server?  And Philip's goal, to
>> > which I was responding, was about getting people to test the pages
>> > in different browsers;  surely you agree having it on a web server
>> > is better for that?
>>
>> Absolutely but I think Phillip means that we use the group do discuss
>> suggestions, put on web site, return to group for more discussion.
>
> I doubt that's what he meant, because he seems so adamant about the
> need to post the html to a newsgroup instead of putting it on the web.
> What you describe only needs a text-only group, unacceptable to him.
>
> If he wants help the way you describe (which is the way other groups
> for html help work) he could just use mozilla.general, but he's looking
> for a group where he can post his html.
>

Sure, but it's time to hear from Phillip as to his real wants/needs,
etc. Phillip should know that posting html in a newsgroup isn't really
under actual conditions, depending on the code of course.

--
*Jay Garcia - Netscape/Flock Champion*
www.ufaq.org
Netscape - Firefox - SeaMonkey - Flock - Thunderbird

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Graphic attachments in a test group

Mike Easter-2
Jay Garcia wrote:
> »Q« wrote:

>> If he wants help the way you describe (which is the way other groups
>> for html help work) he could just use mozilla.general, but he's looking
>> for a group where he can post his html.
>>
>
> Sure, but it's time to hear from Phillip as to his real wants/needs,
> etc. Phillip should know that posting html in a newsgroup isn't really
> under actual conditions, depending on the code of course.

My sense of it is that there are people who just *luv* html - like the
teenager who /must/ have her scented and colored lavender correspondence
materials and deep purple ink.

She wouldn't be caught dead sending someone a letter on school tablet
paper and she asserts her right to dot her i/s with hearts.

The html/ers must assert their individuality as well, and plaintext
doesn't get it for them, but html does. And, since html can do so much,
they want to do everything they can. If they could put smell-o-vision
into it, they would.

Newsgroups are another way to commiserate with each other, because their
html email correspondents don't like to talk about what you can do with
html.

And then we have the crypto-crowd and the clear signers who have a
different cause.



--
Mike Easter
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Graphic attachments in a test group

defaria
On 08/16/2010 07:01 AM, Mike Easter wrote:
My sense of it is that there are people who just *luv* html - like the teenager who /must/ have her scented and colored lavender correspondence materials and deep purple ink.

She wouldn't be caught dead sending someone a letter on school tablet paper and she asserts her right to dot her i/s with hearts.

The html/ers must assert their individuality as well, and plaintext doesn't get it for them, but html does. And, since html can do so much, they want to do everything they can. If they could put smell-o-vision into it, they would.

Newsgroups are another way to commiserate with each other, because their html email correspondents don't like to talk about what you can do with html.

And then we have the crypto-crowd and the clear signers who have a different cause.
As somebody who uses HTML I must say - I, for one, don't think this way at all!
--
Andrew DeFaria
Dyslexics of the world, UNTIE!

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Graphic attachments in a test group

Mike Easter-2
Andrew DeFaria wrote:

> Mike Easter wrote:
>> My sense of it is that there are people who just *luv* html - like the
>> teenager who /must/ have her scented and colored lavender
>> correspondence materials and deep purple ink.
>>
>> She wouldn't be caught dead sending someone a letter on school tablet
>> paper and she asserts her right to dot her i/s with hearts.
>>
>> The html/ers must assert their individuality as well, and plaintext
>> doesn't get it for them, but html does. And, since html can do so
>> much, they want to do everything they can. If they could put
>> smell-o-vision into it, they would.

> As somebody who uses HTML I must say - I, for one, don't think this way
> at all!

As someone who 'uses HTML' - which I interpret means, not just uses html
on webpages but also uses html in email and newsgroups, you must surely
feel that plaintext is not sufficiently _expressive_ to your taste (for
communicating in email and newsgroups).

--
Mike Easter
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Graphic attachments in a test group

defaria
On 08/16/2010 07:23 AM, Mike Easter wrote:
Andrew DeFaria wrote:
Mike Easter wrote:
My sense of it is that there are people who just *luv* html - like the teenager who /must/ have her scented and colored lavender correspondence materials and deep purple ink.

She wouldn't be caught dead sending someone a letter on school tablet paper and she asserts her right to dot her i/s with hearts.

The html/ers must assert their individuality as well, and plaintext doesn't get it for them, but html does. And, since html can do so much, they want to do everything they can. If they could put smell-o-vision into it, they would.

As somebody who uses HTML I must say - I, for one, don't think this way at all!

As someone who 'uses HTML' - which I interpret means, not just uses html on webpages but also uses html in email and newsgroups, you must surely feel that plaintext is not sufficiently _expressive_ to your taste (for communicating in email and newsgroups).
Thank you for once again telling me what I think! I had no idea I actually thought that way!

Did you not type those underbars in your plain text message to make your message supposedly more expressive? Pot, kettle, black!

What I was saying, and you obviously missed because after all you obviously know what I mean better than I, is that I don't feel I must have HTML like I feel the need to "have scented and colored lavender correspondence materials and deep purple ink" - truth is I don't even have "correspondence materials" nor purple ink pens - I use whatever paper and pens are available - period. Similarly I wouldn't think one bit to use the school tablet paper nor do I dot my I's with hearts. And I most assuredly do not use HTML to "do everything it can" and challenge you to show me where I have even once attempted to do so.

IOW for about every description that you used to describe what you believe somebody like me thinks you have failed on each and every one in my case. That's what I was saying and that's what you deliberately fail to acknowledge and have disingenuously and deliberately changed to a red herring simply by asserting that you know better than me what I think. Poppy cock! Pure poppy cock!
--
Andrew DeFaria
A musicologist is a man who can read music but can't hear it. - Sir Thomas Beecham (1879 - 1961)

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Graphic attachments in a test group

Mike Easter-2
Andrew DeFaria wrote:

>>> As somebody who uses HTML I must say - I, for one, don't think this
>>> way at all!

You posted that sentence at the bottom of my description of a teenage
girl's choice of writing materials, and also my characterization of
html/ers, and also my remark about crypto-persons clearsigning.

If you say 'I don't think this way' right after you ambiguously refer to
some undefined use of html, then I am left to interpret what 'thinking'
you mean since you didn't state unambiguously what you meant.

If you don't want people to have to interpret the meaning of what you
say, you should clearly say what you mean in an unambiguous way.

So, then I interpreted what your 'uses HTML' meant and said so.

I didn't realize that you were instead contrasting your need for
expression with that of the teenage girl with lavender colored and
scented paper and purple ink and heart shaped dots on her i/s.

> Thank you for once again telling me what I think!

No where in my remarks did I mention what you think - I was referring to
what you *said* - which you said ambiguously.


--
Mike Easter
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Graphic attachments in a test group

PhillipJones
In reply to this post by Jay Garcia
Jay Garcia wrote:

> On 15.08.2010 23:06, »Q« wrote:
>
>   --- Original Message ---
>
>> In<news:[hidden email]>,
>> Jay Garcia<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>>
>>> On 14.08.2010 19:16, »Q« wrote:
>>>
>>>> In<news:[hidden email]>,
>>>> JoeS<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 8/14/2010 7:26 PM, »Q« wrote:
>>>>>> Sending the html to a newsgroup is an awful way to "test" web
>>>>>> pages.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think you are forgetting the "learning" aspects of using a
>>>>> newsgroup.
>>>>
>>>> I see no advantages whatsoever over putting it on the web.
>>>>
>>>>> Thunderbird renders html and css very close to that of
>>>>> Firefox. If you want to bat ideas back and forth in realtime, a
>>>>> newsgroup can be very helpful.
>>>>
>>>> Is it *that* much quicker to attach and html file to a news post
>>>> than it is to upload it to a web server?  And Philip's goal, to
>>>> which I was responding, was about getting people to test the pages
>>>> in different browsers;  surely you agree having it on a web server
>>>> is better for that?
>>>
>>> Absolutely but I think Phillip means that we use the group do discuss
>>> suggestions, put on web site, return to group for more discussion.
>>
>> I doubt that's what he meant, because he seems so adamant about the
>> need to post the html to a newsgroup instead of putting it on the web.
>> What you describe only needs a text-only group, unacceptable to him.
>>
>> If he wants help the way you describe (which is the way other groups
>> for html help work) he could just use mozilla.general, but he's looking
>> for a group where he can post his html.
>>
>
> Sure, but it's time to hear from Phillip as to his real wants/needs,
> etc. Phillip should know that posting html in a newsgroup isn't really
> under actual conditions, depending on the code of course.
>
I've given up trying to explain. I wanted a group that worked like NTTM
and MTTM (before it was killed by Chris in that form).

The group you could  send small pieces of html code try try some you
might put on a website. then have others see how it works suggest
change. Or use a Group to discuss matters between ourselves we could use
HTML or plaintext. WE could post Pictures, Streamed video.  A catch all
if you will. We are not talking about designing an entire website and
posting on nntp.

People have their minds made up, and all the explaining I could do,
wouldn't make any difference. They are still going to make fun and
deride the suggestion, thinking I am a dumb a**.  You can't talk to
closed minds.
--
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T.        "If it's Fixed, Don't Break it"
http://www.phillipmjones.net        mailto:[hidden email]

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Graphic attachments in a test group

PhillipJones
In reply to this post by Mike Easter-2
Mike Easter wrote:

> Jay Garcia wrote:
>> »Q« wrote:
>
>>> If he wants help the way you describe (which is the way other groups
>>> for html help work) he could just use mozilla.general, but he's looking
>>> for a group where he can post his html.
>>>
>>
>> Sure, but it's time to hear from Phillip as to his real wants/needs,
>> etc. Phillip should know that posting html in a newsgroup isn't really
>> under actual conditions, depending on the code of course.
>
> My sense of it is that there are people who just *luv* html - like the
> teenager who /must/ have her scented and colored lavender correspondence
> materials and deep purple ink.
>
> She wouldn't be caught dead sending someone a letter on school tablet
> paper and she asserts her right to dot her i/s with hearts.
>
> The html/ers must assert their individuality as well, and plaintext
> doesn't get it for them, but html does. And, since html can do so much,
> they want to do everything they can. If they could put smell-o-vision
> into it, they would.
>
> Newsgroups are another way to commiserate with each other, because their
> html email correspondents don't like to talk about what you can do with
> html.
>
> And then we have the crypto-crowd and the clear signers who have a
> different cause.
>
>
>
See Jay see what I am saying. Yes I Prefer HTML I would prefer it in
email or NNTP but not for Mike's silly  writings. I can read HTML
better.  Plain text is difficult for me to read.  Gives me a headache it
I try to read it for very long.

If everyone notices most of the post, here I post in this group are
Plain Text unless I am doing a specific test as a response to a question.

--
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T.        "If it's Fixed, Don't Break it"
http://www.phillipmjones.net        mailto:[hidden email]

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Graphic attachments in a test group

Mike Easter-2
Phillip Jones wrote:

> I can read HTML
> better.  Plain text is difficult for me to read.  Gives me a headache it
> I try to read it for very long.

You should/could make your plaintext fonts bigger or clearer or whatever
you need to do to enhance the legibility. That is one of the important
features of plaintext as contrasted with html. The reader controls the
font face and size, not the html artist/poster/emailer.

It is easier to have a consistently legible font face/family and size
when you read in plaintext than when you read in html.

> If everyone notices most of the post, here I post in this group are
> Plain Text unless I am doing a specific test as a response to a question.



--
Mike Easter
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Graphic attachments in a test group

»Q«
In reply to this post by Jay Garcia
In <news:[hidden email]>,
Jay Garcia <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 15.08.2010 23:06, »Q« wrote:
>
> > In <news:[hidden email]>,
> > Jay Garcia <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >  
> >> On 14.08.2010 19:16, »Q« wrote:
> >>  
> >> > In <news:[hidden email]>,
> >> > JoeS <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >> >  
> >> >> On 8/14/2010 7:26 PM, »Q« wrote:  
> >> >> > Sending the html to a newsgroup is an awful way to "test" web
> >> >> > pages.  
> >> >>
> >> >> I think you are forgetting the "learning" aspects of using a
> >> >> newsgroup.  
> >> >
> >> > I see no advantages whatsoever over putting it on the web.
> >> >  
> >> >> Thunderbird renders html and css very close to that of
> >> >> Firefox. If you want to bat ideas back and forth in realtime, a
> >> >> newsgroup can be very helpful.  
> >> >
> >> > Is it *that* much quicker to attach and html file to a news post
> >> > than it is to upload it to a web server?  And Philip's goal, to
> >> > which I was responding, was about getting people to test the
> >> > pages in different browsers;  surely you agree having it on a
> >> > web server is better for that?  
> >>
> >> Absolutely but I think Phillip means that we use the group do
> >> discuss suggestions, put on web site, return to group for more
> >> discussion.  
> >
> > I doubt that's what he meant, because he seems so adamant about the
> > need to post the html to a newsgroup instead of putting it on the
> > web. What you describe only needs a text-only group, unacceptable
> > to him.
> >
> > If he wants help the way you describe (which is the way other groups
> > for html help work) he could just use mozilla.general, but he's
> > looking for a group where he can post his html.
>
> Sure, but it's time to hear from Phillip as to his real wants/needs,
> etc.

He's just clarified that he wants a place to post html (and/or pretty
much anything else), which is exactly what he's been saying all along.
I don't see any reason to imagine that's not what he really wants.

> Phillip should know that posting html in a newsgroup isn't really
> under actual conditions, depending on the code of course.

ITYM "isn't really necessary".  I think you and I agree, but take a
shot at convincing Phillip.  ;)

--
»Q«                                                              /"\
                                    ASCII Ribbon Campaign        \ /
                                     against html e-mail          X
                                 <http://www.asciiribbon.org/>   / \
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Graphic attachments in a test group

Joy Beeson
In reply to this post by PhillipJones
On Mon, 16 Aug 2010 14:03:08 -0400, Phillip Jones
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> Plain text is difficult for me to read.  Gives me a headache it
> I try to read it for very long.

I have the same problem with HTML,  because the fonts, font-sizes, and
line widths chosen by the sender never suit my floaters, presbyopia,
etc.  

Precisely what is it about plain text that gives you a headache?  

--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Graphic attachments in a test group

PhillipJones
Joy Beeson wrote:

> On Mon, 16 Aug 2010 14:03:08 -0400, Phillip Jones
> <[hidden email]>  wrote:
>
>> Plain text is difficult for me to read.  Gives me a headache it
>> I try to read it for very long.
>
> I have the same problem with HTML,  because the fonts, font-sizes, and
> line widths chosen by the sender never suit my floaters, presbyopia,
> etc.
>
> Precisely what is it about plain text that gives you a headache?
>
partly the background of using white (I've mitigated that by using a
pale yellow) but then the mono-spacing. I too have a an eye problem an
astigmatism in one eye.  the letters run together and using None in
minimum size for appearance > Fonts.  Unless people use small font size,
HTML is easier on my eyes.

--
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T.        "If it's Fixed, Don't Break it"
http://www.phillipmjones.net        mailto:[hidden email]
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Graphic attachments in a test group

Jay Garcia
In reply to this post by »Q«
On 16.08.2010 22:07, »Q« wrote:

 --- Original Message ---

> ITYM "isn't really necessary".  I think you and I agree, but take a
> shot at convincing Phillip.  ;)

Phil is more stubborn than you and I put together ... :-D

--
*Jay Garcia - Netscape/Flock Champion*
www.ufaq.org
Netscape - Firefox - SeaMonkey - Flock - Thunderbird

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Graphic attachments in a test group

defaria
In reply to this post by Joy Beeson
On 08/16/2010 08:41 PM, Joy Beeson wrote:
On Mon, 16 Aug 2010 14:03:08 -0400, Phillip Jones [hidden email] wrote:
Plain text is difficult for me to read. Gives me a headache it I try to read it for very long.
I have the same problem with HTML, because the fonts, font-sizes, and line widths chosen by the sender never suit my floaters, presbyopia, etc. Precisely what is it about plain text that gives you a headache?
So then why don't you use the View: Message Body As: Plaintext. Wait - let me guess - because you don't actually use TB. Why then are you here?
--
Andrew DeFaria
Success always occurs in private, and failure in full view.

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Graphic attachments in a test group

Hartmut Figge
In reply to this post by PhillipJones
Phillip Jones:
>Joy Beeson wrote:

>> Precisely what is it about plain text that gives you a headache?
>>
>partly the background of using white (I've mitigated that by using a
>pale yellow) but then the mono-spacing. I too have a an eye problem an
>astigmatism in one eye.  the letters run together and using None in
>minimum size for appearance > Fonts.  Unless people use small font size,
>HTML is easier on my eyes.

You are not forced to use mono-spacing with plain text. Here is a test
reading your posting with arial.

http://www.triffids.de/pub/screenshot/fo100817.png (5 KB)

Of course there are disadvantages using proportional, e.g. underlining
will not fit. But i doubt that underling in HTML will fit be better. ;)

Hartmut
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Graphic attachments in a test group

Beauregard T. Shagnasty
In reply to this post by PhillipJones
Phillip Jones wrote:

> Joy Beeson wrote:
>> Phillip Jones wrote:
>>> Plain text is difficult for me to read.  Gives me a headache it I
>>> try to read it for very long.
>>
>> I have the same problem with HTML,  because the fonts, font-sizes,
>> and line widths chosen by the sender never suit my floaters,
>> presbyopia, etc.
>>
>> Precisely what is it about plain text that gives you a headache?
>>
> partly the background of using white (I've mitigated that by using a
> pale yellow) but then the mono-spacing. I too have a an eye problem
> an astigmatism in one eye.  the letters run together and using None
> in minimum size for appearance > Fonts.  Unless people use small font
> size, HTML is easier on my eyes.

So why don't you set your own newsreader Preferences to use a yellow
background and the font of your choice? Don't like mono-space? Set a
proportional font of your favorite style and size. Read in Plain Text.

Don't do what Defaria does, expending a hundred lines of CSS in his
posts to say merely:
  background: black;
  color: white;
  font-family: courier;
and a small font size. He uses all this HTML/CSS, and never does
anything beyond the default styling, thus wasting resources.

One does not need to use HTML for their *own* viewing pleasure. Keep
your selections to yourself instead of inflicting them on everyone else
as well.

--
   -bts
   -Four wheels carry the body; two wheels move the soul
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Graphic attachments in a test group

defaria
On 08/17/2010 06:18 AM, Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
So why don't you set your own newsreader Preferences to use a yellow
background and the font of your choice? Don't like mono-space? Set a
proportional font of your favorite style and size. Read in Plain Text.

Don't do what Defaria does, expending a hundred lines of CSS
What's a few '\n' between friends? Can you really sense the pica seconds of time wasted in transmitting a few extra '\n'??? Come on!
 in his
posts to say merely:
  background:		black;
  color:		white;
  font-family:		courier;
and a small font size. He uses all this HTML/CSS, and never does
anything beyond the default styling, thus wasting resources.
Oh this is rich. Ya know you can't have it both ways. Trying to do so just shows how bankrupt your argument is. You cannot argue that people who post HTML use silly little font settings and odd color schemes and then in the next breath say that I include this stuff but don't use silly little font stylings and colors!!! Doing that simply says that you wish to argue with me and here are not the real reasons why I argue.
One does not need to use HTML for their *own* viewing pleasure. Keep
your selections to yourself instead of inflicting them on everyone else
as well.
And how exactly are you not inflicting your selections on us? It is a two way street and I'm sure you'll argue (until you're blue in the face mind you) that your way is indeed superior and that's why you inflict it on others but really your's is one way and other people have different ways and you are merely intolerant of. And I'm sure you'll never admit to or recognize that.
--
Andrew DeFaria
I was thinking about how people seem to read the Bible a whole lot more as they get older, then it dawned on me . .they were cramming for their finals..

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Graphic attachments in a test group

Beauregard T. Shagnasty
Andrew DeFaria wrote:

> On 08/17/2010 06:18 AM, Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
>    So why don't you set your own newsreader Preferences to use a yellow
>    background and the font of your choice? Don't like mono-space? Set a
>    proportional font of your favorite style and size. Read in Plain Text.
>    Don't do what Defaria does, expending a hundred lines of CSS
> What's a few '\n' between friends? Can you really sense the pica seconds of time
> wasted in transmitting a few extra '\n'??? Come on!
>     in his
>    posts to say merely:
>      background:  black;
>      color:  white;
>      font-family:  courier;
>    and a small font size. He uses all this HTML/CSS, and never does
>    anything beyond the default styling, thus wasting resources.
> Oh this is rich. Ya know you can't have it both ways. Trying to do so just shows how
> bankrupt your argument is. You cannot argue that people who post HTML use silly
> little font settings and odd color schemes and then in the next breath say that I
> include this stuff but don't use silly little font stylings and colors!!! Doing that simply
> says that you wish to argue with me and here are not the real reasons why I argue.
>    One does not need to use HTML for their *own* viewing pleasure. Keep
>    your selections to yourself instead of inflicting them on everyone else
>    as well.
> And how exactly are you not inflicting your selections on us? It is a two way street
> and I'm sure you'll argue (until you're blue in the face mind you) that your way is
> indeed superior and that's why you inflict it on others but really your's is one way and
> other people have different ways and you are merely intolerant of. And I'm sure you'll
> never admit to or recognize that.

I've left the quoted material unaltered. Do you see the proper depth of
quotemarks in there?  My quoted content should have ">>" but doesn't
because your HTML post didn't insert any.

I am not inflicting anything on you, as my posts contain only Plain
Text.

You used 157 lines to post in an abnormal manner for News. And 119 lines
for four lines of content to wish me happy birthday!  (But thanks for
that.)

--
   -bts
   -Today is the Big Six-Nine!
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
123456 ... 23