From rob@twcny.rr.com Fri Dec 07 21:12:24 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rob@twcny.rr.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_1_2); 8 Dec 2001 05:12:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 34704 invoked from network); 8 Dec 2001 05:12:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m4.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 8 Dec 2001 05:12:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailout6.nyroc.rr.com) (24.92.226.177) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 8 Dec 2001 05:12:23 -0000 Received: from mail1.twcny.rr.com (mail1-1 [24.92.226.139]) by mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id fB85CM904891 for ; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 00:12:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from riff ([24.92.246.4]) by mail1.twcny.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 00:12:20 -0500 Received: from rob by riff with local (Exim 3.32 #1 (Debian)) id 16CZlW-0000LZ-00 for ; Sat, 08 Dec 2001 00:11:10 -0500 Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2001 00:11:10 -0500 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] [WWWW] Big update! Message-ID: <20011208001110.D1026@twcny.rr.com> References: <107.9e8a259.2942db91@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <107.9e8a259.2942db91@aol.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23i X-Is-It-Not-Nifty: www.sluggy.com From: Rob Speer Reply-To: rob@twcny.rr.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2572649 X-Yahoo-Profile: squeekybobo On Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 09:57:21PM -0500, pycyn@aol.com wrote: > He could just as easily say "I did it that way because it looks > good on the most widely used browsers; sorry if it doesn't look good on > yours." rather than "I did it the other way because it looks beautiful on my > browsers and the one that it doesn't look good on is a piece of shit", or > even, compromisingly, "It is impossible to get this looking right on all > browsers and this looks asgood as it can on as many as I have; at least > presentable on those it doesn't work as well on." What in the world are you complaining about? The version which 'looked beautiful on his browsers and the one that it doesn't look good on is a piece of shit' never became the main page. He put it up at lojban_broken.html as an example of why Netscape 4 sucks, an opinion he is entitled to. The current version could well be described as (to requote): > even, compromisingly, "It is impossible to get this looking right on all > browsers and this looks asgood as it can on as many as I have; at least > presentable on those it doesn't work as well on." It looks perfect on IE and Opera, nearly perfect on Mozilla and Galeon, and passably good on Netscape 4. I can't see at all what is prompting your rant. We do not need an ideological flamewar surrounding the site, when the practical fact is that the site works. -- la rab.spir noi sarji zo gumri