OT - Memorial Day
Adrienne Boswell
want to thank the men and women who have given their lives to protect
freedom - in whatever part of the world it might be threatened.
Seeing and hearing the WWII planes flying in formation over my house
several times is truly an amazing thing. There were two groups of four,
with one group having a single black plane to represent the "missing" man.
I know I would not have wanted to be on the receiving end of what was being
dropped by those bombers so many years ago.
--
Adrienne Boswell at Home
Arbpen Web Site Design Services
http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
Please respond to the group so others can share
Marc Bissonnette
news:Xns9EF57D766987...@88.198.244.100:
> Although not everyone who reads these groups is from the United
> States, I want to thank the men and women who have given their lives
> to protect freedom - in whatever part of the world it might be
> threatened.
>
> Seeing and hearing the WWII planes flying in formation over my house
> several times is truly an amazing thing. There were two groups of
> four, with one group having a single black plane to represent the
> "missing" man. I know I would not have wanted to be on the receiving
> end of what was being dropped by those bombers so many years ago.
I am a Canadian; We have men and women in hot spots all over the world,
including Afghanistan today and in every single major conflict in the
history of the modern world.
Allow me to tip my hat publicly to all of those who have - and who are
currently - serving a cause greater than their own individual good.
--
Marc Bissonnette
Largest ISP comparison site in Canada: http://www.canadianisp.ca
Web hosting search and comparison: http://www.masterhostlist.com
Scott Bryce
> I am a Canadian; We have men and women in hot spots all over the
> world, including Afghanistan today and in every single major conflict
> in the history of the modern world.
I have a daughter in Afghanistan right now.
Jerry Stuckle
I'm sure you're proud of her, even though you are very worried about her.
But it is troops like her who have kept us free.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstu...@attglobal.net
==================
Martin Edwards
> Although not everyone who reads these groups is from the United States, I
> want to thank the men and women who have given their lives to protect
> freedom - in whatever part of the world it might be threatened.
>
> Seeing and hearing the WWII planes flying in formation over my house
> several times is truly an amazing thing. There were two groups of four,
> with one group having a single black plane to represent the "missing" man.
> I know I would not have wanted to be on the receiving end of what was being
> dropped by those bombers so many years ago.
>
fire, but why was the Palin allowed to exploit it?
--
Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must
painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman
Thomas Mlynarczyk
> On 5/30/2011 6:22 PM, Scott Bryce wrote:
>> On 5/30/2011 1:50 PM, Marc Bissonnette wrote:
>>> I am a Canadian; We have men and women in hot spots all over the
>>> world, including Afghanistan today and in every single major conflict
>>> in the history of the modern world.
>>
>> I have a daughter in Afghanistan right now.
>
> I'm sure you're proud of her, even though you are very worried about her.
>
> But it is troops like her who have kept us free.
>
--
Ce n'est pas parce qu'ils sont nombreux à avoir tort qu'ils ont raison!
(Coluche)
SAZ
arb...@yahoo.com says...
>
> Although not everyone who reads these groups is from the United States, I
> want to thank the men and women who have given their lives to protect
> freedom - in whatever part of the world it might be threatened.
>
> Seeing and hearing the WWII planes flying in formation over my house
> several times is truly an amazing thing. There were two groups of four,
> with one group having a single black plane to represent the "missing" man.
> I know I would not have wanted to be on the receiving end of what was being
> dropped by those bombers so many years ago.
>
My wife, son and I were driving home from a Soccer Tourney on Monday and
an elderly man was in the middle of the two lane road holding up his
hand in both directions to stop traffic. I was first in line heading
east, so I got out of my car to see if he needed assistance, as did
several others behind and in the cars facing me. As we approached, we
saw a group of 12 elderly uniformed men holding flags and/or guns facing
an old cemetary along the road, apparently hidden by the trees. The
five of us "civilians" all stood quietly in the road watching these
veterans say a few words and give a 21-gun salute. As Taps was being
played, I noticed a man about my age saluting, we all felt the need to
join him. Very touching sight.
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Thank you for the reality check, that uncommented off-topic
self-righteousness made me quite sick.
Regards,
PointedEars, F'up2 poster
--
War is the result of the delusional idea that you could bomb justice on
people, using the barrels of the even more terrifying guns and the even
more efficient missile silos. War is the failure to do people justice.
-- Eugen Drewermann, German theologian, February 2003 (translated)
Red E. Kilowatt
> Thomas Mlynarczyk wrote:
>
>> Jerry Stuckle schrieb:
>>> On 5/30/2011 6:22 PM, Scott Bryce wrote:
>>>> On 5/30/2011 1:50 PM, Marc Bissonnette wrote:
>>>>> I am a Canadian; We have men and women in hot spots all over the
>>>>> world, including Afghanistan today and in every single major
>>>>> conflict in the history of the modern world.
>>>>
>>>> I have a daughter in Afghanistan right now.
>>>
>>> I'm sure you're proud of her, even though you are very worried
>>> about her.
>>>
>>> But it is troops like her who have kept us free.
>>
>> http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Afghanistan-12-Children-And-
> Two-Women-Mistakenly-Killed-In-Nato-Airstrike-In-Helmand-
> Province/Article/201105416001738?lpos=World_News_First_World_News_Article_Teaser_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_16001738_Afghanistan%3A_12_Children_And_Two_Women_Mistakenly_Killed_In_Nato_Airstrike_In_Helmand_Province_
>
> Thank you for the reality check, that uncommented off-topic
> self-righteousness made me quite sick.
If you have such a delicate constitution then perhaps you shouldn't be
reading newsgroups.
When I saw the comment you are referring to my first thought was that
nothing we've done in Afghanistan has actually helped keep us free, but
I think that when people are honoring their war dead it is not the time
to say anything that might taint their sacrifice. The Americans who are
on the front lines are the flower of our youth and I am in awe of their
patriotism, their heroism and their willingness to sacrifice without
hesitation for a cause they truly believe in. Any mistakes that have
been made are all due to failures of leadership and should not in any
way detract from the recognition and the honors that our troops deserve.
--
Red
Jukka K. Korpela
> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
[...]
>> Thank you for the reality check, that uncommented off-topic
>> self-righteousness made me quite sick.
>
> If you have such a delicate constitution then perhaps you shouldn't be
> reading newsgroups.
I seldom find a reason to agree with Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn, but in
this particular thread, I could not agree more. This whole US-centric
patriotic show-off is really shameful.
If you don't understand what international newsgroups are, and what
their topics are, you should really concentrate on the parade in your
hometown and let all the rest of the world use the newsgroups for their
announced purposes.
> When I saw the comment you are referring to my first thought was that
> nothing we've done in Afghanistan has actually helped keep us free,
You are really not referring to anything related to webmastering, HTML,
or specifically to HTML authoring for the WWW, are you?
Followups randomized to at.html. Not that this thread ever was on-topic
in any of the groups it was posted to.
--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Marc Bissonnette
news:4de5...@news.x-privat.org:
Our troops (In my case, Canadian troops - It's not all about "American
centric" stuff, from another reply in this thread) may not specifically
be keeping *us* free, but I cannot help but think:
I have a little girl and she:
Will be able to get her drivers' license in a few years, with nothing
more than a demonstrated skill to safely operate the vehicle.
Will be able to pursue a career in literally *any* field she chooses,
with no restrictions other than the ability to show proficiency.
Can associate with whom she wants, when she wants and where she wants.
Can choose to be with, have intimate relationss with or marry anyone she
so desires, be they of the opposite gender or the same.
Has just as much say in our democracy as I, her father, with one person =
one vote.
Can own property anywhere she likes, so long as she pays the price the
sellers ask and abides by local laws.
Can wear literally anything she likes, with very, very few legal
exceptions (In Canada, the Supreme Court ruled that women are just as
equal as men and may go topless anywhere a man may go)
And a bunch of other freedoms, liberties and choices.
I find that men and women - our soldiers - who are willing to put their
safety and their very lives on the line so that other little girls, no
different than mine, other than the accident of nature in where they were
born on this Earth, may have those same freedoms, liberties and choices.
So yeah, that's worth a tip of the hat, words of respect and heartfelt
admiration.
Red E. Kilowatt
> 31.5.2011 19:57, Red E. Kilowatt wrote:
>
>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> [...]
>>> Thank you for the reality check, that uncommented off-topic
>>> self-righteousness made me quite sick.
>>
>> If you have such a delicate constitution then perhaps you shouldn't
>> be reading newsgroups.
>
> I seldom find a reason to agree with Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn, but in
> this particular thread, I could not agree more. This whole US-centric
> patriotic show-off is really shameful.
>
> If you don't understand what international newsgroups are, and what
> their topics are, you should really concentrate on the parade in your
> hometown and let all the rest of the world use the newsgroups for
> their announced purposes.
Do you know what "OT" in the subject line means? It means don't read it
if you're not interested.
Now kindly fuck off.
--
Red
idle
alt.www.webmaster,alt.html,comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:
> On 5/30/2011 6:22 PM, Scott Bryce wrote:
>> On 5/30/2011 1:50 PM, Marc Bissonnette wrote:
>>> I am a Canadian; We have men and women in hot spots all over the
>>> world, including Afghanistan today and in every single major conflict
>>> in the history of the modern world.
>>
>> I have a daughter in Afghanistan right now.
>
> I'm sure you're proud of her, even though you are very worried about her.
>
> But it is troops like her who have kept us free.
While I do understand your thoughts and beliefs on the matter, I do
however fail to see how any of the recent wars have anything to do with
protecting our freedoms.
Keep in mind I am 100% in keeping with honoring our guys and gals in the
field as it's really got nothing to do with their particular thoughts
and beliefs, they're simply told where to go, and what to do.
But seriously, since maybe WWII, what war have we been in that has in
any way, defended OUR freedom or safety? The only one I can think of is
this war on terrorism, which really should have just been a war on the
Taliban alone, and not all the 'other' evil doers. I would think that
anyone with even only a half a brain would have thought that whole "Get
Saddam" was nothing more than a bad joke at best. The intel sucked and
the gov knew it, and to boot, it was a widely known fact that the guy
didn't even have a rocket that had more than a 90 mile range. WTF?
And unfortunately, when it comes to us asserting our beliefs, values and
freedoms on others, there hasn't been one single instance where our
efforts have been truly successful. Not one. Really. And how many of
these so called freedom actions have taken place? If you and I kept
doing something that failed time and time again, I wonder where we'd be
at ;)
What it really has done though is to cost us countless lives and money.
Tons of money that we will never see any kind of return for.
Our own children go hungry in the streets. Our own families go without
proper healthcare, proper shelter and many without access to
satisfactory education for the kids. Our own workers go without jobs,
and now, our financial institutions basically rape us, lie about it,
then admit to it, then we pay them to fix it, and they continue on with
no accountability whatsoever.
Yes. I support our troops 100%.
I just wish they were here in our own hometowns so that a mother who's
run out of baby formula at 2 in the morning can maybe go to Walgreens
without worrying if she's going to make it back home.
Instead of worrying about whether some child in some other country half
way around the world is getting access to clean water, wouldn't it be
great if a tornado hit and there was an immediate response by the Army
with shovels, medicine and food.
--
idle
I refuse to let common sense cloud my judgment.
Jukka K. Korpela
> Do you know what "OT" in the subject line means?
It means you are deliberately spamming international newsgroups with
off-topic messages. You seem to refuse to understand this, despite all
the subtle and non-subtle hints.
> Now kindly fuck off.
That was simply rude, pointless, and off-topic.
I don't think your father is or would be proud of that.
F'ups set, again.
--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Red E. Kilowatt
Of course I agree with that. But I do think it's important to make a
distinction between what is actually "keeping us free" and other goals
which may also be desirable.
--
Red
Red E. Kilowatt
> 31.5.2011 22:33, Red E. Kilowatt wrote:
>
>> Do you know what "OT" in the subject line means?
>
> It means you are deliberately spamming international newsgroups with
> off-topic messages.
So you're an anal-retentive self-appointed moderator who thinks anything
OT is "spam."
Well, you're entitled to your opinion, no matter how stupid it might be,
but you're not going to have any influence on me so don't waste your
time trying to tell me what you think is or isn't appropriate.
--
Red
Jukka K. Korpela
> Well, you're entitled to your opinion, no matter how stupid it might be,
> but you're not going to have any influence on me so don't waste your
> time trying to tell me what you think is or isn't appropriate.
I surely won't waste my time in trying to explain to a spammer what is
appropriate. I was only pointing out to the potentially educatable
people that by spamming your products, beliefs, or hypocricy around the
web is a dishonor to anyone who might take them for real.
F'ups set, though spammers will surely overrule them. You'll recognize
them from that, among other things.
By turning your purportedly sacred things to spam, to be sent to forums
where they are off-topic, you surely show what they really mean to you.
--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Steve Sobol
> So you're an anal-retentive self-appointed moderator who thinks anything
> OT is "spam."
There is a distinction on Usenet between spam, and offtopic posts.
Usenet spam is usually defined as the same offtopic crap posted to
multiple newsgroups, enough to raise the post's Breidbart Index (and it
generally has to be posted to at least 4 or 5 newsgroups to past that
test).
This discussion is OT, but probably not spam.
> Well, you're entitled to your opinion, no matter how stupid it might be,
I have seen newsgroups ruined after having been overrun with tons of
offtopic posts. The signal:noise ratio just goes way too low for the
newsgroup to continue to be usable. So, I can understand why some people
get so upset about OT.
> but you're not going to have any influence on me so don't waste your
> time trying to tell me what you think is or isn't appropriate.
I think you need to chill.
--
Steve Sobol - Programming/WebDev/IT Support
sjs...@JustThe.net
Red E. Kilowatt
> In article <4de5...@news.x-privat.org>, Red E. Kilowatt says...
>
>
>> So you're an anal-retentive self-appointed moderator who thinks
>> anything OT is "spam."
>
> There is a distinction on Usenet between spam, and offtopic posts.
>
> Usenet spam is usually defined as the same offtopic crap posted to
> multiple newsgroups, enough to raise the post's Breidbart Index (and
> it generally has to be posted to at least 4 or 5 newsgroups to past
> that test).
>
> This discussion is OT, but probably not spam.
Thanks for stating the obvious, but perhaps you should be telling
Korpela this since he is so clueless.
>
>> Well, you're entitled to your opinion, no matter how stupid it might
>> be,
>
> I have seen newsgroups ruined after having been overrun with tons of
> offtopic posts. The signal:noise ratio just goes way too low for the
> newsgroup to continue to be usable. So, I can understand why some
> people get so upset about OT.
Korpela's reaction to this OT thread is not reasonable by any measure.
>
>> but you're not going to have any influence on me so don't waste your
>> time trying to tell me what you think is or isn't appropriate.
>
> I think you need to chill.
Tell that to Jukka Korpela. He is the one who sidetracked this thread
with a pathetic attempt at moderation.
--
Red
Red E. Kilowatt
You are delusional.
--
Red
Jukka K. Korpela
> Usenet spam is usually defined as the same offtopic crap posted to
> multiple newsgroups, enough to raise the post's Breidbart Index (and it
> generally has to be posted to at least 4 or 5 newsgroups to past that
> test).
>
> This discussion is OT, but probably not spam.
Nobody cares about old definitions of spam. These days, "spam" means any
"spam" that people throw at other people, believing that everyone should
eat their favorite spam. "OT" is a feeble excuse for spamming.
Needless to say, spamming some purported patriotism in international
newsgroups where susch spam is off-topic is an insult to patriotism.
F'ups set. Only reasonable people will honor them, of course.
--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Steve Sobol
> > I think you need to chill.
>
> Tell that to Jukka Korpela. He is the one who sidetracked this thread
> with a pathetic attempt at moderation.
No. *You* need to relax.
For $DEITY's sake. It's not an attempt at moderation, it's not
censorship.
Red E. Kilowatt
Oh, of course.
This is some hilarious stuff Jukka. You really ought to take this show
on the road.
--
Red
Red E. Kilowatt
> In article <4de5532c$1...@news.x-privat.org>, Red E. Kilowatt says...
>
>
>>> I think you need to chill.
>>
>> Tell that to Jukka Korpela. He is the one who sidetracked this thread
>> with a pathetic attempt at moderation.
>
> No. *You* need to relax.
Why don't you relax instead?
>
> For $DEITY's sake. It's not an attempt at moderation, it's not
> censorship.
Nah. Of course not. False accusations of spamming are perfectly fine.
It's just friendly banter.
--
Red
Jerry Stuckle
This is where you're wrong. Nobody cares about YOUR definition of spam.
There is nothing spammy about the posts which originated this thread.
Your anal-retentive posts, OTOH...
And you don't even know how to set a FUP properly. ROFLMAO!
dorayme
"Red E. Kilowatt" <SPAM...@aww-faq.org> wrote:
> The Americans who are
> on the front lines are the flower of our youth and I am in awe of their
> patriotism, their heroism and their willingness to sacrifice without
> hesitation for a cause they truly believe in.
What is your evidence (and real meaning) for the various claims
in this statement? Hardly any American youths are in battle on
front lines. Flower of our youth indeed! In WW1, there is some
evidence and meaning for such a thought in regard to various
nationalities, for complicated reasons to do with the times, not
to mention the scale of the conflict.
It looks like typical hogwash from folk who never much put their
own lives on the line, emoting garbage mainly instead. It's like
*most* professedly religious folk, they yap with hand on heart
and have their thoughts, but it is all cheap stuff and they would
neither bet nor sacrifice anything clearly significant to them on
their *alleged* beliefs.
The man who goes over the top, whether for his mates or for king
or country deserves better than a whole bunch of folk gathering
and piously emoting on alt.html etc. If they had to time to
think, they would all turn back into the trench at the very
thought and prefer to lose.
--
dorayme
Red E. Kilowatt
> In article <4de5...@news.x-privat.org>,
> "Red E. Kilowatt" <SPAM...@aww-faq.org> wrote:
>
>> The Americans who are
>> on the front lines are the flower of our youth and I am in awe of
>> their patriotism, their heroism and their willingness to sacrifice
>> without hesitation for a cause they truly believe in.
>
> What is your evidence (and real meaning) for the various claims
> in this statement? Hardly any American youths are in battle on
> front lines. Flower of our youth indeed! In WW1, there is some
> evidence and meaning for such a thought in regard to various
> nationalities, for complicated reasons to do with the times, not
> to mention the scale of the conflict.
My evidence is the comments from the soldiers themselves in these and
many other documentaries:
Restrepo
The War Tapes
The Ground Truth
Combat Diary - The Marines of Lima Company
Brothers at War
Baghdad ER
Biography - Pat Tillman
Alive Day Memories: Home from Iraq
This Is War: Memories of Iraq
Last Letters Home - Voices of American Troops from the Battlefields of
Iraq
There are many good book on the subject to choose from but this may well
be the best:
"WAR" by Sebastian Junger
> It looks like typical hogwash from folk who never much put their
> own lives on the line, emoting garbage mainly instead. It's like
> *most* professedly religious folk, they yap with hand on heart
> and have their thoughts, but it is all cheap stuff and they would
> neither bet nor sacrifice anything clearly significant to them on
> their *alleged* beliefs.
Wrong. I'm a veteran who has put his life on the line for his country. I
know what motivated me and the others I served with.
>
> The man who goes over the top, whether for his mates or for king
> or country deserves better than a whole bunch of folk gathering
> and piously emoting on alt.html etc. If they had to time to
> think, they would all turn back into the trench at the very
> thought and prefer to lose.
Clearly you really don't have a clue about any of this. One can hate the
war and still recognize and respect the sacrifices of the soldiers who
go off to war with the best of intentions.
--
Red
dorayme
> dorayme wrote:
> > In article <4de5...@news.x-privat.org>,
> > "Red E. Kilowatt" <SPAM...@aww-faq.org> wrote:
> >
> >> The Americans who are
> >> on the front lines are the flower of our youth and I am in awe of
> >> their patriotism, their heroism and their willingness to sacrifice
> >> without hesitation for a cause they truly believe in.
> >
> > What is your evidence (and real meaning) for the various claims
> > in this statement? Hardly any American youths are in battle on
> > front lines. Flower of our youth indeed! In WW1, there is some
> > evidence and meaning for such a thought in regard to various
> > nationalities, for complicated reasons to do with the times, not
> > to mention the scale of the conflict.
>
> My evidence is the comments from the soldiers themselves in these and
> many other documentaries:
...
>
> There are many good book on the subject ...
These books do not provide evidence that the flower of American
youth are on the front lines today. Nor that it is as simple as
that most are there for the high motives you suggest. I do not
suggest they are there for disreputable motives, nor wish to cast
any aspersions on them.
--
dorayme
Marc Bissonnette
news:is3lrh$15d$1...@dont-email.me:
> 31.5.2011 23:32, Steve Sobol wrote:
>
>> Usenet spam is usually defined as the same offtopic crap posted to
>> multiple newsgroups, enough to raise the post's Breidbart Index (and
>> it generally has to be posted to at least 4 or 5 newsgroups to past
>> that test).
>>
>> This discussion is OT, but probably not spam.
>
> Nobody cares about old definitions of spam. These days, "spam" means
> any "spam" that people throw at other people, believing that everyone
> should eat their favorite spam. "OT" is a feeble excuse for spamming.
No.
You are not only wrong, but you are so obviously not related to - nor
have you ever had any experience in any form of machine or network
administration (you can deny this all you like: You'd be lying).
There is a *reason* for definitions of spam. OT/Off Topic means Off
Topic. Period.
Spam is bulk unsolicited/commercial email *or*, in Usenets' case, as
Steve Sobol partially pointed out, is multiple newsgroup cross posting
*or* massive posts of substantively identical content to the same *or*
multiple newsgroups AND the Breidbart index must be higher than X (I
cannot remember, off hand, what the BI is to be considered spam).
That you ever refer to "the old definition of spam" shows that you have
absolutely no relevance to this discussion whatsoever.
The very fact that the subject was appropriately prefaced with OT and
you *still* not only opened it, read the thread for several messages
*and still chose to pollute the newsgroup with your whining* shows that
you are interested in trolling and nothing more.
You, sir, are a reminder that there most definitely is an urgent need
for chlorine in the gene pool.
Marc Bissonnette
news:dorayme-88F471...@news.albasani.net:
I think that one has to give the benefit of the doubt to the youth that
are indeed on the frontlines, today: At the end of the day, when the
deployment orders are received, that is when a persons' true mettle is
first tested: If they truly do not wish to face an armed enemy, to put
their lives on the line, be that for belief, for comrade or for country,
the option is *always* there to run away. Canada knows this because we
seem to have become a haven for US military deserters. Why this is kind
of puzzles me, because Canadian military folk deserting during time of
deployment is extremely rare, but, for whatever reason, we get a lot of
US service people up here who seem to think we're a safe haven for them
(This was true during the Viet Nam era, however, today, Canada is more
likely than not to deport an American back to their base commander to
face the music for desertion)
I guess this is my long winded way of saying that the youth in the forces
today who are in-country are there by choice and they certainly know the
painful consequences that choice can bring. Unless US television is
heavily censored, the pictures and stories we see from Iraq and
Afghanistan (up here in Canada) certainly do not paint an easy or idyllic
picture of going to war for a young soldier.
dorayme
Marc Bissonnette <use...@canadianisp.ca> wrote:
...
> ... the youth in the forces
> today who are in-country are there by choice and they certainly know the
> painful consequences that choice can bring.
No one doubts that there are choices and hard decisions. But we
should be careful of exaggerating the nature of these choices and
tending to think of them all as somewhat glorious. The reality is
different. I am deeply suspicious of the extent of this
memorialising, both in terms of it sincerity and its practical
effect.
--
dorayme
Mayayana
| There is a *reason* for definitions of spam. OT/Off Topic means Off
| Topic. Period.
|
The OP posted a completely unrelated, political
comment. You joined in. The suitability of the post
has nothing to do with whether Memorial Day is an
important holiday, or with how anyone feels about
anyone's military.
OT refers to something related and probably of interest
to several people, like "what's a good photo editor?". It
doesn't provide license to post *anything* that's not
spam.
Perhaps the best measure of an inappropriate post
is that the thread degenerates into a fight over
whether it was an inappropriate post. :)
How about just dropping it?
Marc Bissonnette
news:is5bu2$b5$1...@dont-email.me:
Apparently, you're not familiar with how Usenet works over the past
thirty years - Suck it up, buttercup :)
Marc Bissonnette
I will definitely agree with you that not *all* are there for reasons of
altruism. However, seeing so many coffins with Canadian flags draped over
them, I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt until proven
otherwise.
Red E. Kilowatt
> In article <4de5...@news.x-privat.org>,
> "Red E. Kilowatt" <SPAM...@aww-faq.org> wrote:
>
>> dorayme wrote:
>>> In article <4de5...@news.x-privat.org>,
>>> "Red E. Kilowatt" <SPAM...@aww-faq.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The Americans who are
>>>> on the front lines are the flower of our youth and I am in awe of
>>>> their patriotism, their heroism and their willingness to sacrifice
>>>> without hesitation for a cause they truly believe in.
>>>
>>> What is your evidence (and real meaning) for the various claims
>>> in this statement? Hardly any American youths are in battle on
>>> front lines. Flower of our youth indeed! In WW1, there is some
>>> evidence and meaning for such a thought in regard to various
>>> nationalities, for complicated reasons to do with the times, not
>>> to mention the scale of the conflict.
>>
>> My evidence is the comments from the soldiers themselves in these and
>> many other documentaries:
> ...
>>
>> There are many good book on the subject ...
>
> These books do not provide evidence that the flower of American
> youth are on the front lines today.
Perhaps I need to clearly define what I meant by "the flower of our
youth." It is based a speech made by Lyndon Johnson in 1965 during the
Vietnam War. He said, "I do not find it easy to send the flower of our
youth, our finest young men, into battle." He wasn't talking about what
one thinks of as the "best and the brightest." He meant those Americans
from the heartland who are so deeply patriotic that they are always the
ones who do most of the fighting and the dying for America.
Sadly, many of them get maimed, killed, and damaged psychologically for
all the wrong reasons, but that's not their fault and it should not
diminish our respect for their sacrifice.
You should see the documentaries and read the books. Maybe that would
help you to better understand that what I said about their patriotism,
their heroism and their willingness to sacrifice is factual and not some
nationalistic drivel. One thing unique about these recent wars is the
amount of video being shot by the troops themselves. We can see our
soldiers goofing around during quiet times and how they react when the
bullets are flying, and we can see them expressing their honest
feelings. Those who are in the thick of it truly are the flower of our
youth -- the best of America.
> Nor that it is as simple as
> that most are there for the high motives you suggest. I do not
> suggest they are there for disreputable motives, nor wish to cast
> any aspersions on them.
I would not suggest that all troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are there
for patriotic or altruistic reasons. Obviously many don't want to be
there, but all that goes out the window when the bullets are flying.
Then, the only thing that matters to the vast majority of them is not
letting their mates down and that is when the patriotism, the heroism
and the willingness to sacrifice really expresses itself. This is all
explained in great detail in "WAR" by Sebastian Junger.
--
Red
Red E. Kilowatt
> I will definitely agree with you that not *all* are there for reasons
> of altruism. However, seeing so many coffins with Canadian flags
> draped over them, I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt
> until proven otherwise.
You probably understand this already but I'll say it anyway -- I didn't
mean to ignore or diminish the contributions and the sacrifices made by
Canadians and others who are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. There is
nothing special about Americans in this regard. They all deserve our
gratitude and respect.
--
Red
Marc Bissonnette
news:4de6...@news.x-privat.org:
Oh, I totally understood :) I'm just sending out my respect as a proud
Canadian, as others do for their nations' soldiers :)
Adrienne Boswell
<arb...@yahoo.com> writing in
news:Xns9EF57D766987...@88.198.244.100:
> Although not everyone who reads these groups is from the United
> States, I want to thank the men and women who have given their lives
> to protect freedom - in whatever part of the world it might be
> threatened.
>
> Seeing and hearing the WWII planes flying in formation over my house
> several times is truly an amazing thing. There were two groups of
> four, with one group having a single black plane to represent the
> "missing" man. I know I would not have wanted to be on the receiving
> end of what was being dropped by those bombers so many years ago.
>
When I started this Off Topic (not spam) post on Monday, May 30, 2011, it
was meant to express my gratitude to all those how have died, or been
injured in service to their country - which ever country it was, when
ever it was. The post was not meant to be political in any way, shape of
form. It was merely a way to say "thank you".
--
Adrienne Boswell at Home
Arbpen Web Site Design Services
http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
Please respond to the group so others can share
idle
alt.www.webmaster,alt.html,comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:
> Gazing into my crystal ball I observed Adrienne Boswell
> <arb...@yahoo.com> writing in
> news:Xns9EF57D766987...@88.198.244.100:
>
>> Although not everyone who reads these groups is from the United
>> States, I want to thank the men and women who have given their lives
>> to protect freedom - in whatever part of the world it might be
>> threatened.
>>
>> Seeing and hearing the WWII planes flying in formation over my house
>> several times is truly an amazing thing. There were two groups of
>> four, with one group having a single black plane to represent the
>> "missing" man. I know I would not have wanted to be on the receiving
>> end of what was being dropped by those bombers so many years ago.
>>
>
> When I started this Off Topic (not spam) post on Monday, May 30, 2011, it
> was meant to express my gratitude to all those how have died, or been
> injured in service to their country - which ever country it was, when
> ever it was. The post was not meant to be political in any way, shape of
> form. It was merely a way to say "thank you".
Welcome to AWW.
That'll teach ya ;)
How many group members does it take to change a light bulb?
1 to change the light bulb and to post that the light bulb has been
changed.
14 to share similar experiences of changing light bulbs and how the
light bulb could have been changed differently.
7 to caution about the dangers of changing light bulbs.
6 to argue over whether it’s “lightbulb” or “light bulb”.
Another 6 to condemn those 6 as stupid.
2 industry professionals to inform the group that the proper term is
“lamp”.
15 know-it-alls who claim they were in the industry, and that “light
bulb” is perfectly correct.
19 to post that this group is not about light bulbs and to please take
this discussion to a light bulb group.
11 to defend the posting saying that we all use light bulbs and
therefore the posts are relevant.
36 to debate which method of changing light bulbs is superior, where to
buy the best light bulbs, what brand of light bulbs work best, etc.
5 People to post pics of their own light bulbs.
15 People to post “I can’t see the pix in my browser!”
7 to post URL’s where one can see examples of different light bulbs.
4 to post that the URL’s were posted incorrectly and then post the
corrected URL’s.
13 to link all posts to date, quote them in their entirety including
all headers and signatures, and add “Me too” "Word" "What they said"
etc.
5 to post to the group that they will no longer post because they
cannot handle the light bulb controversy.
--
Better living through chemistry.
dorayme
Marc Bissonnette <use...@canadianisp.ca> wrote:
> dorayme <dor...@optusnet.com.au> had this epiphany to share:
> news:dorayme-9CD04B...@news.albasani.net:
>
> > In article <Xns9EF7141CA6AC2...@216.196.97.131>,
> > Marc Bissonnette <use...@canadianisp.ca> wrote:
> >
> > ...
> >
> >> ... the youth in the forces
> >> today who are in-country are there by choice and they certainly know
> >> the painful consequences that choice can bring.
> >
> > No one doubts that there are choices and hard decisions. But we
> > should be careful of exaggerating the nature of these choices and
> > tending to think of them all as somewhat glorious. The reality is
> > different. I am deeply suspicious of the extent of this
> > memorialising, both in terms of it sincerity and its practical
> > effect.
>
> I will definitely agree with you that not *all* are there for reasons of
> altruism. However, seeing so many coffins with Canadian flags draped over
> them, I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt until proven
> otherwise.
You will never be *proved* otherwise or anywise. In any case the
poor souls are not on trial.
The scale and frequency of the memorialising (including all the
fine words and the temporary emotions in the breasts of various
people) and the claims that are made all around that goes on in
some western countries are almost surely as a whole likely to
contain a huge dose of hypocrisy.
What is 'many' and what is not is a relative matter. You are not
seeing very many coffins, neither are Australians and neither are
Americans compared to some past wars and nowhere near the numbers
of coffins that our interventions are *causing* (rightly or
wrongly). The chances of an American (and especially Australian
trooper dying - my govt is very careful in its contribution, just
enough to support the main real motivation for us being in
Afghanistan (to maintain American protection) - are low compared
to many other human activities.
Remember, if people choose to emote and memorialise in an
unrelated technical group, others will have every right to
complain and even to offer interpretations that may seem more
than merely sobering, namely over-cynical and cruel.
--
dorayme
dorayme
"Red E. Kilowatt" <SPAM...@aww-faq.org> wrote:
> >> There are many good book on the subject ...
> >
> > These books do not provide evidence that the flower of American
> > youth are on the front lines today.
>
> Perhaps I need to clearly define what I meant ... those Americans
> from the heartland who are so deeply patriotic that they are always the
> ones who do most of the fighting and the dying for America.
>
What does "deeply patriotic" mean? Is this a good thing? Is it
better than say the alleged idea of the Christian to love one's
neighbour, meaning other humans? Perhaps the flower of our youth
would be the ones with richer colours, read deeper ideas.
--
dorayme
John Bokma
> Gazing into my crystal ball I observed Adrienne Boswell
> <arb...@yahoo.com> writing in
> news:Xns9EF57D766987...@88.198.244.100:
>
>> Although not everyone who reads these groups is from the United
>> States, I want to thank the men and women who have given their lives
>> to protect freedom - in whatever part of the world it might be
>> threatened.
>>
>> Seeing and hearing the WWII planes flying in formation over my house
>> several times is truly an amazing thing. There were two groups of
>> four, with one group having a single black plane to represent the
>> "missing" man. I know I would not have wanted to be on the receiving
>> end of what was being dropped by those bombers so many years ago.
>>
>
> When I started this Off Topic (not spam) post on Monday, May 30, 2011, it
> was meant to express my gratitude to all those how have died, or been
> injured in service to their country - which ever country it was, when
> ever it was. The post was not meant to be political in any way, shape of
> form. It was merely a way to say "thank you".
TBH, I didn't know what to do with it, hence didn't reply to it, not
even when it got "funny". I think I agree somewhat with Yucca but
wouldn't call it spam.
Anyway, when you crosspost always make sure to set the Follow-up-to
header to the most appropriate group.
--
John Bokma j3b
Blog: http://johnbokma.com/ Perl Consultancy: http://castleamber.com/
Perl for books: http://johnbokma.com/perl/help-in-exchange-for-books.html
NotMe
"Red E. Kilowatt" <SPAM...@aww-faq.org> wrote in message
news:4de6...@news.x-privat.org...
And more our prayes for a safe and quick return home.
Marc Bissonnette
That's right, Dorayme, you *do* have the right to complain and even to do
so in an over-cynical and cruel manner. In fact, some of my relatives
died to ensure that you have precisely that right.
You're welcome.
dorayme
Marc Bissonnette <use...@canadianisp.ca> wrote:
>
> ...you *do* have the right to complain and even to do
> so in an over-cynical and cruel manner. In fact, some of my relatives
> died to ensure that you have precisely that right.
>
> You're welcome.
And it is not illegal to *gush* all over a technical usenet group
with your stuff that bears little resemblance to the actions your
relatives might have made. All this emoting and talk is cheap
stuff and you are not particularly welcome to do it.
--
dorayme
Marc Bissonnette
And yet I still have the right to do it, just as you do to b**ch about it
- Life's grand, ain't it ?
SAZ
arb...@yahoo.com says...
>
> Gazing into my crystal ball I observed Adrienne Boswell
> <arb...@yahoo.com> writing in
> news:Xns9EF57D766987...@88.198.244.100:
>
> > Although not everyone who reads these groups is from the United
> > States, I want to thank the men and women who have given their lives
> > to protect freedom - in whatever part of the world it might be
> > threatened.
> >
> > Seeing and hearing the WWII planes flying in formation over my house
> > several times is truly an amazing thing. There were two groups of
> > four, with one group having a single black plane to represent the
> > "missing" man. I know I would not have wanted to be on the receiving
> > end of what was being dropped by those bombers so many years ago.
> >
>
> When I started this Off Topic (not spam) post on Monday, May 30, 2011, it
> was meant to express my gratitude to all those how have died, or been
> injured in service to their country - which ever country it was, when
> ever it was. The post was not meant to be political in any way, shape of
> form. It was merely a way to say "thank you".
You had the right intentions, Off Topic or not. For whatever reason, it
became inappropriately political in a matter of minutes.
Ed Mullen
> Gazing into my crystal ball I observed Adrienne Boswell
> <arb...@yahoo.com> writing in
> news:Xns9EF57D766987...@88.198.244.100:
>
>> Although not everyone who reads these groups is from the United
>> States, I want to thank the men and women who have given their lives
>> to protect freedom - in whatever part of the world it might be
>> threatened.
>>
>> Seeing and hearing the WWII planes flying in formation over my house
>> several times is truly an amazing thing. There were two groups of
>> four, with one group having a single black plane to represent the
>> "missing" man. I know I would not have wanted to be on the receiving
>> end of what was being dropped by those bombers so many years ago.
>>
>
> When I started this Off Topic (not spam) post on Monday, May 30, 2011, it
> was meant to express my gratitude to all those how have died, or been
> injured in service to their country - which ever country it was, when
> ever it was. The post was not meant to be political in any way, shape of
> form. It was merely a way to say "thank you".
I understood that, Adrienne, and appreciate and agree with it.
It is unfortunate, though not surprising, others didn't take the
simplicity of the message for what it was worth.
As one with a relative who lost a limb in Afghanistan serving in the
U.S. Air Force I especially understand the sentiment.
Thank you.
--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net/
If you can survive death, you can probably survive anything.
Red E. Kilowatt
> dorayme <dor...@optusnet.com.au> had this epiphany to share:
> news:dorayme-33252C...@news.albasani.net:
>
>> In article <Xns9EF8852664CCu...@216.196.97.131>,
>> Marc Bissonnette <use...@canadianisp.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> ...you *do* have the right to complain and even to do
>>> so in an over-cynical and cruel manner. In fact, some of my
>>> relatives died to ensure that you have precisely that right.
>>>
>>> You're welcome.
>>
>> And it is not illegal to *gush* all over a technical usenet group
>> with your stuff that bears little resemblance to the actions your
>> relatives might have made. All this emoting and talk is cheap
>> stuff and you are not particularly welcome to do it.
>
> And yet I still have the right to do it, just as you do to b**ch
> about it - Life's grand, ain't it ?
The irony is that when someone vents a lot of anger and hostility over
the existence of a particular thread they can make it last several times
longer than it ever would have lasted on its own. And it doesn't ever
change anyone's mind.
--
Red
John Bokma
> longer than it ever would have lasted on its own. And it doesn't ever
> change anyone's mind.
From my own experience, it does. I think I am now way more nice compared
to a few years back ;-).
Fup-to set.
Ed Mullen
> Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
>> 31.5.2011 19:57, Red E. Kilowatt wrote:
>>
>>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> [...]
>>>> Thank you for the reality check, that uncommented off-topic
>>>> self-righteousness made me quite sick.
>>>
>>> If you have such a delicate constitution then perhaps you shouldn't
>>> be reading newsgroups.
>>
>> I seldom find a reason to agree with Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn, but in
>> this particular thread, I could not agree more. This whole US-centric
>> patriotic show-off is really shameful.
>>
>> If you don't understand what international newsgroups are, and what
>> their topics are, you should really concentrate on the parade in your
>> hometown and let all the rest of the world use the newsgroups for
>> their announced purposes.
>
> Do you know what "OT" in the subject line means? It means don't read it
> if you're not interested.
>
> Now kindly fuck off.
Ditto to you.
--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net/
I heard about a dyslexic agnostic insomniac who lay awake at night
wondering if there was a dog ...
dorayme
Ed Mullen <ejCUT...@edmullen.net> wrote:
> Red E. Kilowatt wrote:
...
> > Do you know what "OT" in the subject line means? It means don't read it
> > if you're not interested.
> >
> > Now kindly fuck off.
>
> Ditto to you.
Funny how various characters come crawling out of the woodwork
when it comes to non html/css/authoring issues. Soon my thumb
will be healed and I will be able to squash them with it again.
--
dorayme
wayne
> Red E. Kilowatt wrote:
>> Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
>>> 31.5.2011 19:57, Red E. Kilowatt wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>>> Thank you for the reality check, that uncommented off-topic
>>>>> self-righteousness made me quite sick.
>>>>
>>>> If you have such a delicate constitution then perhaps you shouldn't
>>>> be reading newsgroups.
>>>
>>> I seldom find a reason to agree with Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn, but in
>>> this particular thread, I could not agree more. This whole US-centric
>>> patriotic show-off is really shameful.
>>>
>>> If you don't understand what international newsgroups are, and what
>>> their topics are, you should really concentrate on the parade in your
>>> hometown and let all the rest of the world use the newsgroups for
>>> their announced purposes.
>>
>> Do you know what "OT" in the subject line means? It means don't read it
>> if you're not interested.
>>
>> Now kindly fuck off.
was last week in case you haven't noticed.
>
> Ditto to you.
>
Red E. Kilowatt
> Red E. Kilowatt wrote:
>> Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
>>> 31.5.2011 19:57, Red E. Kilowatt wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>>> Thank you for the reality check, that uncommented off-topic
>>>>> self-righteousness made me quite sick.
>>>>
>>>> If you have such a delicate constitution then perhaps you shouldn't
>>>> be reading newsgroups.
>>>
>>> I seldom find a reason to agree with Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn, but
>>> in this particular thread, I could not agree more. This whole
>>> US-centric patriotic show-off is really shameful.
>>>
>>> If you don't understand what international newsgroups are, and what
>>> their topics are, you should really concentrate on the parade in
>>> your hometown and let all the rest of the world use the newsgroups
>>> for their announced purposes.
>>
>> Do you know what "OT" in the subject line means? It means don't read
>> it if you're not interested.
>>
>> Now kindly fuck off.
>
> Ditto to you.
And to your momma.
--
Red
se
"Adrienne Boswell" <arb...@yahoo.com> skrev i meddelelsen
news:Xns9EF57D766987...@88.198.244.100...
> Although not everyone who reads these groups is from the United States, I
> want to thank the men and women who have given their lives to protect
> freedom - in whatever part of the world it might be threatened.
>
> Seeing and hearing the WWII planes flying in formation over my house
> several times is truly an amazing thing. There were two groups of four,
> with one group having a single black plane to represent the "missing" man.
> I know I would not have wanted to be on the receiving end of what was
> being
> dropped by those bombers so many years ago.
>
> Adrienne Boswell at Home
> Arbpen Web Site Design Services
> http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
> Please respond to the group so others can share
You have a couple of validation errors in the css used to represend this
page.
dorayme
"se" <se@onfakeplace&.atbigfix> wrote:
>
> You have a couple of validation errors in the css used to represend this
> page.
O yeah? What are they?
--
dorayme
se
"dorayme" <dor...@optusnet.com.au> skrev i meddelelsen
news:dorayme-295E7F...@c-50-133-29-211.hsd1.mi.comcast.net...
It's not a bombing.
It's a call open the website owner, who
have a validation link on the page and who
thinks the page validates, and who appreciate
a chance for a correction.
> O yeah? What are they?
What's yours!.
dorayme
"se" <se@onfakeplace&.atbigfix> wrote:
> "dorayme" <dor...@optusnet.com.au> skrev i meddelelsen
> news:dorayme-295E7F...@c-50-133-29-211.hsd1.mi.comcast.net...
> > In article <iu6hug$u46$1...@dont-email.me>,
> > "se" <se@onfakeplace&.atbigfix> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> You have a couple of validation errors in the css used to represend this
> >> page.
> >
> > ... What are they?
> >
>
> It's not a bombing.
...
>
What are the errors?
--
dorayme
Jukka K. Korpela
> What are the errors?
If you think you have something remotely on-topic to discuss in this
******* thread, why won't any of you specify the URL of the page you are
purportedly discussing?
--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
se
"Jukka K. Korpela" <jkor...@cs.tut.fi> skrev i meddelelsen
news:iu71r9$jsi$1...@dont-email.me...
None of you are the website owner.
I was talking to the website owner. The website owner will have
no difficulty pressing the validation button on his/her page.
If both of you are interested in knowing more; then do what I did
-press the validation button on the page.
Both of you are tactless anough to ask me offering
you this favour. Even the website page is winking directly into
your eyes.
Be sure both of you, a better - a more suitable - word than tactless are
in place.
/se
John Bokma
> 2011-06-26 13:01, dorayme wrote:
>
>> What are the errors?
>
> If you think you have something remotely on-topic to discuss in this
> ******* thread, why won't any of you specify the URL of the page you
> are purportedly discussing?
Yukka, it would really help if you don't let your anger get in the way
of what's being written. The URL is in the sig of the OP.
http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator?uri=http://cavalcade-of-coding.info/index.php
Also, you could've changed the subject and set the follow-up-to
header. Yes, the latter will be ignored by some clowns, but not
everybody.
Thanks for a little civilization,
Red E. Kilowatt
> 2011-06-26 13:01, dorayme wrote:
>
>> What are the errors?
>
> If you think you have something remotely on-topic to discuss in this
> ******* thread, why won't any of you specify the URL of the page you
> are purportedly discussing?
The url was in the quoted text of the first post (by "se") that
resurrected this thread:
> Adrienne Boswell at Home
> Arbpen Web Site Design Services
> http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
--
Red
Jukka K. Korpela
> The url was in the quoted text of the first post (by "se") that
> resurrected this thread:
[...]
>> http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
Oh, I only saw "se" quote something down to the sig of the quoted
messages, assuming it to be common careless quoting.
So what's the issue? Apparently not an HTML issue, since "se" seems to
be whining about CSS errors (caused by the default settings in the W3C
CSS Validator - I don't know whether you can override them in a link and
I don't really care).
So maybe "se" should take his or her issues to a group devoted to CSS
and start a new thread with a descriptive Subject line, if he or she
wishes to discuss them in public.
There's of course the general issue (even HTML-related) that validation
icons are worse than useless*). But it's a very small part of the
reasons that people may test other people's validation icons and try to
ridicule something if they think they are false.
*) Cf. to http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/html/validation.html
(dusty, pre-HTML5, but still mostly "valid" [pun intended] in its
statements)
--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Jerry Stuckle
I didn't see se as ridiculing anyone. Rather, I saw his post as a kind
attempt to make the op aware of something he might not have known about.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstu...@attglobal.net
==================
Adrienne Boswell
writing in news:iu6hug$u46$1...@dont-email.me:
>> http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
>
> You have a couple of validation errors in the css used to represend
> this page.
>
>
Oh yeah? Where?
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://cavalcade-of-coding.info/index.p
hp
Jerry Stuckle
> Gazing into my crystal ball I observed "se"<se@onfakeplace&.atbigfix>
> writing in news:iu6hug$u46$1...@dont-email.me:
>
>>> http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
>>
>> You have a couple of validation errors in the css used to represend
>> this page.
>>
>>
>
> Oh yeah? Where?
> http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://cavalcade-of-coding.info/index.p
> hp
>
Adrienne,
CSS, not (X)html.
Adrienne Boswell
Well I AM the website owner, and there are NO HTML validation errors at
the site in my signature.
There is a CSS error, but if you look at the CSS file, and you also look
at the message, you will see that this is just something the validator
does not support, but many browsers do, eg. Opera, Firefox, Chrome. If a
browser does not support @font-face, then they get the fall back font -
no big deal, it is not something that will make the page inaccessible.
Adrienne Boswell
<jstu...@attglobal.net> writing in news:iu80ha$u2i$1...@dont-email.me:
> On 6/26/2011 3:11 PM, Adrienne Boswell wrote:
>> Gazing into my crystal ball I observed "se"<se@onfakeplace&.atbigfix>
>> writing in news:iu6hug$u46$1...@dont-email.me:
>>
>>>> http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
>>>
>>> You have a couple of validation errors in the css used to represend
>>> this page.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Oh yeah? Where?
>> http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://cavalcade-of-coding.info/inde
>> x.p hp
>>
>
> Adrienne,
>
> CSS, not (X)html.
>
> http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator?profile=css21&warning=0&ur
> i=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cavalcade-of-coding.info%2Findex.php
>
Yes, I know about that error. It's @font-face which is not supported in
CSS2 but is supported by many browsers. It is harmless, as if the
browser does not support that property, then the user gets a fall-back
font.
Jerry Stuckle
> Gazing into my crystal ball I observed Jerry Stuckle
> <jstu...@attglobal.net> writing in news:iu80ha$u2i$1...@dont-email.me:
>
>> On 6/26/2011 3:11 PM, Adrienne Boswell wrote:
>>> Gazing into my crystal ball I observed "se"<se@onfakeplace&.atbigfix>
>>> writing in news:iu6hug$u46$1...@dont-email.me:
>>>
>>>>> http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
>>>>
>>>> You have a couple of validation errors in the css used to represend
>>>> this page.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Oh yeah? Where?
>>> http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://cavalcade-of-coding.info/inde
>>> x.p hp
>>>
>>
>> Adrienne,
>>
>> CSS, not (X)html.
>>
>> http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator?profile=css21&warning=0&ur
>> i=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cavalcade-of-coding.info%2Findex.php
>>
>
> Yes, I know about that error. It's @font-face which is not supported in
> CSS2 but is supported by many browsers. It is harmless, as if the
> browser does not support that property, then the user gets a fall-back
> font.
>
I'm not saying it's a problem - just pointing out what se was talking
about.
BootNic
wayne <tech...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 06/26/2011 02:36 PM, Adrienne Boswell wrote:
[snip]
>> Well I AM the website owner, and there are NO HTML validation
>> errors at the site in my signature.
>>
>> There is a CSS error, but if you look at the CSS file, and you
>> also look at the message, you will see that this is just
>> something the validator does not support, but many browsers do,
>> eg. Opera, Firefox, Chrome. If a browser does not support
>> @font-face, then they get the fall back font - no big deal, it
>> is not something that will make the page inaccessible.
>>
> I might add there are no css errors when I check the site but the
> validator reports css3 too.
adding &profile=css3 to the link should take care of it
--
BootNic Sun Jun 26, 2011 07:54 pm
I had a monumental idea this morning, but I didn't like it.
*Samuel Goldwyn*
Adrienne Boswell
Thanks, Jerry. It's been like that for a while, and I jumped to
conclusions not reading the original whole message. See, that's what
happens when I don't have enough coffee.
Qruqs
> Do you know what "OT" in the subject line means? It means don't read it
> if you're not interested.
long as I put an "OT:" tag on the subject line.
Have you heard? I just got a new neighbor. There are some loud bastards
living there, and just outside someone set fire to a car, and last week,
down town, somebody hit a car, using a hammer, and about 700 km away, a
cat gave birth to puppies, while a bear watched in anticipation of getting
a snack, and five meters to the side of that bunch, stood a tree, at which
a dog lifted its hind leg, the right one, it was a bitch (I didn't say she
was peeing, did I), two cm above the dog soared a hawk, and then, in next
week, there is going to be a course in how to be polite. I suggest you
take it.
--
http://community.linuxmint.com/