T
tlshell
Duh! You're using IE!!!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Duh! You're using IE!!!
B
BillR
Michael said:BillR said:I disagree with _why_ "not much response [is] needed". Specifically
my comments were not gratuitous and did not insult unknown people:
they were a direct response to your post and attempted to make a point
by applying your logic.
Just because your post was a 'direct' reponse to mine (what other could it
be as a reply), it does not negate the possibility of it being both
gratuitous and insulting, which it managed very easily to be.
"Possibly", yes. "Gratuitous", obviously not. "Insulting", well,
somewhat, although I did try to soften it and specifically avoided
some obvious perjorative terms. I do have to admit that my first
inclination was to be considerably more direct and insulting.
Your baseless and outrageously superior mode of speech is both an insult and
gratuitous and I did manage to decipher your parallelism - wasn't
particularly subtle.
I'm sorry you perceived my comment as "superior" although I can see
why you would feel that way. I also don't enjoy having my mistakes
exposed. When compared to your original comment, though, I perceive
my comment as somewhat less so. Perhaps we can both consider our
wording.
The parallelism was quite direct. I did not mean to suggest that you
missed it the first time, but rather to say -- perhaps ineptly -- that
I was using parallelism as a mechanism to illustrate a problem with
your argument. Perhaps part of the problem is that I failed to
convey my intent to you when I asked the rhetorical question.
Because we both use IE6 with flash disabled it does not
follow that our systems are identical and it certainly does not follow that
because my configuration does not display this site it is in some way inept.
Which was your inference.
I assume our systems are not identical. Else we would probably have
gottent the same result.
You misinterpreted my intent. My intended "inference": just as this
("can't manage setup") was a questionable conclusion so was your
conclusion. I thought I was clear; I specifically did not want to
belabor the point that just as you should be given the benefit of the
doubt (Proxomitron itself can be complex -- at least to me -- and PC
software interactions are complex), so should the web developers.
My system is perhaps overtly tight but this or any
site should not expect me to have insecurities running in order to view
content. My argument was that a developer should know this better than most
and a low compatibility host site can colour and indicate the value of a
program.
If you can identify a specific problem with how they have presented
their site, why not call it to their attention in as positive a way as
possible. ("As positive a way" is something I need to work on doing as
well.)
BillR
B
BillR
I didn't insult anyone. Or it wasn't intended as a insult.
Hmmmm: "idiot" and "stupidity and arrogance" (and "stupid" below)?
I was critisizing their pratices. Their message:
"To view the site, please, use Internet Explorer 6.x or Netscape 6.x or
higher!" is stupid. Netscape 6.x or Higher is Mozilla. The only
differences are name changes. I'm using Mozilla for more than 18 months
and I have never had this kind of problems with other sites. I can't
even access it.
And other thing: I now can't criticize someone (people or company)
because they offer something for free? Something that I don't know
because I can't access their site.
Criticize or just insult? A couple of acf members did suggest it as a
good alternative, but I'll grant that sometimes posters do fail to
properly qualify their suggestions -- or just get it wrong. BTW,
isn't the current Netscape 7.1? (And I am broadly aware of Mozilla's
genesis and AOL's IE deal.)
(I, of course, would never make either mistake. <grin> Make that an
extra wide grin for JF & JC in light of my recent post regarding
firewalls where I couldn't possibly have done the latter.)
To a client this is even worse. In this way they are losing customers.
Quite possibly. Did you try to send them a polite message saying you
could not access their site? I'll admit that is somewhat problematic
since you are unwilling to reset browser type. (Just in case someone
hasn't, I will.)
I was in my right to say what I said and inform others.
Some people might be ofended by what i said, but i was too by that message.
dM
Upon review, I must admit that the post from earlier this week
concerning page display in IE and other browsers was merely quoted by
you as context for suggesting a better WYSIWYG HTML editor. A quick
check does confirm that you have advocated Mozilla as superior to IE a
number of times. Please let me set aside that can of worms as past
posts were only slightly relevant to my specific response to you.
In summary, I did not care for your insults and the subsequent piling
on. I certainly understand that you did not care to be chastised.
Regards,
BillR
B
BillR
Duh! You're using IE!!!
Given the date of Pepper's response, the reference to ActiveX, and the
"no access" comments, perhaps the post was meant as a more general
observation?
BillR
B
BillR
Michael said:I am using ie6 but with flash disabled from proxmitron and the page would
not load in any reasonable way for me. Wanted to give the Gyula file manager
a look but if they can't write a decent website they can't write a file
manager.
Did you have Java disabled? That might contribute to the problem.
BillR
M
Michael
BillR said:"Possibly", yes. "Gratuitous", obviously not. "Insulting", well,
somewhat, although I did try to soften it and specifically avoided
some obvious perjorative terms. I do have to admit that my first
inclination was to be considerably more direct and insulting.
All insults are by definition gratuitous so if you admit your verbage was
'somewhat' insulting you can not also deny it was gratuitous, of a species
'obvious' or otherwise.
I'm sorry you perceived my comment as "superior" although I can see
why you would feel that way. I also don't enjoy having my mistakes
exposed. When compared to your original comment, though, I perceive
my comment as somewhat less so. Perhaps we can both consider our
wording.
I didn't perceive your comment as superior I perceived your manner of
expression as unfoundedly superior which is not the same thing.
Diametrically opposite infact but then you missed that. As you miss a great
many things such as the entire argument of mine and other posts on the
subject of this site. I will not restate it here as I have done so twice
already and twice you have ignored it and gone on with your peculiarly wordy
and tangential insults.
If you can identify a specific problem with how they have presented
their site, why not call it to their attention in as positive a way as
possible. ("As positive a way" is something I need to work on doing as
well.)
Please refer to the answer given to an earlier post in this thread by JF
(23/09/03), then boil your head.
D
digitalMOSQUITO
Hmmmm: "idiot" and "stupidity and arrogance" (and "stupid" below)?
For the last time:
I didn't call'em stupid. I call their actions stupid.
When they said that i can only see their site with IE or Netscape v6.1,
this is arrogance. And when they say "Netscape 6.x or
higher!" and i can't access the using Mozilla that is stupid because
Netscape 6.x and Higher is Mozilla with another name.
For the last i didn't insult anyone. But don't care about that. (see below)
Upon review, I must admit that the post from earlier this week
concerning page display in IE and other browsers was merely quoted by
you as context for suggesting a better WYSIWYG HTML editor. A quick
check does confirm that you have advocated Mozilla as superior to IE a
number of times. Please let me set aside that can of worms as past
posts were only slightly relevant to my specific response to you.
This i really don't understand. What????
In summary, I did not care for your insults and the subsequent piling
on. I certainly understand that you did not care to be chastised.
Regards,
BillR
Well, i didn't insult anyone and my previous post was a end of story
forget about it kind of post. But you don't let it go. So if the hat fits...
dM
B
BillR
Michael said:then boil your head.
LOL. Perhaps then my head won't hurt so much when you strike out.
Michael, let's step back. Please review the portion of my original
post specifically directed to you and consider the context. dM
accused the webmasters of "stupidity and arrogance" (or rather their
"practices"! as such) while JF opined that they "probably ... wouldn't
respond well to bug reports...."
My response to you indicated that the problem might lie with your
configuration generally or specifically with Proxomitron as I (using
IE6 with Flash disabled per your specification) and others did not
have a problem.
I also objected to your premises and logic:
IF dM encountered a problem apparently due to his use of the
alternative browser Mozilla
AND "the page would not load in any reasonable way for" Michael
with Michael's "ie6 but with flash disabled from proxmitron"
a "perhaps overtly tight system"
THEN "they can't write a decent website"
IF ...
THEN "they can't write a file manager."
(I'll admit in advance to glossing over intermediate steps such as
"any site that encounters a problem with Mozilla is written by 'these
idiots'" and failing to conclude with "the webmasters 'probably ...
wouldn't respond well to bug reports'".)
Although this response is somewhat "wordy"
I hope that it is not a "tangential insult"
nor that I have "miss[ed] a great many things such as the entire
argument"
-- thrice
(and despite even agreeing with you: "I agree that 'open' sites are
desirable'!)
BillR