What if you don't have a thead/tbody/tfoot?

Discussion in 'HTML' started by TonyV, Jan 6, 2008.

  1. TonyV

    TonyV Guest

    I've read that in XHTML 1.1, if you have a thead and tbody, you *must*
    have a tfoot. Also, according to the specification, it looks like all
    three *must* have at least one tr child element, with at least one th
    or td child element in it. Here's the spec I'm reading:
    http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-modularization/abstract_modules.html#s_tablemodule

    My question is pretty simple. What if you want a table with just a
    thead and tbody section, but not with a tfoot section? I don't
    understand why I *must* have a cell defined in up to two sections (in
    this case, the tfoot section), cells which will be completely blank,
    which I suppose means I'll have to use some CSS to make sure it's not
    displayed, instead of just not having the section.

    Is there a standard practice for what to do if you have a thead and
    tbody but not a tfoot?
    TonyV, Jan 6, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. TonyV

    richard Guest

    On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 08:22:38 -0800 (PST), TonyV <>
    wrote:

    >I've read that in XHTML 1.1, if you have a thead and tbody, you *must*
    >have a tfoot. Also, according to the specification, it looks like all
    >three *must* have at least one tr child element, with at least one th
    >or td child element in it. Here's the spec I'm reading:
    >http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-modularization/abstract_modules.html#s_tablemodule
    >
    >My question is pretty simple. What if you want a table with just a
    >thead and tbody section, but not with a tfoot section? I don't
    >understand why I *must* have a cell defined in up to two sections (in
    >this case, the tfoot section), cells which will be completely blank,
    >which I suppose means I'll have to use some CSS to make sure it's not
    >displayed, instead of just not having the section.
    >
    >Is there a standard practice for what to do if you have a thead and
    >tbody but not a tfoot?


    Nothing says it has to have content. The rules are merely looking for
    the tags.
    <tfoot></tfoot>
    If you have to have content, color it the same color as the background
    and let it disappear.
    richard, Jan 6, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. TonyV

    Neredbojias Guest

    Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sun, 06 Jan 2008 16:22:38
    GMT TonyV scribed:

    > I've read that in XHTML 1.1, if you have a thead and tbody, you *must*
    > have a tfoot. Also, according to the specification, it looks like all
    > three *must* have at least one tr child element, with at least one th
    > or td child element in it. Here's the spec I'm reading:
    > http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-modularization/abstract_modules.html#s_table
    > module
    >
    > My question is pretty simple. What if you want a table with just a
    > thead and tbody section, but not with a tfoot section? I don't
    > understand why I *must* have a cell defined in up to two sections (in
    > this case, the tfoot section), cells which will be completely blank,
    > which I suppose means I'll have to use some CSS to make sure it's not
    > displayed, instead of just not having the section.
    >
    > Is there a standard practice for what to do if you have a thead and
    > tbody but not a tfoot?


    Yeah. I flip a tbird in the general direction of the w3c and eliminate the
    extraneous crap from the page.

    --
    Neredbojias
    Riches are their own reward.
    Neredbojias, Jan 6, 2008
    #3
  4. TonyV wrote:
    > I've read that in XHTML 1.1, if you have a thead and tbody, you *must*
    > have a tfoot. Also, according to the specification, it looks like all
    > three *must* have at least one tr child element, with at least one th
    > or td child element in it. Here's the spec I'm reading:
    > http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-modularization/abstract_modules.html#s_tablemodule


    That's not how I'm reading it. The content model is:

    caption?, ( col* | colgroup* ), (( thead?, tfoot?, tbody+ ) | ( tr+ ))

    A question mark means "0 or 1", a plus sign means "1 or more". The only
    "have to's" I see here is that if you have either a thead or a tfoot,
    then you have to have at least one tbody, and if you have a tbody, then
    every tr has to be in a thead or a tfoot or a tbody. Under no
    circumstances is thead or tfoot required.

    > My question is pretty simple. What if you want a table with just a
    > thead and tbody section, but not with a tfoot section? I don't
    > understand why I *must* have a cell defined in up to two sections (in
    > this case, the tfoot section), cells which will be completely blank,
    > which I suppose means I'll have to use some CSS to make sure it's not
    > displayed, instead of just not having the section.
    >
    > Is there a standard practice for what to do if you have a thead and
    > tbody but not a tfoot?
    Harlan Messinger, Jan 6, 2008
    #4
  5. ..oO(TonyV)

    >I've read that in XHTML 1.1, if you have a thead and tbody, you *must*
    >have a tfoot.


    Where have you read that?

    >Also, according to the specification, it looks like all
    >three *must* have at least one tr child element, with at least one th
    >or td child element in it.


    Correct. If they are present, they have to contain at least one row.

    Micha
    Michael Fesser, Jan 6, 2008
    #5
  6. ..oO(richard)

    >On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 08:22:38 -0800 (PST), TonyV <>
    >wrote:
    >
    >>My question is pretty simple. What if you want a table with just a
    >>thead and tbody section, but not with a tfoot section? I don't
    >>understand why I *must* have a cell defined in up to two sections (in
    >>this case, the tfoot section), cells which will be completely blank,
    >>which I suppose means I'll have to use some CSS to make sure it's not
    >>displayed, instead of just not having the section.
    >>
    >>Is there a standard practice for what to do if you have a thead and
    >>tbody but not a tfoot?

    >
    >Nothing says it has to have content.


    The DTD does (taken from XHTML 1.0):

    <!ELEMENT thead (tr)+>
    <!ELEMENT tfoot (tr)+>
    <!ELEMENT tbody (tr)+>

    At least one row is required in each row group.
    And the 'tr' element must contain at least one cell:

    <!ELEMENT tr (th|td)+>

    >The rules are merely looking for
    >the tags.
    ><tfoot></tfoot>


    Invalid code.

    Micha
    Michael Fesser, Jan 6, 2008
    #6
  7. TonyV

    Bergamot Guest

    TonyV wrote:
    > I've read that in XHTML 1.1, if you have a thead and tbody, you *must*
    > have a tfoot.
    >
    > Is there a standard practice for what to do if you have a thead and
    > tbody but not a tfoot?


    Yes, use HTML 4.01 instead of XHTML.

    --
    Berg
    Bergamot, Jan 6, 2008
    #7
  8. TonyV <> writes:

    > I've read that in XHTML 1.1, if you have a thead and tbody, you *must*
    > have a tfoot. Also, according to the specification, it looks like all
    > three *must* have at least one tr child element, with at least one th
    > or td child element in it. Here's the spec I'm reading:
    > http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-modularization/abstract_modules.html#s_tablemodule
    >
    > My question is pretty simple. What if you want a table with just a
    > thead and tbody section, but not with a tfoot section?


    Just don't include the tfoot.

    In practice, it doesn't matter, since neither IE6 nor 7 has a real XHTML
    parser anyway. If you serve it as text/html, they'll display it, but they
    use their HTML parser to do it, treating the contents of your page as HTML
    and ignoring the extra slashes and unknown elements as part of its error
    handling.

    It won't validate, but validation isn't very useful for something that
    depends on IE's error correction to display properly in the first place.

    sherm--

    --
    My blog: http://shermspace.blogspot.com
    Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
    Sherman Pendley, Jan 6, 2008
    #8
  9. TonyV

    TonyV Guest

    On Jan 6, 12:24 pm, Michael Fesser <> wrote:
    > The DTD does (taken from XHTML 1.0):
    >
    > <!ELEMENT thead (tr)+>
    > <!ELEMENT tfoot (tr)+>
    > <!ELEMENT tbody (tr)+>
    >
    > At least one row is required in each row group.
    > And the 'tr' element must contain at least one cell:
    >
    > <!ELEMENT tr (th|td)+>


    Michael is correct. If I include a thead and tbody without a tfoot,
    the page doesn't validate. Also, if I include a tfoot without a tr,
    or a tfoot with a tr without a td, the page doesn't validate. It
    doesn't make sense to me that every table *must* have a tfoot, and I
    was just kind of wondering if anyone knew the rationale behind it, and
    if there was some standard way people created tables with all three
    elements when one or two of them don't have anything to display. I'm
    getting the vibe that there's not, other than people simply ignoring
    the standard.

    On Jan 6, 12:24 pm, Michael Fesser <> wrote:
    > >I've read that in XHTML 1.1, if you have a thead and tbody, you *must*
    > >have a tfoot.

    >
    > Where have you read that?


    At the W3Schools site. It seems to be a very reliable reference that
    I use all the time. Here's the specific link to the page:
    http://www.w3schools.com/tags/tag_tbody.asp

    In the tips and notes section, it says, "If you use the thead, tfoot
    and tbody elements, you must use every element." I'm guessing that
    they've parsed the DTD and this is how it's interpreted. The page not
    validating seems to back it up.

    On Jan 6, 2:15 pm, Sherman Pendley <> wrote:
    > In practice, it doesn't matter, since neither IE6 nor 7 has a real XHTML
    > parser anyway. If you serve it as text/html, they'll display it, but they
    > use their HTML parser to do it, treating the contents of your page as HTML
    > and ignoring the extra slashes and unknown elements as part of its error
    > handling.
    >
    > It won't validate, but validation isn't very useful for something that
    > depends on IE's error correction to display properly in the first place.


    This is true, the page will still render. However, I would really
    like it to be coded according to the standards in place, even if I
    don't agree with them. I've never been of the "work around the
    standards if they don't suit your needs" philosophy; I think this is
    one of the problems that has led to the numerous messes we're in now,
    where companies or organizations just unilaterally decide that they're
    going to do things their own way, and to hell with the standards.

    Plus, there's the little matter that if the major browsers decide that
    they will start enforcing all of these rules, something that does have
    precedence, I'd like to make sure as much as possible that my code
    still works without having to put in a bunch of if MyBrowser_v4 then
    renderOneWay(); else if MyBrowser_v5 then renderAnother(); else
    renderYetAnother(); kludges in.

    On Jan 6, 11:59 am, Neredbojias <> wrote:
    > Yeah. I flip a tbird in the general direction of the w3c and eliminate the
    > extraneous crap from the page.


    As noted, I don't feel this is a practical long-term solution. In the
    interest of my code working in future browsers that might enforce
    adherence to the standards (which I wish they all did now), I won't be
    "flipping a tbird in the general direction" of anyone.

    Anyway, thanks for the answers, I guess I'll just include a tfoot
    element with a tr and td that has no content. Empty tds don't render
    anyway. I always thought that was weird, but I'm kind of glad now.
    TonyV, Jan 8, 2008
    #9
  10. TonyV wrote:
    > On Jan 6, 12:24 pm, Michael Fesser <> wrote:
    >> The DTD does (taken from XHTML 1.0):
    >>
    >> <!ELEMENT thead (tr)+>
    >> <!ELEMENT tfoot (tr)+>
    >> <!ELEMENT tbody (tr)+>
    >>
    >> At least one row is required in each row group.
    >> And the 'tr' element must contain at least one cell:
    >>
    >> <!ELEMENT tr (th|td)+>

    >
    > Michael is correct. If I include a thead and tbody without a tfoot,
    > the page doesn't validate.


    If the page didn't validate it must have been for some other reason,
    because I just passed the following through the W3C validator (with the
    content type set to application/xhtml+xml) and it sailed through:

    <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
    <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.1//EN"
    "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/DTD/xhtml11.dtd">
    <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"
    xml:lang="en" >
    <head>
    <title>Table Test</title>
    </head>
    <body>
    <h1>Table Test</h1>
    <table>
    <thead>
    <tr><th>Country</th><th>Capital</th></tr>
    </thead>

    <tbody>
    <tr><td>Afghanistan</td><td>Kabul</td></tr>
    <tr><td>Tajikistan</td><td>Dushanbe</td></tr>
    <tr><td>Uzbekistan</td><td>Tashkent</td></tr>
    </tbody>
    </table>
    </body>
    </html>

    > Also, if I include a tfoot without a tr,
    > or a tfoot with a tr without a td, the page doesn't validate. It
    > doesn't make sense to me that every table *must* have a tfoot, and I
    > was just kind of wondering if anyone knew the rationale behind it, and
    > if there was some standard way people created tables with all three
    > elements when one or two of them don't have anything to display. I'm
    > getting the vibe that there's not, other than people simply ignoring
    > the standard.
    >
    > On Jan 6, 12:24 pm, Michael Fesser <> wrote:
    >>> I've read that in XHTML 1.1, if you have a thead and tbody, you *must*
    >>> have a tfoot.

    >> Where have you read that?

    >
    > At the W3Schools site. It seems to be a very reliable reference that
    > I use all the time. Here's the specific link to the page:
    > http://www.w3schools.com/tags/tag_tbody.asp
    >
    > In the tips and notes section, it says, "If you use the thead, tfoot
    > and tbody elements, you must use every element."


    They're wrong.

    > I'm guessing that
    > they've parsed the DTD and this is how it's interpreted. The page not
    > validating seems to back it up.


    The DTD says the content model for a table is

    caption?, ( col* | colgroup* ), (( thead?, tfoot?, tbody+ ) | ( tr+ ))

    Parse this for yourself. It says that if you use either a thead *or* a
    tfoot, then you must have at least one *tbody*. Under no circumstances
    does it require either a thead or a tfoot.
    Harlan Messinger, Jan 8, 2008
    #10
  11. ..oO(TonyV)

    >If I include a thead and tbody without a tfoot,
    >the page doesn't validate.


    I can't reproduce that. Can you post an example URL? I think there must
    be another error in your markup. The following simple code snippet does
    validate as HTML 4.01 Strict, XHTML 1.0 Strict and XHTML 1.1:

    <table>
    <thead>
    <tr><th>test</th></tr>
    </thead>
    <tbody>
    <tr><td>content</td></tr>
    </tbody>
    </table>

    >Also, if I include a tfoot without a tr,
    >or a tfoot with a tr without a td, the page doesn't validate.


    This is correct.

    >On Jan 6, 12:24 pm, Michael Fesser <> wrote:
    >> >I've read that in XHTML 1.1, if you have a thead and tbody, you *must*
    >> >have a tfoot.

    >>
    >> Where have you read that?

    >
    >At the W3Schools site. It seems to be a very reliable reference that
    >I use all the time. Here's the specific link to the page:
    >http://www.w3schools.com/tags/tag_tbody.asp
    >
    >In the tips and notes section, it says, "If you use the thead, tfoot
    >and tbody elements, you must use every element." I'm guessing that
    >they've parsed the DTD and this is how it's interpreted. The page not
    >validating seems to back it up.


    This statement is wrong or at least misleading. Given the DTD and the
    actual validation results, I would say it this way:

    By default all rows are put into an implicit 'tbody', so there's no need
    to declare it. But if you use any of the row group elements 'tbody',
    'thead' or 'tfoot', then every row must be contained in an explicitly
    declared row group.

    Micha
    Michael Fesser, Jan 8, 2008
    #11
  12. TonyV

    Bergamot Guest

    TonyV wrote:
    >
    > In the
    > interest of my code working in future browsers


    In that case it is imperative you dump XHTML, since it is not compatible
    with even the current wave of browsers, let alone future ones. In case
    you haven't heard, IE doesn't grok it at all. Stick with HTML 4.01
    Strict if you want compatibility.

    --
    Berg
    Bergamot, Jan 8, 2008
    #12
  13. TonyV <> writes:

    > On Jan 6, 2:15 pm, Sherman Pendley <> wrote:
    >> In practice, it doesn't matter, since neither IE6 nor 7 has a real XHTML
    >> parser anyway. If you serve it as text/html, they'll display it, but they
    >> use their HTML parser to do it, treating the contents of your page as HTML
    >> and ignoring the extra slashes and unknown elements as part of its error
    >> handling.
    >>
    >> It won't validate, but validation isn't very useful for something that
    >> depends on IE's error correction to display properly in the first place.

    >
    > This is true, the page will still render. However, I would really
    > like it to be coded according to the standards in place, even if I
    > don't agree with them. I've never been of the "work around the
    > standards if they don't suit your needs" philosophy;


    XHTML doesn't work at all without such workarounds; IE doesn't display it
    at all unless it's served at text/html, and when it *is* served that way,
    IE uses its HTML parser to display it.

    So even if your XHTML page validates, you're still relying on IE's HTML
    engine, which is not aware of XHTML at all, to ignore the extra slashes
    and any other XML-isms that it sees as errors in HTML.

    If you really wanted to avoid workarounds and hacks, you wouldn't be using
    XHTML to begin with. Once you've started down that path, lying about the
    content type and relying on IE's error handling to do something sensible
    with markup it doesn't understand, it seems rather absurd to draw the line
    at a missing tfoot element.

    > On Jan 6, 11:59 am, Neredbojias <> wrote:
    >> Yeah. I flip a tbird in the general direction of the w3c and eliminate the
    >> extraneous crap from the page.

    >
    > As noted, I don't feel this is a practical long-term solution.


    You've already abandoned practicality in favor of buzzword compliance, by
    using XHTML markup to begin with.

    sherm--

    --
    My blog: http://shermspace.blogspot.com
    Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
    Sherman Pendley, Jan 8, 2008
    #13
  14. TonyV

    TonyV Guest

    On Jan 8, 12:48 pm, Michael Fesser <> wrote:
    > >If I include a thead and tbody without a tfoot,
    > >the page doesn't validate.

    >
    > I can't reproduce that. Can you post an example URL? I think there must
    > be another error in your markup. The following simple code snippet does
    > validate as HTML 4.01 Strict, XHTML 1.0 Strict and XHTML 1.1:
    >
    > <table>
    > <thead>
    > <tr><th>test</th></tr>
    > </thead>
    > <tbody>
    > <tr><td>content</td></tr>
    > </tbody>
    > </table>


    Hmmm... You might be right, it could have been erroring out on some
    other problem, because that does validate. If this is the case, then
    this whole conversation is moot, except...

    On Jan 8, 12:48 pm, Michael Fesser <> wrote:
    > By default all rows are put into an implicit 'tbody', so there's no need
    > to declare it. But if you use any of the row group elements 'tbody',
    > 'thead' or 'tfoot', then every row must be contained in an explicitly
    > declared row group.


    I think you're right. I think that this is indeed the meaning of what
    they said.

    As for the other posts regarding the whole XHTML vs. HTML issue, I'm
    not going to argue about it. I'm sorry if you disagree, but I think
    that HTML is messy and inconsistent as a standard, and leaves too much
    ambiguity up to browsers to figure out. I'm sticking with XHTML. I'm
    also sorry if you have problems with the W3C, but the simple matter of
    the fact is that they are the ones formally defining the standards.
    If you don't want to use them, that's your prerogative, go for it.
    This isn't a flame, it's my choice, and I choose to adhere to the
    standards a closely as possible.

    Thanks for the info Michael. When I get home, I definitely plan on
    trying this stuff out. The site I'm working on is a private site so I
    can't post to a URL right now, but based on what you ran through the
    validator, it looks like I will be looking elsewhere to find out
    what's wrong.
    TonyV, Jan 8, 2008
    #14
  15. TonyV wrote:
    > On Jan 8, 12:48 pm, Michael Fesser <> wrote:
    >>> If I include a thead and tbody without a tfoot,
    >>> the page doesn't validate.

    >> I can't reproduce that. Can you post an example URL? I think there must
    >> be another error in your markup. The following simple code snippet does
    >> validate as HTML 4.01 Strict, XHTML 1.0 Strict and XHTML 1.1:
    >>
    >> <table>
    >> <thead>
    >> <tr><th>test</th></tr>
    >> </thead>
    >> <tbody>
    >> <tr><td>content</td></tr>
    >> </tbody>
    >> </table>

    >
    > Hmmm... You might be right, it could have been erroring out on some
    > other problem, because that does validate. If this is the case, then
    > this whole conversation is moot, except...
    >
    > On Jan 8, 12:48 pm, Michael Fesser <> wrote:
    >> By default all rows are put into an implicit 'tbody', so there's no need
    >> to declare it. But if you use any of the row group elements 'tbody',
    >> 'thead' or 'tfoot', then every row must be contained in an explicitly
    >> declared row group.

    >
    > I think you're right. I think that this is indeed the meaning of what
    > they said.
    >
    > As for the other posts regarding the whole XHTML vs. HTML issue, I'm
    > not going to argue about it. I'm sorry if you disagree, but I think
    > that HTML is messy and inconsistent as a standard,


    It is? How so? How is XHTML less messy and inconsistent?

    > and leaves too much
    > ambiguity up to browsers to figure out. I'm sticking with XHTML.


    In what way does XHMTL leave browsers with less ambiguity to figure out
    than HTML? As was already pointed out, some browsers aren't figuring out
    XHTML *at all* except by pretending it's HTML with errors. Is that better?
    Harlan Messinger, Jan 8, 2008
    #15
  16. TonyV

    Neredbojias Guest

    Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Tue, 08 Jan 2008 21:27:22
    GMT Harlan Messinger scribed:

    >> As for the other posts regarding the whole XHTML vs. HTML issue, I'm
    >> not going to argue about it. I'm sorry if you disagree, but I think
    >> that HTML is messy and inconsistent as a standard,

    >
    > It is? How so? How is XHTML less messy and inconsistent?
    >
    >> and leaves too much
    >> ambiguity up to browsers to figure out. I'm sticking with XHTML.

    >
    > In what way does XHMTL leave browsers with less ambiguity to figure
    > out than HTML? As was already pointed out, some browsers aren't
    > figuring out XHTML *at all* except by pretending it's HTML with
    > errors. Is that better?


    Well, it works in human terms. Leaving the penis/penis-envy thang as a
    separate issue, pretending women are men with errors makes getting along
    with them considerably easier to swallow.

    --
    Neredbojias
    Riches are their own reward.
    Neredbojias, Jan 9, 2008
    #16
  17. Gazing into my crystal ball I observed Neredbojias
    <> writing in
    news:Xns9A1FCE54CFE4Dnanopandaneredbojias@85.214.90.236:

    > Well, it works in human terms. Leaving the penis/penis-envy thang as a
    > separate issue, pretending women are men with errors makes getting along
    > with them considerably easier to swallow.
    >
    >


    I believe you mean _men_ with errors. Sorry, couldn't help myself, and
    you're right, it does make getting along with them easier to swallow (no
    pun intended).

    --
    Adrienne Boswell at Home
    Arbpen Web Site Design Services
    http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
    Please respond to the group so others can share
    Adrienne Boswell, Jan 9, 2008
    #17
  18. TonyV

    Neredbojias Guest

    Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Wed, 09 Jan 2008 15:37:58
    GMT Adrienne Boswell scribed:

    > Gazing into my crystal ball I observed Neredbojias
    > <> writing in
    > news:Xns9A1FCE54CFE4Dnanopandaneredbojias@85.214.90.236:
    >
    >> Well, it works in human terms. Leaving the penis/penis-envy thang as
    >> a separate issue, pretending women are men with errors makes getting
    >> along with them considerably easier to swallow.
    >>
    >>

    >
    > I believe you mean _men_ with errors. Sorry, couldn't help myself,
    > and you're right, it does make getting along with them easier to
    > swallow (no pun intended).


    <g>

    Sure, men make plenty of mistakes. Reading the commentary on this very
    newsgroup obviates the fact succinctly. The funny thing is that techie-
    type men seem to make _more_ than the average man-mistakes whilst techie
    women make _less_ than the average woman-mistakes. Go figure.

    As a side note, my anecdotal denigration of the feminine mystique is
    intended to be inciteful but not malicious. Various thoughts just
    automatically pop into my head which I seem to have trouble ignoring (-the
    thoughts, not my head) and simply must share with the world at large. I
    find it strange, myself, and sometimes wonder if I'm not the unwitting
    vessel of a higher life-form using me as a conduit for communication on a
    plain not normally available to its nevertheless superior abilities. It's
    a ponderable unknown and a lesser man could undoubtedly become quite
    schizophrenic under such a pervadingly cosmological influence. Luckily, I
    have the temperance, fortitude, and chutzpah to handle it.

    --
    Neredbojias
    Riches are their own reward.
    Neredbojias, Jan 9, 2008
    #18
  19. TonyV

    dorayme Guest

    In article <Xns9A2099DE24592nanopandaneredbojias@194.177.96.78>,
    Neredbojias <> wrote:

    > Sure, men make plenty of mistakes. Reading the commentary on this very
    > newsgroup obviates the fact succinctly.


    Do you know what "obviate" means? Do you use words because they
    sort of just sound good to you?

    > The funny thing is that techie-
    > type men seem to make _more_ than the average man-mistakes whilst techie
    > women make _less_ than the average woman-mistakes. Go figure.
    >


    What is your silly reference for this silliness?

    > As a side note, my anecdotal denigration of the feminine mystique is
    > intended to be inciteful but not malicious. Various thoughts just
    > automatically pop into my head which I seem to have trouble ignoring (-the
    > thoughts, not my head) and simply must share with the world at large. I
    > find it strange, myself, and sometimes wonder if I'm not the unwitting
    > vessel of a higher life-form using me as a conduit for communication on a
    > plain not normally available to its nevertheless superior abilities. It's
    > a ponderable unknown and a lesser man could undoubtedly become quite
    > schizophrenic under such a pervadingly cosmological influence. Luckily, I
    > have the temperance, fortitude, and chutzpah to handle it.


    What load of self serving, blind, codswallop!

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, Jan 9, 2008
    #19
  20. TonyV

    Martin Leese Guest

    Neredbojias wrote:
    ....
    > I
    > find it strange, myself, and sometimes wonder if I'm not the unwitting
    > vessel of a higher life-form using me as a conduit for communication on a
    > plain not normally available to its nevertheless superior abilities.


    Higher life-form?
    Martin Leese, Jan 10, 2008
    #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. Woolly Mittens
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    2,306
    William Tasso
    Jan 2, 2004
  2. bernhard
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    5,300
    bernhard
    Aug 17, 2006
  3. rukkie

    thead & tbody width

    rukkie, Dec 8, 2006, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    652
    Jukka K. Korpela
    Dec 8, 2006
  4. shapper

    TFoot

    shapper, Nov 15, 2007, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    315
    shapper
    Nov 16, 2007
  5. Jason
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    179
    Jason
    Jul 6, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page