Does this page work in your Firefox?

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Mika, Nov 24, 2007.

  1. Mika

    Mika Guest

    Hi all, if you could kindly test this W3C validated page specifically in
    Firefox only and advise if you see the streetscape appear. (Designed for
    broadband):

    http://tinyurl.com/35mwxr

    Thanks,
    Mika
     
    Mika, Nov 24, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Mika wrote:
    > Hi all, if you could kindly test this W3C validated page specifically
    > in Firefox only and advise if you see the streetscape appear.
    > (Designed for broadband):
    >
    > http://tinyurl.com/35mwxr


    Since you've been complaining of discussion beyond answers to your
    specific questions: I do not see it.


    --
    Blinky
    Killing all posts from Google Groups
    The Usenet Improvement Project - http://improve-usenet.org
     
    Blinky the Shark, Nov 24, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Mika

    Mika Guest

    "Blinky the Shark" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Mika wrote:
    >> Hi all, if you could kindly test this W3C validated page specifically
    >> in Firefox only and advise if you see the streetscape appear.
    >> (Designed for broadband):
    >>
    >> http://tinyurl.com/35mwxr

    >
    > Since you've been complaining of discussion beyond answers to your
    > specific questions: I do not see it.


    Have only complained about people assuming we haven't thought of very
    obvious things like being sued by shops for giving them free advertsing when
    we asked about an IE error message.

    Will not complain however if you are able to elaborate. The page should
    load, and on Broadband in 2-3 seconds you should see a streetscape appear in
    the blue central box, which you can then walk along.

    If you don't, what version FF are you on, and do you have JS enabled?

    A screenshot would be fantastic.

    Constructive replies always welcomed.

    Mika
     
    Mika, Nov 24, 2007
    #3
  4. Mika

    John Hosking Guest

    Mika wrote:
    > Hi all, if you could kindly test this W3C validated page


    This page is not Valid HTML 4.01 Transitional!
    Result: Failed validation, 14 Errors

    > specifically in Firefox only and advise if you see the
    > streetscape appear. (Designed for broadband):
    >
    > http://tinyurl.com/35mwxr


    No, without JS, I don't. With JS I do. I hear the crashing waves either way.

    --
    John
    Pondering the value of the UIP: http://improve-usenet.org/
     
    John Hosking, Nov 24, 2007
    #4
  5. Mika

    Andy Dingley Guest

    On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 09:21:13 GMT, "Mika" <> wrote:

    >http://tinyurl.com/35mwxr


    Possibly the nastiest page in many a long day.

    I don't see anything. After 20 seconds of fast broadband (slow old
    laptop though) I gave up. I had to kill FF to do so.

    What I did see looks like a domain-squatter's spam page.

    "Quicker then driving" You don't really get this "web" thing, do you?
     
    Andy Dingley, Nov 24, 2007
    #5
  6. Mika

    Mika Guest

    "John Hosking" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Mika wrote:
    >> Hi all, if you could kindly test this W3C validated page

    >
    > This page is not Valid HTML 4.01 Transitional!
    > Result: Failed validation, 14 Errors


    When are you checking this? A few days ago perhaps, but as of yesterday,
    and 5 seconds ago when we checked again, we get this result:

    http://tinyurl.com/39sxo5
    W3C CSS Validator Results
    Congratulations! No Error Found.
    This document validates as CSS!
    To show your readers that you've taken the care to create an interoperable
    Web page, you may display this icon on any page that validates. Here is the
    XHTML you could use to add this icon to your Web page:

    Are you saying the W3C are wrong or did you just not check it when we posted
    this post? We are trying to work on the feedback from this group, and the
    site is constantly being cleaned and improved based on your advice.

    >> specifically in Firefox only and advise if you see the streetscape
    >> appear. (Designed for broadband):
    >>
    >> http://tinyurl.com/35mwxr

    >
    > No, without JS, I don't. With JS I do. I hear the crashing waves either
    > way.


    Very funny. It seems people on this group are not able to hear truck
    engines or crowd noise, and can only hear passing cars as waves. We know
    what you mean, but come on we all know what the sound is really. Depends
    how you see the half full glass.

    Glad to know it works for you with JS which is how all FF browsers are
    installed as standard.
     
    Mika, Nov 24, 2007
    #6
  7. Mika

    Mika Guest

    "Andy Dingley" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 09:21:13 GMT, "Mika" <> wrote:
    >
    >>http://tinyurl.com/35mwxr

    >
    > Possibly the nastiest page in many a long day.


    Thanks. That explains all the great reviews posted on our home page. We
    appreciate it isn't how you would do it, but it is at least unique and
    inventive.

    > I don't see anything. After 20 seconds of fast broadband (slow old
    > laptop though) I gave up. I had to kill FF to do so.


    May we ask please:

    Do you have JS enabled?
    What speed broadband is it?
    A 'slow old' laptop might not help however.


    > What I did see looks like a domain-squatter's spam page.


    Thanks. Here is a rough example of what you might see, which really
    doesn't:
    http://www.superhighstreet.com/images/OxfordCircus.jpg

    > "Quicker then driving" You don't really get this "web" thing, do you?


    We know how to be nice and are doing our best.
     
    Mika, Nov 24, 2007
    #7
  8. Mika wrote:

    > "John Hosking" wrote:
    >> Mika wrote:
    >>> Hi all, if you could kindly test this W3C validated page

    ...........................................^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

    >> This page is not Valid HTML 4.01 Transitional!
    >> Result: Failed validation, 14 Errors

    >
    > When are you checking this? A few days ago perhaps, but as of
    > yesterday, and 5 seconds ago when we checked again, we get this
    > result: <snip>


    <http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.superhighstreet.com%2FGeorge-Street-Richmond%2Findex.shtml&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=Inline&group=0>

    > Are you saying the W3C are wrong


    No, he is saying you forgot the HTML validation, which is what most of
    us think of when you say "W3C validated page." Otherwise, you would have
    mentioned "CSS validates" or similar.

    > Glad to know it works for you with JS which is how all FF browsers are
    > installed as standard.


    ...though many people turn it off because it is the prime cause of popup
    windows, cookie delivery, and other annoyances. It is also stripped by
    many corporate firewalls.

    --
    -bts
    -Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck
     
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Nov 24, 2007
    #8
  9. Mika

    J.O. Aho Guest

    Mika wrote:
    > Hi all, if you could kindly test this W3C validated page specifically in
    > Firefox only and advise if you see the streetscape appear. (Designed for
    > broadband):
    >
    > http://tinyurl.com/35mwxr


    Seems to work in SeaMonkey if JS turned on, but then the page wants to be on
    top when opening things like preferences or editing bookmarks.

    Scrolling how the JS generated part of the page has trouble to follow with the
    rest of the page, I guess my old 2GHz CPU starts to be too slow to surf the
    net, while gaming it's quite good suited for.

    --

    //Aho
     
    J.O. Aho, Nov 24, 2007
    #9
  10. Mika

    Mika Guest

    "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <> wrote in message
    news:CEV1j.143569$...
    > Mika wrote:
    > <http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.superhighstreet.com%2FGeorge-Street-Richmond%2Findex.shtml&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=Inline&group=0>
    >
    >> Are you saying the W3C are wrong

    >
    > No, he is saying you forgot the HTML validation, which is what most of
    > us think of when you say "W3C validated page." Otherwise, you would have
    > mentioned "CSS validates" or similar.


    Of the 14 'errors':

    1 is caused by MS Expression Web and cannot be changed (without severe
    rewrites)
    1 is valid 'onbeforeunload' but we are welcome to hear suggested
    alternatives?
    8 are caused by one small Flash object - causes no actual issues
    2 we have just fixed (table size)
    1 is to open a link in a new window - has to happen, we are open to
    suggestions?
    1 is required to get around the IE/Google API bug (JS must be outside the
    body tag)

    In other words, the page works perfectly on all test systems, and 12/14
    above are by design.

    What is the actual real life disadvantage of leaving these in, in reality?
    I mean, the site works everywhere we can test it. Nobody knows there are
    these few minor things except us.

    >> Glad to know it works for you with JS which is how all FF browsers are
    >> installed as standard.

    >
    > ..though many people turn it off because it is the prime cause of popup
    > windows, cookie delivery, and other annoyances. It is also stripped by
    > many corporate firewalls.


    That is up to them - no other way to use Google Maps sadly.
     
    Mika, Nov 24, 2007
    #10
  11. Mika

    Mika Guest

    "J.O. Aho" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Mika wrote:
    >> Hi all, if you could kindly test this W3C validated page specifically in
    >> Firefox only and advise if you see the streetscape appear. (Designed for
    >> broadband):
    >>
    >> http://tinyurl.com/35mwxr

    >
    > Seems to work in SeaMonkey if JS turned on, but then the page wants to be
    > on
    > top when opening things like preferences or editing bookmarks.
    >
    > Scrolling how the JS generated part of the page has trouble to follow with
    > the
    > rest of the page, I guess my old 2GHz CPU starts to be too slow to surf
    > the
    > net, while gaming it's quite good suited for.


    Thanks for the feedback.
     
    Mika, Nov 24, 2007
    #11
  12. "Mika" <> writes:

    > "Andy Dingley" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 09:21:13 GMT, "Mika" <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>http://tinyurl.com/35mwxr

    >>
    >> Possibly the nastiest page in many a long day.

    >
    > Thanks. That explains all the great reviews posted on our home page. We
    > appreciate it isn't how you would do it, but it is at least unique and
    > inventive.


    Speaking as a customer, I'm not looking for "unique and inventive" web
    design when I'm doing my online shopping. I'm a web geek, and I'm not
    against such things in general. I enjoy many entertainment, music, comics
    and "concept" sites that are loaded with stuff like that - indeed, being
    entertained by a unique and inventive design is sometimes the point of an
    entire site.

    But the point of a shopping site is different. A shopping site should be
    concerned with making it as easy as possible for the customer to find what
    they want and spend their money. The goal of *your* shopping site appears
    to be just the opposite, to make it as difficult as possible.

    So tell me - as a customer, what motivation do I have to enable VirusScript,
    wait for minutes for each of your pages to load, and turn off my preferred
    music, just for the privilege of shopping at your site? Why shouldn't I just
    go to Amazon.com instead, which loads quickly, works without VirusScript,
    and remains blissfully silent?

    sherm--

    --
    WV News, Blogging, and Discussion: http://wv-www.com
    Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
     
    Sherman Pendley, Nov 24, 2007
    #12
  13. Mika

    Dave Kelly Guest

    On Nov 24, 3:21 am, "Mika" <> wrote:
    > Hi all, if you could kindly test this W3C validated page specifically in
    > Firefox only and advise if you see the streetscape appear. (Designed for
    > broadband):
    >
    > http://tinyurl.com/35mwxr
    >
    > Thanks,
    > Mika


    Yes I see it.
     
    Dave Kelly, Nov 24, 2007
    #13
  14. Mika

    Bone Ur Guest

    Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sat, 24 Nov 2007 18:23:05
    GMT Sherman Pendley scribed:

    > So tell me - as a customer, what motivation do I have to enable
    > VirusScript, wait for minutes for each of your pages to load, and turn
    > off my preferred music, just for the privilege of shopping at your
    > site? Why shouldn't I just go to Amazon.com instead, which loads
    > quickly, works without VirusScript, and remains blissfully silent?


    Good point - regardless of any connotations to the OP's site. This past
    year, I've spent over $1,000.00 at amazon.com, and except for one special
    company-owned-and-operated site, I've done no other online purchasing. I
    like amazon.com because it functions correctly and facilely, it's fast, and
    it's decently efficient. When I wish to buy something, the last thing I
    want to do is ditz around.

    --
    Bone Ur
    Cavemen have formidable pheromones.
     
    Bone Ur, Nov 24, 2007
    #14
  15. Mika

    Mika Guest

    "Sherman Pendley" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "Mika" <> writes:
    >
    >> "Andy Dingley" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 09:21:13 GMT, "Mika" <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>http://tinyurl.com/35mwxr
    >>>
    >>> Possibly the nastiest page in many a long day.

    >>
    >> Thanks. That explains all the great reviews posted on our home page. We
    >> appreciate it isn't how you would do it, but it is at least unique and
    >> inventive.

    >
    > Speaking as a customer, I'm not looking for "unique and inventive" web
    > design when I'm doing my online shopping. I'm a web geek, and I'm not
    > against such things in general. I enjoy many entertainment, music, comics
    > and "concept" sites that are loaded with stuff like that - indeed, being
    > entertained by a unique and inventive design is sometimes the point of an
    > entire site.
    >
    > But the point of a shopping site is different. A shopping site should be
    > concerned with making it as easy as possible for the customer to find what
    > they want and spend their money. The goal of *your* shopping site appears
    > to be just the opposite, to make it as difficult as possible.
    >
    > So tell me - as a customer, what motivation do I have to enable
    > VirusScript,
    > wait for minutes for each of your pages to load, and turn off my preferred
    > music, just for the privilege of shopping at your site? Why shouldn't I
    > just
    > go to Amazon.com instead, which loads quickly, works without VirusScript,
    > and remains blissfully silent?


    To answer your question:

    Don't you find search engines rather clinical? All that text doesn't
    exactly stimulate the senses. We believe Internet shopping should be a rich
    user experience, and that is what we deliver -- the sights & sounds of real
    world shopping, minus the hassle.

    Trawling the search engines you'll eventually find many retailers don't have
    an online store -- just a catalogue, or nothing at all. But when you click
    their door on the Superhighstreet, you're virtually always taken to an
    online outlet that does allow home delivery of the same products. We've
    done the painstaking research for you, to take you straight to identical
    brands & products available online. No more trawling the web then.

    Many people prefer that real street experience. There are streets we know
    and love, and we know where their favourite shops are and how they look.
    With us you can still go there, without the heavy bags & traffic jams of
    course.

    Better still, there are millions of people who may never get the chance to
    stroll down the famous streets we feature. Now they can scroll down them
    almost instantly, travelling 100s of miles in seconds.

    (And if you can't see the big speaker button to turn the sound off that's
    right above the streetscape, maybe you need to visit the opticians on Oxford
    Street ;) )
     
    Mika, Nov 25, 2007
    #15
  16. Mika

    Mika Guest

    "Dave Kelly" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Nov 24, 3:21 am, "Mika" <> wrote:
    >> Hi all, if you could kindly test this W3C validated page specifically in
    >> Firefox only and advise if you see the streetscape appear. (Designed for
    >> broadband):
    >>
    >> http://tinyurl.com/35mwxr
    >>
    >> Thanks,
    >> Mika

    >
    > Yes I see it.


    Great many thanks Dave. What country are you in? How fast did it load?

    Mika
     
    Mika, Nov 25, 2007
    #16
  17. On 2007-11-25, Mika wrote:
    > "Sherman Pendley" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> "Mika" <> writes:
    >>
    >>> "Andy Dingley" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:...
    >>>> On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 09:21:13 GMT, "Mika" <> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>http://tinyurl.com/35mwxr
    >>>>
    >>>> Possibly the nastiest page in many a long day.
    >>>
    >>> Thanks. That explains all the great reviews posted on our home page. We
    >>> appreciate it isn't how you would do it, but it is at least unique and
    >>> inventive.

    >>
    >> Speaking as a customer, I'm not looking for "unique and inventive" web
    >> design when I'm doing my online shopping. I'm a web geek, and I'm not
    >> against such things in general. I enjoy many entertainment, music, comics
    >> and "concept" sites that are loaded with stuff like that - indeed, being
    >> entertained by a unique and inventive design is sometimes the point of an
    >> entire site.
    >>
    >> But the point of a shopping site is different. A shopping site should be
    >> concerned with making it as easy as possible for the customer to find what
    >> they want and spend their money. The goal of *your* shopping site appears
    >> to be just the opposite, to make it as difficult as possible.
    >>
    >> So tell me - as a customer, what motivation do I have to enable
    >> VirusScript,
    >> wait for minutes for each of your pages to load, and turn off my preferred
    >> music, just for the privilege of shopping at your site? Why shouldn't I
    >> just
    >> go to Amazon.com instead, which loads quickly, works without VirusScript,
    >> and remains blissfully silent?

    >
    > To answer your question:
    >
    > Don't you find search engines rather clinical?


    No.

    > All that text doesn't exactly stimulate the senses.


    Why would I expect (or want) sensual stimulation from a search
    engine?

    > We believe Internet shopping should be a rich user experience, and
    > that is what we deliver -- the sights & sounds of real world
    > shopping, minus the hassle.


    Luckily, I didn't hear any sound on your site; if I had, the URL would
    very quickly be redirected to 0.0.0.0.

    ....
    > (And if you can't see the big speaker button to turn the sound off that's
    > right above the streetscape, maybe you need to visit the opticians on Oxford
    > Street ;) )


    There is no speaker button ... oh, it's in the flash ... [turn on
    flash] ... That's big? You must be using a very low resolution
    screen!

    --
    Chris F.A. Johnson, webmaster <http://Woodbine-Gerrard.com>
    ===================================================================
    Author:
    Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)
     
    Chris F.A. Johnson, Nov 25, 2007
    #17
  18. "Mika" <> writes:

    > "Sherman Pendley" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >>
    >> Speaking as a customer, I'm not looking for "unique and inventive" web
    >> design when I'm doing my online shopping. I'm a web geek, and I'm not
    >> against such things in general. I enjoy many entertainment, music, comics
    >> and "concept" sites that are loaded with stuff like that - indeed, being
    >> entertained by a unique and inventive design is sometimes the point of an
    >> entire site.
    >>
    >> But the point of a shopping site is different. A shopping site should be
    >> concerned with making it as easy as possible for the customer to find what
    >> they want and spend their money. The goal of *your* shopping site appears
    >> to be just the opposite, to make it as difficult as possible.
    >>
    >> So tell me - as a customer, what motivation do I have to enable
    >> VirusScript,
    >> wait for minutes for each of your pages to load, and turn off my preferred
    >> music, just for the privilege of shopping at your site? Why shouldn't I
    >> just
    >> go to Amazon.com instead, which loads quickly, works without VirusScript,
    >> and remains blissfully silent?

    >
    > To answer your question:
    >
    > Don't you find search engines rather clinical? All that text doesn't
    > exactly stimulate the senses.


    I don't expect a search engine to "stimulate the senses" - I expect it to
    quickly return accessible and relevant results. IMHO, Google is a success
    because of its clean interface, not in spite of it.

    > We believe Internet shopping should be a rich
    > user experience, and that is what we deliver -- the sights & sounds of real
    > world shopping, minus the hassle.


    But I don't *want* the sights and sounds of real-world shopping. That's why
    I'm shopping on the internet to begin with.

    Besides which, your site may not have the same hassle as real-world shopping
    (no crowds, for one thing) but it's definitely not hassle-free. I have to
    enable VirusScript, I have to wait for far too long, I have to figure out how
    to turn off the noise it makes, etc.

    Your stores may well have goods and services that make it a worthwhile trade-
    off. The problem is, I have to make that trade blindly; I have to fulfill all
    of your requirements before I can even look at the stores to see if what they
    have is worth doing so.

    > Many people prefer that real street experience. There are streets we know
    > and love, and we know where their favourite shops are and how they look.
    > With us you can still go there, without the heavy bags & traffic jams of
    > course.
    >
    > Better still, there are millions of people who may never get the chance to
    > stroll down the famous streets we feature. Now they can scroll down them
    > almost instantly, travelling 100s of miles in seconds.


    That reads like an "information superhighway" marketing spiel from the mid
    90s, back when web developers still thought that online shoppers were as
    enamored with bells and whistles as the developers themselves were.

    The bottom line for me is this: I've seen many friends and relatives hit
    the "back" button because a shopping site was too slow to load, it made
    noise, it didn't work with their preferred browser settings, etc. I've yet
    to see *anyone* leave such a site because it loaded too quickly, was too
    easy to use, or didn't play any background music.

    sherm--

    --
    WV News, Blogging, and Discussion: http://wv-www.com
    Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
     
    Sherman Pendley, Nov 25, 2007
    #18
  19. Mika

    Mika Guest

    "Chris F.A. Johnson" <> wrote in message
    news:...

    >> (And if you can't see the big speaker button to turn the sound off that's
    >> right above the streetscape, maybe you need to visit the opticians on
    >> Oxford
    >> Street ;) )

    >
    > There is no speaker button ... oh, it's in the flash ... [turn on
    > flash] ... That's big? You must be using a very low resolution
    > screen!


    Wow you guys love to be picky don't you. It's actually quite amusing! ;)
    Might come here more just for the sheer entertainment at watching you all at
    play.

    If you can't see the flash button because you have flash turned off then you
    don't need to see the button as you won't hear the sound anyway. Geesh!

    We get that you don't like our site. You can't please all the people all
    time, so live and let live. Over and out.

    Mika
     
    Mika, Nov 25, 2007
    #19
  20. Mika

    Mika Guest

    "Sherman Pendley" <> wrote in message
    news:...

    >> Don't you find search engines rather clinical? All that text doesn't
    >> exactly stimulate the senses.

    >
    > I don't expect a search engine to "stimulate the senses" - I expect it to
    > quickly return accessible and relevant results. IMHO, Google is a success
    > because of its clean interface, not in spite of it.


    I did not say that Google is not a success or that we are a search engine,
    however MANY people PREFER going shopping on REAL streets, compared to using
    Google or Amazon.

    That is the market niche we are approaching.

    If you have not been able to digest and understand that concept by now and
    say something remotely accepting of the principle, then we are sorry you
    never will.

    >> We believe Internet shopping should be a rich
    >> user experience, and that is what we deliver -- the sights & sounds of
    >> real
    >> world shopping, minus the hassle.

    >
    > But I don't *want* the sights and sounds of real-world shopping. That's
    > why
    > I'm shopping on the internet to begin with.


    And you are an individual who many disagree with. It is not aimed at you,
    someone who likes Internet shopping. It is aimed at those who DON'T, and
    who love real streets because of what they see, and what they HEAR. Your
    advice is, make it simpler, turn the sound off.

    You have missed the point quite outstandingly.

    > Besides which, your site may not have the same hassle as real-world
    > shopping
    > (no crowds, for one thing) but it's definitely not hassle-free. I have to
    > enable VirusScript, I have to wait for far too long, I have to figure out
    > how
    > to turn off the noise it makes, etc.


    I think we can safely say that this site is not aimed at the sort of people
    who generally spent their time arguing in web coding newsgroups, or who even
    know how to disable JS.

    JS never hurt anyone with a decent virus checker, unless they tend to
    frequent undesirable websites I guess.

    > Your stores may well have goods and services that make it a worthwhile
    > trade-
    > off.


    Thank you! At last a semi-positive comment. Uh-oh now I've said that
    you'll want to take it back or correct me! ;)

    > The problem is, I have to make that trade blindly; I have to fulfill all
    > of your requirements before I can even look at the stores to see if what
    > they
    > have is worth doing so.


    Trust me you don't have to, just move along and try Google. That's what
    you're happy with which is fair enough.

    > The bottom line for me is this: I've seen many friends and relatives hit
    > the "back" button because a shopping site was too slow to load, it made
    > noise, it didn't work with their preferred browser settings, etc. I've yet
    > to see *anyone* leave such a site because it loaded too quickly, was too
    > easy to use, or didn't play any background music.


    Our repeat visitor hit count would disagree with you. Some people even just
    use our site to see where a shop they want to visit is on a street, before
    they visit the street itself. But if they're with us and make an unexpected
    purchase which some do, then that's great too.

    I think you guys could benefit a lot from loosening up, learning that not
    everyone thinks like a programmer, that everyone is different, to live and
    let live, and realise how good it feels to say something nice to someone,
    even if you don't share their beliefs.

    The frankly incredibly offensive behaviour we have witnessed here is enough
    to make us stay away for life. Any good advice given by *some* of you was
    completely undone by the disgusting manner in which you speak.

    As for the others, thanks again for the constructive feedback. The site is
    now better for it.

    Over and out.
     
    Mika, Nov 25, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Yousuf Khan
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    5,553
    Yousuf Khan
    Oct 18, 2004
  2. minnesotti
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    890
    nice.guy.nige
    Jul 19, 2006
  3. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    336
  4. Christophe Sauvage

    BorderWidth of the control asp:ImageButton does not work in firefox

    Christophe Sauvage, Oct 5, 2007, in forum: ASP .Net Web Controls
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    143
    Christophe Sauvage
    Oct 5, 2007
  5. Mika
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    130
Loading...

Share This Page