Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Oh Mr. Miller kind sir
13 views
Skip to first unread message
richard
May 26, 2013, 10:40:32 PM5/26/13
to
www.mroldies.net/test3.html
Could you kindly explain how's come this page does NOT validate now?
According to you, and Jerry Stuckle, it is supposed to be <script />.
However, when I include the /, the validator chucks out 2 errors.
1)
putting text directly in the body of the document without wrapping it
in a container element (such as a <p>aragraph</p>), or
forgetting to quote an attribute value (where characters such as "%"
and "/" are common, but cannot appear without surrounding quotes), or
using XHTML-style self-closing tags (such as <meta ... />) in HTML 4.01
or earlier. To fix, remove the extra slash ('/') character. For more
information about the reasons for this, see Empty elements in SGML, HTML,
XML, and XHTML.
2)
Line 13, Column 9: end tag for element "script" which is not open
Now come on dougie boy, give me your excuse as to why you were so hell bent
on proving me wrong that you just got your ass slapped big time.
I don't want to hear your BS like, "Oh I was just pointing out that you are
RtS and don't know jack shit.".
Could you kindly explain how's come this page does NOT validate now?
According to you, and Jerry Stuckle, it is supposed to be <script />.
However, when I include the /, the validator chucks out 2 errors.
1)
putting text directly in the body of the document without wrapping it
in a container element (such as a <p>aragraph</p>), or
forgetting to quote an attribute value (where characters such as "%"
and "/" are common, but cannot appear without surrounding quotes), or
using XHTML-style self-closing tags (such as <meta ... />) in HTML 4.01
or earlier. To fix, remove the extra slash ('/') character. For more
information about the reasons for this, see Empty elements in SGML, HTML,
XML, and XHTML.
2)
Line 13, Column 9: end tag for element "script" which is not open
Now come on dougie boy, give me your excuse as to why you were so hell bent
on proving me wrong that you just got your ass slapped big time.
I don't want to hear your BS like, "Oh I was just pointing out that you are
RtS and don't know jack shit.".
Denis McMahon
May 27, 2013, 5:14:15 AM5/27/13
to
On Sun, 26 May 2013 22:40:32 -0400, richard wrote:
> www.mroldies.net/test3.html
>
> Could you kindly explain how's come this page does NOT validate now?
> According to you, and Jerry Stuckle, it is supposed to be <script />.
> However, when I include the /, the validator chucks out 2 errors.
I haven't seen any comments from Jerry Stuckle about this, and I haven't
> www.mroldies.net/test3.html
>
> Could you kindly explain how's come this page does NOT validate now?
> According to you, and Jerry Stuckle, it is supposed to be <script />.
> However, when I include the /, the validator chucks out 2 errors.
seen Doug Miller suggest that you should use <javascript ...... />
The only difference I could see in the lines Doug quoted was the use of
"" vs '' quoting for the type attribute of the script element tag, and as
far as I'm aware, html isn't picky about that. Personally, I prefer
consistency in such issues, but I also recognise that sometimes, when
you're using one language (eg php) to output html markup that contains
embedded and possibly dynamically generated javascript code and objects,
it can be easier to mix and match the string quoting for convenience.
Note, however, that if you do so you need to be aware of the constraints
that relate to the types of quotes used in some languages. Examples:
json: strings must be "" quoted, attribute names should be strings.
php: variable translation only works in "" strings, and not in '' strings.
Personally I'm not sure whether, in xhtml, the following:
<javascript type="text/javascript" src="somefilename.js" />
is a valid alternative to:
<javascript type="text/javascript" src="somefilename.js"></script>
or not, because I rarely write xhtml, never having been persuaded that it
was worth the effort of following that path, and so haven't got into the
intricacies of some element specific features of that markup.
However, I am pretty certain that one thing you can not do is use the
construct:
<javascript type="text/javascript" />
some javascript here
</script>
in xhtml ... but again, I haven't seen anyone suggesting that you should
use that construct.
--
Denis McMahon, denismf...@gmail.com
Message has been deleted
Denis McMahon
May 27, 2013, 9:00:35 AM5/27/13
to
On Mon, 27 May 2013 12:14:46 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:
> In article <knv857$gvn$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Denis McMahon <denismf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> <http://http://diveintohtml5.info/past.html>
>
> and scroll down to the bit entitled "A TIMELINE OF HTML DEVELOPMENT FROM
> 1997 TO 2004" and then read on.
Yes, I know, I've been aware of the mimetype conundrum for years. This is
the main reason I still only write html.
My brief summary for people that ask "which html and why" goes something
like this:
html 4.01 is an old standard, it may be old, but it is a standard.
xhtml 1.0 was purely a stepping stone from html 4.01 to xhtml 1.1.
xhtml appears to be a dead end in the evolution of markup.
html "5" is currently a selection of enhancements to html 4.01 that
generally work in a predefined and consistent way across most browsers,
but is not yet fully formalised.
--
Denis McMahon, denismf...@gmail.com
> In article <knv857$gvn$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Denis McMahon <denismf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> or not, because I rarely write xhtml, never having been persuaded that
>> it was worth the effort of following that path, and so haven't got into
>> the intricacies of some element specific features of that markup.
>
> It isn't. See here:
>> or not, because I rarely write xhtml, never having been persuaded that
>> it was worth the effort of following that path, and so haven't got into
>> the intricacies of some element specific features of that markup.
>
>
> <http://http://diveintohtml5.info/past.html>
>
> and scroll down to the bit entitled "A TIMELINE OF HTML DEVELOPMENT FROM
> 1997 TO 2004" and then read on.
Yes, I know, I've been aware of the mimetype conundrum for years. This is
the main reason I still only write html.
My brief summary for people that ask "which html and why" goes something
like this:
html 4.01 is an old standard, it may be old, but it is a standard.
xhtml 1.0 was purely a stepping stone from html 4.01 to xhtml 1.1.
xhtml appears to be a dead end in the evolution of markup.
html "5" is currently a selection of enhancements to html 4.01 that
generally work in a predefined and consistent way across most browsers,
but is not yet fully formalised.
--
Denis McMahon, denismf...@gmail.com
Doug Miller
May 27, 2013, 9:03:10 AM5/27/13
to
richard <nor...@example.com> wrote in news:rr3kr3szg57i$.14liqqdmm5hx2$.dlg@
40tude.net:
> www.mroldies.net/test3.html
>
> Could you kindly explain how's come this page does NOT validate now?
The output of the validator explains pretty clearly why it doesn't validate.
> According to you, and Jerry Stuckle, it is supposed to be <script />.
No, it is *not* "supposed to be <script />" -- and I never said that. I have no idea what
Stuckle might have said, since I've had him killfiled for a year or so.
> However, when I include the /, the validator chucks out 2 errors.
Yes, it does -- along with the explanations of *why* they are errors.
That's because this line
jwplayer.key="NIVuLjgvvzyNMt01wZFisaXc1W0uST73rr9H8g==";
isn't inside <script> ... </script> tags.
again.
Second, the reason your page doesn't validate is -- as usual -- you don't know how to write
valid HTML.
40tude.net:
> www.mroldies.net/test3.html
>
> Could you kindly explain how's come this page does NOT validate now?
> According to you, and Jerry Stuckle, it is supposed to be <script />.
Stuckle might have said, since I've had him killfiled for a year or so.
> However, when I include the /, the validator chucks out 2 errors.
>
> 1)
> putting text directly in the body of the document without wrapping it
> in a container element [...]
> 1)
> putting text directly in the body of the document without wrapping it
That's because this line
jwplayer.key="NIVuLjgvvzyNMt01wZFisaXc1W0uST73rr9H8g==";
isn't inside <script> ... </script> tags.
>
> 2)
> Line 13, Column 9: end tag for element "script" which is not open
That's because you opened and closed <script ... /> in the same tag, then closed </script>
> 2)
> Line 13, Column 9: end tag for element "script" which is not open
again.
>
> Now come on dougie boy, give me your excuse as to why you were so hell bent
> on proving me wrong that you just got your ass slapped big time.
First, I never made the statement that you attributed to me.
> Now come on dougie boy, give me your excuse as to why you were so hell bent
> on proving me wrong that you just got your ass slapped big time.
Second, the reason your page doesn't validate is -- as usual -- you don't know how to write
valid HTML.
>
> I don't want to hear your BS like, "Oh I was just pointing out that you are
> RtS and don't know jack shit.".
That's still a valid observation, RtS.
> I don't want to hear your BS like, "Oh I was just pointing out that you are
> RtS and don't know jack shit.".
richard
May 27, 2013, 12:32:39 PM5/27/13
to
When you get called on your BS, you suddenly back down and claim you never
said it.
I knew beforehand the page would not validate with the "/".
I posted the invalid page to prove my point.
The page was valid before the inclusion of the error.
richard
May 27, 2013, 12:42:58 PM5/27/13
to
As I said, I included the / to see what errors would be given.
without it, the page validates.
As long as there is no script after the closing tag.
If you include script after the opening tag, then the / can not be used.
Message has been deleted
Doug Miller
May 27, 2013, 6:18:42 PM5/27/13
to
richard <nor...@example.com> wrote in
news:ubebv4oflxeg.fh0z1ijqz0be$.d...@40tude.net:
So now we need to call you "Richard the Liar" as well as "Richard
the Stupid."
I NEVER SAID THAT. You claim I did -- so prove it. Or apologize.
news:ubebv4oflxeg.fh0z1ijqz0be$.d...@40tude.net:
the Stupid."
I NEVER SAID THAT. You claim I did -- so prove it. Or apologize.
>
> I knew beforehand the page would not validate with the "/".
I never claimed it would, Richard the Liar.
> I knew beforehand the page would not validate with the "/".
dorayme
May 27, 2013, 6:35:45 PM5/27/13
to
In article <timstreater-CD8B...@news.individual.net>,
Tim Streater <timst...@greenbee.net> wrote:
> ... A validator is
> just one person's idea of what is correct HTML.
Hardly, it is just a wee bit more social than that in that HTML rules
and doctypes are written with a fair amount of consultation. Maybe not
as much as you would like but the point remains that it is more than
one person's idea.
> If you want to check
> what you have, then use a *browser*. Browsers define what is correct
> HTML, because they *ship code*. And they're written by teams of people,
> not some smart alec with a bee in his bonnet.
>
er... where do you think browser makers get their raw materials, they
don't get it by magic or simply invent it. They surely pore over stuff
like that at
<http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/>
and
<http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/>
and more modern too.
As is evident below, you are less interested in websites for the
public at large all over the world than narrower concerns for certain
groups. It makes quite a bit of sense to use validators as a baseline
for website development and then to check for browsers that vary from
the main interpretations. They may have good or bad reasons for
varying; good sometimes because of serious unclarity in the rules or
because the rules are too unintuitive, bad because of inattention to
them or ignorance. Sometimes browser makers really do go their own way
rather a lot - guess - and cause great trouble to us all.
> Because my stuff is an app and not a website, I get to decide what
> browser the user will run (Safari 6, in fact). However, sometimes I
> modify the app to run a different browser and look at their error
> consoles just to check whether I haven't made any HTML errors. Safari is
> very forgiving and doesn't appear to bother to flag HTML errors, but in
> iCab and Firefox, for example, the error console and/or browser itself
> will tell you whether your page is correct. I also check with Opera and
> Chrome. There is no Internet Explorer so evidently I don't bother with
> that one.
>
> In short, stop farting about with a validator and use a browser instead
> if you're that bothered.
By checking validators as a penultimate step (before looking at
browser implementations), website developers (for the world at large),
on the contrary, you can stop a lot of messing about.
--
dorayme
Tim Streater <timst...@greenbee.net> wrote:
> ... A validator is
> just one person's idea of what is correct HTML.
Hardly, it is just a wee bit more social than that in that HTML rules
and doctypes are written with a fair amount of consultation. Maybe not
as much as you would like but the point remains that it is more than
one person's idea.
> If you want to check
> what you have, then use a *browser*. Browsers define what is correct
> HTML, because they *ship code*. And they're written by teams of people,
> not some smart alec with a bee in his bonnet.
>
er... where do you think browser makers get their raw materials, they
don't get it by magic or simply invent it. They surely pore over stuff
like that at
<http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/>
and
<http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/>
and more modern too.
As is evident below, you are less interested in websites for the
public at large all over the world than narrower concerns for certain
groups. It makes quite a bit of sense to use validators as a baseline
for website development and then to check for browsers that vary from
the main interpretations. They may have good or bad reasons for
varying; good sometimes because of serious unclarity in the rules or
because the rules are too unintuitive, bad because of inattention to
them or ignorance. Sometimes browser makers really do go their own way
rather a lot - guess - and cause great trouble to us all.
> Because my stuff is an app and not a website, I get to decide what
> browser the user will run (Safari 6, in fact). However, sometimes I
> modify the app to run a different browser and look at their error
> consoles just to check whether I haven't made any HTML errors. Safari is
> very forgiving and doesn't appear to bother to flag HTML errors, but in
> iCab and Firefox, for example, the error console and/or browser itself
> will tell you whether your page is correct. I also check with Opera and
> Chrome. There is no Internet Explorer so evidently I don't bother with
> that one.
>
> In short, stop farting about with a validator and use a browser instead
> if you're that bothered.
By checking validators as a penultimate step (before looking at
browser implementations), website developers (for the world at large),
on the contrary, you can stop a lot of messing about.
--
dorayme
richard
May 27, 2013, 10:46:21 PM5/27/13
to
You implied that one had a "src" while the other did not.
"src" is optional, it is not mandatory.
You asked what were the differences.
I said none and that IS correct.
As you had left out the part where there was script properly wrapped as
required.
You're just a smartass shithead who just has to take pot shots at those who
are less educated.
In your insane world that is.
Sieg Heil, meinen fuhrer!
Doug Miller
May 28, 2013, 6:38:50 AM5/28/13
to
richard <nor...@example.com> wrote in news:oy44cgpeh9lq.1i3hmokocbvt2.dlg@
40tude.net:
I'm still waiting for your apology, Richard the Liar.
> "src" is optional, it is not mandatory.
I never claimed it was mandatory, Richard the Liar.
> You asked what were the differences.
> I said none and that IS correct.
That is NOT correct, Richard the Liar. There IS a difference, and you STILL haven't figured
out what it is.
Not an *important* difference, to be sure -- but the fact that you don't see *any* difference is
part of your problem: you can't even proofread, Richard the Stupid.
> As you had left out the part where there was script properly wrapped as
> required.
I included all the parts that were relevant to the difference I wanted to point out, Richard the
Stupid.
40tude.net:
>>>
>>> I knew beforehand the page would not validate with the "/".
>>
>> I never claimed it would, Richard the Liar.
>
> Of course not.
> You implied that one had a "src" while the other did not.
I implied nothing of the kind, Richard the Liar.
>>> I knew beforehand the page would not validate with the "/".
>>
>> I never claimed it would, Richard the Liar.
>
> Of course not.
> You implied that one had a "src" while the other did not.
> "src" is optional, it is not mandatory.
> You asked what were the differences.
> I said none and that IS correct.
out what it is.
Not an *important* difference, to be sure -- but the fact that you don't see *any* difference is
part of your problem: you can't even proofread, Richard the Stupid.
> As you had left out the part where there was script properly wrapped as
> required.
Stupid.
Denis McMahon
May 28, 2013, 11:10:51 AM5/28/13
to
On Tue, 28 May 2013 10:38:50 +0000, Doug Miller wrote:
>> As you had left out the part where there was script properly wrapped as
>> required.
>
> I included all the parts that were relevant to the difference I wanted
> to point out, Richard the Stupid.
Doug, I stated what the difference was in the second post in the thread,
>> As you had left out the part where there was script properly wrapped as
>> required.
>
> I included all the parts that were relevant to the difference I wanted
> to point out, Richard the Stupid.
he still hasn't noticed it.
--
Denis McMahon, denismf...@gmail.com
Doug Miller
May 28, 2013, 1:44:01 PM5/28/13
to
Denis McMahon <denismf...@gmail.com> wrote in news:ko2hdr$qpq$2@dont-
email.me:
> On Tue, 28 May 2013 10:38:50 +0000, Doug Miller wrote:
>
>>> As you had left out the part where there was script properly wrapped as
>>> required.
>>
>> I included all the parts that were relevant to the difference I wanted
>> to point out, Richard the Stupid.
>
> Doug, I stated what the difference was in the second post in the thread,
> he still hasn't noticed it.
>
... which of course is further evidence that his nickname is well-deserved indeed.
I first encountered RtS in alt.html about three years ago, and at first I thought that other
posters were being unduly harsh in applying that moniker. After a few months of observing
his inability to learn either from experience or from instruction, and his belligerent and
truculent attitude toward those whom he's asking for help, I decided the name was, if
anything, unduly gentle.
email.me:
> On Tue, 28 May 2013 10:38:50 +0000, Doug Miller wrote:
>
>>> As you had left out the part where there was script properly wrapped as
>>> required.
>>
>> I included all the parts that were relevant to the difference I wanted
>> to point out, Richard the Stupid.
>
> Doug, I stated what the difference was in the second post in the thread,
> he still hasn't noticed it.
>
I first encountered RtS in alt.html about three years ago, and at first I thought that other
posters were being unduly harsh in applying that moniker. After a few months of observing
his inability to learn either from experience or from instruction, and his belligerent and
truculent attitude toward those whom he's asking for help, I decided the name was, if
anything, unduly gentle.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Doug Miller
May 29, 2013, 8:24:53 AM5/29/13
to
Doug Miller <doug_at_mil...@example.com> wrote in
news:XnsA1CE4440DCB...@78.46.70.116:
> richard <nor...@example.com> wrote in news:oy44cgpeh9lq.1i3hmokocbvt2.dlg@
> 40tude.net:
>
>> On Mon, 27 May 2013 22:18:42 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller wrote:
>>
>>> richard <nor...@example.com> wrote in
>>> news:ubebv4oflxeg.fh0z1ijqz0be$.d...@40tude.net:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 27 May 2013 13:03:10 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> richard <nor...@example.com> wrote in
>>>>> news:rr3kr3szg57i$.14liqqdmm5hx2$.dlg@ 40tude.net:
>>>>>
news:XnsA1CE4440DCB...@78.46.70.116:
> richard <nor...@example.com> wrote in news:oy44cgpeh9lq.1i3hmokocbvt2.dlg@
> 40tude.net:
>
>> On Mon, 27 May 2013 22:18:42 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller wrote:
>>
>>> richard <nor...@example.com> wrote in
>>> news:ubebv4oflxeg.fh0z1ijqz0be$.d...@40tude.net:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 27 May 2013 13:03:10 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> richard <nor...@example.com> wrote in
>>>>> news:rr3kr3szg57i$.14liqqdmm5hx2$.dlg@ 40tude.net:
>>>>>
>>>>>> According to you, and Jerry Stuckle, it is supposed to be
>>>>>> <script />.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, it is *not* "supposed to be <script />" -- and I never said
>>>>> that.
>>>>>> <script />.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, it is *not* "supposed to be <script />" -- and I never said
>>>>> that.
richard
May 29, 2013, 4:18:51 PM5/29/13
to
On Tue, 28 May 2013 21:23:50 -0700, Evan Platt wrote:
> On Tue, 28 May 2013 17:44:01 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
> <doug_at_mil...@example.com> wrote:
>
>>... which of course is further evidence that his nickname is well-deserved indeed.
>>
>>I first encountered RtS in alt.html about three years ago, and at first I thought that other
>>posters were being unduly harsh in applying that moniker. After a few months of observing
>>his inability to learn either from experience or from instruction, and his belligerent and
>>truculent attitude toward those whom he's asking for help, I decided the name was, if
>>anything, unduly gentle.
>
> Want a good laugh? He spammed another group with his mroldies site.
gee, thanks for spamming for me.
I have posted the site here many times,asswipe.
under "richard".
>
> I called him on it (he used a fake alias).
>
> His reply:
>
> "You see Evan dear, that little old site of mine is hand written by
> ME!,
> The scroll bar is my script. Because I didn't like the JW player's
> flash
> scroll. And I have set it up so that I can pull videos from
> practically any
> source including my own site."
oh brother.
what an ass you are evan.
I posted that in the other group under THIS very same nick and you say I
made up a fake name to post with?
barf!
If you would kindly check out the JW player at longtailvideo.com, you will
find that the player script is easily changed to handle sources outside of
youtube, vimeo and even dailymail or any other video site.
As the vast majority of other players limit you to.
When you open my site, the very first video shown is from MY site.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCspiH5zIhI
www.mroldies.net/videos/1960/1960-001.flv
Now what's the difference between the youtube version and my site's?
There is no YOUTUBE logo on it.
> On Tue, 28 May 2013 17:44:01 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
> <doug_at_mil...@example.com> wrote:
>
>>... which of course is further evidence that his nickname is well-deserved indeed.
>>
>>I first encountered RtS in alt.html about three years ago, and at first I thought that other
>>posters were being unduly harsh in applying that moniker. After a few months of observing
>>his inability to learn either from experience or from instruction, and his belligerent and
>>truculent attitude toward those whom he's asking for help, I decided the name was, if
>>anything, unduly gentle.
>
gee, thanks for spamming for me.
I have posted the site here many times,asswipe.
under "richard".
>
> I called him on it (he used a fake alias).
>
> His reply:
>
> "You see Evan dear, that little old site of mine is hand written by
> ME!,
> The scroll bar is my script. Because I didn't like the JW player's
> flash
> scroll. And I have set it up so that I can pull videos from
> practically any
> source including my own site."
oh brother.
what an ass you are evan.
I posted that in the other group under THIS very same nick and you say I
made up a fake name to post with?
barf!
If you would kindly check out the JW player at longtailvideo.com, you will
find that the player script is easily changed to handle sources outside of
youtube, vimeo and even dailymail or any other video site.
As the vast majority of other players limit you to.
When you open my site, the very first video shown is from MY site.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCspiH5zIhI
www.mroldies.net/videos/1960/1960-001.flv
Now what's the difference between the youtube version and my site's?
There is no YOUTUBE logo on it.
richard
May 29, 2013, 4:20:48 PM5/29/13
to
On Wed, 29 May 2013 03:31:03 +0000 (UTC), Lewis wrote:
> In message <rr3kr3szg57i$.14liqqdmm5hx2$.d...@40tude.net>
then what did he say?
As I pointed out, validation does not happen with the <script/> when there
is script within the wrappers.
> In message <rr3kr3szg57i$.14liqqdmm5hx2$.d...@40tude.net>
> richard <nor...@example.com> wrote:
>> www.mroldies.net/test3.html
>
>> Could you kindly explain how's come this page does NOT validate now?
>> According to you, and Jerry Stuckle, it is supposed to be <script />.
>
> No one ever said that.
>> www.mroldies.net/test3.html
>
>> Could you kindly explain how's come this page does NOT validate now?
>> According to you, and Jerry Stuckle, it is supposed to be <script />.
>
then what did he say?
As I pointed out, validation does not happen with the <script/> when there
is script within the wrappers.
dorayme
May 29, 2013, 5:51:05 PM5/29/13
to
> >>... which of course is further evidence that his nickname is well-deserved
...
> > Want a good laugh
...
> I have posted the site here many times,asswipe.
> under "richard".
...
> under "richard".
> > I called him on it (he used a fake alias).
> >
...
> >
> oh brother.
> what an ass you are evan.
> ...
> what an ass you are evan.
> made up a fake name to post with?
> barf!
>
When Richard posts, the gang that chase him around always pop up, the
> barf!
>
various individuals joining up as each emerges from different streets.
Bit like some of those zany movies and cartoons that we would see at
the flicks on Saturday matinees.
--
dorayme
richard
May 29, 2013, 7:20:04 PM5/29/13
to
Kind of like me being bugs bunny and evan (et al) as elmer fudd.
Or me as the road runner.
Doug Miller
May 29, 2013, 9:57:18 PM5/29/13
to
richard <nor...@example.com> wrote in news:7xor9vivrupk.1q2258iymgbap.dlg@
40tude.net:
> ain't that the truth?
> Kind of like me being bugs bunny and evan (et al) as elmer fudd.
> Or me as the road runner.
If you were a cartoon character, RtS, there's only one you could possibly be: Goofy.
40tude.net:
> ain't that the truth?
> Kind of like me being bugs bunny and evan (et al) as elmer fudd.
> Or me as the road runner.
Doug Miller
May 29, 2013, 10:00:07 PM5/29/13
to
richard <nor...@example.com> wrote in news:149e9kxfkoya1.1ixz7w54qhcif$.dlg@
40tude.net:
Of course not. It isn't valid. What ever gave you the idea that anyone suggested it was?
40tude.net:
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Kim André Akerø
May 30, 2013, 7:32:18 AM5/30/13
to
contents) should be self-closing (at least when using XHTML/XML type of
coding), but <script> is one of those elements that are exceptions to the
rule.
If you had actually *read* any documentation, you might've discovered this.
Honestly, given the rate of questions I've seen from you, Richard, while
I've been lurking around these past few years, you prefer to ask questions
without reading documentation or examining how other websites have made
use of certain functions. I'd say that a sense of natural curiosity comes
in handy in most tech-based professions (by picking apart something and
putting them back together again, maybe piecing it together in a slightly
different way), and it would seem that you're not quite there yet (or
maybe you'll never be).
There, I just had to get it off my chest. I apologize to everyone else for
having to read my rant.
--
Kim André Akerø
- kima...@NOSPAMbetadome.com
(remove NOSPAM to contact me directly)
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Beauregard T. Shagnasty
May 30, 2013, 7:06:51 PM5/30/13
to
Lewis wrote:
> Evan Platt wrote:
>> after making such absurd statements as men have more ribs then women,
>
> Oh dear, is he one of *those*?
>
> Men have more ribs than, say, cows. Maybe that's why he got confused.
> Perhaps his life partner is a cow?
RtS doesn't have a life partner, or even a partner. I heard on good
authority that even nearby cows move to different meadows when he shows up
in the neighborhood.
--
-bts
-Florida cows are nervous
> Evan Platt wrote:
>> Doug Miller wrote:
>>> I'm still waiting for your apology, Richard the Liar.
>
>> You'll never get one. richard has never admitted he was wrong (even
>>> I'm still waiting for your apology, Richard the Liar.
>
>> after making such absurd statements as men have more ribs then women,
>
> Oh dear, is he one of *those*?
>
> Men have more ribs than, say, cows. Maybe that's why he got confused.
> Perhaps his life partner is a cow?
RtS doesn't have a life partner, or even a partner. I heard on good
authority that even nearby cows move to different meadows when he shows up
in the neighborhood.
--
-bts
-Florida cows are nervous
0 new messages