Selector for content?/code in monospaced font
in [CSS]
|
Prev: Need some help with a styles page
Next: Newbie question
From: Ed Mullen on 18 Feb 2010 20:53 Mason C wrote: > On 17 Feb 2010 17:09:01 GMT, "Chris F.A. Johnson"<cfajohnson(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 2010-02-17, Mason C wrote: >>> Seeing there's nothing better than chatter here. >> >> So you post something worse. Instead of posting a link, you posted >> a bunch of invalid HTML that is hard to read in a newsreader (and >> probably would be even if it were valid). > > Is what I did worse Yes. And pointless to boot. -- Ed Mullen http://edmullen.net How much deeper would oceans be if sponges didn't live there?
From: dorayme on 18 Feb 2010 21:11 In article <3hhgfm.gsa.17.1(a)news.alt.net>, Ed Mullen <ed(a)edmullen.net> wrote: > Mason C wrote: > > On 17 Feb 2010 17:09:01 GMT, "Chris F.A. Johnson"<cfajohnson(a)gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > >> On 2010-02-17, Mason C wrote: > >>> Seeing there's nothing better than chatter here. > >> > >> So you post something worse. Instead of posting a link, you posted > >> a bunch of invalid HTML that is hard to read in a newsreader (and > >> probably would be even if it were valid). > > > > Is what I did worse > > Yes. > > And pointless to boot. Mason C's crime simply cannot be compared in any way to any discussion about whether there could be a physical universe that contained other universes. This latter is *always* just bubbling under the surface of any discussion. It simply takes courage to bring it out into the open. Whereas to dump a whole lot of stuff into invalid html in a usenet post is an act of cowardice. Anyway, that is how it seems to me. -- dorayme
From: Ed Mullen on 18 Feb 2010 22:49 dorayme wrote: > In article<3hhgfm.gsa.17.1(a)news.alt.net>, > Ed Mullen<ed(a)edmullen.net> wrote: > >> Mason C wrote: >>> On 17 Feb 2010 17:09:01 GMT, "Chris F.A. Johnson"<cfajohnson(a)gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On 2010-02-17, Mason C wrote: >>>>> Seeing there's nothing better than chatter here. >>>> >>>> So you post something worse. Instead of posting a link, you posted >>>> a bunch of invalid HTML that is hard to read in a newsreader (and >>>> probably would be even if it were valid). >>> >>> Is what I did worse >> >> Yes. >> >> And pointless to boot. > > Mason C's crime simply cannot be compared in any way to any > discussion about whether there could be a physical universe that > contained other universes. This latter is *always* just bubbling > under the surface of any discussion. It simply takes courage to > bring it out into the open. Whereas to dump a whole lot of stuff > into invalid html in a usenet post is an act of cowardice. > Anyway, that is how it seems to me. > I'm not sure that "cowardice" is a level this action rises to. Rather, I just thought it was: 1. Dumb 2. Pointless 3. Needlessly annoying 4. A waste of bandwidth 5. Irritating in the context of Usenet 6. About a hundred other things but: See point 1. Mason has surely provided all of us with much amusement over time. Although, he has failed to create the absolutely worst Web page. He has tried, I admit, with great effort. Sadly, to no avail. His page(s) are not nearly ugly enough nor useless enough to rise to the heights of ridicule. Just moderately crass nagging. So, with the gratuitous post in question, he's gone beyond just affronting our sensibilities in viewing Web pages, he's invaded Usenet with pointless drivel that, in order to properly read, we must copy and paste into a text doc, save it, then open in a browser to find we are confronted with more meaningless drivel ... Oh. Sorry. I just realized there is no point to this discussion, much as there is no point to Mason. Geez. Ok, I'm off to the kitchen liquor cabinet. Totally OT: I'm happy, I got a solution to a nagging problem in Windows 7! Ooo! More reason to celebrate! -- Ed Mullen http://edmullen.net An American is a person who isn't afraid to criticize the President but is always polite to traffic cops.
From: dorayme on 18 Feb 2010 23:22 In article <3hhn9j.dpf.17.1(a)news.alt.net>, Ed Mullen <ed(a)edmullen.net> wrote: > I just thought it was: > > 1. ... > 2. ... > 3. ... > 4. ... > 5. ... > 6. ...: See point 1. This causes me a lot of trouble Ed, I am now locked in an endless loop. I wish you had not added the very last instruction after the colon. I am going to have to get a house call from my service folk. -- dorayme
From: Jonathan N. Little on 19 Feb 2010 00:52
Ed Mullen wrote: > Totally OT: I'm happy, I got a solution to a nagging problem in Windows > 7! Ooo! More reason to celebrate! > Just one? Oh please tell...it isn't upgrade to XP is it? -- Take care, Jonathan ------------------- LITTLE WORKS STUDIO http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com |