My messy stylesheets just ain't got no style....

On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 00:50:09 GMT, tina (AT) greytower (DOT) net (Tina Holmboe)
wrote:

"William Tasso" <news27 (AT) tbdata (DOT) com> exclaimed in <blsopc$fudpf$1 (AT) id-139074 (DOT) news.uni-berlin.de>:

Tina Holmboe wrote:
...
It's a shame that too many parents see the TV, or the Internet, as a
babysitter and let people like Herbert loose on us.

not sure if it's what you intended, but that gets a good belly laugh here
/bg

If I can manage to amuse my fellow human beans; so much the better. After
all, those who do laugh at the above might be Good Guys, and since a good
laugh is supposed to help you live longer we'll simply win in the end out
of sheer tenacity ...

Like several others, Tina makes high-handed spiteful comments without
explaining in particular why, and offers no other contribution.

The intent to dominate and humiliate and dismiss people 'not up to
scratch' on this NG appears casual and habitual.

Quote from this thread (not too selectively) where I failed to thank
respondents who actually addressed the aspect I asked about.

I think you'll find that because of one typo 'color=', and because I
named one class 'subheading' - when it could have been 'peguin' or
'irrelevant' - and had the temerity to include 'Verdana', I got a lot
of arrogant aggro.

When someone says 'do this, don't do that', as though their word is
law, they need to understand that this is confrontational, and not go
blubbing or get snotty when they are answered back without the respect
to which they evidently feel is their appointed due.

Your problem is having someone answer back, and unable to engage in
rational discourse, you make cheap, glib insults.

I think it's you who haven't left the junior playground.

More spiteful dross, all allusion, no evidence.

On Mon, 6 Oct 2003 20:36:52 +0100, Andy Mabbett
<usenet200309 (AT) pigsonthewing (DOT) org.uk> wrote:

In message <mh82ovshgvg8o6k3ckhau6s1s6n1g6v9ss (AT) 4ax (DOT) com>, Herbert
doughnut (AT) email (DOT) me.ok> writes
On Sun, 5 Oct 2003 23:10:32 +0100, Andy Mabbett
usenet200309 (AT) pigsonthewing (DOT) org.uk> wrote:

In message <lid0ov433g0cvj7ovdj2hfo480r77dc4vh (AT) 4ax (DOT) com>, Herbert
doughnut (AT) email (DOT) me.ok> writes

I'm 100% open to advice.

Liar.

Oooh. "Too thick" "Liar"...

No. I called you a liar; because you plainly are. I made no comment
whatsoever about the "width" of your intellect. Still, if the cap
fits...

'Plainly'? Andy still won't justify this aspersion.
I didn't say you did. 'Thick' was from one of your peers.

the Lords of CIWAS reveal their colors (#000000).

yawn
Look, you're tired. Why not take a nap.

Quote me where someone gave me advice, as distinct from high-handed
admonition (i.e. no clue as to 'why'),

You could start with the first response to your initial query, in this
thread.
Ok, let's run through it again for the terminally slow on the uptake:

there was no advice, just admonition without explanation (upon
something off-topic and in fact significantly subjective).

particularly where it pertained to my actual original query, and I
failed to thank them for it.

We were debating your fallacious claim to be open to advice, not whether
you said than k you.

No, this isn't a debate, this is just a series of unsubstantiated
allegations.

You're just being thoughtlessly petty and spiteful.

Liar.
Well, I'll let the above reveal the further fatuity of that one.

I find people like you amusing, but pathetic.

Your loss.
Aha? Can't for the life of me imagine how. I'm trying to avoid

conceit, not invite it.

On Mon, 6 Oct 2003 20:38:01 +0100, Andy Mabbett
<usenet200309 (AT) pigsonthewing (DOT) org.uk> wrote:

In message <5u72ov89n1c5okcoetn7001dpjecvrp0f9 (AT) 4ax (DOT) com>, Herbert
doughnut (AT) email (DOT) me.ok> writes

[...]

(neither do I have any grudge against jews).

So why mention them?

You predictably dull witted idle grunt.

To quote from the link I posted (which you snipped from your
response):

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=berk

Third definition: "Berk - a stupid jew".

You see, when you hinted to me that I didn't know something, I
listened, investigated, learned, and admitted my ignorance.

I provide you with a similar hint, _and_ the URL to review, but you're
too full of yourself to follow it. You can lead a horse, etc...

Which demonstrates (as if the point needed making) for all to see that
it is you who is the "liar", not me, about my being willing to learn.

On Mon, 6 Oct 2003 20:38:48 +0100, Andy Mabbett
<usenet200309 (AT) pigsonthewing (DOT) org.uk> wrote:

In message <c382ov4nakcbvan60lojr9mugmgaqmkv84 (AT) 4ax (DOT) com>, Herbert
doughnut (AT) email (DOT) me.ok> writes

However, Captain Brian completely ignored my actual question

I suggest you demand a refund.

More gratuitous cynical spite. You're drowning in bile.

The Captain indulged himself, strutting onto the stage to declaim an
attempted few scene-stealing lines, expoiting my naivity as an
opportunity to enjoy ticking me off for my ignorance, and completely
ignoring my actual query.

Well, I got plenty ticked off, and thus far, have 0 reason to respect
Brian, and even less so, you.

On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 09:50:45 -0500, kchayka <kcha-un-yka (AT) sihope (DOT) com>
wrote:

Herbert wrote:

In any case, I think one should aim to match the look of one's page to
the default settings.

Assuming you are referring to the out-of-the-box vendor settings, if I
followed your advice I probably wouldn't be able to read my own web pages.

Good grief! Really? I'm so sorry to hear that.

I can't imagine how you've managed it. If you provide some URLs, I
may be able to help - though I'm afraid you may get a lot of sneering
from the perfect ones in this NG.

On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 11:21:33 GMT, "Jonathan Snook"
<goto_www.snook.ca (AT) snook (DOT) ca> wrote:

"Stephen Poley" <sbpoleySpicedHamTrap (AT) xs4all (DOT) nl> wrote in message
news:fs72ovods2l4km3iihpaea1co8jhcj6ch6 (AT) 4ax (DOT) com...
That's a pretty bizarre response. You stated that using a font-size of
100% looked like "infant's text books" - indicating that you consider it
much too large. What conclusion am I supposed to draw, other than that
you haven't adjusted (can't adjust?) your browser settings?

devil's advocate
Specifying a font-size smaller or larger than 100% should be allowed. They
are merely design "recommendations". Much like saying that the page should
use Arial. "How dare you say I use Arial? I want to use Times New Roman for
every page I view! You stoopid deeziners!"
/devil's advocate

Let's see how many people I pissed off with that one.

Jonathan

Well not me, for starters, I'm sorry to say ('cos I'm the bad guy
here).

On Mon, 6 Oct 2003 20:42:41 +0100, Andy Mabbett
<usenet200309 (AT) pigsonthewing (DOT) org.uk> wrote:

In message <5b72ovge57g7c8kdaas3l13qjeg5ftuevr (AT) 4ax (DOT) com>, Herbert
doughnut (AT) email (DOT) me.ok> writes
On Sun, 5 Oct 2003 23:13:37 +0100, Andy Mabbett
usenet200309 (AT) pigsonthewing (DOT) org.uk> wrote:

In message <bte0ovge1mitd2qs3nk1hsogkd0vp3vok0 (AT) 4ax (DOT) com>, Herbert
doughnut (AT) email (DOT) me.ok> writes

I know HTML very well, thank you.

You only think you do.

You pompous ignoramous.

I note that your response to a valid criticism is baseless abuse.

ROFLMHO

You started it. But can't take it like a man.

Your aspersions upon my html-ability are baseless, conjured out of
thin air by your febrile imagination in otrder to justify your
habitually cynical perspective.

You have no evidence

Other than your posts in this thread, that is.

Once again, which were (as in 'quote')?

upon which to base your
fatuous assertion,

In that case, I indeed have no such evidence - but since I posted no
fatuous assertion, I need none.

var fat_ass = new Image(); fat_ass.src = "thread/You only think you
do.txt";

which reveals more about your petty, prejudiced,
conceited perception of the world and the other people in it.

Nonsense, but that comment speaks volumes about you.

[snip further ad hominem]

Thank you. Excellent!

First Captain Brian, and now Andy 'Ad Hominem' Mabbett.

I acknowledge your mastery of the technique.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...d-hominem.html

On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 11:35:01 -0300, Gerhard Fiedler <me (AT) privacy (DOT) net>
wrote:

On Sun, 05 Oct 2003 17:15:20 +0100, Herbert wrote:

Other folks will probably comment on your CSS; in particular it
usually doesn't sense to specify the text margin in pixels.

Well (at risk of incurring the ire of any anti-tables denizens) I
might use it when trying to keep text at a specific distance from
other content in certain cells a borderless table, and it seems to do
what I want just fine. I'll review the options again, but I'm open to
alternatives recommendations.

The relationship between font size (as measured in em) and pixels
varies between common displays as much as 1:2. Selecting a text margin
in em that is on your display as wide as you would specify it in
pixels makes sure that it is on my display just as wide -- compared to
the actual size of the font.

Ok... I'll need to reread that again a few times, and try out some
test examples. Thank you!

On Mon, 6 Oct 2003 16:13:11 +0200, "The Plankmeister"
<plankmeister_NOSPAM_ (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote:

This whole thread has been absolutely entertaining. (Dare I say 100%
entertaining!) And also informative.

Keep it up for a bit longer... I look forward immensely to reading future
follow-ups : )

P.

Well, on the supposition your comments were addressed to me, the bad

guy, then I thank you sir for your kind words, and hope the batch I've
just despatched will further your pleasure - and that you do not
hereby incur the devastating opprobrium* of the gentry here.




....it's like swatting wasps, only much less demanding or risky.
Persistent little devils, though.



On the other hand, if you're backing the raucous majority, you'll have
to do a lot better than that to earn a swat :-)




*or whatever...

On Mon, 6 Oct 2003 20:38:01 +0100, Andy Mabbett
<usenet200309 (AT) pigsonthewing (DOT) org.uk> wrote:

In message <5u72ov89n1c5okcoetn7001dpjecvrp0f9 (AT) 4ax (DOT) com>, Herbert
doughnut (AT) email (DOT) me.ok> writes

[...]

(neither do I have any grudge against jews).

So why mention them?

Re my previous follow-up to Andy Mabbett's query... I may have been
guilty of contradicting myself in an earlier post, when I said there's
usually at least one alternative - and quite different - explanation
to the one you first think of.

So when I said Andy Mabbett was a "predictably dull witted idle
grunt", this was because I had been confident he'd be unable to resist
jumping on the 'jew' reference, since his persistent conceit as to his
own perspicacity would eagerly seek to exploit such an emotive mote,
and blind him - as ever - to the full and inconvenient context (such
as the provided link, which explained all).

My unseemly haste was due to my unholy glee in believing Andy had
fallen so readily into the trap, demonstrating so vividly and
precisely his uniformly disdainful attitude (predicated upon his
as-yet unsubstantiated allegations as to _my_ willful ignorance), in
which he projects upon me his reluctance to learn.


However, I subsequently realised that I hadn't taken into account the
possibility that maybe Andy doesn't recognise or know what a 'link' or
'URL' is, or how to utilise such. In which case, I apologise, I
really have no excuse for slighting the naive.



For those joining the debacle late, but who know what this is, here it
is again: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=berk



<andy class="zero">On the supposition Andy discovers how to click on
or copy & paste it, what're the odds he has the character, or moral
fibre (or whatever.. is 'man enough' perhaps...), to address me with
the courtesy with which I previously addressed him on this side-issue,
and say "thank you for actually enlightening me about
something"?</andy>