Table.

Discussion in 'HTML' started by anathema, Jul 21, 2009.

  1. anathema

    anathema Guest

    I am working on this email newsletter.

    http://webnonsense.org/email/

    Admittedly I am not thinking clearly because I am sick.

    My concern is the right column.
    It is green just to see what is going on.

    This is the original.
    http://webnonsense.org/email-orig/

    You can see that all I am doing is switching the columns around.
    But I can get it to overlap the edge like in the original.

    I think the math is correct and the correct td's aligned right but it
    isn't working.
    anathema, Jul 21, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. anathema

    dorayme Guest

    In article
    <>,
    anathema <> wrote:

    > I am working on this email newsletter.
    >
    > http://webnonsense.org/email/
    >
    > Admittedly I am not thinking clearly because I am sick.
    >
    > My concern is the right column.
    > It is green just to see what is going on.
    >
    > This is the original.
    > http://webnonsense.org/email-orig/
    >
    > You can see that all I am doing is switching the columns around.
    > But I can get it to overlap the edge like in the original.
    >
    > I think the math is correct and the correct td's aligned right but it
    > isn't working.


    This is a most interesting example of a tremendous slap in the face of
    everything this usenet group stands for by a huge week old dead and
    unrefrigerated cod fish!

    But nevertheless, what a fabulous exercise. First thing to realise, if
    you felt less unwell, you would have picked this up: you cannot simply
    transfer the image to the right because it has been very carefully
    prepared in an image program to be on the left. To fix this up, open it
    up in an image program and reverse it horizontally, reflect it.

    That would be the first job. Now as for the next task... oops... I am
    now feeling unwell... excuse me...

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, Jul 21, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. anathema

    rf Guest

    dorayme wrote:
    > In article
    > <>,
    > anathema <> wrote:
    >
    >> I am working on this email newsletter.


    Hmmm. Bad idea.

    >> http://webnonsense.org/email/


    >> This is the original.
    >> http://webnonsense.org/email-orig/
    >>
    >> You can see that all I am doing is switching the columns around.
    >> But I can get it to overlap the edge like in the original.


    Did you actually look at what was *in* that content before you fiddled with
    it?

    > To fix this up, open
    > it up in an image program and reverse it horizontally, reflect it.


    Photoshop. Image slice. Build a web site / email out of the slices.

    The usual.

    > That would be the first job. Now as for the next task... oops... I am
    > now feeling unwell... excuse me...


    I'm a little tired myself. Been exhibiting at a television trade show all
    day long surrounded by display systems that would blow your mind. One of
    them even in three D. A girl reaches out of the screen to hand you something
    and my associate actually put his hand out to recieve it. We had to go for a
    quiet beer to recover. And the word is that these things will be domestic in
    three to five years!
    rf, Jul 21, 2009
    #3
  4. anathema

    richard Guest

    On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 21:32:39 -0700 (PDT), anathema
    <> wrote:

    >I am working on this email newsletter.
    >
    >http://webnonsense.org/email/
    >
    >Admittedly I am not thinking clearly because I am sick.
    >
    >My concern is the right column.
    >It is green just to see what is going on.
    >
    >This is the original.
    >http://webnonsense.org/email-orig/
    >
    >You can see that all I am doing is switching the columns around.
    >But I can get it to overlap the edge like in the original.
    >
    >I think the math is correct and the correct td's aligned right but it
    >isn't working.



    Why are you using tables for this?
    Learn a little about the proper use of divisions.
    As well as CSS.

    I like the original page.

    When I click on "samples" I expect to see samples of art work, not a
    page that requires me to fill in a lot of stuff.
    richard, Jul 21, 2009
    #4
  5. anathema

    richard Guest

    On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 11:47:27 GMT, "rf" <> wrote:

    >dorayme wrote:
    >> In article
    >> <>,
    >> anathema <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> I am working on this email newsletter.

    >
    >Hmmm. Bad idea.
    >
    >>> http://webnonsense.org/email/

    >
    >>> This is the original.
    >>> http://webnonsense.org/email-orig/
    >>>
    >>> You can see that all I am doing is switching the columns around.
    >>> But I can get it to overlap the edge like in the original.

    >
    >Did you actually look at what was *in* that content before you fiddled with
    >it?
    >
    >> To fix this up, open
    >> it up in an image program and reverse it horizontally, reflect it.

    >
    >Photoshop. Image slice. Build a web site / email out of the slices.
    >
    >The usual.
    >
    >> That would be the first job. Now as for the next task... oops... I am
    >> now feeling unwell... excuse me...

    >
    >I'm a little tired myself. Been exhibiting at a television trade show all
    >day long surrounded by display systems that would blow your mind. One of
    >them even in three D. A girl reaches out of the screen to hand you something
    >and my associate actually put his hand out to recieve it. We had to go for a
    >quiet beer to recover. And the word is that these things will be domestic in
    >three to five years!
    >



    Television magic tricks.
    There is no way, yet, you can send an object through the tv.
    I've seen demos of "organic" tvs where the thing is no thicker than a
    credit card and expandable at the touch.

    I don't doubt that there is projected 3d, but you can't physically
    take hold of anything presented to you.
    richard, Jul 21, 2009
    #5
  6. anathema

    rf Guest

    richard wrote:
    > On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 11:47:27 GMT, "rf" <> wrote:
    >
    >> dorayme wrote:
    >>> In article
    >>> <>,
    >>> anathema <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> I am working on this email newsletter.

    >>
    >> Hmmm. Bad idea.
    >>
    >>>> http://webnonsense.org/email/

    >>
    >>>> This is the original.
    >>>> http://webnonsense.org/email-orig/
    >>>>
    >>>> You can see that all I am doing is switching the columns around.
    >>>> But I can get it to overlap the edge like in the original.

    >>
    >> Did you actually look at what was *in* that content before you
    >> fiddled with it?
    >>
    >>> To fix this up, open
    >>> it up in an image program and reverse it horizontally, reflect it.

    >>
    >> Photoshop. Image slice. Build a web site / email out of the slices.
    >>
    >> The usual.
    >>
    >>> That would be the first job. Now as for the next task... oops... I
    >>> am now feeling unwell... excuse me...

    >>
    >> I'm a little tired myself. Been exhibiting at a television trade
    >> show all day long surrounded by display systems that would blow your
    >> mind. One of them even in three D. A girl reaches out of the screen
    >> to hand you something and my associate actually put his hand out to
    >> recieve it. We had to go for a quiet beer to recover. And the word
    >> is that these things will be domestic in three to five years!
    >>

    >
    >
    > Television magic tricks.


    Ah, it's RtS misinterpreting things yet again.

    > There is no way, yet, you can send an object through the tv.


    Let me spell it out fully for you:

    "A girl *appears* *to* *be* *reaching* out of the screen" Read between the
    fucking lines, dipstick.

    > I've seen demos of "organic" tvs where the thing is no thicker than a
    > credit card and expandable at the touch.


    WTF are you talking about? Don't you even know what 3D projection is?

    > I don't doubt that there is projected 3d, but you can't physically
    > take hold of anything presented to you.


    Obviously bloody not!
    rf, Jul 22, 2009
    #6
  7. anathema

    rf Guest

    richard wrote:
    > On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 21:32:39 -0700 (PDT), anathema
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> I am working on this email newsletter.
    >>
    >> http://webnonsense.org/email/
    >>
    >> Admittedly I am not thinking clearly because I am sick.
    >>
    >> My concern is the right column.
    >> It is green just to see what is going on.
    >>
    >> This is the original.
    >> http://webnonsense.org/email-orig/
    >>
    >> You can see that all I am doing is switching the columns around.
    >> But I can get it to overlap the edge like in the original.
    >>
    >> I think the math is correct and the correct td's aligned right but it
    >> isn't working.

    >
    >
    > Why are you using tables for this?
    > Learn a little about the proper use of divisions.
    > As well as CSS.


    Which will work in an HTML email even less than a table. Or did you miss
    that part too?
    rf, Jul 22, 2009
    #7
  8. anathema

    dorayme Guest

    In article <jVh9m.6509$>,
    "rf" <> wrote:

    > I'm a little tired myself. Been exhibiting at a television trade show all
    > day long surrounded by display systems that would blow your mind. One of
    > them even in three D. A girl reaches out of the screen to hand you something
    > and my associate actually put his hand out to recieve it. We had to go for a
    > quiet beer to recover. And the word is that these things will be domestic in
    > three to five years!


    That threatens a theory someone has been putting to me for a while:
    movies will keep ahead of TV and home theatre by going 3-D.

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, Jul 22, 2009
    #8
  9. anathema

    dorayme Guest

    In article <>,
    richard <> wrote:

    > Television magic tricks.
    > There is no way, yet, you can send an object through the tv.
    > I've seen demos of "organic" tvs where the thing is no thicker than a
    > credit card and expandable at the touch.
    >
    > I don't doubt that there is projected 3d, but you can't physically
    > take hold of anything presented to you.


    You mean the TV this salesmen just got me to sign up for can't really
    pull beers and hand them over and make like a home pub? I wish you had
    spoken up earlier.

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, Jul 22, 2009
    #9
  10. On Jul 21, 1:24 pm, richard <> wrote:
    > Television magic tricks.
    > There is no way, yet, you can send an object through the tv.


    BULLSHIT, BULLSHIT, BULLSHIT!!! I saw it done in Willy Wonka! Not
    only did they transfer material over the airways, they also managed to
    shrink the mater so it would fit in the smaller tv.
    Travis Newbury, Jul 22, 2009
    #10
  11. anathema

    rf Guest

    Re: Table. Getting OT but possibly applicable in the future.

    Ben C wrote:
    > On 2009-07-21, dorayme <> wrote:
    >> In article <jVh9m.6509$>,
    >> "rf" <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> I'm a little tired myself. Been exhibiting at a television trade
    >>> show all day long surrounded by display systems that would blow
    >>> your mind. One of them even in three D. A girl reaches out of the
    >>> screen to hand you something and my associate actually put his hand
    >>> out to recieve it. We had to go for a quiet beer to recover. And
    >>> the word is that these things will be domestic in three to five
    >>> years!

    >>
    >> That threatens a theory someone has been putting to me for a while:
    >> movies will keep ahead of TV and home theatre by going 3-D.

    >
    > If you watch normal TV without moving your head and with one eye shut,
    > and tell yourself it's 3D, it looks 3D, and better than any
    > stereographic 3D demos I've seen (although I wasn't at rf's show). Try
    > it, it really works.
    >
    > For stereographic displays to work you also have to not move your head
    > by the way.


    Not so. I was one of a group of probably ten people watching the demo. We
    were all walking around chatting and having a good look and admiring how the
    effect was so excellent and cross-examining the presenter. This is a demo of
    equipment that is on the very leading edge of technology, on the Sony stand.

    However, as a humerous example, when the credits rolled they appeared to be
    about half a metre in front of the screen. I had the urge to walk around to
    the side to look behind them. Didn't work of course, the credits remained
    exactly where they were, half a metre from the screen, exactly between the
    screen and me.

    BTW it *is* real 3D. A different image is presented to each eye, shot by two
    different cameras seperated by some distance I don't know. Just like at the
    theatre.

    Looking at the screen without the special circularly polarized glasses one
    can actually see two superimposed images, with the details seperated by
    anything up to a couple centimetres, like bad ghosting from the old analogue
    days.
    rf, Jul 22, 2009
    #11
  12. anathema

    rf Guest

    Re: Table. Getting OT but possibly applicable in the future.

    Ben C wrote:
    > On 2009-07-22, rf <> wrote:
    >> Ben C wrote:
    >>> On 2009-07-21, dorayme <> wrote:
    >>>> In article <jVh9m.6509$>,
    >>>> "rf" <> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> I'm a little tired myself. Been exhibiting at a television trade
    >>>>> show all day long surrounded by display systems that would blow
    >>>>> your mind. One of them even in three D. A girl reaches out of the
    >>>>> screen to hand you something and my associate actually put his
    >>>>> hand out to recieve it. We had to go for a quiet beer to recover.
    >>>>> And the word is that these things will be domestic in three to
    >>>>> five years!
    >>>>
    >>>> That threatens a theory someone has been putting to me for a while:
    >>>> movies will keep ahead of TV and home theatre by going 3-D.
    >>>
    >>> If you watch normal TV without moving your head and with one eye
    >>> shut, and tell yourself it's 3D, it looks 3D, and better than any
    >>> stereographic 3D demos I've seen (although I wasn't at rf's show).
    >>> Try it, it really works.
    >>>
    >>> For stereographic displays to work you also have to not move your
    >>> head by the way.

    >>
    >> Not so. I was one of a group of probably ten people watching the
    >> demo. We were all walking around chatting and having a good look and
    >> admiring how the effect was so excellent and cross-examining the
    >> presenter. This is a demo of equipment that is on the very leading
    >> edge of technology, on the Sony stand.
    >>
    >> However, as a humerous example, when the credits rolled they
    >> appeared to be about half a metre in front of the screen. I had the
    >> urge to walk around to the side to look behind them. Didn't work of
    >> course, the credits remained exactly where they were, half a metre
    >> from the screen, exactly between the screen and me.
    >>
    >> BTW it *is* real 3D. A different image is presented to each eye,
    >> shot by two different cameras seperated by some distance I don't
    >> know. Just like at the theatre.

    >
    > That is stereography. Real 3D is holograms (or real life), where you
    > get a different view of the scene from _all_ angles, not just from
    > two.


    No it is not a hologram. It is just a flat screen display, presenting a
    different image to each eye, giving the illusion of 3D. In your words,
    sterography. But moving the head is not an issue.

    > Stereography does in principle require that you don't move your head
    > relative to the display, although the illusion does persist if you
    > move it a bit.


    A bit? No, I moved a metre or three, back, forward, sideways. The illusion
    did rearrange itself slilghtly but the visual effect was still there.

    > Are you saying the credits moved around with you as you walked around?


    Yes, The credits were always half a metre in front of the screen. Well, not
    quite. As I moved further to the left of the screen they moved in towards
    the screen as the angle subtended by the differing images to each eye was
    reduced but yes, in effect, the subtitles stayed exactly between the screen
    and me. But they were always in front of my view of the screen.

    I'll take a picture or the offending screen on tomorrow and post it
    somewher. Now, to find a 3D camera :)
    rf, Jul 22, 2009
    #12
  13. anathema

    dorayme Guest

    Re: Table. Getting OT but possibly applicable in the future.

    In article <ZXE9m.6716$>,
    "rf" <> wrote:

    > Ben C wrote:


    > > That is stereography. Real 3D is holograms (or real life), where you
    > > get a different view of the scene from _all_ angles, not just from
    > > two.

    >
    > No it is not a hologram. It is just a flat screen display, presenting a
    > different image to each eye, giving the illusion of 3D. In your words,
    > sterography. But moving the head is not an issue.
    >
    > > Stereography does in principle require that you don't move your head
    > > relative to the display, although the illusion does persist if you
    > > move it a bit.

    >
    > A bit? No, I moved a metre or three, back, forward, sideways. The illusion
    > did rearrange itself slilghtly but the visual effect was still there.


    Interesting. Any place in Sydney this can be seen now?

    So, you wear polarising glasses, right? (There have been various
    attempts to get by without, this would be *really* great).

    About the angle at which you can move, the analogy or more than an
    analogy (depending on the technology) to this is the difference between
    screens in good angle of view.

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, Jul 23, 2009
    #13
  14. anathema

    Neredbojias Guest

    On 22 Jul 2009, Travis Newbury <> wrote:

    > On Jul 21, 1:24 pm, richard <> wrote:
    >> Television magic tricks.
    >> There is no way, yet, you can send an object through the tv.

    >
    > BULLSHIT, BULLSHIT, BULLSHIT!!! I saw it done in Willy Wonka! Not
    > only did they transfer material over the airways, they also managed
    > to shrink the mater so it would fit in the smaller tv.


    And don't forget The Fly! Er, the insect, not the zipper.

    --
    Neredbojias
    http://www.neredbojias.org/
    http://www.neredbojias.net/
    Neredbojias, Jul 23, 2009
    #14
  15. anathema

    dorayme Guest

    Re: Table. Getting OT but possibly applicable in the future.

    In article <ZXE9m.6716$>,
    "rf" <> wrote:

    > No it is not a hologram. It is just a flat screen display, presenting a
    > different image to each eye, giving the illusion of 3D. In your words,
    > sterography. But moving the head is not an issue.
    >


    Yes, I went down to see a show at Darling Harbour, a friend runs a stall
    there too... The Sony one was the one that seemed best to me,
    spectacular! There were other 3-D offerings, some without glasses that
    were not as good. The one with no glasses was not sharp, though the 3-D
    effect was great.

    I noticed they were all showing very slow moving things, the fastest
    thing was snowflakes. Perhaps there is a problem with fast?

    I was told there was a 3-D there with a football game showing but could
    not find it quickly and ran out of time...

    The one I suspect you saw and the one I liked was worth the trip...
    thanks for mentioning it. I was rather amazed at the wide angle of view.

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, Jul 24, 2009
    #15
  16. anathema

    rf Guest

    Re: Table. Getting OT but possibly applicable in the future.

    dorayme wrote:
    > In article <ZXE9m.6716$>,
    > "rf" <> wrote:
    >
    >> No it is not a hologram. It is just a flat screen display,
    >> presenting a different image to each eye, giving the illusion of 3D.
    >> In your words, sterography. But moving the head is not an issue.
    >>

    >
    > Yes, I went down to see a show at Darling Harbour,


    That's the show I was at. SMPTE. We were the ones flogging teleprompters
    about fifteen metres due east of the blue helicopter, across the aisle from
    those government people touting, at our expense, how analogue TV is being
    phased out, as if an exhibition full of television engineers wouldn't
    already know that. You most probably walked past our stand, the one with the
    jelly bean dispenser. Did you partake of one? :)

    How bizarre though. I was sitting there during a quiet time today thinking
    that I should have answered your question about where one could see one of
    these by suggesting you come down to the show. We could have met and
    observed and then done lunch or something :)

    > a friend runs a
    > stall there too...


    There's a chance I know him. Which stall?

    > The Sony one was the one that seemed best to me,


    That was the one.

    > spectacular! There were other 3-D offerings, some without glasses that
    > were not as good. The one with no glasses was not sharp, though the
    > 3-D effect was great.


    Over near the helicopter? That is the technology I think Ben C is talking
    about. Things go bizarre as you move your head from side to side.

    > I noticed they were all showing very slow moving things, the fastest
    > thing was snowflakes. Perhaps there is a problem with fast?


    These things run at 50Hz. When there is a seperate image presented to each
    eye, each eye sees only a 25Hz refresh, quite within the range where flicker
    is quite noticible, especially with fast moving stuff. A bloke across the
    other isle from us suggests that real 3D TV should be at 140 Hz so each eye
    gets 70Hz. This is what the theatres do. They up-sample the standard MPEG
    stream by shooting the same image twice to each eye at 70Hz per eye.

    > I was told there was a 3-D there with a football game showing but
    > could not find it quickly and ran out of time...


    Didn't see that one. I did see a concert of some description on the JVC
    stand and an animated movie near the Panasonic stand.

    > The one I suspect you saw and the one I liked was worth the trip...
    > thanks for mentioning it. I was rather amazed at the wide angle of
    > view.


    Stunning, isn't it :)
    rf, Jul 24, 2009
    #16
  17. anathema

    William Gill Guest

    Re: Table. Getting OT but possibly applicable in the future.

    dorayme wrote:
    > In article <ZXE9m.6716$>,
    > "rf" <> wrote:
    >
    >> No it is not a hologram. It is just a flat screen display, presenting a
    >> different image to each eye, giving the illusion of 3D. In your words,
    >> sterography. But moving the head is not an issue.
    >>

    >
    > Yes, I went down to see a show at Darling Harbour, a friend runs a stall
    > there too... The Sony one was the one that seemed best to me,
    > spectacular! There were other 3-D offerings, some without glasses that
    > were not as good. The one with no glasses was not sharp, though the 3-D
    > effect was great.
    >
    > I noticed they were all showing very slow moving things, the fastest
    > thing was snowflakes. Perhaps there is a problem with fast?
    >
    > I was told there was a 3-D there with a football game showing but could
    > not find it quickly and ran out of time...
    >
    > The one I suspect you saw and the one I liked was worth the trip...
    > thanks for mentioning it. I was rather amazed at the wide angle of view.
    >


    Technology has come a long way from the 35mm 3-D camera (WWII vintage) I
    once had. It had two shutters/lenses spaced about the distance apart of
    the human eyes, and the resulting dual print images were viewed on a
    frame contraption held precisely in front or your eyes.

    --
    Bill
    William Gill, Jul 24, 2009
    #17
  18. anathema

    dorayme Guest

    Re: Table. Getting OT but possibly applicable in the future.

    In article <jukam.41991$>,
    William Gill <> wrote:

    > dorayme wrote:
    > > In article <ZXE9m.6716$>,
    > > "rf" <> wrote:
    > >
    > >> No it is not a hologram. It is just a flat screen display, presenting a
    > >> different image to each eye, giving the illusion of 3D. In your words,
    > >> sterography. But moving the head is not an issue.
    > >>

    > >
    > > Yes, I went down to see a show at Darling Harbour, a friend runs a stall
    > > there too... The Sony one was the one that seemed best to me,
    > > spectacular! There were other 3-D offerings, some without glasses that
    > > were not as good. The one with no glasses was not sharp, though the 3-D
    > > effect was great.
    > >
    > > I noticed they were all showing very slow moving things, the fastest
    > > thing was snowflakes. Perhaps there is a problem with fast?
    > >
    > > I was told there was a 3-D there with a football game showing but could
    > > not find it quickly and ran out of time...
    > >
    > > The one I suspect you saw and the one I liked was worth the trip...
    > > thanks for mentioning it. I was rather amazed at the wide angle of view.
    > >

    >
    > Technology has come a long way from the 35mm 3-D camera (WWII vintage) I
    > once had. It had two shutters/lenses spaced about the distance apart of
    > the human eyes, and the resulting dual print images were viewed on a
    > frame contraption held precisely in front or your eyes.


    A mate of mine built a frame to mount two Nikkomat bodies, I forget
    whether we just used to press the two shutters by hand with fingers on
    the camera bodies or whether there was the sophistication of a dual
    cable set up? All good fun. We wore glasses to look at the resulting
    print.

    Looking at the film technology exhibition in Sydney, I came back to my
    office and smashed everything up with a big mallet in a jealous rage,
    furious that my own equipment could be so ...well... so 20th Century, so
    dowdy, so nothing...

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, Jul 25, 2009
    #18
  19. Re: Table. Getting OT but possibly applicable in the future.

    William Gill wrote:

    > Technology has come a long way from the 35mm 3-D camera (WWII vintage)
    > I once had. It had two shutters/lenses spaced about the distance
    > apart of the human eyes, and the resulting dual print images were
    > viewed on a frame contraption held precisely in front or your eyes.


    You're talking about the Kodak Stereo camera, I suppose. I have two of
    those, inherited from my father. Both have the cases as shown in the
    ebay ad. I don't know why he had two. Notice the bubble level in the
    center viewfinder.

    <http://www.3dstereo.com/viewmaster/cam-kod.html>
    <http://cgi.ebay.com/Vintage-Kodak-Stereo-CAMERA-35mm-F3-5-w-Field-Case-NR_W0QQitemZ380140143721QQcategoryZ98923QQcmdZViewItem>

    We used to take slides rather than prints, and the two slides are
    mounted in about a 4-inch wide mount. Then there is the stereo slide
    viewer with the light in it...

    --
    -bts
    -Friends don't let friends drive Windows
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Jul 25, 2009
    #19
  20. anathema

    dorayme Guest

    Re: Table. Getting OT but possibly applicable in the future.

    In article <Y_eam.7021$>,
    "rf" <> wrote:

    > dorayme wrote:
    > > In article <ZXE9m.6716$>,
    > > "rf" <> wrote:
    > >

    ....
    > >
    > > Yes, I went down to see a show at Darling Harbour,

    >
    > That's the show I was at. SMPTE. We were the ones flogging teleprompters
    > about fifteen metres due east of the blue helicopter,


    Yes, I saw that stand and stopped there, I tried to read one of those
    machines and thought gee, when I get to address this great nation of
    ours on telly, I hope they give me a bigger one and slow it down and
    then I shrugged and thought, nah, f that, I will just ad lib and take
    the country into my confidence... <g>

    > How bizarre though. I was sitting there during a quiet time today thinking
    > that I should have answered your question about where one could see one of
    > these by suggesting you come down to the show. We could have met and
    > observed and then done lunch or something :)
    >


    Nice thought. Maybe next time... You did not hear a reverent hush when I
    entered the exhibition halls with my armed bodyguards?

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, Jul 25, 2009
    #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. David Williams
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,113
    Jacob Yang [MSFT]
    Aug 12, 2003
  2. Ken Dopierala Jr.

    Do you use <table> or <asp:Table>?

    Ken Dopierala Jr., Jan 12, 2004, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    8,617
    Craig Deelsnyder
    Jan 13, 2004
  3. Earl Teigrob
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    313
    Shintaro
    Feb 21, 2004
  4. Leonardo Gangemi
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    310
    Leonardo Gangemi
    Apr 7, 2004
  5. Rio
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    1,182
Loading...

Share This Page