New website concerning Jesus Army
John Everett
News and Information). The address is www.jeanni.org
I myself am an ex-member of this group (although it hadn't become
known as the Jesus Army when I was a member - in those days it was the
Jesus Fellowship or Bugbrooke Community).
Over the years, I have kept abreast of developments within the JA and
have deep concerns about their lifestyle and beliefs.
Please visit the site and tell me your views. I am particularly keen
to hear from anyone who has been directly involved with the movement,
either personally or through friends and family who have become
members.
John
Pete Broadbent
news:c8b3b4b5.02022...@posting.google.com...
Hello John - I remember you from my days in FAIR.
Good to hear you're still stirring the pot in the face of JA's new-found
respectability!
I still believe them to be deeply problematic.
--
Pete Broadbent
pete.br...@btinternet.com
Roland Watson
it was good and would have expected a secular TV company to be quick to
pick up on any "dirty" issues but they didn't.
I think they need a different approach than conventional churches because
they are dealing a lot more with the homeless and the higher proportion
of people with "problems" that end up in those groups. In fact, they have
to be quite tough at times.
Roland.
Matthew Vernon
> I remember watching the documentary on them a few months ago. I thought
> it was good and would have expected a secular TV company to be quick to
> pick up on any "dirty" issues but they didn't.
Yes, I saw that documentary too. I think I'm a little concerned about
their practices, but not to the point of considering them a bad thing.
Matthew
--
"My sheep hear my voice. I know them, and they follow me. I give them
eternal life, and they will never perish. No-one will snatch them out
of my hand". John 10 27-28
http://www.pick.ucam.org/
yonnermark
care to outline their most obvious doctrinal flaws?
im intrigued
:-)
mark
John Everett
Hi Pete,
Gosh! We're talking about some serious passage of time here. I would
love to hear your views about the content of the site when you have
the time, please. It's precisely because I fear that nothing much has
REALLY changed within the JA that I've launched it. I find myself
often saying these days that whilst the blooms of the JA may be far
more colourful and varied, I still believe that the root remains the
same - and therefore a problem.
Do e-mail me and tell me what you're up to these days.
Blessings,
John
Richard Emblem
john.e...@jeanni.org (John Everett) writes:
>Hi Pete,
>
>Gosh! We're talking about some serious passage of time here. I would
>love to hear your views about the content of the site when you have
>the time, please. It's precisely because I fear that nothing much has
>REALLY changed within the JA that I've launched it. I find myself
>often saying these days that whilst the blooms of the JA may be far
>more colourful and varied, I still believe that the root remains the
>same - and therefore a problem.
>Do e-mail me and tell me what you're up to these days.
You *will* be surprised John :-)
--
Richard Emblem
How good and pleasant it is
when God's people live in unity.
(Psalm 133:1)
_______________________
Jon Courthold
news:20020226152924...@mb-mi.aol.com...
> In article <c8b3b4b5.02022...@posting.google.com>,
> john.e...@jeanni.org (John Everett) writes:
>
> >Hi Pete,
> >
> >Gosh! We're talking about some serious passage of time here. I would
> >love to hear your views about the content of the site when you have
> >the time, please. It's precisely because I fear that nothing much has
> >REALLY changed within the JA that I've launched it. I find myself
> >often saying these days that whilst the blooms of the JA may be far
> >more colourful and varied, I still believe that the root remains the
> >same - and therefore a problem.
> >Do e-mail me and tell me what you're up to these days.
>
> You *will* be surprised John :-)
Pete was quoted in The Times yesterday (this URL might work:
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/newspaper/0,,171-218824,00.html )
commenting on the Bishop of London, Richard Chartres, Arch Bish hopeful -
the Tudor candidate. Interesting stuff.
Quote:
"He's able to look traditional but act radical. He is comfortable with
London as a modern cosmopolitan city. He is someone who understands the
place the Church of England is in because he is both modern and ancient. He'
s a very subtle moderniser." The Bishop of London is a great fan, for
instance, of the work Broadbent has been doing with young people in
Willesden. "
Regards,
Jon
Richard Emblem
<jon@***jcourthold.freeserve.co.u*k> writes:
>Pete was quoted in The Times yesterday (this URL might work:
>http://www.thetimes.co.uk/newspaper/0,,171-218824,00.html )
>commenting on the Bishop of London, Richard Chartres, Arch Bish hopeful -
>the Tudor candidate. Interesting stuff.
Thanks Jon - that was fascinating
John Everett
An interesting question! But why do you ask about doctrinal flaws in
the first instance rather than anything else? If you're a believer in
adult baptism, for example (and just as an example), you're not going
to think that some Anglican churches are very 'sound' on account of
their doctrinal attitude towards infant baptism; and yet most
believers these days are able to accept (or, at the very least,
tolerate) the other main denominations, even when there are major
doctrinal differences! To criticise another church purely on account
of doctrinal deficiencies often depends on where you are coming from
in the first place, and more often than not opens up an unproductive
minefield (in my opinion, anyway).
Doctrine is important, of course, and there are some groups where it
is all to easy to highlight where they deviate from the main tenets of
what is traditionally considered to be the Christian Gospel. The Jesus
Army is not one of these groups. It is not so much the doctrine which
is wrong (although given time and the appropriate opportunity I would
willingly challenge their interpretation of many Biblical passages -
the story of the good Samaritan as a case in point)so much as the
emphasis which is placed on certain dogmas and the consequences for
the way they live.
Any group that demands the kind of internal loyalty from its
membership such as the Jesus Army does is going to run into 'control'
problems - irrespective of how correct it may be doctrinally.
Maybe you'd care to visit the jeanni website and read what I have to
say there. This may begin to throw further light on what I, and
others, consider to the main problems with the Jesus Army.
John
MARTIN BANNISTER
the JA but have no grudges.
John Good.
"John Everett" <john.e...@jeanni.org> wrote in message
news:c8b3b4b5.02022...@posting.google.com...
John Everett
> So John still up to your old tricks, about time you got a life. I've left
> the JA but have no grudges.
>
> John Good.
Hi Martin (John?)
Bit confused here. I take it this is John 'Good' using a Martin
Bannister address - please tell me if I'm wrong.
I'm a wee bit surprised that your message got through the moderation
as I would have thought that this site was for the discussion of
issues, not personal snipes.
Anyhow, maybe your remark helps to illustrate my concerns, one of them
being the effect which membership of the Jesus Fellowship (Jesus Army)
has on the way its members (and sympathisers) regard people who are
not part of the group - and the way they feel entitled to talk to
them!!!
Briefly, I have been married for nearly twenty years and have three
children, one of whom (Rebekah) is a mature, well-adjusted, lovely
young lady who has been training as a professional dancer in
Manchester and is on the threshold of her chosen career. The other two
are still at school, Simeon is 17 and Ben is 12. We are very
close-knit family. Anyone who visits the new website will soon learn
about the traumas that I had to get through in consequence of my JA
membership, but got through them I have. What kind of life is it you
want me to get, John? What is your own story?
No one, least of all the Jesus Army itself, would deny that it is a
radical movement! There are many people who are going to be attracted
to its radical message and I don't suppose that anything I ever say or
do is going to have much effect on that! These people have the Jesus
Army to provide them with the assurance and support that they need.
There are others, though (inevitably!), who are uncertain or confused
by their encounters with the Jesus Army. And there are those who,
unlike yourself, leave the Fellowship or Army in a state of
bewilderment. Whom do they have? Jeanni has been launched for all
those who have questions or concerns about the Jesus Army; for all
those who find themselves, for whatever reason, on the wrong side of
the orthodoxy which the Jesus Army would claim.
Unknown
>the JA but have no grudges.
>
>John Good.
So John - you finally worked out how to post - though not from you`re
computer I see. Hello Martin !!
BTW I had a look at this site and trying not to be too prejudicial it
does seem to be the sniping of an individual trying to blame his own
mental collapse on other people and publicise the book he has written
about it!!
A bit shameful to try and knock other christians who are genuinly
trying to work out their faith and life together.
Hmmm.... hope I`ve finally managed to get my e-mail address in the
right place now.....
and will work out one of these " signature" things as soon as possible
!!!
* This space intentionally left blank *
Paul A Dean
> A new website has been launched called 'jeanni' (JEsus Army
> Networking News and Information). The address is www.jeanni.org
Was microsoft publisher 2000 responsible for putting almost all of the
text as .gifs? argh! and the text links are maps of images :(
I only ask so that I can hotly condemn it if anyone I know ever
considers using it :)
--
Paul.
"Life in a teacup; but is it art?"
http://www.redeemed.org.uk/
John Everett
> John Everett posted:
>
> > A new website has been launched called 'jeanni' (JEsus Army
> > Networking News and Information). The address is www.jeanni.org
>
> Was microsoft publisher 2000 responsible for putting almost all of the
> text as .gifs? argh! and the text links are maps of images :(
>
> I only ask so that I can hotly condemn it if anyone I know ever
> considers using it :)
Hi Paul,
Yes it was! As I'm only too happy to admit, I'm a novice at website
production and am only using the tools that I know how to work with.
Why to you condemn it so roundly? So long as it works, what's the
problem? I guess there must be one as I've heard other people talking
like you do. Please enlighten me - I'm genuinely interested and want
to learn how to do things better.
Thanks,
John
PS. e-mail me direct if you have the time and don't want to go through
UK religion.
John Everett
> >So John still up to your old tricks, about time you got a life. I've left
> >the JA but have no grudges.
> >
> >John Good.
>
>
>
> So John - you finally worked out how to post - though not from you`re
> computer I see. Hello Martin !!
>
> BTW I had a look at this site and trying not to be too prejudicial it
> does seem to be the sniping of an individual trying to blame his own
> mental collapse on other people and publicise the book he has written
> about it!!
>
> A bit shameful to try and knock other christians who are genuinly
> trying to work out their faith and life together.
>
> Hmmm.... hope I`ve finally managed to get my e-mail address in the
> right place now.....
>
> and will work out one of these " signature" things as soon as possible
> !!!
>
> * This space intentionally left blank *
Hi Fuzzyman
Ouch! You certainly know how to hit where it hurts.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion - that goes without saying!
Inevitably, therefore, there will be those who disagree with what I
say and do. That can be a bit frustrating sometimes; but I honestly
wouldn't want it to be any different, otherwise we'd all just be
clones, wouldn't we? What I find extremely painful, however, is the
quick and easy inferrence that because I want to draw attention to
what I believe to be problems with the Jesus Army, I must be doing so
with soiled motives of one kind or another.
I am NOT sniping at the Jesus Army. Sniping is what the Tabloids do.
It is making cheap, attention-grabbing accusations which are often
poorly substantiated, if at all. I always try very hard to ensure that
my remarks are carefully thought through and accurate. If you can tell
me specifically what it is that you consider to be 'sniping', then I
will look at it and reconsider.
Nor do I anywhere blame them for my 'mental collapse'!!! The truth is
the truth, however, and the fact remains that it was my fear of having
offended the Almighty by speaking out against the Bugbrooke Community
(Jesus Fellowship)which was a predominant feature of the prolonged
period of suicidal, pyschotic depression which I went through back in
1988. There were other factors as well, I don't deny it - but it was
my fear of an avenging God which was at the centre of it all!
As for publicising my book, I think you have something there! Yes, I
do want to publicise it - insofar, that is, that I want it to be read
by those whom it's aimed at and haven't, as yet, found a commercial
publisher for it (although, as I say on the site, I am currently in
negotiation with a Scottish publisher.) I want it to be read because
that is why I wrote it, pure and simple. I plead guilty m'lud! And I
wrote it because I feel I have something to say that will be of
interest to quite a number of people - irrespective of whether they
agree with all of it or not! It's the same with yourself, Fuzzyman,
that's why you have your own website. And although I have only just
begun doing so, I intend to read what you have written very carefully
because you have obviously put an enormous amount of effort and
thought into it!
But 'jeanni' is far more than publicising 'Looking for Freedom'! You
say it's a bit shameful to knock other Christians. Actually, I can't
think where I actually 'knock' them. Or maybe you consider drawing
attention to aspects of the Jesus Army that myself and others disagree
with to be 'knocking'. If so, then what's the alternative? Just keep
silent? Like it or not, there are those of us who feel that our
membership of the Jesus Fellowship has had an adverse effect on our
lives. What is wrong with saying "this is what we disagree with and
this is why!". Or is it to be inferred that the very fact we have
disagreements proves our bitterness and inadequacy? We too are part of
the Jesus Army story. Shouldn't our voice be heard? How would you
suggest we go about making our voice heard? Are we wrong to disagree
with anything to do with the Jesus Army full stop? If you tell me that
it's wrong to only be negative, may I respectfully suggest that you
can't possibly have read the extracts from my book, nor the entire
chapter which I've made available (in fact, it's a surprise that no
one has complained that I've written too favourably about them!)
With all the resources avaialble to it, the Jesus Army has produced a
fantastic website to publicise its message and sell its literature,
music and artefacts. What is the objection you have, please, to a web
novice doing his best to create a site which will provide a support
base to those who have questions and concerns about the Jesus Army?
Andy McMullon
john.e...@jeanni.org (John Everett) expounded:
> Yes it was! As I'm only too happy to admit, I'm a novice at website
> production and am only using the tools that I know how to work with.
>
> Why to you condemn it so roundly? So long as it works, what's the
> problem? I guess there must be one as I've heard other people talking
> like you do. Please enlighten me - I'm genuinely interested and want
> to learn how to do things better.
There are several issues.
One is that of the Internet standards and protocols that Microsoft
arrogantly ignore because their market share is so large. They don't
follow standards but try to set new ones by producing software which
produces bad html.
It's a bit like suggesting that we should give up Christian moral
standards just because the majority don't follow them.....
The other is one of efficiency. By all means use pictures, bells and
whistles when they are appropriate as few people have high bandwidth
connections. Even then you might consider using a text only
alternative for people who just want the basic information.
Paul A Dean
> Paul A Dean <pa...@redeemed.org.uk> wrote in message news:<87sn7j5...@redeemed.org.uk>...
> > John Everett posted:
> >
> > > A new website has been launched called 'jeanni' (JEsus Army
> > > Networking News and Information). The address is www.jeanni.org
> >
> > Was microsoft publisher 2000 responsible for putting almost all of
> > the text as .gifs? argh! and the text links are maps of images
> > :(
> >
> > I only ask so that I can hotly condemn it if anyone I know ever
> > considers using it :)
>
>
> Hi Paul,
>
> Yes it was!
Great! I enjoy hotly condemning web-page-writing tools :)
> As I'm only too happy to admit, I'm a novice at website production
> and am only using the tools that I know how to work with.
>
> Why to you condemn it so roundly? So long as it works, what's the
> problem?
In no particular order...
1) I cannot cut and paste the content, should I so desire.
2) Images are *much* bigger files than text files. If I'd been on a
modem(i.e. slow connection), I probably wouldn't have waited for the
site to download. For example, one page I chose at random was 45,000
bytes when it should have been no more than 4500! That's means it's
at least 10 times bigger than necessary and will take ten times longer
to download.
3) I might have been using a web-browser which would have displayed
your pages as completely blank. Lynx is a powerful little web-browser
which I sometimes use over a ssh connection - but it's text based.
There shouldn't be critical content which is contained only in
graphics. Again, someone on a slow connection might have turned off
the "automatically load images" option and would see nothing.
4) Supposing I was using my graphical web-browser in a smaller window,
because the rest of the screen was taken up with other windows. Your
images which just contain text might have been too big for the window.
If it was just text then it would be wrapped to fit my window, but as
it is images I have to get the mouse and scroll left and right to read
it.
5) On a purist note, it's morally wrong. (!). Hypertext is not
intended to be a WYSIWYG presentation system - it is supposed to be
focused on the content rather than the appearance. You supply the
content and guidance information on how you would prefer browsers to
display it and then the client browser does its thing(which you will
never be able to completely predict). If 100% certainty of appearance
is necessary, then we probably shouldn't be using html, but something
more like pdf. In this sense, my own web-sites break my own
principles, but none of the appearance-focused things are critical for
the content.
> PS. e-mail me direct if you have the time and don't want to go
> through UK religion.
Ah, we talk about all sorts here :)
Ken Down
john.e...@jeanni.org (John Everett) wrote:
> Why to you condemn it so roundly? So long as it works, what's the
> problem? I guess there must be one as I've heard other people talking
> like you do. Please enlighten me - I'm genuinely interested and want
> to learn how to do things better.
Paul's comments touched on two points. The first was that text was in the
form of .gif files - in other words, pictures. No matter how much
compression there is, a picture is always going to be bigger than the
equivalent text. Bigger means slower to load, which for those using 56k or
slower modems is an important issue. For your own sake - because I presume
that you want people to visit your site - get rid of all the .gif files and
put in plain text. It may not look so pretty, but it will load more quickly.
Personally, unless there is some information I need on the site, anyone who
uses .gif files for text get turned off by me.
The second point was the use of a Microsoft product to write your HTML
files. There is a certain snobbery among people who use computers, that
anything which has the M$ name on it is bad and evil. That aside, however,
it is a fact that the HTML produced by friend Bill Gates suffers from two
faults: 1. it is vastly inflated and 2. it will often use idiosyncratic
code.
1. Vastly inflated. Just try this: use your program to produce the word
"Jesus" in bold and centred on the page. This is all you need:
<html>
<body>
<center>Jesus</center>
</body>
</html>
Compare this with what your program has produced. I think you will see the
point.
2. Idiosyncratic. At one time Netscape Navigator was the most popular web
browser. In order to scupper it and promote his own product, Bill Gates
introduced some non-standard commands into the HTML produced by his program
and then, when the resulting page didn't work as it should and you phoned up
the Help Desk, they said "What browser are you using? Ah! Well, if you will
go using a non-M$ product!"
Get yourself a book (or I can mail you some simple lessons) on how to write
HTML and do it yourself. It is very easy to learn and produces short,
elegant pages that are quick to load, a joy to read, and not very much more
difficult to produce than with the M$ program.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
--
__ __ __ __ __
| \ | / __ / __ | |\ | / __ |__ All the latest archaeological news
|__/ | \__/ \__/ | | \| \__/ __| from the Middle East with David Down
================================= and "Digging Up The Past"
Web site: www.argonet.co.uk/education/diggings
e-mail: digg...@argonet.co.uk
Nick Milton
wrote:
>1. Vastly inflated. Just try this: use your program to produce the word
>"Jesus" in bold and centred on the page. This is all you need:
>
><html>
><body>
><center>Jesus</center>
></body>
></html>
sorry to be a pedant, but if you want it in bold, you need a <b></b>
tag as well
Nick
John Everett
> content and guidance information on how you would prefer browsers to
> display it and then the client browser does its thing(which you will
> never be able to completely predict). If 100% certainty of appearance
> is necessary, then we probably shouldn't be using html, but something
> more like pdf. In this sense, my own web-sites break my own
> principles, but none of the appearance-focused things are critical for
> the content.
>
> > PS. e-mail me direct if you have the time and don't want to go
> > through UK religion.
>
> Ah, we talk about all sorts here :)
Hi Paul,
Just to say thank you for taking the time and trouble to give me such
a full reply. Help! I think I'm going to drown! I've obviously got a
lot to learn about HTML and stuff and will begin doing so. For the
present, I'm stuck with what I've got as I can't afford any new
software just now and I can't adjust the underlying HTML myself (if
that's the correct way to put it). Anyhow, back to school time.
Meanwhile, please be patient with middle-aged ignoramuses like moi.
Yours,
John
Alec Brady
wrote:
>In no particular order...
>
>1) I cannot cut and paste the content, should I so desire.
>
>2) Images are *much* bigger files than text files...
>
>3) I might have been using a web-browser which would have displayed
>your pages as completely blank...
>
>4) ...Your images which just contain text might have been too big for
>the window...
>
>5) On a purist note, it's morally wrong...
6) Search engines can't index it.
Alec
=======================
Felix facere voluissem, joculator fuissem
John Everett
> In article <c8b3b4b5.02030...@posting.google.com>,
> john.e...@jeanni.org (John Everett) wrote:
>
> > Why to you condemn it so roundly? So long as it works, what's the
> > problem? I guess there must be one as I've heard other people talking
> > like you do. Please enlighten me - I'm genuinely interested and want
> > to learn how to do things better.
Ken,
Firstly, thank you very much for taking so much time and trouble to
reply to me. I freely confess that I am a complete nincompoop when it
comes to HTML and stuff like that. I'm sure I can't be alone, however,
as more and more amateurs are launching their own sites and we are at
the mercy of gloossy advertising which tells as such things as
"websites made easy - no need to learn HTML". It's just, ahhhhhhh, I
feel I've made a superhuman effort to become computer literate and now
I'm being told I've got to go yet a stage further :-( groan!
However, yes! I want my site to be easily accessible and I can't
afford any more fancy software just at the moment. So it's back to
school time (again), I guess. (Please read on further down)
>
> Paul's comments touched on two points. The first was that text was in the
> form of .gif files - in other words, pictures. No matter how much
> compression there is, a picture is always going to be bigger than the
> equivalent text. Bigger means slower to load, which for those using 56k or
> slower modems is an important issue. For your own sake - because I presume
> that you want people to visit your site - get rid of all the .gif files and
> put in plain text. It may not look so pretty, but it will load more quickly.
>
> Personally, unless there is some information I need on the site, anyone who
> uses .gif files for text get turned off by me.
Ah! But I'm not trying to attract just the inquisitive browser. I'm
expecting (possibly incorrectly) that those who the site is
specifically aimed at are going to be be prepared to spend a bit of
time accessing the different pages - which isn't to say that I don't
want it to be as quick and easy for them as psssible - I do
>
> The second point was the use of a Microsoft product to write your HTML
> files. There is a certain snobbery among people who use computers, that
> anything which has the M$ name on it is bad and evil. That aside, however,
> it is a fact that the HTML produced by friend Bill Gates suffers from two
> faults: 1. it is vastly inflated and 2. it will often use idiosyncratic
> code.
>
> 1. Vastly inflated. Just try this: use your program to produce the word
> "Jesus" in bold and centred on the page. This is all you need:
>
> <html>
> <body>
> <center>Jesus</center>
> </body>
> </html>
Uhm, what a blockhead I must be. When I print "Jesus" in MS publisher,
it is there in front of me in the middle of the page. I then press my
'save as website' command and everything is done for me - I don't see
anything else. Are you saying that to get "Jesus" in the centre of the
page 'manually' I've got to type in all of the above? Somewhere, I'm
missing the point (and all you computer nerds reading this, please
resist the temptation to lift your eyes to heaven and say "oh dear, oh
dear, the poor boy!")
>
> Compare this with what your program has produced. I think you will see the
> point.
>
> 2. Idiosyncratic. At one time Netscape Navigator was the most popular web
> browser. In order to scupper it and promote his own product, Bill Gates
> introduced some non-standard commands into the HTML produced by his program
> and then, when the resulting page didn't work as it should and you phoned up
> the Help Desk, they said "What browser are you using? Ah! Well, if you will
> go using a non-M$ product!"
Point taken! I'd love to escape from the cult of Microsoft. Then I
could start a website for those like myself who've broken free and
want to celebrate their freedom with others.
>
> Get yourself a book (or I can mail you some simple lessons) on how to write
> HTML and do it yourself. It is very easy to learn and produces short,
> elegant pages that are quick to load, a joy to read, and not very much more
> difficult to produce than with the M$ program.
What book do you recommend - something with a title like "Noddy's
guide to HTML" sounds about my kind of level. And, yes please, I would
very much appreciate you mailing me some lessons.
>
> God bless,
> Kendall K. Down
And the same to you! Thanks again.
John Everett
Debbie
wrote:
A site that I found very useful is the Barebones Guide to html which
lists all current tags.
http://werbach.com/barebones/download.html
I find it useful to keep the ascii text version open while I'm marking
up text.
Debbie
--
Urban Theology Unit
Sheffield
Views expressed in this email are my own and are not
necessarily those of the University of Sheffield or UTU.
Jon Courthold
John,
Try:
'HTML for the World Wide Web' by Elizabeth Castro,
published by Peachpit Press ISBN 0-201-35493-4
Or:
The primers and then the tutorials on this web site:
http://www.htmlgoodies.com
A little patronising but quite accessible. This was recommended at the web
site design course I am doing at the moment.
I was interested in the content of your site (at a brief scan rather than an
in-depth read). It connects with some concerns I am struggling ATM and I am
in a church that is much closer to the mainstream than the JA appears to be.
--
Regards,
Jon
Personal Web Site: Eat, Think and Believe.
http://www.jcourthold.freeserve.co.uk
A bit of an ego trip, mainly for fun, a few serious bits
Jon Courthold
news:a60eq6$eih$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
The web site that goes with the book:
http://beta.peachpit.com/vqs/html4/
Regards,
Jon
Tony Gillam
news:gj378ugeb28nh2v5j...@4ax.com...
> On 4 Mar 2002 01:47:46 -0800, john.e...@jeanni.org (John Everett)
> wrote:
>
> >Just to say thank you for taking the time and trouble to give me
such
> >a full reply. Help! I think I'm going to drown! I've obviously got
a
> >lot to learn about HTML and stuff and will begin doing so. For the
> >present, I'm stuck with what I've got as I can't afford any new
> >software just now and I can't adjust the underlying HTML myself (if
> >that's the correct way to put it). Anyhow, back to school time.
> >Meanwhile, please be patient with middle-aged ignoramuses like moi.
>
> A site that I found very useful is the Barebones Guide to html which
> lists all current tags.
> http://werbach.com/barebones/download.html
>
only one but armed with the above guide you should find putting
together basic pages quite easy. If you want a paper reference for
HTML then HTML Complete published by Sybex ISBN 0-7821-2801-7 is
pretty comprehensive.
If you would like me to E Mail you a copy let me know. It's about 1.5
Meg.
--
Tony Gillam
tony....@lineone.net
http://www.christians-r-us.org.uk
A site for sore I's
Paul A Dean
> A site that I found very useful is the Barebones Guide to html which
> lists all current tags.
> http://werbach.com/barebones/download.html
Looks good.
I use http://www.blooberry.com/indexdot/html/ which is good for saying
how exactly each tag will behave on each of the popular browsers. It
might be a bit advanced, though, unless you're used to reading
technical documentation.
Paul A Dean
And it will only be centred horizontally.
Ken Down
> Just to say thank you for taking the time and trouble to give me such
> a full reply. Help! I think I'm going to drown! I've obviously got a
> lot to learn about HTML and stuff and will begin doing so. For the
> present, I'm stuck with what I've got as I can't afford any new
> software just now
The only software you need to write HTML is WordPad.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
--
Ken Down
> Uhm, what a blockhead I must be. When I print "Jesus" in MS publisher,
> it is there in front of me in the middle of the page. I then press my
> 'save as website' command and everything is done for me - I don't see
> anything else. Are you saying that to get "Jesus" in the centre of the
> page 'manually' I've got to type in all of the above?
As I said, now load the newly created page into NotePad and see what a lot
of garbage has been added to the couple of simple commands which are all
that is necessary. (Or, indeed, just click once over both files and note the
difference in length!)
> Somewhere, I'm missing the point
The point is that by making things slightly more complicated for yourself,
you are making them a good deal easier for your clients - those who visit
your page. I am sure you are aware of the dictum that "the customer is king"
or "the customer is always right"?
I have never yet anyone who complained to me "I didn't like that site, the
pages loaded too quickly." On the other hand, I have frequently met people -
and, indeed, been one myself - who said "When nothing happened after fiften
seconds, I just tried somewhere else."
> What book do you recommend - something with a title like "Noddy's
> guide to HTML" sounds about my kind of level. And, yes please, I would
> very much appreciate you mailing me some lessons.
Ok, I'll do that.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
--
Ken Down
(Nick Milton) wrote:
> sorry to be a pedant, but if you want it in bold, you need a <b></b>
> tag as well
You are absolutely correct.
The ammended code is below.
<html>
<body>
<center><b>Jesus</b></center>
</body>
</html>
Mark Goodge
typed:
>In article <3c833e65...@news.demon.co.uk>, nick_...@ktransform.com
>(Nick Milton) wrote:
>
>> sorry to be a pedant, but if you want it in bold, you need a <b></b>
>> tag as well
>
>You are absolutely correct.
>
>The ammended code is below.
>
><html>
><body>
><center><b>Jesus</b></center>
></body>
></html>
That still won't centre it vertically, though.
Mark
--
Visit Mark's World at http://www.good-stuff.co.uk/mark/
Robert Marshall
> On Mon, 04 Mar 2002 20:47:32 GMT, Ken Down put finger to keyboard
> and typed:
>
>>In article <3c833e65...@news.demon.co.uk>,
>>nick_...@ktransform.com (Nick Milton) wrote:
>>
>>> sorry to be a pedant, but if you want it in bold, you need a
>>> <b></b> tag as well
>>
>>You are absolutely correct.
>>
>>The ammended code is below.
>>
>><html>
>><body>
>><center><b>Jesus</b></center>
>></body>
>></html>
>
> That still won't centre it vertically, though.
>
Depends how big your window is!
I'd go for
\documentclass[a4paper]{article}
\begin{document}
\vspace{10cm}
\center{\bf\Huge Jesus}
\end{document}
latex2html... but that's deeply sad!
R
--
Mark us with your love,
And release in us a passion for your justice in our disfigured world;
That we may turn from our guilt and face you, our hearts desire
Ash Wednesday Collect
Ken Down
<pa...@redeemed.org.uk> wrote:
> And it will only be centred horizontally.
Yes, I should have said, "centred on the line".
One wonders how M$ copes with centred on the page: probably constructs a
one-cell table.
Ken Down
<tgi...@cyberyacht.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> If you would like me to E Mail you a copy let me know. It's about 1.5
> Meg.
I'd be interested, please.
Paul A Dean
> Depends how big your window is!
>
> I'd go for
> \documentclass[a4paper]{article}
> \begin{document}
> \vspace{10cm}
> \center{\bf\Huge Jesus}
> \end{document}
>
> latex2html... but that's deeply sad!
You have an A4 screen? How strange!
How about
<html>
<body>
<script language="JavaScript">
if (parseInt(navigator.appVersion)>3) {
if (navigator.appName=="Netscape") {
window_height = window.innerHeight / 2;
}
if (navigator.appName.indexOf("Microsoft")!=-1) {
window_height = document.body.offsetHeight / 2;
}
}
</script>
<img src="blank.gif" height="document.createAttribute(window_height)">
<B>Jesus</B>
</center>
</body>
</html>
where blank.gif is a small transparent gif. It's horribly ugly, but
it'll work for some measure of 'work'.
Mark Goodge
typed:
>
>You have an A4 screen? How strange!
>
>How about
><html>
><body>
><script language="JavaScript">
>if (parseInt(navigator.appVersion)>3) {
> if (navigator.appName=="Netscape") {
> window_height = window.innerHeight / 2;
> }
> if (navigator.appName.indexOf("Microsoft")!=-1) {
> window_height = document.body.offsetHeight / 2;
> }
>}
></script>
>
><img src="blank.gif" height="document.createAttribute(window_height)">
><B>Jesus</B>
>
></center>
></body>
></html>
>
>where blank.gif is a small transparent gif. It's horribly ugly, but
>it'll work for some measure of 'work'.
There's a much simpler way of doing it, if you're happy to acept a
kludge that won't work in every browser:
<html>
<body>
<table width=100% height=100%>
<tr>
<td valign=center align=center>
<b>Jesus</b>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
</body>
</html>
Not 100% effective, but works in more instances than the Javascript
solution. A more "correct" way to do it, but one that is still a bit
iffy in many browsers, is to use CSS declarations:
<html>
<body>
<div STYLE="text-align: center;
vertical-align: middle;
font-weight: bolder">
Jesus
</div>
</body>
</html>
Alec Brady
I've tried these with IE5 and Opera - the results are the same for
both.
Paul's method put the word about a quarter of the way down the screen
and a quarter of the way in. Perhaps this depends on the size of
blank.gif?
Your first method put the word in the middle of the screen, and your
second put it at the top of the screen (though in the middle of the
line).
Robert Marshall
> Robert Marshall posted:
>
>> Depends how big your window is!
>>
>> I'd go for
>> \documentclass[a4paper]{article}
>>
>> latex2html... but that's deeply sad!
>
> You have an A4 screen? How strange!
>
Unfortunately my perq stopped working
Paul A Dean
> On 05 Mar 2002 20:08:26 +0000, Paul A Dean put finger to keyboard and
> typed:
> >
> >You have an A4 screen? How strange!
> >
> >How about
> ><html>
> ><body>
> ><script language="JavaScript">
> >if (parseInt(navigator.appVersion)>3) {
> > if (navigator.appName=="Netscape") {
> > window_height = window.innerHeight / 2;
> > }
> > if (navigator.appName.indexOf("Microsoft")!=-1) {
> > window_height = document.body.offsetHeight / 2;
> > }
> >}
> ></script>
> >
> ><img src="blank.gif" height="document.createAttribute(window_height)">
> ><B>Jesus</B>
> >
> ></center>
> ></body>
> ></html>
> >
> >where blank.gif is a small transparent gif. It's horribly ugly,
> >but it'll work for some measure of 'work'.
>
> There's a much simpler way of doing it, if you're happy to accept a
> kludge that won't work in every browser:
>
> <html>
> <body>
> <table width=100% height=100%>
> <tr>
> <td valign=center align=center>
> <b>Jesus</b>
> </td>
> </tr>
> </table>
> </body>
> </html>
I've had headaches in the past with valign having unpredicatable
browser behaviour, so I tend to steer cleer of it unless I have the
time for rigorous testing! I've just tried the above and it works in
konqueror at least!
Alec Brady
wrote:
>> 1. Vastly inflated. Just try this: use your program to produce the word
>> "Jesus" in bold and centred on the page. This is all you need:
>>
>> <html>
>> <body>
>> <center>Jesus</center>
>> </body>
>> </html>
>
>Uhm, what a blockhead I must be. When I print "Jesus" in MS publisher,
>it is there in front of me in the middle of the page. I then press my
>'save as website' command and everything is done for me - I don't see
>anything else. Are you saying that to get "Jesus" in the centre of the
>page 'manually' I've got to type in all of the above? Somewhere, I'm
>missing the point (and all you computer nerds reading this, please
>resist the temptation to lift your eyes to heaven and say "oh dear, oh
>dear, the poor boy!")
An htm file is just like a text file, but with an htm extension!. Try
this...
1 Open Notepad (CTRL+ESC | Programs | Accessories | Notepad)
2 Copy the above text into it (either by typing it out or by
using CTRL+C/CTRL+V)
3 Save the file - onto your desktop would be good. Close the
file.
4 Find the file on your desktop.
5 Right-click and select "Rename"
6 Call it (say) "Jesus.htm"
7 Double-click it. It should fire up your browser and open as a
webpage.
8 In Internet Explorer, click "View | Source"
9 The text version (with tags) will appear. You can edit this
and save it. When you do this, click the "Refresh" button
and the edited version of your page will now show.
Try creating a page using Word and then using the "Source" command (in
Word97 it's "View | HTML source") to edit your html tags.
For a book (if you want a book rather than the online resources you've
been pointed to) you might try "HTML for Dummies." It's not
comprehensive but it's a good starter.
Richard Emblem
Brady) writes:
>An htm file is just like a text file, but with an htm extension!. Try
>this...
>
>1 Open Notepad (CTRL+ESC | Programs | Accessories | Notepad)
>2 Copy the above text into it (either by typing it out or by
> using CTRL+C/CTRL+V)
>3 Save the file - onto your desktop would be good. Close the
> file.
>4 Find the file on your desktop.
>5 Right-click and select "Rename"
>6 Call it (say) "Jesus.htm"
>7 Double-click it. It should fire up your browser and open as a
> webpage.
>8 In Internet Explorer, click "View | Source"
>9 The text version (with tags) will appear. You can edit this
> and save it. When you do this, click the "Refresh" button
> and the edited version of your page will now show.
>
>Try creating a page using Word and then using the "Source" command (in
>Word97 it's "View | HTML source") to edit your html tags.
>
>For a book (if you want a book rather than the online resources you've
>been pointed to) you might try "HTML for Dummies." It's not
>comprehensive but it's a good starter.
Why on earth would anyone want to do all that? Is it necessary for salvation?
:-)
--
Richard Emblem
How good and pleasant it is
when God's people live in unity.
(Psalm 133:1)
_______________________
Ken Down
(Richard Emblem) wrote:
> Why on earth would anyone want to do all that? Is it necessary for
> salvation?
You are surely not suggesting that it is possible for a M$ user to get to
heaven?
Mind you, I suppose if they don't know any better and have never had the
opportunity to use Linux (or died before it was invented) or something like
that, God may have mercy upon them, but it's a very moot point.
You do realise, of course, that the top spots in heaven all go to Acorn
users? It's something to do with being able to recognise a good thing when
you see one.
Alec Brady
wrote:
>You do realise, of course, that the top spots in heaven all go to Acorn
>users? It's something to do with being able to recognise a good thing when
>you see one.
Have you not read "unless the Acorn fall into the ground and die..."?
Tim Rowe
IMHO. Far too many web designers assume that nobody is using text-only
browsers, but I understand that braille and voice interfaces use them. Lynx
is a free download, and it's well worth checking what your site looks like
in it.
"John Everett" <john.e...@jeanni.org> wrote in message
news:c8b3b4b5.02030...@posting.google.com...
Tim Rowe
> > problem? I guess there must be one as I've heard other people talking
> > like you do. Please enlighten me - I'm genuinely interested and want
> > to learn how to do things better.
>
> form of .gif files - in other words, pictures. No matter how much
> compression there is, a picture is always going to be bigger than the
> equivalent text. Bigger means slower to load, which for those using 56k or
> slower modems is an important issue.
Another important issue is that Unisys claims a patent on gif technology,
and may want a US$5000 licence fee if you use gifs on your
page(http://burnallgifs.org/). If you /must/ do it all in graphics, use jpeg
until png is better established!
Paul A Dean
But then you can't use jpg for text because the lossy compression
gives you all sorts of colour smears.
Genie
> Tim Rowe posted:
>
> > "Ken Down" <digg...@argonet.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:na.279d2e4b11....@argonet.co.uk...
> > > In article <c8b3b4b5.02030...@posting.google.com>
> > > Paul's comments touched on two points. The first was that text was
> > > in the form of .gif files - in other words, pictures. No matter
> > > how much compression there is, a picture is always going to be
> > > bigger than the equivalent text. Bigger means slower to load,
> > > which for those using 56k or slower modems is an important issue.
> >
> > Another important issue is that Unisys claims a patent on gif
> > technology, and may want a US$5000 licence fee if you use gifs on
> > your page(http://burnallgifs.org/). If you /must/ do it all in
> > graphics, use jpeg until png is better established!
>
> But then you can't use jpg for text because the lossy compression
> gives you all sorts of colour smears.
Therefore the best answer is:
use TEXT for text parts of the page
use .jpg for complex images
use .png for simpler images
Using the wrong tool for the job will almost always result in an
inferior result. Much like trying to designand entire website in an
animation language rather than a web mark-up language - which gets
done all too frequently.
John Campbell
> Anyone who visits the new website will soon learn
> about the traumas that I had to get through in consequence of my JA
> membership, but got through them I have.
It was over twenty years ago that you left the Jesus Army, John! And
seven years after that, you had a mental breakdown, which you seem to
blame on the Jesus Army. Why don't you open your eyes and see what is
really going on?
Many thousands of people have been helped or brought to faith in
Christ through the activities of the Jesus Army over the years. (Their
web page is at http://www.jesus.org.uk). Let's get a realistic
perspective on things.
John Campbell
Phil
news:6d2be9b8.02032...@posting.google.com...
Tell me did you learn this warm, friendly and loving approach to mental
illness from the Jesus Army or are you self taught?
Phil
Mike Aldrich
official spokesman !!
(I think he's all on the defensive since someone set fire to one of
the communities homes over the weekend)
regards
mike
conc...@jesusarmywatch.org.uk
http://www.jesusarmywatch.org.uk
On Wed, 27 Mar 2002 06:42:33 -0000, "Phil"
<philip....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>"John Campbell" <johnca...@jesus-army.com> wrote in message
>> It was over twenty years ago that you left the Jesus Army, John! And