Thoughts, Suggestions, Ideas, Tantrums?
Onideus Mad Hatter
http://www.sarcastic-caret.net/_test_platform/wedding-blog/
Busy I know, some peeps will probably start spazzin about the animated
background, but don't worry, teh final version will include some kind
of smallish control to make it pause. I'm thinkin I'll use like a
white/silver embossed type effect for the main link text, kinda like
the "Twist Of" logo in the AMV section on my main Backwater
site...only problem is that I didn't bother to write down the
methodology I used to create that effect, so now I've got to reverse
engineer my own chit. *sigh*
I'm thinkin for the primary blog text it'll just be plain black, no
fancy effects or anything. And the calendar that'll go in the right
side box will be similar...not sure how I'll differentiate days that
have entries and days that don't. Maybe for days that do I'll make
them white with a black drop shadow.
--
Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm น x น
http://www.backwater-productions.net
http://www.backwater-productions.net/hatter-blog
Hatter Quotes
-------------
"I'm not a professional, I'm an artist."
"The more I learn the more I'm killing my idols."
"Is it wrong to incur and then use the hate ridden, vengeful stupidity
of complete strangers in random Usenet froups to further my art?"
"Freedom is only a concept, like race it's merely a social construct
that doesn't really exist outside of your ability to convince others
of its relevancy."
"Next time slow up a lil, then maybe you won't jump the gun and start
creamin yer panties before it's time to pop the champagne proper."
"Reality is directly proportionate to how creative you are."
"People are pretty fucking high on themselves if they think that
they're just born with a soul. *snicker*...yeah, like they're just
givin em out for free."
"Quible, quible said the Hare. Quite a lot of quibling...everywhere.
So the Hare took a long stare and decided at best, to leave the rest,
to their merry little mess."
"There's a difference between 'bad' and 'so earth shatteringly
horrible it makes the angels scream in terror as they violently rip
their heads off, their blood spraying into the faces of a thousand
sweet innocent horrified children, who will forever have the terrible
images burned into their tiny little minds'."
"How sad that you're such a poor judge of style that you can't even
properly gauge the artistic worth of your own efforts."
"Those who record history are those who control history."
"Is my .sig delimiter broken? Really? You're sure? Awww,
gee...that's too bad...for YOU!" `, )
Connie Pierce
Hatter <use...@backwater-productions.net> wrote:
> It's all up the fuck up in yo face like nyah:
> http://www.sarcastic-caret.net/_test_platform/wedding-blog/
>
> Busy I know, some peeps will probably start spazzin about the animated
> background, but don't worry, teh final version will include some kind
> of smallish control to make it pause. I'm thinkin I'll use like a
> white/silver embossed type effect for the main link text, kinda like
> the "Twist Of" logo in the AMV section on my main Backwater
> site...only problem is that I didn't bother to write down the
> methodology I used to create that effect, so now I've got to reverse
> engineer my own chit. *sigh*
>
> I'm thinkin for the primary blog text it'll just be plain black, no
> fancy effects or anything. And the calendar that'll go in the right
> side box will be similar...not sure how I'll differentiate days that
> have entries and days that don't. Maybe for days that do I'll make
> them white with a black drop shadow.
Not a tantrum, just a woman's opinion . . . I'm assuming that it's
mainly going to be *for* women, since you say "wedding" and it makes
many of us gals slobber at the mouth! LOL (at least the unmarried ones
- the married ones know better!) And the "W" word probably sends most
men diving for cover!
I would make the colors a bit softer and more pastel/feminine (I know,
you're a guy - not the least bit feminine!). I like the sparkles -
would you be able to keep them *and* soften the colors? I really don't
think it's busy at all - just that the colors are too "pure" and too
jewel-like. Women, especially for weddings, usually go with the soft
peaches, blues, lavendars, etc. I'd also change the background black
out to something more girly - black, traditionally, is a bad luck color
for weddings - unless, of course, it's the man wearing it! ( :
Just MHO! ( :
--
C Pierce
Creative Veritas
principal/designer
http://www.creativeveritas.com
*(Coming 2-1-2006)*
850 532 0835
Onideus Mad Hatter
<in...@pierceillus.com> wrote:
>Not a tantrum, just a woman's opinion . . . I'm assuming that it's
>mainly going to be *for* women, since you say "wedding" and it makes
>many of us gals slobber at the mouth! LOL (at least the unmarried ones
>- the married ones know better!) And the "W" word probably sends most
>men diving for cover!
>
>I would make the colors a bit softer and more pastel/feminine (I know,
>you're a guy - not the least bit feminine!). I like the sparkles -
>would you be able to keep them *and* soften the colors? I really don't
>think it's busy at all - just that the colors are too "pure" and too
>jewel-like. Women, especially for weddings, usually go with the soft
>peaches, blues, lavendars, etc. I'd also change the background black
>out to something more girly - black, traditionally, is a bad luck color
>for weddings - unless, of course, it's the man wearing it! ( :
>
>Just MHO! ( :
The black will be changed to white, the reason its black right now is
cause I just took one of my existing sites base code in order to save
time.
As far as the colors...well they're pretty pastel as it is (mostly
because the white overlaid boxes make them that way) and the clouds
are definitely pastel. If the background colors were any more pastel
I think it might make the boxes less distinguishable. I could make
the hydrangea more pastel I guess, but my clients (a guy and girl, but
the girl is the one who REALLY likes it) have already seen a static
image and they thought it was perfect (it matches the color of the
hydrangea they're actually using at the wedding). The girl is Mexican
American if that has anything to do with it, it might be a culture
thing.
Here's a split image that shows the original base I used:
http://www.backwater-productions.net/_images/_Scraps/Hydrangea.png
The coulds I got from this site:
http://www.videoanimation.com/naturesmotion1.html
Specifically this one:
http://www.actionbacks.com/movies/natm1/19.html
The poor fool, he doesn't seem to realize that any competent video
editor can take his samples and easily reedit them into usable parts.
I resized the original, applied a gaussian blur, altered the colors a
bit, reversed the video, altered the frame rate slightly and then
spliced it into the other clip I modified. Heh...gotta love the De
Minimis Doctrine. Yeah, yeah, I suppose I could have just fired up
Bryce 5, threw up a prepackaged cloud form and then just animated
it...but for one that wouldn't be nearly as fun, and two, it would
have been too easy to do it that way (ie not much skill required).
--
Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ą x ą
lime
news:ou0312pctopu4arrh...@4ax.com...
> It's all up the fuck up in yo face like nyah:
> http://www.sarcastic-caret.net/_test_platform/wedding-blog/
" This site requires Flash 8, you have Flash 7.
Click here to download the latest version. "
Isn't there another way of accomodating people without the latest version
(other than a download link)?
I don't bother with downloading the "latest" versions of things unless I
really, really want to see something.
--
Helen, lime, et al.
Connie Pierce
Hatter <use...@backwater-productions.net> wrote:
> The black will be changed to white, the reason its black right now is
> cause I just took one of my existing sites base code in order to save
> time.
The background color was, in MHO, the biggest issue - even though you
said in your first post that it wasn't the actual one.
I *really* hope you realize that my "critique" was gender based and
only gender based. It's pretty easy (although *very* foolish, I know)
for me to *assume* that you being a man might not know women's tastes
in things like this. I mean, when was the last time you had to make a
decision between tafetta and satin?! ( :
>
> As far as the colors...well they're pretty pastel as it is (mostly
> because the white overlaid boxes make them that way) and the clouds
> are definitely pastel. If the background colors were any more pastel
> I think it might make the boxes less distinguishable. I could make
> the hydrangea more pastel I guess, but my clients (a guy and girl, but
> the girl is the one who REALLY likes it) have already seen a static
> image and they thought it was perfect (it matches the color of the
> hydrangea they're actually using at the wedding). The girl is Mexican
> American if that has anything to do with it, it might be a culture
> thing.
Again, I was speaking about women's tastes in general. Not all women
are are the girly-girl pink, lavendar and baby blue types. Those are
the "types" I had in mind when I talked about using more pastel colors.
Personally, I don't like pastels unless it's paint on walls (and only
then because I think dark colors are too intense for *every* day) . . .
I really like the colors/image you used. And I'm glad your clients like
it too! I'll bet she's the harder one to please . . . am I right? ( ;
>
> Here's a split image that shows the original base I used:
> http://www.backwater-productions.net/_images/_Scraps/Hydrangea.png
>
> The coulds I got from this site:
> http://www.videoanimation.com/naturesmotion1.html
>
> Specifically this one:
> http://www.actionbacks.com/movies/natm1/19.html
>
> The poor fool, he doesn't seem to realize that any competent video
> editor can take his samples and easily reedit them into usable parts.
> I resized the original, applied a gaussian blur, altered the colors a
> bit, reversed the video, altered the frame rate slightly and then
> spliced it into the other clip I modified. Heh...gotta love the De
> Minimis Doctrine. Yeah, yeah, I suppose I could have just fired up
> Bryce 5, threw up a prepackaged cloud form and then just animated
> it...but for one that wouldn't be nearly as fun, and two, it would
> have been too easy to do it that way (ie not much skill required).
I have to say, on this I have nothing whatsoever to contribute. What
you wrote is all greek to me . . . I know nothing (as evidenced by my
web site) about desiging for web. I can do banners, but when you get
more sophisticated, and do entire sites, I'm left clueless.
Can I ask how you learned web/video/Flash design? Did you use books?
self-taught/experimentation? Classes? I'm sure that *now* you learn
primarily from experimentation (since you talk about reverse
engineering) - but how did you *START* ? If, you don't mind my asking.
If you used books to start with, what books would you recommend?? I'd
love to learn at least a third of what you know, but I have no idea
where to start . . . please forgive me if I sound like an idiot! It's
what I do! ( ;
>
> --
>
> Onideus Mad Hatter
> mhm น x น
--
Fred Doyle
> It's all up the fuck up in yo face like nyah:
> http://www.sarcastic-caret.net/_test_platform/wedding-blog/
>
OK, I know you come here for "objective" criticism, and even if I don't
think that's possible, I'll try my best. The background illustration is good
and appropriate for the subject. I like the lilacs. Is it freehand or over a
photo? Connie's comment about pastels may be more about the color
saturation, I am guessing. They are highly saturated colors, but it doesn't
bother me because it is limited in area by the transparent panels. Where the
illustration is at full saturation, it takes on an almost cartoony, or
Disney, feel. That may be more the objection to color, IMHO.
Simple black text is appropriate for the entries, yes. I'm a firm believer
in visibility and readability first and last. I didn't go look at your
example for link text. Database backend for the blog entries will be....?
PHP to communicate with the DB?
It is a good start. Is it for a friend?
--
Fred Doyle
fsds...@gmail.com
>
> Busy I know, some peeps will probably start spazzin about the animated
> background, but don't worry, teh final version will include some kind
> of smallish control to make it pause.
What you have animating doesn't seem out of place -- something
"sparkly" for a wedding site is appropriate. Maybe if you toned down
the frequency of the sparkles? Also, I don't know if this is possible,
but if you could somehow get rid of the animation behind the screened
back text areas, then I don't even think a pause button would be
necessary.
The black background is intense -- but you already said that's a temp.
The only other thing that really stands out is what appears to be pixel
compression noise running through the animation (mainly in the lower
right corner). If that could be cleaned up, I think it would look a
lot nicer. (On the other hand, I might be a little more sensitive to
that kind of thing than the average viewer -- I review DVDs and as a
result, I see a lot of shitty transfers, so that kind of thing is a pet
peeve.)
-- Robert
Onideus Mad Hatter
>> Busy I know, some peeps will probably start spazzin about the animated
>> background, but don't worry, teh final version will include some kind
>> of smallish control to make it pause.
>What you have animating doesn't seem out of place -- something
>"sparkly" for a wedding site is appropriate. Maybe if you toned down
>the frequency of the sparkles? Also, I don't know if this is possible,
>but if you could somehow get rid of the animation behind the screened
>back text areas, then I don't even think a pause button would be
>necessary.
I spoke with teh clients about it, they like that idea...I do too, I
think it'll make the eventual text far easier to read without
something blinking behind it.
>The black background is intense -- but you already said that's a temp.
Yup, they wanna go with white.
>The only other thing that really stands out is what appears to be pixel
>compression noise running through the animation (mainly in the lower
>right corner). If that could be cleaned up, I think it would look a
>lot nicer.
The final version will have a higher quality source (so no noise), but
the overall size will be like 2 MB instead of the current 1 MB, for
dialup users that may be a pain having to wait, but I plan to offer a
low-bandwidth alternative on the loading screen that'll be around 100
KB in total size, basically it'll be the same site but no animation
effects.
>(On the other hand, I might be a little more sensitive to
>that kind of thing than the average viewer -- I review DVDs and as a
>result, I see a lot of shitty transfers, so that kind of thing is a pet
>peeve.)
I know the feeling, sometimes I wish I could go back in time to when I
DIDN'T notice things like that...pixelation...rainbowing...frame
skipping...encoding glitches (sometimes due to bit level corruption of
the file)...color desaturation (or over saturation if we're talkin a
George Lucas remake)...piss poor deinterlacing...screwed up frame rate
conversions...oy...don't get me started.
--
Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ą x ą
Onideus Mad Hatter
>" This site requires Flash 8, you have Flash 7.
>Click here to download the latest version. "
>
>Isn't there another way of accomodating people without the latest version
>(other than a download link)?
>
>I don't bother with downloading the "latest" versions of things unless I
>really, really want to see something.
...well um, I'm sure all the guests who have been invited to the
wedding will "really, really, want to see" it, otherwise why would
they be invited?
Also I just can't abide by laziness, I mean updating to the latest
version of Flash hardly takes any time at all and pretty much zero
effort on your part, hell, you don't even have to restart your
computer. *shrugs*
And it's not like they're coming out with a new version of Flash every
two weeks, so I can't imagine that it's some horrible burden for you.
And the benefits are just...WOW...especially if we're talkin
integrated video that's makin use of the new On2 VP6/7 codec. That,
btw is WHY you need Flash8, if I wanted to make it compatible with
earlier versions of Flash the overall site size would jump to around 4
MB, there would be a drastic reduction in color quality and the
overall quality would be much worse, much more pixelization and block
noise (because teh Spark codec sucks great big donkey dicks).
Davide Montellanico
"Onideus Mad Hatter" <use...@backwater-productions.net> ha scritto nel
messaggio news:7gpa121c701ur7etv...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 23:27:46 GMT, "lime" <nut...@here.com> wrote:
<cut>
> And it's not like they're coming out with a new version of Flash every
> two weeks, so I can't imagine that it's some horrible burden for you.
> And the benefits are just...WOW...especially if we're talkin
> integrated video that's makin use of the new On2 VP6/7 codec. That,
> btw is WHY you need Flash8, if I wanted to make it compatible with
> earlier versions of Flash the overall site size would jump to around 4
> MB, there would be a drastic reduction in color quality and the
> overall quality would be much worse, much more pixelization and block
> noise (because teh Spark codec sucks great big donkey dicks).
Not completely true! Using On2 VP6 codec you will end up with a little bit
larger file than the one you would get from a Sorenson Spark codec *setting
the same data rate for both codecs, of course*. A little price to pay for
quality!
Real life isn't perfect :-)
--
Davide
Onideus Mad Hatter
<lati...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>"Onideus Mad Hatter" <use...@backwater-productions.net> ha scritto nel
>messaggio news:7gpa121c701ur7etv...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 23:27:46 GMT, "lime" <nut...@here.com> wrote:
>
><cut>
>> And it's not like they're coming out with a new version of Flash every
>> two weeks, so I can't imagine that it's some horrible burden for you.
>> And the benefits are just...WOW...especially if we're talkin
>> integrated video that's makin use of the new On2 VP6/7 codec. That,
>> btw is WHY you need Flash8, if I wanted to make it compatible with
>> earlier versions of Flash the overall site size would jump to around 4
>> MB, there would be a drastic reduction in color quality and the
>> overall quality would be much worse, much more pixelization and block
>> noise (because teh Spark codec sucks great big donkey dicks).
>
>
>Not completely true! Using On2 VP6 codec you will end up with a little bit
>larger file than the one you would get from a Sorenson Spark codec *setting
>the same data rate for both codecs, of course*. A little price to pay for
>quality!
>
>Real life isn't perfect :-)
...yeah maybe if you don't know what you're doing and you don't know
how to configure the settings. Oh, not to mention that if you're
using CBR...well...you're wrong. It would be pretty much impossible
for two different codecs, encoding at the same bit rate, using the
same clip, using CBR to wind up with two files that have a noticable
difference in overall file size.
Mimic
> It's all up the fuck up in yo face like nyah:
> http://www.sarcastic-caret.net/_test_platform/wedding-blog/
>
> Busy I know, some peeps will probably start spazzin about the animated
> background, but don't worry, teh final version will include some kind
> of smallish control to make it pause. I'm thinkin I'll use like a
> white/silver embossed type effect for the main link text, kinda like
> the "Twist Of" logo in the AMV section on my main Backwater
> site...only problem is that I didn't bother to write down the
> methodology I used to create that effect, so now I've got to reverse
> engineer my own chit. *sigh*
>
> I'm thinkin for the primary blog text it'll just be plain black, no
> fancy effects or anything. And the calendar that'll go in the right
> side box will be similar...not sure how I'll differentiate days that
> have entries and days that don't. Maybe for days that do I'll make
> them white with a black drop shadow.
>
> --
>
> Onideus Mad Hatter
> mhm น x น
> http://www.backwater-productions.net
> http://www.backwater-productions.net/hatter-blog
>
>
Yuh, white, Id blow the background images out to the edges too, summink
ala : http://www.csszengarden.com/ , rm the twinkles from behind the
text box ( think you said youre gunna do that ) I'd also put less
twinkles with less frequency, I'd also recommend a font with long
flowing tails for graphical text and something like georgia or garamond
for body text, headings being of colour, something like, #A07347
Good effort, crack on, look fwd to seeing the final result. Hows that
other one going?
--
Mimic
"I'd rather reign in Hell, than serve in Heaven".
[email: ZGF0YWZsZXhAY2FubmFiaXNtYWlsLmNvbQ==]
Help Stop Spam - www.hidemyemail.net
"I have come to realise that, only in death, will I find true perfection."
Mimic
Um connie, um yeah, you have a little, just a little, bit of the uh,
"brown", on ya lip there.
Connie Pierce
wrote:
> Um connie, um yeah, you have a little, just a little, bit of the uh,
> "brown", on ya lip there.
And you seem to have a 4x4 firmly stuck up your ass.
I'll say it again . . . my admitting that I think Hat's funny doesn't
make me a brown noser. However, if you *need* to feel that it does, I
won't try to stop you!
BTW, I've said the same thing to SpaceGirl - does that mean that I'm
kissing her ass, too??? I'd like to learn coding, Flash, etc and I'm
interested in finding out how others did it. So, I'm asking the people
that I've had conversations with on how *they* learned.
I really don't get it. I admit that I think Hat's funny (which I don't
think I'm alone in - he does have friends, I'm sure) and all of the
sudden I'm a brown noser. Are you jealous that I can talk to him and he
talks back to me without being insulting? If Hat were someone other
than Hat (i.e. someone more popular here), I think I'd not be accused
of kissing his ass. So sad of you to make that assumption. You didn't
pick on the fat kids in school did you? Maybe give the unpopular kids
wediges and swirlies? I can suggest a good therapist if you like . . .
?
Connie Pierce
wrote:
> Good effort, crack on, look fwd to seeing the final result. Hows that
> other one going?
Does this mean *you're* kissing his ass? Just curious to know what the
"brown nosing" criteria is.
FTR, I've had an enjoyable time talking to Hat. He's not been insulting
to me and has actually been quite pleasant. Maybe because I'm a woman?
Maybe because I don't spend every second telling him he's untalented or
insulting his art? Maybe he just respects the fact that I'm not jumping
on the bandwagon and hating him just 'cause everyone else seems to?
Maybe he's bored?
And furthermore, I'm Mac and it's pretty apparent that he's anti-Mac
and yet still, despite our disagreement on platforms, he's not been a
dick to me. So . . . maybe *you're* wrong and just a plain ol'
everyday, garden variety, common, jerk.
Really, right now, you only serve to make Hat look *THAT* much better.
Congrats! ( ;
Connie Pierce
<in...@pierceillus.com> wrote:
> In article <6qWdnVDakL5...@pipex.net>, Mimic <d...@null.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Um connie, um yeah, you have a little, just a little, bit of the uh,
> > "brown", on ya lip there.
>
> And you seem to have a 4x4 firmly stuck up your ass.
My mistake, I meant a redwood tree, branches and all. Sorry for the
confusion! ( ;
Onideus Mad Hatter
<in...@pierceillus.com> wrote:
>In article <160320061932096122%in...@pierceillus.com>, Connie Pierce
><in...@pierceillus.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <6qWdnVDakL5...@pipex.net>, Mimic <d...@null.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Um connie, um yeah, you have a little, just a little, bit of the uh,
>> > "brown", on ya lip there.
>>
>> And you seem to have a 4x4 firmly stuck up your ass.
>
>My mistake, I meant a redwood tree, branches and all. Sorry for the
>confusion! ( ;
You'll have to excuse Mimic, he goes around the net raving on about
how he's supposedly God's gift to web coding and such...but uh...well
no one has ever ACTUALLY seen any of his work. He has this lame
excuse about how it's going to like...blow up the Internet or
something if he let's people see anything he's done...you should ask
him about it, it's pretty amusing. ^_^
--
Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ą x ą
Connie Pierce
Hatter <use...@backwater-productions.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 23:52:54 -0600, Connie Pierce
> <in...@pierceillus.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <160320061932096122%in...@pierceillus.com>, Connie Pierce
> ><in...@pierceillus.com> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <6qWdnVDakL5...@pipex.net>, Mimic <d...@null.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Um connie, um yeah, you have a little, just a little, bit of the uh,
> >> > "brown", on ya lip there.
> >>
> >> And you seem to have a 4x4 firmly stuck up your ass.
> >
> >My mistake, I meant a redwood tree, branches and all. Sorry for the
> >confusion! ( ;
>
> You'll have to excuse Mimic, he goes around the net raving on about
> how he's supposedly God's gift to web coding and such...but uh...well
> no one has ever ACTUALLY seen any of his work. He has this lame
> excuse about how it's going to like...blow up the Internet or
> something if he let's people see anything he's done...you should ask
> him about it, it's pretty amusing. ^_^
No thanks, I'll pass. If his work is as good as his wit, I don't think
my poor wittle brain could stand it. After all, his "brown" comment has
left me so devastated that I just don't think I could ever log on to
the Usenet again. Ever. In fact, I'm not here now . . . I'm on my bed,
crying like a jilted teenager. *HA*
>
> --
>
> Onideus Mad Hatter
> mhm น x น
--
Mimic
> In article <6qWdnVDakL5...@pipex.net>, Mimic <d...@null.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Um connie, um yeah, you have a little, just a little, bit of the uh,
>>"brown", on ya lip there.
>
>
> And you seem to have a 4x4 firmly stuck up your ass.
Oh this should be fun.. *rolls eyes*
>
> I'll say it again . . .
I wouldnt if I were you, no point making yourself looking stupid ALL
over again is there Cunny Piece?
> my admitting that I think Hat's funny doesn't
I think youre right:
http://www.geocities.com/ub40pics/1EarlHatsm.jpg
> make me a brown noser. However, if you *need* to feel that it does, I
> won't try to stop you!
Dont hype yourself Cunny, from what I've seen, I dont "need" anything
from you. Oh except a reply, how about a reply? lol
>
> BTW, I've said the same thing to SpaceGirl
Pics?
> - does that mean that I'm
> kissing her ass, too??? I'd like to learn coding, Flash, etc and I'm
> interested in finding out how others did it. So, I'm asking the people
> that I've had conversations with on how *they* learned.
Better re-read your posts then Cunny, because that isnt what youre
doing, perhaps if you modify your approach, you might make some progress.
>
> I really don't get it. I admit that I think Hat's funny (which I don't
Didnt we cover that one already?
> think I'm alone in - he does have friends, I'm sure) and all of the
Oh I think he's funny too, my dear little hatter can be quite entertaining
> sudden I'm a brown noser. Are you jealous that I can talk to him and he
> talks back to me without being insulting? If Hat were someone other
Oh ok, you think he likes you, *snicker*
> than Hat (i.e. someone more popular here), I think I'd not be accused
> of kissing his ass. So sad of you to make that assumption.
And that assumption would be what exactly? If you had ANY grasp on
linguistics, you would realise that it is infact YOU that has just made
an assumption.
> You didn't
> pick on the fat kids in school did you?
No why? Looking for the person who bullied you?
> Maybe give the unpopular kids
> wediges and swirlies?
I beat your mom, does that count?
> I can suggest a good therapist if you like . . .
> ?
>
Fortunatly I dont need a therapist, my brain is in tip top order and
having studied advanced level psychology in further education, I
generally have the ability to diagnose and fix myself shoudl something
arise. However, please, suggest a good therapist.
Mimic
> In article <160320061932096122%in...@pierceillus.com>, Connie Pierce
> <in...@pierceillus.com> wrote:
>
>
>>In article <6qWdnVDakL5...@pipex.net>, Mimic <d...@null.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Um connie, um yeah, you have a little, just a little, bit of the uh,
>>>"brown", on ya lip there.
>>
>>And you seem to have a 4x4 firmly stuck up your ass.
>
>
> My mistake, I meant a redwood tree, branches and all. Sorry for the
> confusion! ( ;
>
Next time you find it necessary to correct yourself and then apologise
to yourself, would you mind not wasting my bandwidth. I hear stupidity
tends to stick to the sides of the pipe and affect download speeds.
Mimic
> On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 23:52:54 -0600, Connie Pierce
> <in...@pierceillus.com> wrote:
>
>
>>In article <160320061932096122%in...@pierceillus.com>, Connie Pierce
>><in...@pierceillus.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <6qWdnVDakL5...@pipex.net>, Mimic <d...@null.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Um connie, um yeah, you have a little, just a little, bit of the uh,
>>>>"brown", on ya lip there.
>>>
>>>And you seem to have a 4x4 firmly stuck up your ass.
>>
>>My mistake, I meant a redwood tree, branches and all. Sorry for the
>>confusion! ( ;
>
>
> You'll have to excuse Mimic, he goes around the net raving on about
> how he's supposedly God's gift to web coding and such...but uh...well
> no one has ever ACTUALLY seen any of his work. He has this lame
> excuse about how it's going to like...blow up the Internet or
> something if he let's people see anything he's done...you should ask
> him about it, it's pretty amusing. ^_^
>
> --
>
> Onideus Mad Hatter
You love me hatter ;) You know I dont claim to be anything of the sort,
well, unless the only person better than you is God, then yes, I guess I
am claiming that. And you know people have seen my stuff, not only have
I emailed numerous people in the froup my code, I've posted it to usenet
and even upped it to a server - given your claims of k-leetness, I'm
surprised you had difficulty accessing it, when those of a "lesser"
technical aspect here in the froup managed to with problem.
You know, fortean times ran an article several years back about viral
code over heating CPU's and making the exploded violently. And no, that
wasnt me
Love you :)
Mimic
> In article <3jok125meapqtemi8...@4ax.com>, Onideus Mad
> Hatter <use...@backwater-productions.net> wrote:
>
>
>>On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 23:52:54 -0600, Connie Pierce
>><in...@pierceillus.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <160320061932096122%in...@pierceillus.com>, Connie Pierce
>>><in...@pierceillus.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>In article <6qWdnVDakL5...@pipex.net>, Mimic <d...@null.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Um connie, um yeah, you have a little, just a little, bit of the uh,
>>>>>"brown", on ya lip there.
>>>>
>>>>And you seem to have a 4x4 firmly stuck up your ass.
>>>
>>>My mistake, I meant a redwood tree, branches and all. Sorry for the
>>>confusion! ( ;
>>
>>You'll have to excuse Mimic, he goes around the net raving on about
>>how he's supposedly God's gift to web coding and such...but uh...well
>>no one has ever ACTUALLY seen any of his work. He has this lame
>>excuse about how it's going to like...blow up the Internet or
>>something if he let's people see anything he's done...you should ask
>>him about it, it's pretty amusing. ^_^
>
>
> No thanks, I'll pass. If his work is as good as his wit, I don't think
Ooopp, making assumptions again, thats 2 I've seen already. What did you
call them "sad"?
> my poor wittle brain could stand it.
Theres alot your "poor wittle brain" isnt cut out to stand.
> After all, his "brown" comment has
> left me so devastated that I just don't think I could ever log on to
> the Usenet again.
Offended by poo are you?
> Ever. In fact, I'm not here now . . . I'm on my bed,
> crying like a jilted teenager. *HA*
>
Um yeah, you DO know you have to be over the age of 12 to be classed as
a teenager? .....right?
Mimic
> In article <6qWdnVHakL4...@pipex.net>, Mimic <d...@null.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Good effort, crack on, look fwd to seeing the final result. Hows that
>>other one going?
>
>
> Does this mean *you're* kissing his ass? Just curious to know what the
> "brown nosing" criteria is.
No, it means that its a good effort as its better than what he has done
before, it needs some more work, and that, after the extra modifications
and tweaks, I would like to see it again.
Not too good at the understanding part of reading are you.
>
> FTR, I've had an enjoyable time talking to Hat. He's not been insulting
> to me and has actually been quite pleasant. Maybe because I'm a woman?
You sending him boobie pics?
> Maybe because I don't spend every second telling him he's untalented or
> insulting his art? Maybe he just respects the fact that I'm not jumping
> on the bandwagon and hating him just 'cause everyone else seems to?
Would you care to name this "everyone" else?
> Maybe he's bored?
More than likely.
>
> And furthermore, I'm Mac and it's pretty apparent that he's anti-Mac
> and yet still, despite our disagreement on platforms, he's not been a
> dick to me. So . . . maybe *you're* wrong and just a plain ol'
> everyday, garden variety, common, jerk.
Maybe, but highly doubtful.
>
> Really, right now, you only serve to make Hat look *THAT* much better.
> Congrats! ( ;
>
You realise your "smiley" is infact a backwards lazy eyed scribble?
And how much is "THAT" much better? because lets face it, you dont
actually have any means of comparison. Whilst me and hatter frequently
verbally abuse each other, we have actually both created and improved
upon various things as a result.
While we're at it, you have an empty <p> tag on your index page, HOLEY
SHIT, ok you have... never mind here;
You might also want to update your copyright tag (year).
And FWIW, I actually like some of your printed media.
Connie Pierce
wrote:
> Connie Pierce wrote:
> > In article <160320061932096122%in...@pierceillus.com>, Connie Pierce
> > <in...@pierceillus.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>In article <6qWdnVDakL5...@pipex.net>, Mimic <d...@null.com>
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Um connie, um yeah, you have a little, just a little, bit of the uh,
> >>>"brown", on ya lip there.
> >>
> >>And you seem to have a 4x4 firmly stuck up your ass.
> >
> >
> > My mistake, I meant a redwood tree, branches and all. Sorry for the
> > confusion! ( ;
> >
>
> Next time you find it necessary to correct yourself and then apologise
> to yourself, would you mind not wasting my bandwidth.
Um, how about just not reading my post? Even a newbie like me can
killfile! LOL!
> I hear stupidity
> tends to stick to the sides of the pipe and affect download speeds.
Yes, and I believe it was your ISP that told you that. They have asked
to please stop! ( :
Connie Pierce
wrote:
> Connie Pierce wrote:
> > In article <3jok125meapqtemi8...@4ax.com>, Onideus Mad
> > Hatter <use...@backwater-productions.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 23:52:54 -0600, Connie Pierce
> >><in...@pierceillus.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>In article <160320061932096122%in...@pierceillus.com>, Connie Pierce
> >>><in...@pierceillus.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>In article <6qWdnVDakL5...@pipex.net>, Mimic <d...@null.com>
> >>>>wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Um connie, um yeah, you have a little, just a little, bit of the uh,
> >>>>>"brown", on ya lip there.
> >>>>
> >>>>And you seem to have a 4x4 firmly stuck up your ass.
> >>>
> >>>My mistake, I meant a redwood tree, branches and all. Sorry for the
> >>>confusion! ( ;
> >>
> >>You'll have to excuse Mimic, he goes around the net raving on about
> >>how he's supposedly God's gift to web coding and such...but uh...well
> >>no one has ever ACTUALLY seen any of his work. He has this lame
> >>excuse about how it's going to like...blow up the Internet or
> >>something if he let's people see anything he's done...you should ask
> >>him about it, it's pretty amusing. ^_^
> >
> >
> > No thanks, I'll pass. If his work is as good as his wit, I don't think
>
> Ooopp, making assumptions again, thats 2 I've seen already. What did you
> call them "sad"?
Babe, you made the first and only ASSumption - mine are more like
educated guesses! ( ;
>
> > my poor wittle brain could stand it.
>
> Theres alot your "poor wittle brain" isnt cut out to stand.
Yes, mainly the stupidity of others.
*Connie takes an aspirin and prepares to read more of Mimic's post*
>
> > After all, his "brown" comment has
> > left me so devastated that I just don't think I could ever log on to
> > the Usenet again.
>
> Offended by poo are you?
Nah, just you. W-a-a-a-a-a-y grosser than poo! ( ;
>
> > Ever. In fact, I'm not here now . . . I'm on my bed,
> > crying like a jilted teenager. *HA*
> >
>
> Um yeah, you DO know you have to be over the age of 12 to be classed as
> a teenager? .....right?
Um, yeah . . . you *do* know what sarcasm is, don't you? Geez, can
anyone be *that* dumb?
*looks at Mimic*
Yes, I guess so. ( :
12 yo? Isn't that how you like'em? If I told you I was 12 would you be
nice to me and buy me stuff? Maybe come visit me? ( ; That's what your
last gf told me!
Connie Pierce
wrote:
> Connie Pierce wrote:
> > In article <6qWdnVHakL4...@pipex.net>, Mimic <d...@null.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Good effort, crack on, look fwd to seeing the final result. Hows that
> >>other one going?
> >
> >
> > Does this mean *you're* kissing his ass? Just curious to know what the
> > "brown nosing" criteria is.
>
> No, it means that its a good effort as its better than what he has done
> before, it needs some more work, and that, after the extra modifications
> and tweaks, I would like to see it again.
>
> Not too good at the understanding part of reading are you.
Yes, I am actually quite good at reading - minored in it. ( ;
>
> >
> > FTR, I've had an enjoyable time talking to Hat. He's not been insulting
> > to me and has actually been quite pleasant. Maybe because I'm a woman?
>
> You sending him boobie pics?
Don't have any . . . but I *did* send him some of your mom's. And he
seems to "like" me anyway! ( ;
>
> > Maybe because I don't spend every second telling him he's untalented or
> > insulting his art? Maybe he just respects the fact that I'm not jumping
> > on the bandwagon and hating him just 'cause everyone else seems to?
>
> Would you care to name this "everyone" else?
Why don't you look it up in Google? I like the people here and I'm not
naming names.
Do you know *how* to Google? ( ;
>
> > Maybe he's bored?
>
> More than likely.
*shrugs* Maybe, so am I . . .
>
> >
> > And furthermore, I'm Mac and it's pretty apparent that he's anti-Mac
> > and yet still, despite our disagreement on platforms, he's not been a
> > dick to me. So . . . maybe *you're* wrong and just a plain ol'
> > everyday, garden variety, common, jerk.
>
> Maybe, but highly doubtful.
Not nearly as doubtful as you think . . . was my being nice and
talking to Hat offending you in some way? Did it make you bleed? Cry?
Suffer? No? Then for what *possible* reason did you have for making the
brown nose comment? For the greater good of mankind? No? What? Just to
be a jerk? And a rather common one at that? Thank you, I rest my case.
NEXT!
>
> >
> > Really, right now, you only serve to make Hat look *THAT* much better.
> > Congrats! ( ;
> >
>
> You realise your "smiley" is infact a backwards lazy eyed scribble?
No, and I don't care. I don't do the smileys for you - I do them for
me. I think they're cute.
>
> And how much is "THAT" much better? because lets face it, you dont
> actually have any means of comparison. Whilst me and hatter frequently
> verbally abuse each other, we have actually both created and improved
> upon various things as a result.
But I really have no need or desire for you to act as my personal
Svengali. You have no need to "improve" me. So I suggest you do not
try. Better men than you have tried and failed. And that describes them
ALL.
Even as much as Hat may look like an asshole, you make him look like a
choir boy in comparison.
>
> While we're at it, you have an empty <p> tag on your index page, HOLEY
> SHIT, ok you have... never mind here;
Sweetie, unlike you, I do not hear voices in my head - so that being
said, people out "here" can't hear what you're thinking. Mind
explaining the "HOLEY (misspelled) SHIT, ok you have . . . ?"
And the whole index thing is immaterial to me (AFAIK - unless the W3
org is some kind of mafia and I run the risk of being whacked?) . . .
I don't do web design. I slapped that together in 24 hours (playing
with GoLive).
>
> http://validator.w3.org
>
> You might also want to update your copyright tag (year).
As in the reference above, I slapped it together in 24 hours learning
GoLive. I've not updated it since it's initial upload. I get my clients
from WOM, and from print advertising . . . not the web. Most locals
here wouldn't know the Usenet from a toothbrush - the web means nothing
to my local clients.
> And FWIW, I actually like some of your printed media.
Thank you (if you really mean that). I have nothing against you
personally. But I do mind being labeled merely because I'm being nice
to someone who's being (for whatever reason) nice to *me*. Too many
times, thinking like sheep and following the crowd has spelled disaster
in society. I don't like thinking along society's lines (unless they
are logical and sound). And to my way of thinking, everyone is thinking
that I'm brown nosing merely becuase Hat's unpopular.
One of the things that I *DO* admire in Hat is his technical skill. I
have none. He has a great deal of it. But I no more kiss his ass than I
do anyone else here - which is NOT. My stating an honest opinion of him
is nothing more than that.
Mimic
And given your, obvious, lack of education, that makes them.... dumb
projection?
>>>my poor wittle brain could stand it.
>>
>>Theres alot your "poor wittle brain" isnt cut out to stand.
>
>
> Yes, mainly the stupidity of others.
>
Well you have difficulty reading, of course youre going to have
difficulty understanding your fellow skinjobs.
>
>>>After all, his "brown" comment has
>>>left me so devastated that I just don't think I could ever log on to
>>>the Usenet again.
>>
>
>> > Ever. In fact, I'm not here now . . . I'm on my bed,
>>
>>>crying like a jilted teenager. *HA*
>>>
>>
>>Um yeah, you DO know you have to be over the age of 12 to be classed as
>>a teenager? .....right?
>
>
> Um, yeah . . . you *do* know what sarcasm is, don't you? Geez, can
> anyone be *that* dumb?
> *looks at Mimic*
> Yes, I guess so. ( :
Ahhh, theres the love.
Sarcasm: "A form of verbal irony in which, under guise of praise, a
caustic and bitter expression of strong and personal disapproval is
given" (Holman and Harmon).
>
> 12 yo? Isn't that how you like'em? If I told you I was 12 would you be
> nice to me and buy me stuff? Maybe come visit me? ( ; That's what your
> last gf told me!
>
Oh is that why hatter is being nice to you? You told him you were 12
Mimic
> In article <5aSdnTx6ANc...@pipex.net>, Mimic <d...@null.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Connie Pierce wrote:
>>
>>>In article <160320061932096122%in...@pierceillus.com>, Connie Pierce
>>><in...@pierceillus.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>In article <6qWdnVDakL5...@pipex.net>, Mimic <d...@null.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Um connie, um yeah, you have a little, just a little, bit of the uh,
>>>>>"brown", on ya lip there.
>>>>
>>>>And you seem to have a 4x4 firmly stuck up your ass.
>>>
>>>
>>>My mistake, I meant a redwood tree, branches and all. Sorry for the
>>>confusion! ( ;
>>>
>>
>>Next time you find it necessary to correct yourself and then apologise
>>to yourself, would you mind not wasting my bandwidth.
>
>
> Um, how about just not reading my post? Even a newbie like me can
> killfile! LOL!
>
So....? Youre waiting to shut yourself the fuck up for what reason exactly?
Drew
<An Ass Whooping Snipped>
Mimic, I dare say you've had your hat handed to you. And by a "newbie"
no less.
Now you need one more.
D
Fred Doyle
> Even as much as Hat may look like an asshole.....
And we all know that is a lot. But you really shouldn't point it out. Its
not his fault he looks like the back end of a cow. Geez, I thought you were
defending him.
--
Fred Doyle
Mimic
> In article <g4GdnZOChKZ...@pipex.net>, Mimic <d...@null.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Connie Pierce wrote:
>>
>>>In article <6qWdnVHakL4...@pipex.net>, Mimic <d...@null.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Good effort, crack on, look fwd to seeing the final result. Hows that
>>>>other one going?
>>>
>>>
>>>Does this mean *you're* kissing his ass? Just curious to know what the
>>>"brown nosing" criteria is.
>>
>>No, it means that its a good effort as its better than what he has done
>>before, it needs some more work, and that, after the extra modifications
>>and tweaks, I would like to see it again.
>>
>>Not too good at the understanding part of reading are you.
>
>
> Yes, I am actually quite good at reading - minored in it. ( ;
Point proven.
>
>>>FTR, I've had an enjoyable time talking to Hat. He's not been insulting
>>>to me and has actually been quite pleasant. Maybe because I'm a woman?
>>
>>You sending him boobie pics?
>
>
> Don't have any . . . but I *did* send him some of your mom's. And he
> seems to "like" me anyway! ( ;
>
Well I *know* they arent the new ones, because the new ones are custom
jobs for hatter, which means youre just throwing around old shit... oh
wait, a pattern is emerging.
>>>Maybe because I don't spend every second telling him he's untalented or
>>>insulting his art? Maybe he just respects the fact that I'm not jumping
>>>on the bandwagon and hating him just 'cause everyone else seems to?
>>
>>Would you care to name this "everyone" else?
>
>
> Why don't you look it up in Google? I like the people here and I'm not
> naming names.
>
Right, because the answer to your .rotarded opinion is in Google *rolls
eyes* Last I heard, Google doesnt index .rotardian
>>>Maybe he's bored?
>>
>>More than likely.
>
>
> *shrugs* Maybe, so am I . . .
Then perhaps you should be spending more time learning XTML, XML, DW,
PS, FW, FLASH, PHP, PERL, CGI, Interface Design, JS, JAVA, AJAX, CSS etc
etc etc, as you so unmistakeningly pleaded you wanted, instead of piss
assing around trying to make yourself look smart. I mean hell, you could
even start by fixing your website. Like I said to hatter, if you want
help, go for it.
>
>>>And furthermore, I'm Mac and it's pretty apparent that he's anti-Mac
>>>and yet still, despite our disagreement on platforms, he's not been a
>>>dick to me. So . . . maybe *you're* wrong and just a plain ol'
>>>everyday, garden variety, common, jerk.
>>
>>Maybe, but highly doubtful.
>
>
> Not nearly as doubtful as you think . . . was my being nice and
> talking to Hat offending you in some way? Did it make you bleed? Cry?
> Suffer? No? Then for what *possible* reason did you have for making the
> brown nose comment? For the greater good of mankind? No? What? Just to
> be a jerk? And a rather common one at that? Thank you, I rest my case.
Does a person driving the wrong way down a one way street offend you?
You'd point it out though wouldnt you. Given your "minor" grasp of the
English language, I'll assuming you know what a metaphor is.
>
> NEXT!
>
>>>Really, right now, you only serve to make Hat look *THAT* much better.
>>>Congrats! ( ;
>>>
>>
>>You realise your "smiley" is infact a backwards lazy eyed scribble?
>
>
> No, and I don't care. I don't do the smileys for you - I do them for
> me. I think they're cute.
No? how can you say no? No you dont realise? of course you realise, I
just pointed it out to you, which would have had an effect whereby you
would look at your smiley. You know what emoticons are right? and what
they do? They denote an emotional state to the end user - me, an as
such, you include smileys purely for my benefit.
>
>>And how much is "THAT" much better? because lets face it, you dont
>>actually have any means of comparison. Whilst me and hatter frequently
>>verbally abuse each other, we have actually both created and improved
>>upon various things as a result.
>
>
> But I really have no need or desire for you to act as my personal
> Svengali. You have no need to "improve" me. So I suggest you do not
> try. Better men than you have tried and failed. And that describes them
> ALL.
Im not trying to "improve" you my dear. And at no point did I say me and
hatter improved each other. Should you have read my post at all, you
would have concluded that the effect of our disagreements have improved
our projects, I dont care for improving hatter and him me. Infact, he'll
tell you himself that he uses the internet as a means oh HIM bettering
HIMSELF
>
> Even as much as Hat may look like an asshole, you make him look like a
> choir boy in comparison.
What? a preteen with a cock in his mouth? Dont think he'll be too happy
with you for comparing him to a gary glitter victim.
>
>>While we're at it, you have an empty <p> tag on your index page, HOLEY
>>SHIT, ok you have... never mind here;
>
>
> Sweetie, unlike you, I do not hear voices in my head - so that being
Everyone has a voice in their head, is called thought. So as you've
stated that you dont, does that mean that your are incapable of thought?
It would appear so.
> said, people out "here" can't hear what you're thinking. Mind
> explaining the "HOLEY SHIT, ok you have . . . ?"
Define "here".
>
> And the whole index thing is immaterial to me (AFAIK - unless the W3
> org is some kind of mafia and I run the risk of being whacked?) . . .
> I don't do web design. I slapped that together in 24 hours (playing
> with GoLive).
Yeah I figured that too, what I thought I could do, is go for my pilots
liscence, but not learn how to do it properly... *rolls eyes*
Either you want to learn web design or you dont. If you dont do it
properly, dont bother, theres enough shit on the net as it is. And given
that your business is design and illustration, a valid, accessible
website is almost a given.
>
>>http://validator.w3.org
>>
>>You might also want to update your copyright tag (year).
>
>
> As in the reference above, I slapped it together in 24 hours learning
> GoLive. I've not updated it since it's initial upload. I get my clients
> from WOM, and from print advertising . . . not the web. Most locals
> here wouldn't know the Usenet from a toothbrush - the web means nothing
> to my local clients.
What was it 2004?, so you want to learn web design and coding, yet you
havent bothered to do anything for 2 years, great start, no really.
>
>>And FWIW, I actually like some of your printed media.
>
>
> Thank you (if you really mean that). I have nothing against you
> personally. But I do mind being labeled merely because I'm being nice
> to someone who's being (for whatever reason) nice to *me*. Too many
> times, thinking like sheep and following the crowd has spelled disaster
> in society. I don't like thinking along society's lines (unless they
> are logical and sound). And to my way of thinking, everyone is thinking
> that I'm brown nosing merely becuase Hat's unpopular.
I dont do sheeple mentality, my opinions and comments are based on what
I've seen and what I've done. If someone started congratulating a
paedophile, you'd be happy right?
>
> One of the things that I *DO* admire in Hat is his technical skill. I
> have none. He has a great deal of it. But I no more kiss his ass than I
> do anyone else here - which is NOT. My stating an honest opinion of him
> is nothing more than that.
>
What you must understand about hatter is that no, he doesnt have great
technical skill, infact he's years behind, he comes up with concepts
that dont work, claim its the future and they drop them a few months
later. What else you need to understand about hatter is that he is very
persistant, he has great potential but unfortunately doesnt like to
listen to other people. As the majority of this froup will tell you,
hatters stuff isnt good and rarely nice, its bloated and outdated,
broken and restricted, what we will all agree on though, even the die
hard hatter haters, is that if he listened more he could actually do
what he often claims. We admire his persistance, not his art.
Mimic
And how exactly do you figure that dribbles?
Onideus Mad Hatter
>Connie Pierce wrote:
>> In article <5aSdnTx6ANc...@pipex.net>, Mimic <d...@null.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Connie Pierce wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <160320061932096122%in...@pierceillus.com>, Connie Pierce
>>>><in...@pierceillus.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In article <6qWdnVDakL5...@pipex.net>, Mimic <d...@null.com>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Um connie, um yeah, you have a little, just a little, bit of the uh,
>>>>>>"brown", on ya lip there.
>>>>>
>>>>>And you seem to have a 4x4 firmly stuck up your ass.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>My mistake, I meant a redwood tree, branches and all. Sorry for the
>>>>confusion! ( ;
>>>>
>>>
>>>Next time you find it necessary to correct yourself and then apologise
>>>to yourself, would you mind not wasting my bandwidth.
>>
>>
>> Um, how about just not reading my post? Even a newbie like me can
>> killfile! LOL!
>>
>
>So....? Youre waiting to shut yourself the fuck up for what reason exactly?
You know Mimic, it's interesting to see you accuse someone else of
brown nosing when you're blatantly stealing material from me.
Drew
> Drew wrote:
>
>> Connie Pierce wrote:
>>
>> <An Ass Whooping Snipped>
>>
>> Mimic, I dare say you've had your hat handed to you. And by a "newbie"
>> no less.
>>
>> Now you need one more.
>>
>> D
>
>
> And how exactly do you figure that dribbles?
>
Call 'em as I see 'em.
D
Oh. That's Mr. Dribbles to you, boy.
Connie Pierce
wrote:
> Connie Pierce wrote:
> > In article <g4GdnZOChKZ...@pipex.net>, Mimic <d...@null.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Connie Pierce wrote:
> >>
> >>>In article <6qWdnVHakL4...@pipex.net>, Mimic <d...@null.com>
> >>>wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Good effort, crack on, look fwd to seeing the final result. Hows that
> >>>>other one going?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Does this mean *you're* kissing his ass? Just curious to know what the
> >>>"brown nosing" criteria is.
> >>
> >>No, it means that its a good effort as its better than what he has done
> >>before, it needs some more work, and that, after the extra modifications
> >>and tweaks, I would like to see it again.
> >>
> >>Not too good at the understanding part of reading are you.
> >
> >
> > Yes, I am actually quite good at reading - minored in it. ( ;
>
> Point proven.
Yes, I minored in English Lit (because I love to read - not so much the
writing). Most people don't even go that far . . . in all honesty,
did you? ( :
>
> >
> >>>FTR, I've had an enjoyable time talking to Hat. He's not been insulting
> >>>to me and has actually been quite pleasant. Maybe because I'm a woman?
> >>
> >>You sending him boobie pics?
> >
> >
> > Don't have any . . . but I *did* send him some of your mom's. And he
> > seems to "like" me anyway! ( ;
> >
>
> Well I *know* they arent the new ones, because the new ones are custom
> jobs for hatter, which means youre just throwing around old shit... oh
> wait, a pattern is emerging.
Hey, I am not throwing your mother around! I'm just profiting from her
web cam! ( ;
>
> >>>Maybe because I don't spend every second telling him he's untalented or
> >>>insulting his art? Maybe he just respects the fact that I'm not jumping
> >>>on the bandwagon and hating him just 'cause everyone else seems to?
> >>
> >>Would you care to name this "everyone" else?
> >
> >
> > Why don't you look it up in Google? I like the people here and I'm not
> > naming names.
> >
>
> Right, because the answer to your .rotarded opinion is in Google *rolls
> eyes* Last I heard, Google doesnt index .rotardian
Um, right back atcha. Even a newbie like me knows that you go look up
in Google groups Hat's posts and the reactions to them by ADG members.
Or perhaps do a search using "Hatter" as the subject? Hmmm?
>
> >>>Maybe he's bored?
> >>
> >>More than likely.
> >
> >
> > *shrugs* Maybe, so am I . . .
>
> Then perhaps you should be spending more time learning XTML, XML, DW,
> PS, FW, FLASH, PHP, PERL, CGI, Interface Design, JS, JAVA, AJAX, CSS etc
> etc etc, as you so unmistakeningly pleaded you wanted, instead of piss
> assing around trying to make yourself look smart. I mean hell, you could
> even start by fixing your website. Like I said to hatter, if you want
> help, go for it.
I'm not going to argue with you on that - you're right. I haven't had
the time to read the books/surf the net for the info.
>
> >
> >>>And furthermore, I'm Mac and it's pretty apparent that he's anti-Mac
> >>>and yet still, despite our disagreement on platforms, he's not been a
> >>>dick to me. So . . . maybe *you're* wrong and just a plain ol'
> >>>everyday, garden variety, common, jerk.
> >>
> >>Maybe, but highly doubtful.
> >
> >
> > Not nearly as doubtful as you think . . . was my being nice and
> > talking to Hat offending you in some way? Did it make you bleed? Cry?
> > Suffer? No? Then for what *possible* reason did you have for making the
> > brown nose comment? For the greater good of mankind? No? What? Just to
> > be a jerk? And a rather common one at that? Thank you, I rest my case.
>
> Does a person driving the wrong way down a one way street offend you?
LOL, I'm clearly not being a danger to the public, now am I? I was
talking to SG and Hat (diff threads) when you so kindly chimed in your
"opinion." Wasn't asked for. Wasn't necessary.
> You'd point it out though wouldnt you.
Duh - I'd call the cops. Wait, does this mean you're calling the police
on me? That I'm being a danger to society?
> Given your "minor" grasp of the
> English language, I'll assuming you know what a metaphor is.
Actually, of course I do. Just because I got a minor in Eng Lit and
took a major in Human Factors & psych doesn't mean I can't read or know
the basics of english grammar.
But considering how awful *your* metaphor is, I can only assume that
*your* grasp of is ESL at best. No, really, your metaphor was *that*
bad. Joo need some quickie quickie lessons in engie?
>
> >
> > NEXT!
> >
> >>>Really, right now, you only serve to make Hat look *THAT* much better.
> >>>Congrats! ( ;
> >>>
> >>
> >>You realise your "smiley" is infact a backwards lazy eyed scribble?
> >
> >
> > No, and I don't care. I don't do the smileys for you - I do them for
> > me. I think they're cute.
>
> No? how can you say no? No you dont realise? of course you realise, I
> just pointed it out to you, which would have had an effect whereby you
> would look at your smiley. You know what emoticons are right? and what
> they do? They denote an emotional state to the end user - me, an as
> such, you include smileys purely for my benefit.
I'm sorry, I forgot that english isn't your native language . . . what
I meant to say (I'll dumb it down a bit) is that I don't care. Contrary
to what you may think (and I use the term loosely), I could give a
rat's left nad what you "think."
>
> >
> >>And how much is "THAT" much better? because lets face it, you dont
> >>actually have any means of comparison. Whilst me and hatter frequently
> >>verbally abuse each other, we have actually both created and improved
> >>upon various things as a result.
> >
> >
> > But I really have no need or desire for you to act as my personal
> > Svengali. You have no need to "improve" me. So I suggest you do not
> > try. Better men than you have tried and failed. And that describes them
> > ALL.
>
> Im not trying to "improve" you my dear.
Oh, my bad - I thought you just made a grand statement on how you
"improve" various things. Since you would only have made the
observation (and ran to me, telling me about it) that I'm brown-nosing
Hat, I assumed that you were either being a genuine retard or trying to
help me. So silly of me to pin such lofty notions on that pinhead of
yours.
> And at no point did I say me and
> hatter improved each other. Should you have read my post at all, you
> would have concluded that the effect of our disagreements have improved
> our projects, I dont care for improving hatter and him me. Infact, he'll
> tell you himself that he uses the internet as a means oh HIM bettering
> HIMSELF
So? *yawn*
>
> >
> > Even as much as Hat may look like an asshole, you make him look like a
> > choir boy in comparison.
>
> What? a preteen with a cock in his mouth?
Ouch! I didn't know I was hitting a nerve with you there. Do you want
to talk about it? Remember, I gave you the name of a good therapist for
someone in your . . . condition.
> Dont think he'll be too happy
> with you for comparing him to a gary glitter victim.
I think that he'll see the literal and not the suggestive. AFAIK, he's
not a moron like you! ( ; (oops! another wrong-way emoticon! LOL)
>
> >
> >>While we're at it, you have an empty <p> tag on your index page, HOLEY
> >>SHIT, ok you have... never mind here;
> >
> >
> > Sweetie, unlike you, I do not hear voices in my head - so that being
>
> Everyone has a voice in their head, is called thought.
Actually, most people would call that "subconcious thought" - I thought
you were a psychologist?? Be honest, did you get your degree out of a
Cracker Jack box?
> So as you've
> stated that you dont, does that mean that your are incapable of thought?
> It would appear so.
LOL, no it means that I don't walk around wearing a little tin foil hat
and my undies on the outside of my clothes.
>
> > said, people out "here" can't hear what you're thinking. Mind
> > explaining the "HOLEY SHIT, ok you have . . . ?"
>
> Define "here".
Yeesh, only 4 o'clock and already he's hitting the sauce . . . pace
yourself, Rip-Off - try to drink in moderation! ( : Actually, it's been
said that alcoholism is hereditary - explains his conception!
>
> >
> > And the whole index thing is immaterial to me (AFAIK - unless the W3
> > org is some kind of mafia and I run the risk of being whacked?) . . .
> > I don't do web design. I slapped that together in 24 hours (playing
> > with GoLive).
>
> Yeah I figured that too, what I thought I could do, is go for my pilots
> liscence, but not learn how to do it properly... *rolls eyes*
LOL, again you with your "metaphors" . . . . please tell me you're not
the result of a Florida education!! I have children in school here!!
*shudder*
>
> Either you want to learn web design or you dont.
To be honest, I didn't at the time. I played with it because GoLive
came with Creative Suite.
> If you dont do it
> properly, dont bother, theres enough shit on the net as it is.
LOL, you only *see* the shit if you go looking for it. Or is someone
forcing you to visit "sub-par" web sites? Do you have a "chip in your
back" too?? For someone who thinks he's so bloody brilliant, you're
awfully stupid.
> And given
> that your business is design and illustration, a valid, accessible
> website is almost a given.
Not really, I already have more business than I can handle. Once I'm
not so busy, I will learn what I need to and redo my site. But seeing
as how most people like it (my clients, anyway), and I don't offer web
design (only print), I think I'm okay for now! But thanks for the
"insight!" (: (oops! Another wrong way emoticon - are you crying
now?!)
>
> >
> >>http://validator.w3.org
> >>
> >>You might also want to update your copyright tag (year).
> >
> >
> > As in the reference above, I slapped it together in 24 hours learning
> > GoLive. I've not updated it since it's initial upload. I get my clients
> > from WOM, and from print advertising . . . not the web. Most locals
> > here wouldn't know the Usenet from a toothbrush - the web means nothing
> > to my local clients.
>
> What was it 2004?
Oooh! Everyone!! Little Rip-Off *can* read!! We're all so very proud!!
Now try "The Little Engine That Could!"
> , so you want to learn web design and coding, yet you
> havent bothered to do anything for 2 years, great start, no really.
No, actually, I've done quite a bit. In print. When I get the *time*
and the motivation, I'll redo my site. Until then . . . *shrugs*
>
> >
> >>And FWIW, I actually like some of your printed media.
> >
> >
> > Thank you (if you really mean that). I have nothing against you
> > personally. But I do mind being labeled merely because I'm being nice
> > to someone who's being (for whatever reason) nice to *me*. Too many
> > times, thinking like sheep and following the crowd has spelled disaster
> > in society. I don't like thinking along society's lines (unless they
> > are logical and sound). And to my way of thinking, everyone is thinking
> > that I'm brown nosing merely becuase Hat's unpopular.
>
> I dont do sheeple mentality, my opinions and comments are based on what
> I've seen and what I've done. If someone started congratulating a
> paedophile, you'd be happy right?
Are you looking for a little appreciation? I mean, I know that the
whole "choir boy" thing touched a nerve . . . are *you* a pedophile??
Seriously, your comments are based on "sheeple" mentality. Or jealousy.
Or just stupidity. I spoke my opinion and that was that. Arguing about
it (as you seem wont to do) or imagining motivation behind it, much
less obsessing over it as you have is either psychotic (in a very bad
way), just your being a dumbass, not having life, or just being weird.
To be honest, unlike you, I have enough going on in my life that I
wouldn't have said a word - I don't need interaction like you must. You
stuck your nose into business not of yours. *YOU* took the time, the
effort, and the "thought" - it's just a shame that it wouldn't have
been spent better elsewhere.
>
> >
> > One of the things that I *DO* admire in Hat is his technical skill. I
> > have none. He has a great deal of it. But I no more kiss his ass than I
> > do anyone else here - which is NOT. My stating an honest opinion of him
> > is nothing more than that.
> >
>
> What you must understand about hatter is that no, he doesnt have great
> technical skill, infact he's years behind, he comes up with concepts
> that dont work, claim its the future and they drop them a few months
> later.
That's quite possible - since I know nothing about coding, I can't
argue that point. But instead of accusing me of brown-nosing, you could
have said *that*. Would have taken up less of your time and mine. Or
were you too afraid of the backlash?
> What else you need to understand about hatter is that he is very
> persistant, he has great potential but unfortunately doesnt like to
> listen to other people. As the majority of this froup will tell you,
> hatters stuff isnt good and rarely nice, its bloated and outdated,
> broken and restricted, what we will all agree on though, even the die
> hard hatter haters, is that if he listened more he could actually do
> what he often claims. We admire his persistance, not his art.
Again, I must wonder why you didn't say all that beforehand? Why accuse
me of brown-nosing when all I did was react to him (and perhaps goad
him into bashing Larry, whom I don't like) and talk to him? And see his
positive traits?
Connie Pierce
wrote:
> > Um, how about just not reading my post? Even a newbie like me can
> > killfile! LOL!
> >
>
> So....? Youre waiting to shut yourself the fuck up for what reason exactly?
Um, I'm not going to STFU . . . if you don't like what I say, you can
either lump, shove it, or otherwise take it up the ass for all I care.
Or you can ignore me or killfile me. Your choice. I really don't give a
rat's turd.
Mimic
LOL, its like when all the special children get together
Mimic
> On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 21:46:57 +0000, Mimic <d...@null.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Connie Pierce wrote:
>>
>>>In article <5aSdnTx6ANc...@pipex.net>, Mimic <d...@null.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Connie Pierce wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In article <160320061932096122%in...@pierceillus.com>, Connie Pierce
>>>>><in...@pierceillus.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>In article <6qWdnVDakL5...@pipex.net>, Mimic <d...@null.com>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Um connie, um yeah, you have a little, just a little, bit of the uh,
>>>>>>>"brown", on ya lip there.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>And you seem to have a 4x4 firmly stuck up your ass.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>My mistake, I meant a redwood tree, branches and all. Sorry for the
>>>>>confusion! ( ;
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Next time you find it necessary to correct yourself and then apologise
>>>>to yourself, would you mind not wasting my bandwidth.
>>>
>>>
>>>Um, how about just not reading my post? Even a newbie like me can
>>>killfile! LOL!
>>>
>>
>>So....? Youre waiting to shut yourself the fuck up for what reason exactly?
>
>
> You know Mimic, it's interesting to see you accuse someone else of
> brown nosing when you're blatantly stealing material from me.
>
> --
>
> Onideus Mad Hatter
Everyone knows you say it, its hardly theft. Full credit to you. It was
merely the most appropriate phrase.
Mimic
> In article <pcSdnTPbItj...@pipex.net>, Mimic <d...@null.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>>Um, how about just not reading my post? Even a newbie like me can
>>>killfile! LOL!
>>>
>>
>>So....? Youre waiting to shut yourself the fuck up for what reason exactly?
>
>
> Um, I'm not going to STFU . . . if you don't like what I say, you can
> either lump, shove it, or otherwise take it up the ass for all I care.
> Or you can ignore me or killfile me. Your choice. I really don't give a
> rat's turd.
>
Maybe you should stop replying then?
Drew
> Drew wrote:
>
>> Mimic wrote:
>>
>>> Drew wrote:
>>>
>>>> Connie Pierce wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <An Ass Whooping Snipped>
>>>>
>>>> Mimic, I dare say you've had your hat handed to you. And by a
>>>> "newbie" no less.
>>>>
>>>> Now you need one more.
>>>>
>>>> D
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> And how exactly do you figure that dribbles?
>>>
>>
>> Call 'em as I see 'em.
>>
>> D
>> Oh. That's Mr. Dribbles to you, boy.
>
>
> LOL, its like when all the special children get together
>
Welcome. I see you've made yourself at home.
Mr. Dribbles
Mimic
Thx, just dont touch me in my pants mmmmkay
Connie Pierce
wrote:
Only in your wee little mind!
>
> >>>my poor wittle brain could stand it.
> >>
> >>Theres alot your "poor wittle brain" isnt cut out to stand.
> >
> >
> > Yes, mainly the stupidity of others.
> >
>
> Well you have difficulty reading, of course youre going to have
> difficulty understanding your fellow skinjobs.
Present company included, Rip-off.
>
>
> >
> >>>After all, his "brown" comment has
> >>>left me so devastated that I just don't think I could ever log on to
> >>>the Usenet again.
> >>
> >
> >> > Ever. In fact, I'm not here now . . . I'm on my bed,
> >>
> >>>crying like a jilted teenager. *HA*
> >>>
> >>
> >>Um yeah, you DO know you have to be over the age of 12 to be classed as
> >>a teenager? .....right?
> >
> >
> > Um, yeah . . . you *do* know what sarcasm is, don't you? Geez, can
> > anyone be *that* dumb?
> > *looks at Mimic*
> > Yes, I guess so. ( :
>
> Ahhh, theres the love.
> Sarcasm: "A form of verbal irony in which, under guise of praise, a
> caustic and bitter expression of strong and personal disapproval is
> given" (Holman and Harmon).
I am so impressed! Rip-off knows how to Google! What other tricks do
you do? Fetch? Roll over? Play dead? I'd love to see *that* one.
>
>
> >
> > 12 yo? Isn't that how you like'em? If I told you I was 12 would you be
> > nice to me and buy me stuff? Maybe come visit me? ( ; That's what your
> > last gf told me!
> >
>
> Oh is that why hatter is being nice to you? You told him you were 12
Nah, I had to tell him I was "legal" - But he told me that if I wanted
any attention from you, I'd have to pretend to be prepubescent and
carry a My Little Pony backpack. Looks like it's true, huh? ( :
Connie Pierce
wrote:
> Connie Pierce wrote:
> > In article <pcSdnTPbItj...@pipex.net>, Mimic <d...@null.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>Um, how about just not reading my post? Even a newbie like me can
> >>>killfile! LOL!
> >>>
> >>
> >>So....? Youre waiting to shut yourself the fuck up for what reason exactly?
> >
> >
> > Um, I'm not going to STFU . . . if you don't like what I say, you can
> > either lump, shove it, or otherwise take it up the ass for all I care.
> > Or you can ignore me or killfile me. Your choice. I really don't give a
> > rat's turd.
> >
>
> Maybe you should stop replying then?
Since you seem to think I'm a 12 yo, I'll say this: You stop replying
first. No, you stop! No, *you* stop! tee hee
No one's forcing you to reply sweetie. You're the one who had an
attitude with my posts . . . I think it's your responsibility, nay,
*duty* to stop replying. You started it, you can be the first to stop!
( :
Ooops! You'd better go . . . I think the sheeple wants their Head
Stupid back . . .
Connie Pierce
wrote:
> Drew wrote:
> > Connie Pierce wrote:
> >
> > <An Ass Whooping Snipped>
> >
> > Mimic, I dare say you've had your hat handed to you. And by a "newbie"
> > no less.
> >
> > Now you need one more.
> >
> > D
>
> And how exactly do you figure that dribbles?
Mmmm, stealing from Hat again, I see. Mayhap you should remove *your*
nose (or tongue?) from his ass - or do you require surgery at this
point?
Connie Pierce
wrote:
> Drew wrote:
> > Mimic wrote:
> >
> >> Drew wrote:
> >>
> >>> Connie Pierce wrote:
> >>>
> >>> <An Ass Whooping Snipped>
> >>>
> >>> Mimic, I dare say you've had your hat handed to you. And by a
> >>> "newbie" no less.
> >>>
> >>> Now you need one more.
> >>>
> >>> D
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> And how exactly do you figure that dribbles?
> >>
> >
> > Call 'em as I see 'em.
> >
> > D
> > Oh. That's Mr. Dribbles to you, boy.
>
> LOL, its like when all the special children get together
Yeah, it's like a Mimic family reunion in here! ( :
Connie Pierce
wrote:
> Drew wrote:
> > Mimic wrote:
> >
> >> Drew wrote:
> >>
> >>> Mimic wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Drew wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Connie Pierce wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> <An Ass Whooping Snipped>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Mimic, I dare say you've had your hat handed to you. And by a
> >>>>> "newbie" no less.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Now you need one more.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> D
> >>>>
> >>>> And how exactly do you figure that dribbles?
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Call 'em as I see 'em.
> >>>
> >>> D
> >>> Oh. That's Mr. Dribbles to you, boy.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> LOL, its like when all the special children get together
> >>
> >
> >
> > Welcome. I see you've made yourself at home.
> >
> > Mr. Dribbles
>
> Thx, just dont touch me in my pants mmmmkay
Is it just me or does he have a fixation on child molestation?? Drew
wouldn't touch you with a 50 foot, wrapped in plastic, sterilized,
pole, Rip-Off.
>
> --
> Mimic
Drew
>
> Drew
> wouldn't touch you with a 50 foot, wrapped in plastic, sterilized,
> pole, Rip-Off.
Connie. Connie. Connie. You're projecting again.
I'm whacking him with my "troll stick" as I opine. It's only 50 feet
long because I folded it in half. (insert rim shot here)
BTW. One of my many definitions of "troll" is that they a) cause me to
bring out my "troll stick", thus they're trolls, b) they love to cross
post and perpetrate their antics, c) they flock together.
Just my opinion.
Speaking of which,
OpinionMan!
Here to save the day!
Onideus Mad Hatter
>You love me hatter ;)
...actually I have no opinion of you one way or another...I mean, you
don't produce ANYTHING...*shrugs*...
Like I've said before, there are only two kinds of people
online...those who produce...and those who run at the fuckin mouth.
Yer in the later category Mimic.
>You know I dont claim to be anything of the sort,
>well, unless the only person better than you is God, then yes, I guess I
>am claiming that.
Mimic, you're not better than anybody, you have a zero level of skill.
Your ONLY knowledge in web coding comes from what you regurgitate off
a W3C validation check.
>And you know people have seen my stuff,
People, huh? Who are these people? Can only YOU see them? LOL
>not only have I emailed numerous people in the froup my code,
..."your code"? Your code for WHAT, Mimic? All the imaginary sites
that you WISH you had? *snicker* Yer a poser, Mimic and that's
probably all you'll ever be.
--
Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ą x ą