>Adam Wozniak wrote in message ... >>Caroline <caroli...@zinc.co.uk> wrote:
>>>I think that anyone could see that me exaggerating about the mud like that >>>was just an advertising ploy, or did that not cross your mind?
>>So, in addition to being immature and unprofessional, you are also a liar?
>Resorting to insults is really no way to behave. If you wish to call me a >liar - then do so - but bare in mind that you have stooped to a very low >level.
I'm sorry you find the truth insulting.
Let me quote some of your own words from previous articles:
%% People often get confused between amature and understated. I'm sure you'll %% understand one of these days, soon. %% %% The offer is withdrawn because I have my 3 clients now, you whining fool. %% %% I've never seen such a bunch of whining morons.
Please, if you will, let me know who is resorting to insults? Who has stooped to a very low level?
Like I said, USENET is a tough crowd. If you don't have your act together, someone WILL point it out to you.
> I wasn't liying I was grabbing your attention (Which I clearly did), I said > it was *one* of the biggest and best, which in my oppinion it is.
You've still not stated *how* big it is. The word 'best' is always a matter of opinion when applied to muds. Most people think their mud is the best, and to them it is. Certainly I've yet to see anyone create a mud which is as close to *my* 'ideal' mud as mine is - but then I've spent years trying to *create* my ideal mud. If I prefered someone elses mud to mine then I'd have to wonder why on earth I was still bothering to work on my own.
Calmor wrote: > Resorting to insults is really no way to behave. If you wish to call me a > liar - then do so - but bare in mind that you have stooped to a very low > level.
you should take your own advice, after all you're the one who stooped to name calling first wish your calling people whining.
> I wasn't liying I was grabbing your attention (Which I clearly did), I said > it was *one* of the biggest and best, which in my oppinion it is. You > CLEARLY do not share my veiws, and that is your opinion, which I respect - > however unwillingly.
No, clearly you were lying, since it took you this long to restate you words, you're just trying to clear up your bad press with excuses.
> >>Meanwhile many of you logged on that day. > >How many came back?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I'd like to know, I'm betting less than 2%
> >>Guess what, I don't care - it's not even my mud.
So would the IMP's at the mud care to take a gander at the really pathetic way you're represented yourself and their mud? I wonder.
Calmor wrote: > I can take the critisism, what I can't take is people just whining because > they think it makes them look big and clever. Constructive critisism is > fine - but don't whinge just for the sake of it, it really pisses me off.
You should hop on over to dictionary.com and actually look up the word no one here was whining, we bitched, we made fun of, we pointed out flaws lies and hypocrisy, but no one here actually whined.
> As for big suited guys - no problemo; I deal with that crowd all the time - > but it's easy to kiss the ass of someone who's paying you. Not that easy to > deal with a bunch of guys who gang up on someone who is new to usenet, and > gives them loads of crap because they've got nothing better to do.
Ignorance of the facts is no excuse, did you bother to read the groups for a couple days/weeks before posting, did you review other ads to see what is and isn't successful? You jumped right in with both feet firmly planted in your mouth and caught both barrels of the terrible fact that usenet is not for lightweights.
> I think I'm going to stick to Microsoft microsoft from now on, it's much > easier that dealing with 'real people'
And yet another veiled insult, too cool.. must be what they teach at microsloth.
> As for the site I put up as a sample, may not look to great - not a fantasic > amount of java/script, flash - whatever.. but it happens to be exactly what > the 'client' asked for. Critisism is fine, but know the facts - I didn't > advertise 'big flash movie, java-whatever sites that'll clog up your browser > from here until eternity'. I'm sorry if I was misunderstood - as I said I'm > new to this and not used to such abuse, although you guys clearly are - > perhaps it goes right back to school or something, I don't know.
Yuoi claimed it was understated, the reply was it was barren... nobody asked for flah, java or any of that crap
Caroline wrote: > >OoOooO witty, and snide, snide & witty, are you trying to hurt me? :) > Yes, very mature - not since 6th grade have I heard a remark like that.
You're leaning curve is MUCH too slow, you really think you can take the high ground of maturity NOW after the complete fool you've made of yourself here? og PUH-LEase, you're truly amusing.
Caroline wrote: > Guess what, I don't care - it's not even my mud. Besides lazy, rich, > slackers = cash
Ah, cash, the power that controls all, I guess integrity never comes to mind these days, quality, craftsmanship, it's all chaff in the wind next to cash.
On Tue, 6 Apr 1999 19:11:10 +0100, Calmor <caroli...@zinc.co.uk> wrote:
>Resorting to insults is really no way to behave. If you wish to call me a >liar - then do so - but bare in mind that you have stooped to a very low >level.
Resorting to morphing to avoid filters is really no way to behave. Get back in that killfile and stop changing your name.
-- The Wildman ICQ# 32609427 Fight spam - http://www.spamfree.org Five is a sufficiently close approximation to infinity.
Calmor wrote in message <7edjdp$b5...@quince.news.easynet.net>...
>Lord Ashon wrote in message <7ec55k$lo...@leopard.it.wsu.edu>...
>>Caroline wrote in message <7e0kui$m8...@quince.news.easynet.net>... >>>>All I see is someone wanting to start charging people >>>>to make web pages.
>>>Duh! I'm not a f-ing charity.. of COURSE I'm going to start charging.. >WHEN >>>I have a portfolio - that's what this is all about..
>>Wanna build a Porfolio? Do What I did, offer to build one for free to your >>local Library, Senior Center, City Hall, or Even the Chamber of Commerce. >I >>doubt a single one of them would object to letting you make their webpage >>for free. Mine Didn't.
>That's a pretty good suggestion, thanks.
Well, I guess your welcome. Kinda Sorta.
>>You should learn to accept criticism. I know that it is a big part of >>designing webpages. And if you can't take the criticism of little wankers >>(Sorry Guys) in this itty bitty NG. How are you going to take the >criticism >>of a CEO dressed in a $500 suit face to face?
>I can take the critisism, what I can't take is people just whining because >they think it makes them look big and clever. Constructive critisism is >fine - but don't whinge just for the sake of it, it really pisses me off.
Bah, noone was whining, we were critizing. Yes can't we all take Constructive Criticizm? But someone who can take non-constructive criticizm, no matter how much they insult you, insult your work, or demean either takes a great will.
>As for big suited guys - no problemo; I deal with that crowd all the time - >but it's easy to kiss the ass of someone who's paying you.
Ahh yes, the old Kissing up routine. Let me tell you, it doesn't work, or at least it only works to an extent. I wonder what kinda suits your used to. I mean look at this thread, it's disingrated into a flame war *rolls his eyes* First someone criticizes you, then you stand up fro yourself and call them a whiner. I hope you don't do that at a business meeting.
> Not that easy to deal with a bunch of guys who gang up on someone who is new to usenet, and >gives them loads of crap because they've got nothing better to do. >I think I'm going to stick to Microsoft microsoft from now on, it's much >easier that dealing with 'real people'
Oh? I agree with you on that point M$ is easier to work with, they tell you exactly what needs to be done, and you become a drone. Try working for a small (next to M$) company who has heard of the power of the web and wants _you_ to come and give them a web presence. First you have to learn as much as you can about the company, and then present it to the very critical 'net community in an appropriate way. Give me a M$ contract any day.
>As for the site I put up as a sample, may not look to great - not a fantasic >amount of java/script, flash - whatever.. but it happens to be exactly what >the 'client' asked for. Critisism is fine, but know the facts - I didn't >advertise 'big flash movie, java-whatever sites that'll clog up your browser >from here until eternity'. I'm sorry if I was misunderstood - as I said I'm >new to this and not used to such abuse, although you guys clearly are - >perhaps it goes right back to school or something, I don't know.
Well get used to the criticizm. If you think we are tough, postiung this on comp.www.authoring would have gotten you a lot of 'whiners' as you call them. You did tell us it was understated, that's fine and all, but what I saw was not understated, what I saw was a bunch of text files displayed with some fancy buttons and a neat graphic. (I liked the Graphic it was kewl). But I don't call that an understated webpage. I built one like that for my own mud, after getting the text typed out, it took me 15-20 minutes to hammer down the html and slip in the buttons.
>Bah, noone was whining, we were critizing. Yes can't we all take >Constructive Criticizm? But someone who can take non-constructive >criticizm, no matter how much they insult you, insult your work, or demean >either takes a great will.
okok - Well if you have a spare, like 20 minutes and have looked at the last 100 postings to this E-Mail - you'll see that I'm getting a bit of a hammering from the rest of the group. I actually give up on that lot now, waving the white flag, game over, I quit.. well done guys! *standing ovation*
OK, I clearly have to learn to take 'that kind of criticism - It just bugs me because I DO work in the industry, and I felt that the comments were too malicious to be constructive. I'm just not used to people coming from an 'internet' angle rather than a 'Microsoft' angle.
>Ahh yes, the old Kissing up routine. Let me tell you, it doesn't work, or >at least it only works to an extent. I wonder what kinda suits your used >to. I mean look at this thread, it's disingrated into a flame war *rolls >his eyes* First someone criticizes you, then you stand up fro yourself and >call them a whiner. I hope you don't do that at a business meeting.
Heh, to be honest, I don't really deal with clients that much.. I'm just in 'production' where we sit in a humid basement and drink Diet Coke, while passing round 'Star Wars' screen-savers (or something). I do have my superiors though who liase with Microsoft - I just tend to do what they say.
>Oh? I agree with you on that point M$ is easier to work with, they tell you >exactly what needs to be done, and you become a drone. Try working for a >small (next to M$) company who has heard of the power of the web and wants >_you_ to come and give them a web presence.
Heh, well of course Microsoft don't have their own web-team.. they just hire out smaller companies - I happen to be on the Microsoft team, maybe with good reason; I don't know *laughs*. Sometimes it's nice to know exactly what you have to do.
Calmor wrote in message <7ehr5d$1dk...@quince.news.easynet.net>... >That's my website! I'm just hosting it there for approval purposes.
Ummm, It appears to be the same format as the other website you posted. Nice Buttons on the Left. A Graphic in the Upperright hand corner, and lots of text. And what does it have to do with a Band? All the txt I got dealt with SQL servers....
> That's my website! I'm just hosting it there for approval purposes.
Now don't take this the wrong way, though you probably will but thats terrible, the yellow is garish and it goes poorly with that blue, the images/buttons look as if a child drew them, your tables border color doesn't match the rest of the blue, I've never really cared for the sans serif/ariel font it's much too plain, the hefner logo from the right top of the table needs to be rescanned at a MUCH higher DPI, and should also be run through a 'despeckle' filter (I recommend PhotoShop, it is the best) you should also make it at least 25% larger so it's easier to see and identify what page you viewing.
Heh, thanks for the comments - but I don't think that you're familiar with the band that the website is for - They're actually quite big here, read on..
> Now don't take this the wrong way, though you probably will > but thats terrible, the yellow is garish and it goes poorly > with that blue,
Yes, It is quite garish - a comment a few other people have said, hmm.. then they *are* quite a garish band I guess.
the images/buttons look as if a child drew
> them,
Heh - a child DID draw them, they've been scanned off the album.
your tables border color doesn't match the rest of the
> blue, I've never really cared for the sans serif/ariel font > it's much too plain,
Fair enough.
the hefner logo from the right top of
> the table needs to be rescanned at a MUCH higher DPI, and > should also be run through a 'despeckle' filter (I recommend > PhotoShop, it is the best) you should also make it at least > 25% larger so it's easier to see and identify what page you > viewing.
Larger yes, less speckly - no; again - that's what it looks like on the album.
I had a look at your site btw, and you'll be pleased to hear that I really really hate it. But as you didn't ask me to have a look at it, I shan't critisize it.
Lord Ashon wrote in message <7eiquc$1b...@leopard.it.wsu.edu>...
>Calmor wrote in message <7ehr5d$1dk...@quince.news.easynet.net>... >>That's my website! I'm just hosting it there for approval purposes.
>Ummm, It appears to be the same format as the other website you posted.
Well - that's true *shrug*
>Nice Buttons on the Left. A Graphic in the Upperright hand corner, and lots >of text. And what does it have to do with a Band? All the txt I got dealt >with SQL servers....
That's right - it's just a template - they haven't given me any text yet so I needed something to fill it out.
Calmor wrote: > I had a look at your site btw, and you'll be pleased to hear that I really > really hate it. But as you didn't ask me to have a look at it, I shan't > critisize it.
As I said in email, PLEASE do, this should be amusing, blast away. --
The front page is very amateur looking for a start. The title is just a mish-mash of filters and effects - it's too big, both in physical size and file size.
The buttons are hilariously bad, and in a bordered table too which looks very poor. These buttons again are just filtered to buggery. The writing.. bright green? I don't think so - really looks poor. And again, red writing at the bottom, not co-ordinated at all, also very hard to read.
The counter - is a sort of cheap looking LCD display - not very dungeons and dragons really?
This is just the main page of course.. I don't want to go on too much, maybe a bit longer.
On the about me section, you have those revolting pink lines, which you've either chiefed from some 'free web-page stuff' site, or glued together with filters.
Where's the navigation gone?.. Very poor.
The writing on here is too big and looks messy - Why have you changed the font? (Consistency is the KEY) If it weren't so large you could fit it on one page - then it wouldn't be such a tiresome journey to the bottom of the page.
Yes, like the tired old mail anim at the bottom, I used to have that too.
Calmor wrote: > The front page is very amateur looking for a start. The title is just a > mish-mash of filters and effects - it's too big, both in physical size and > file size.
Amature looking, ok, it fits in a single 800x600 screen with no need for scrolling, it's neat & compact. The title isn't "a mish-mash of filters and effects", too big? it's 19.5k, the eitire page is under 35k recommended size for fast loading, as for it being physically too big, thats your opinion, it fits the page.
> The buttons are hilariously bad, and in a bordered table too which looks > very poor. These buttons again are just filtered to buggery. The writing.. > bright green? I don't think so - really looks poor. And again, red writing > at the bottom, not co-ordinated at all, also very hard to read.
The writing's blue (shade of cyan) better check your settings and see if you're not in 256 color mode. Whats wrong with the buttons, you offer insults and mockery but nothing constructive.
> The counter - is a sort of cheap looking LCD display - not very dungeons and > dragons really?
Did I mention Dungeons & Dragons, is there a even a SINGLE reference to DnD anywhere on on the site? did I ever state in here that the page HAD anything to do with DnD?
> On the about me section, you have those revolting pink lines, which you've > either chiefed from some 'free web-page stuff' site, or glued together with > filters.
pink?! You REALLY should get your monitor (or eyes) checked, or as I said check your system settings, the main color in the bars is purple, a dark purple at that, in fact there IS no pink, magenta, and green yes, but no pink.
> Where's the navigation gone?.. Very poor.
Define? You feel it necessary to have big clumsy navigation on every page? the site is linear, there's no way to get lost.
> The writing on here is too big and looks messy - Why have you changed the > font? (Consistency is the KEY) If it weren't so large you could fit it on > one page - then it wouldn't be such a tiresome journey to the bottom of the > page.
changed the font? unlike too many people today I don't specify font face in my documents, all too often people don't have the particular font. If you didn't like the font, it's your default setting in your browser and not my problem. any actual text on any of the pages is in fact set in the default browser font. they letters are large because *I* have bad eyes and wanted it readable by anyone, how this is 'messy' is something in your mind and not this reality.
> Yes, like the tired old mail anim at the bottom, I used to have that too.
[shrug]
> I won't go on.
thank the gods. Oddly enough out of over 200 or so people who've taken the time to comment on the page, not everyone liked it but you were the only one who felt the need to be condecending and insulting not what you'd expect from a PRO looking at a personal homepage.
>Amature looking, ok, it fits in a single 800x600 screen with no need for >scrolling, it's neat & compact. The title isn't "a mish-mash of filters >and effects", too big? it's 19.5k, the eitire page is under 35k >recommended >size for fast loading, as for it being physically too big, thats your >opinion, it fits the page.
19.5K - that is quite bulky in my opinion, I like my images to be under 5K. For people with slower modems.. they'd have to waid a good few seconds for the image to load, and the end result is frankly dissapointing (But that's just my opinion)
>> The buttons are hilariously bad, and in a bordered table too which looks >> very poor. These buttons again are just filtered to buggery. The writing.. >> bright green? I don't think so - really looks poor. And again, red writing >> at the bottom, not co-ordinated at all, also very hard to read.
I'm sorry if you don't like the way I wrote my critisizm, but it certainly is constructive - I pointed out that the colours were bad and the buttons looked over - filtered.. sounds constructive to me.
>The writing's blue (shade of cyan) better check your settings and see >if you're not in 256 color mode. Whats wrong with the buttons, you >offer insults and mockery but nothing constructive
Oh dear, you seem to be getting upset. I think that wether I said green, blue or cyan is not an issue at all - the issue is that It is not a look that appeals to me at all, whatever damn shade of blue it is.
>Did I mention Dungeons & Dragons, is there a even a SINGLE reference to >DnD anywhere on on the site? did I ever state in here that the page HAD >anything to do with DnD?
When I say DnD, I mean the whole MUD thing as a whole - as in the era, I didn't mean DnD(tm). Sorry, that IS confusing, I should have made myself more clear.
>pink?! You REALLY should get your monitor (or eyes) checked, or as I >said >check your system settings, the main color in the bars is purple, a dark >purple at that, in fact there IS no pink, magenta, and green yes, but no >pink.
Colours Colours Colours - Theres no use in critisizing my eyes or moniter, the complaint I had was nor relevant to wether it was pink or purple, but it's still a nasty contrast, and, as you would say.. 'garish'
>> Where's the navigation gone?.. Very poor.
>Define? You feel it necessary to have big clumsy navigation on every >page? >the site is linear, there's no way to get lost.
Fair enough - I just like to get back to pages in 1 click withough having to press back loads of times.
>changed the font? unlike too many people today I don't specify font face >in my documents, all too often people don't have the particular font.
Yes, hardly anyone has Arial or verdana these days... and even if they don't.. it'll go to the default font anyway.
>how this is 'messy' is >something in your mind and not this reality.
Just the first thing that popped into my head..
>thank the gods. Oddly enough out of over 200 or so people who've >taken the time to comment on the page, not everyone liked it but >you were the only one who felt the need to be condecending and >insulting
the yellow is garish and it goes poorly with that blue, the images/buttons look as if a child drew them, your tables border color doesn't match the rest of the blue, I've never really cared for the sans serif/ariel font it's much too plain, the hefner logo from the right top of the table needs to be rescanned at a MUCH higher DPI, and should also be run through a 'despeckle' filter (I recommend PhotoShop, it is the best) you should also make it at least 25% larger so it's easier to see and identify what page you viewing. <-- Likewise I'm sure
not what you'd expect from a PRO looking at a personal
>homepage.
Perhaps you should start to expect this in future, You were quite damning in your report on my site, so I expected something much MUCH better from yours. Still, sometimes it's nice to be dissapointed.. as a (ahem) PRO, as you put it.. I'm MORE likley to write a critical report of your site, especially when you were so critical of mine.
When I said I was going to review you site, you replied..
>Oh PLEASE do, this should be interesting.
It seems to have been quite upsetting for you instead.
Calmor wrote: > 19.5K - that is quite bulky in my opinion, I like my images to be under 5K. > For people with slower modems.. they'd have to waid a good few seconds for > the image to load, and the end result is frankly dissapointing (But that's > just my opinion)
19.5k at 14.4 is about 12 seconds, if you're modem is slower than that you shouldn't be on the internet, with 33.6 modems selling for $9 now there's no excuse to go slow, or code poor graphics to cater to people who won't upgrade.
> Oh dear, you seem to be getting upset. I think that wether I said green, > blue or cyan is not an issue at all - the issue is that It is not a look > that appeals to me at all, whatever damn shade of blue it is.
the issue is you can't tell the difference between cyan and what you call 'bright green' or purple and what you call 'pink' you're NOT seeing colors correctly on your system is these are the colors you're seeing.
> When I say DnD, I mean the whole MUD thing as a whole - as in the era, I > didn't mean DnD(tm). Sorry, that IS confusing, I should have made myself > more clear.
Again, is there a single reference to any mud on my personal page? did I imply in any way, shape or form that this page was about, or had anything to do with muds?
> Colours Colours Colours - Theres no use in critisizing my eyes or moniter, > the complaint I had was nor relevant to wether it was pink or purple, but > it's still a nasty contrast, and, as you would say.. 'garish'
Wait you criticize colors as being something you don't like but then turn around and try to say the colors had nothing to do with it? yeah, YOU make sense.
> Fair enough - I just like to get back to pages in 1 click withough having to > press back loads of times.
there's 'back to where you came from' on every page inside the site.
> Yes, hardly anyone has Arial or verdana these days... and even if they > don't.. it'll go to the default font anyway.
Therefore your complaint about changing the font is invalid, since every bit of actual text on the pages is set to display default user fonts.
> the yellow is garish and it goes poorly > with that blue, the images/buttons look as if a child drew > them, your tables border color doesn't match the rest of the > blue, I've never really cared for the sans serif/ariel font > it's much too plain, the hefner logo from the right top of > the table needs to be rescanned at a MUCH higher DPI, and > should also be run through a 'despeckle' filter (I recommend > PhotoShop, it is the best) you should also make it at least > 25% larger so it's easier to see and identify what page you > viewing. <-- Likewise I'm sure
I don't get your likewise comment, since you tried to criticize my logo image for being too big, as for the rest of my comments do you any snotty, condescending comments as you used? course not.
> When I said I was going to review you site, you replied..
> >Oh PLEASE do, this should be interesting.
I said to myself "self, what would happen if you offered this silly ninny a chance to redeem herself in the public eye, give her a chance to show she's the pro she claims to be, all she has to do is write a fair review of a page, she could even be critical, but offer her the chance to show her professional side, think she could do it?"
and almost instantly I answered me "Not a chance, she's going to tear into you and be as insulting as possible, to get back at you for what you had to say."
and I was right, you had a clear shot for some integrity here, and you couldn't resist throwing in the snotty comments, you blew it, good going!
And remember, if you can, I never once presented myself as a professional, I never posted a web page URL and asked the public for their opinions, I only lead you down the path to a chance to look like what you claim to be, besides you're an amusing little puppet, I pull the strings, you dance. Do you REALLY think I cared a rats ass for what you thought of my page? I knew exactly how you were going to react the second I typed "Oh PLEASE do, this should be interesting."
-= Hawk =- wrote in message <370DD0B8.152F8...@mindspring.com>... >Calmor wrote:
>> I had a look at your site btw, and you'll be pleased to hear that I really >> really hate it. But as you didn't ask me to have a look at it, I shan't >> critisize it.
>As I said in email, PLEASE do, this should be amusing, blast away. >--
12 Seconds!? That's a lifetime on the internet 1.. 2.. 3..
>the issue is you can't tell the difference between cyan and what you >call 'bright green' or purple and what you call 'pink' you're NOT >seeing colors correctly on your system is these are the colors you're >seeing.
No. What I'm seeing, is what I'm seeing - it doesn't matter if I got the damn colour names wrong - pedant.
>Again, is there a single reference to any mud on my personal page? >did I imply in any way, shape or form that this page was about, or >had anything to do with muds?
Well, it certainly gives that impression, what with the gothic graphics and stuff.
>Wait you criticize colors as being something you don't like but then >turn around and try to say the colors had nothing to do with it? >yeah, YOU make sense.
colour NAMES have nothing to do with it.
>there's 'back to where you came from' on every page inside the site.
What if I didn't want to go back where I came form, but to another section of the site?
>Therefore your complaint about changing the font is invalid, since every >bit of actual text on the pages is set to display default user fonts.
No, the fonts on the main page are different to that of the rest of the site.
>I don't get your likewise comment, since you tried to criticize my >logo image for being too big, as for the rest of my comments do you >any snotty, condescending comments as you used? course not. >I said to myself "self, what would happen if you offered this >silly ninny a chance to redeem herself in the public eye...
Bullshit, you were just setting me up so that you could critisize me, anyone could see that.
>.."Not a chance, she's going >to tear into you and be as insulting as possible, to get back >at you for what you had to say."
Believe me, I was not as insulting as possible - I thought I was quite reserved actually.
>and I was right, you had a clear shot for some integrity here, >and you couldn't resist throwing in the snotty comments, you >blew it, good going!
Blew what? The chance to be in the elite alt.mug gang? No thanks - Perhaps you speak for everyone in your comments - but I think that anyone can see what a tantrum your having.
>...Do you REALLY think I cared a rats ass for what >you thought of my page?
That is HYSTERICAL! Why did you even BOTHER posting a reply or trying to prove me wrong about the comments I made?? If you really didn't care, you would have said 'yeah whatever' But instead you tried to defend your precious site. What a joker.
I knew exactly how you were going
>to react the second I typed "Oh PLEASE do, this should be >interesting."
Well done, bit invalidated thoughas mentioned above.
>Gave ya a chance....
Oooo, please don't be angry Mr Hawky - give me another chance.. please!
And before you bother to type it, just bare in mind that at no point was I trying to be 'in' with the alt.mud gang, I was just advertising my friends MUD - and I assure you that your dislike for me/and/or the MUD has not damaged the usage of the game whatsoever, and the usage has in fact gone up since posting the advert.
I leave you with this piece of irony. Microsoft have recently BANNED the use of Front Page with regards to development on ANY of their sites.