CRItigue my website so far
Shawn Strickler
basic HTML and will add flash later on. Please critique it so far. I
know right off the bat a lot of people will be complaining about the
load time, my only answer is GET MORE BANDWITH or be left behind.
http://home.elp.rr.com/sescoyote
LAters
SES
holygoat
MORE BANDWITH"?! That's your response?! Nice attitude, pal, especially when
your trying to get people to visit your site. Speaking of which...
That BG graphic is absolutely awful, particularly considering you've placed
white text over it. None of the pictures next to the date headers loaded.
A couple other photos/graphics did not load, as well. I hate those
Geocities-type scrolling logos. Overall the page seems too busy. Just my
opinion, though.
HG
--
Ecclesiastes 9:8 Let thy garments be always white;
and let thy head lack no ointment.
Shawn Strickler <s...@dbwcpa.com> wrote in message
news:37DFD826...@dbwcpa.com...
Ken MacGray
<s...@dbwcpa.com> wrote:
> I
> know right off the bat a lot of people will be complaining about the
> load time, my only answer is GET MORE BANDWITH or be left behind.
Um, F you and your slow loading website. I imagine it would choke even
cable modems. And learn to spell "bandwidth", idiot...
Ken
--
VVCS - Website Design & Development
in...@vvcs.com - http://www.vvcs.com
Member of the Wachusett Chamber of Commerce
Shawn Strickler
have higher bandwith next to your shack in the woods. As noted in my
previous post I am in the middle of searching for an answer to the IE 5.0
and Navigator table troubles. Learn to read, idiot. And any comment
coming from you and really not that big a deal anyway, just looking at
your site reminds me to turn off the lights and go to sleep before I kill
myself from all the pain of boredom.
Love,
Shawn Strickler
Shawn Strickler
(circa 1997) is fine with me. I can tell you are not a serious critic because
you never stated what browser and connection speed you have, I'm thinking you
just want to blow off steam in newsgroups to make you feel better. Get a puppy,
this will help you in all your anger.
Now as far as the background goes, it looks totally bad in Netscape but looks
fantasic in IE. The pictures next to the date header are there. The page is
supposed to look busy if you had read it you would see what it was about, not
just blowing of steam trying to make yourself look good. Trust me your sites
look like crap anyway, the person who hires you to do webpages needs to check
out of their trailer park and pack up their 14.4k modem and join the army. :]
HAHA
Shawn
holygoat wrote:
> Arrrggh! Yes, it takes too long to load. W-a-a-a-y t-o-o l-o-n-g! "GET
> MORE BANDWITH"?! That's your response?! Nice attitude, pal, especially when
> your trying to get people to visit your site. Speaking of which...
>
> That BG graphic is absolutely awful, particularly considering you've placed
> white text over it. None of the pictures next to the date headers loaded.
> A couple other photos/graphics did not load, as well. I hate those
> Geocities-type scrolling logos. Overall the page seems too busy. Just my
> opinion, though.
>
> HG
> --
> Ecclesiastes 9:8 Let thy garments be always white;
> and let thy head lack no ointment.
>
> Shawn Strickler <s...@dbwcpa.com> wrote in message
> news:37DFD826...@dbwcpa.com...
> > This is my initial website design. As of now I am designing it for
> > basic HTML and will add flash later on. Please critique it so far. I
> > know right off the bat a lot of people will be complaining about the
> > load time, my only answer is GET MORE BANDWITH or be left behind.
> >
> >
> > http://home.elp.rr.com/sescoyote
> >
> > LAters
> > SES
> >
Philip Cruttwell
Shawn Strickler wrote in message <37DFD826...@dbwcpa.com>...
>This is my initial website design. As of now I am designing it for
>basic HTML and will add flash later on. Please critique it so far. I
>know right off the bat a lot of people will be complaining about the
>load time, my only answer is GET MORE BANDWITH or be left behind.
>
>
>http://home.elp.rr.com/sescoyote
>
>LAters
>SES
digital pic or what? Yes...some people might find the style too busy but I
like your style. Dont become boring!
Ken MacGray
<s...@dbwcpa.com> wrote:
> What a little potty mouth you got going on there. Looks like they don't
> have higher bandwith next to your shack in the woods. As noted in my
> previous post I am in the middle of searching for an answer to the IE 5.0
> and Navigator table troubles. Learn to read, idiot. And any comment
> coming from you and really not that big a deal anyway, just looking at
> your site reminds me to turn off the lights and go to sleep before I kill
> myself from all the pain of boredom.
You are right of course. I bow to your omnipotence.
Ken MacGray
<s...@dbwcpa.com> wrote:
> Trust me your sites
> look like crap anyway, the person who hires you to do webpages needs to check
> out of their trailer park and pack up their 14.4k modem and join the army. :]
>
> HAHA
>
> Shawn
Hey, Shawn... Define "Troll" for me. I want to see if you really can. I'm
serious.
Chris Stearns
> serious.
> Ken
THAT is funny, funny stuff.
Chris Stearns
http://www.chrisstearns.com
holygoat
> Dude it loaded in 20 seconds on a fractional T-1 line, so 40 seconds on a
56k
> (circa 1997) is fine with me. I can tell you are not a serious critic
because
> you never stated what browser and connection speed you have, I'm thinking
you
> just want to blow off steam in newsgroups to make you feel better.
My bad...IE5/56K/win98
> Get a puppy,
> this will help you in all your anger.
Judging by your flames to any negative criticism you seem to be the angry
one here.
> Now as far as the background goes, it looks totally bad in Netscape but
looks
> fantasic in IE.
No, it doesn't.
> The pictures next to the date header are there.
Not when I looked at it.
> The page is supposed to look busy
Well then, congratulations on successfully achieving your objective.
>if you had read it you would see what it was about, not
> just blowing of steam trying to make yourself look good. Trust me your
sites
> look like crap anyway, the person who hires you to do webpages needs to
check
> out of their trailer park and pack up their 14.4k modem and join the army.
:]
Poor child. Can't take negative criticism can you? Perhaps you shouldn't
put your work up for critique then.
ErnieBin
look at my site and tell me how great it looks... I mean, critique it.
If you don't like it, it's because you're dumb and stupid etc, and you
make lame sites. If it takes too long to load, it's because you don't
have a dsl/cable connection or t-1 to your house, which again makes you
lame.
So, in the spirit in which this newsgroup survives, just look at my site
and tell me it's great, or I'll flame you and call you a talentless turd
etc. <cough>
And if my site looks like crap on your browser, it's because your brower
is lame blah blah blah...
If anyone cares, my target demographic are users with:
1024x768 resolution, no higher, no lower,
a DSL/cable or higher connection,
A Matrox g400 to view my colors in their natural 32bit beauty,
A Sony trinitron monitor, GS series or above (a viewsonic PT series
which suffice)
my exact browser, whichever one it may be at time of publishing.
A quality set of speakers to hear my oh-so-awesome MIDI files.
Remember, my site is perfect. Maybe I should re-emphasize this. My site
is PERFECT. I'm just posting it here in alt.html."critique" so that you
can bask in my genius.
Negative feedback will be met with flames and crying to my mother.
Ernie
--
http://members.xoom.com/vanreview/
What's what in Vancouver Computing
Shawn Strickler wrote:
>
> Dude it loaded in 20 seconds on a fractional T-1 line, so 40 seconds on a 56k
> (circa 1997) is fine with me. I can tell you are not a serious critic because
> you never stated what browser and connection speed you have, I'm thinking you
> just want to blow off steam in newsgroups to make you feel better. Get a puppy,
> this will help you in all your anger.
>
> Now as far as the background goes, it looks totally bad in Netscape but looks
> fantasic in IE. The pictures next to the date header are there. The page is
> supposed to look busy if you had read it you would see what it was about, not
Shawn Strickler
HAHAHHA take a good look at that crappy site that you have design on your free
webspace host. I think I saw a site like that back in 1996 while surfing for site on
how much more of an increase a 28.8k modem would be than my 14.4.k modem. Pa-leeze.
I have a no problem when people critique my site but when they start using vulgar
language from the get-go then yes I will defend myself. The site is in it's infancy
so I wanted to get some feedback, especially with the Netscape problem I was having
(fixed by another newsgroup that is more beneficial). And yes, get in the age of
cable/dsl connections. This is what my website, I define the audience and structure,
it's not for commercial fame. If you had read any part of it you would know who the
website was designed for and that It is sort of a diary of creating a website.
ErnieBin
What can I say other than you're a dumbass?
All I can expect to hear back from you are inane insults from the least
developed parts of what you have for a brain.
Whatever, suck it. You site isn't the only thing in it's infancy.
Ernie
Shawn Strickler wrote:
>
> Earnest,
>
> HAHAHHA take a good look at that crappy site that you have design on your free
> webspace host. I think I saw a site like that back in 1996 while surfing for site on
> how much more of an increase a 28.8k modem would be than my 14.4.k modem. Pa-leeze.
> I have a no problem when people critique my site but when they start using vulgar
> language from the get-go then yes I will defend myself. The site is in it's infancy
> so I wanted to get some feedback, especially with the Netscape problem I was having
> (fixed by another newsgroup that is more beneficial). And yes, get in the age of
> cable/dsl connections. This is what my website, I define the audience and structure,
> it's not for commercial fame. If you had read any part of it you would know who the
> website was designed for and that It is sort of a diary of creating a website.
--
Shawn Strickler
ass. (see I can stoop down to your level and be just as vulgar, but better at it.) You
have no right to use such vulgar language and critique someone's site in that way when your
site is so crappy and unimaginative? And really, come on, that little tirade that you try
to throw at me with the last message was weak. "All I can expect to hear back from you are
inane insults from the least developed parts of what you have for a brain." HAHAHA so
weak I forgot to laugh, no really, honestly, for reallies! You bugar head! OK, now that I
am done with your little 5-year old comebacks I will say this, next time you want to
critique someone do it with class and contructive critisism so that there is beneficial
dialoge between us, or at least until you have created the "perfect" website by yourself.
Uh and I don't see that happening from you.
love,
Shawn