By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
457,900 Members | 1,370 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 457,900 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

more than one class?

P: n/a
Hi all,

apologies if this seems like a pretty basic question - but can an element
have more than one class?
if so, how do you set them ?

and how does the browser give priority to a class over another ?
Jan 10 '07 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
25 Replies


P: n/a
"toffee" <to****@toffee.comwrites:
apologies if this seems like a pretty basic question - but can an element
have more than one class?
if so, how do you set them ?
Yes, according to the DTD, the class attribute can have a space-separated
list of class names.
and how does the browser give priority to a class over another ?
Normal cascading rules apply; all else being equal, later styles override
those declared earlier.

sherm--

--
Web Hosting by West Virginians, for West Virginians: http://wv-www.net
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
Jan 10 '07 #2

P: n/a
In article <eo**********@news.freedom2surf.net>,
"toffee" <to****@toffee.comwrote:
Hi all,

apologies if this seems like a pretty basic question - but can an element
have more than one class?
if so, how do you set them ?
Yes, <div class="featureBox minorFeatureBox">
and how does the browser give priority to a class over another ?
If you add an id as well as a class, the id wins in any clash.

If you have a clash with two classes, you might reason that
either the class lower in the css will win or the last mentioned
one in the html will win.

I will guess that it is the last mentioned one in the css sheet
or style instruction in the head or even inline.

Easy to test. Try it.

--
dorayme
Jan 10 '07 #3

P: n/a
Scripsit dorayme:
If you add an id as well as a class, the id wins in any clash.
No it doesn't. Given <div class="foo" id="bar">, what happens if you set the
following?

..foo { color: red !important; }
#bar { color: black; }
If you have a clash with two classes, you might reason that
either the class lower in the css will win or the last mentioned
one in the html will win.
Or you might check the specifications and see that it doesn't work that way.
I will guess
I won't.
Easy to test. Try it.
And stay tuned to errors if you happened to try it on a faulty browser.

--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

Jan 10 '07 #4

P: n/a

toffee wrote:
can an element have more than one class?
Yes, just add class names to the same class attribute as a
space-separated list

(An old IE / Mac bug is that it will fail badly if you have excess
whitespace: double spaces or a trailing space. It's probably
irrrelevant now, but be careful anyway.)

and how does the browser give priority to a class over another ?
By using the CSS Cascade, which is described here
http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/cascade.html

This is well-defined, but complicated and usually poorly understood.
Sadly it's not always understood by browser authors either.

A crucial thing to note is that the user agent does not "give priority
to a class over another" (they usually get this right, but CSS authors
don't usually understand it). It judges the resultant priority at the
level of the CSS _rule_, not at the class or selector. These rules are
the combination of the selector and a single declaration, i.e. a block
enclosed by curly braces {...} may contain several rules and each one's
priority is evaluated _independently_.

Normally this behaves as you expect, but it may surprise you when you
have several blocks in the cascade and they don't all contain the same
set of properties. It's common for CSS to apply different properties
from different blocks, where a more specific selector has applied to
just some of them. Don't expect a block to be applied as an "all or
nothing" set of properties (a very common misunderstanding).

When you realise that a single declaration within a block may contain
an !important declaration when others don't, then it becomes obvious
that the cascade needs to be evaluated at this fine level, not that of
the overall block and its selector.

Jan 10 '07 #5

P: n/a
In article <%4*****************@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi> ,
"Jukka K. Korpela" <jk******@cs.tut.fiwrote:
Scripsit dorayme:
If you add an id as well as a class, the id wins in any clash.

No it doesn't. Given <div class="foo" id="bar">, what happens if you set the
following?

.foo { color: red !important; }
#bar { color: black; }
er... well, I had in mind for when there was no special
instructions put into the classes to give them priority. OP would
be unlikely to blunder into forcing priority this way without a
clue. But, of course, otherwise you are right.
If you have a clash with two classes, you might reason that
either the class lower in the css will win or the last mentioned
one in the html will win.

Or you might check the specifications and see that it doesn't work that way.
I did soon after and, as usual, it was not utterly clear to me
from the words, but a practical test convinced me my guess was
right. When I said "lower in the css" I meant "underneath" - ie.
later css instructions, in a clash, override earlier ones (and, I
know you are a stickler, no bad thing, I add: I include the
notion of a number of css sheets in an order as well as a single
sheet)
I will guess

I won't.
You should be more of a devil <g>
Easy to test. Try it.

And stay tuned to errors if you happened to try it on a faulty browser.
Well, this is a point. Let me win something. Anything will do.
What about: in modern Safari, FF, Opera, IE Win6 and 7?

--
dorayme
Jan 10 '07 #6

P: n/a
Scripsit dorayme:
>>If you have a clash with two classes, you might reason that
either the class lower in the css will win or the last mentioned
one in the html will win.

Or you might check the specifications and see that it doesn't work
that way.

I did soon after and, as usual, it was not utterly clear to me
from the words, but a practical test convinced me my guess was
right.
Then it was insufficient testing of a poorly formulated guess. There's no
such things "class lower in the css", and the order of classes in the html
is irrelevant (class="foo bar" is equivalent to class="bar foo").
When I said "lower in the css" I meant "underneath"
Still doesn't make sense.
- ie. later css instructions,
It's not a struggle between classes but rules. You are probably trying to
say that other things being equal, a later _rule_ wins. That would be true
but only a quarter-truth. Very often, other things aren't equal.

This is a matter of the cascade, which is regularly misunderstood and
misrepresented. It won't help to explain a few bits and pieces here and
there, especially when not using adequate terms but vague words. It's really
something that everyone (who wants to understand CSS) has to learn himself,
from a good tutorial or textbook or even specification. Perhaps CSS would be
better without the C, but it's there, and it's the trickiest part of CSS.

Consider this:

div.bar { font-weight: normal; }
..foo { font-weight: bold; }

How about <div class="bar foo">hello world</divthen? Does the "later
class" win?

--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

Jan 11 '07 #7

P: n/a
In article <RG****************@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi>,
"Jukka K. Korpela" <jk******@cs.tut.fiwrote:
Scripsit dorayme:
check the specifications and see that it doesn't work
that way.
I did soon after... convinced ... my guess was right.

Then it was insufficient testing of a poorly formulated guess.
When I said "lower in the css" I meant "underneath"

Still doesn't make sense.
- ie. later css instructions,

It's not a struggle between classes but rules. You are probably trying to
say that other things being equal, a later _rule_ wins.
So you did understand me after all! I said it in a number of ways
and kept improving it to avoid misunderstandings as they occurred
to me. Even "later css instructions" can be misunderstood!
That would be true
but only a quarter-truth. Very often, other things aren't equal.
I have no argument with you on this. My argument (see below) is
that 1/2 and 1/4 truths are often practically useful in education.
This is a matter of the cascade, which is regularly misunderstood and
misrepresented. It won't help to explain a few bits and pieces here and
there,
This is where I disagree with you a bit. This is precisely what
can help some people get going. As they get to be able to better
achieve layouts they expect and their confidence grows, they
absorb all sorts of background that help them later understand
things which they are not exactly ready to understand at first.
Yes, even the cascade.
especially when not using adequate terms but vague words. It's >really
something that everyone (who wants to understand CSS) has to learn himself,
from a good tutorial or textbook or even specification. Perhaps CSS would be
better without the C, but it's there, and it's the trickiest part of CSS.

Consider this:

div.bar { font-weight: normal; }
.foo { font-weight: bold; }

How about <div class="bar foo">hello world</divthen? Does the "later
class" win?
OK, as ever, you are informing me and I appreciate it. But I
suspect that an explanation to an inexperienced OP to cover this
sort of precision would thereby be less, not more practically
useful. Please try to appreciate the point I am making otherwise
I might have to explain it. And we both know how you hate
babbling... <g>

--
dorayme
Jan 11 '07 #8

P: n/a
Scripsit dorayme:
So you did understand me after all!
That's irrelevant. To be honest, you cannot enlighten me in this matter. And
what you _wrote_ was not correct, so anyone who _needs_ the info got wrong
info from you.
I said it in a number of ways
That's part of the problem. You didn't say "it" in a number of ways but
different things.
My argument (see below) is
that 1/2 and 1/4 truths are often practically useful in education.
It certainly does not apply here. There's no shortage of disinformation
about the cascade, and adding to the pile helps no one.
As they get to be able to better
achieve layouts they expect and their confidence grows, they
absorb all sorts of background that help them later understand
things which they are not exactly ready to understand at first.
Learning at random doesn't work for understanding the cascade. Why would you
build wrong mental models when building the right model without such
obstacles is hard enough?
Yes, even the cascade.
Sorry, but you really shouldn't teach others things that you don't
understand yourself, and this applies especially to the cascade.

--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

Jan 11 '07 #9

P: n/a
In article <j_****************@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi>,
"Jukka K. Korpela" <jk******@cs.tut.fiwrote:
Scripsit dorayme:
So you did understand me after all!

That's irrelevant.
Well, it is not quite.
To be honest, you cannot enlighten me in this matter.
It depends on what the matter is. To be honest back, you keep
getting the focus not quite right.
And
what you _wrote_ was not correct, so anyone who _needs_ the info got wrong
info from you.
Again, no. If you appreciate the context, it can be helpful for
someone to point out that where there is a clash, a later css
instruction will override the earlier (even if this is strictly
false when you take into account some less than likely
possibilities).
My argument (see below) is
that 1/2 and 1/4 truths are often practically useful in education.

It certainly does not apply here. There's no shortage of disinformation
about the cascade, and adding to the pile helps no one.
It does not appear to me to be "certainly not applicable" here. I
do not boast about the explanation I gave. But your
characterization as disinformation is simply to count for nought
the point about how different people learn in practical ways.

As they get to be able to better
achieve layouts they expect and their confidence grows, they
absorb all sorts of background that help them later understand
things which they are not exactly ready to understand at first.

Learning at random doesn't work for understanding the cascade. Why would you
build wrong mental models when building the right model without such
obstacles is hard enough?
You are not understanding what I am telling you. I realise it is
counter-intuitive and it will seem crazy from what I believe is
your over rigid focus... I am not meaning to offend you, trying,
(it seems a little unsuccessfully!) to get you to see something
that is quite real.
Yes, even the cascade.

Sorry, but you really shouldn't teach others things that you don't
understand yourself, and this applies especially to the cascade.
If you were right, it would be the death of these ngs. There
would be you and Spartanicus and newbies. Just imagine that! You
would not want this yourself. Please do not try to make this
situation come about. I am appealing directly now to your
humanity. <g>

--
dorayme
Jan 12 '07 #10

P: n/a
Scripsit dorayme:
>If you appreciate the context, it can be helpful for
someone to point out that where there is a clash, a later css
instruction will override the earlier (even if this is strictly
false when you take into account some less than likely
possibilities).
No, it is not helpful to give false information. It is not helpful to
obfuscate things by saying "strictly false when - -" instead of "false".
(Besides, the other factors that affect the cascade are certainly not "less
than likely".)
But your
characterization as disinformation is simply to count for nought
the point about how different people learn in practical ways.
Regarding the cascade, most people learn by osmosis, or by guessing, or by
reading false advice. That's why so very few people understand how the
cascade works, and we so often see confused questions about, for example,
"inheritance" when people really have the problem that they don't understand
the cascade. They don't even know they're totally lost, so there's no need
to confuse them more.
>Sorry, but you really shouldn't teach others things that you don't
understand yourself, and this applies especially to the cascade.

If you were right, it would be the death of these ngs.
Of course I'm right, and it doesn't change anything. Something might change
if you agreed with me and draw some conclusions. If people generally stopped
giving advice on things they don't understand, by miracle, it would remove
many pointless babbling threads, of course. People would still ask and get
answers, though mostly correct answers.

--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

Jan 12 '07 #11

P: n/a
In article <Y4****************@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi>,
"Jukka K. Korpela" <jk******@cs.tut.fiwrote:
Scripsit dorayme:
If you appreciate the context, it can be helpful for
someone to point out that where there is a clash, a later css
instruction will override the earlier (even if this is strictly
false when you take into account some less than likely
possibilities).

No, it is not helpful to give false information. It is not helpful to
obfuscate things by saying "strictly false when - -" instead of "false".
(Besides, the other factors that affect the cascade are certainly not "less
than likely".)
Well, with respect, again, no. You show no appreciation of the
point I am making, choosing to caricature my view on this
particular educational point. Of course, it is not a good look to
recommend false information. I am not recommending the
dissemination of material for its falsity, but rather, I am
speaking on behalf of things in spite of their falsity. To give a
rule of thumb that has some exceptions is not always so bad.

It is tremendously helpful to teach students false theories
(Newtonian mechanics), to use such for calculations within
certain margins of error (vehicle mechanics, rocketry, space
technology). You concede none of these things because you are
concentrating too hard on something that is not wholly relevant.
Some rules of thumb can be useful, osmosis is not something you
will be able to be rid of.
But your
characterization as disinformation is simply to count for nought
the point about how different people learn in practical ways.

Regarding the cascade, most people learn by osmosis, or by guessing, or by
reading false advice. That's why so very few people understand how the
cascade works, and we so often see confused questions about, for example,
"inheritance" when people really have the problem that they don't understand
the cascade. They don't even know they're totally lost, so there's no need
to confuse them more.
I still do not think it was such a crime to be basically telling
a person wondering if it is the order of the html listed classes
or the position in the css that counts for most in a clash of the
instructions that it is the css that wins and that this latter
was a matter of order. Your description of "other things being
equal" was a good one but you overrate the truth that "things are
rarely equal". What is equal and not equal is something that a
person comes to see over a period of time and experience. It is
hard for normal people to absorb the complexities all at once
from the word go.

I would like to think that we could see all this together and
perhaps place different emphasis on things, but I fear that you
will not bend to see anything but a caricature of my advocacy.
And, naturally, I cannot expect to be allowed to explain these
things at any greater length.

Sorry, but you really shouldn't teach others things that you don't
understand yourself, and this applies especially to the cascade.
If you were right, it would be the death of these ngs.

Of course I'm right, and it doesn't change anything. Something might change
if you agreed with me and draw some conclusions.
I am sorry, but you are not right as any matter of any course.
You would be surprised to know how much I do agree with you - but
to see this, you would need to have a better understanding of
what I am saying.

I nevertheless do appreciate that your contributions add an extra
level and for those who are able to benefit, all to the good.

--
dorayme
Jan 13 '07 #12

P: n/a
On 2007-01-12, Jukka K. Korpela <jk******@cs.tut.fiwrote:
[snip]
>But your characterization as disinformation is simply to count for
nought the point about how different people learn in practical ways.

Regarding the cascade, most people learn by osmosis, or by guessing,
or by reading false advice. That's why so very few people understand
how the cascade works, and we so often see confused questions about,
for example, "inheritance" when people really have the problem that
they don't understand the cascade. They don't even know they're
totally lost, so there's no need to confuse them more.
Web authoring (HTML, CSS and JS) is supposed to be accessible, but web
standards and specifications are not. In fact they're particularly
complex, partly for historical reasons, partly because they attempt the
dangerous "do what I mean" path in order to make web authoring
accessible.

There's a big gap between getting a basic web page to work and
understanding the standards. You can't expect or require the author to
understand the cascade. Somehow you have to work out how to explain
things in spite of that.
Jan 13 '07 #13

P: n/a
Scripsit Ben C:
You can't expect or require the author to
understand the cascade.
I don't expect or require anyone to use CSS, but it is a fact - quite
independently of what I might think about it - that for nontrivial use of
CSS, you need to understand the cascade, in the sense that if you don't,
you'll repeated run into confusing problems and spend time in frustrating
efforts to fix them, and, besides, you style sheets don't work reliably.

That wasn't my point though. My point is that you should not not try to
explain the cascade to others if you don't understand the cascade. Moreover,
you should not try to summarize the cascade by picking up just one of the
several rules that need to be understand in relation to each other (even if
you managed to present it correctly, which wasn't the case here).

--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

Jan 13 '07 #14

P: n/a
VK
- can an element have more than one class?
- Yes
(correct)

- if so, how do you set them ?
- <div class="featureBox minorFeatureBox">
(correct sample)

- how does the browser give priority to a class over another ?
- the last mentioned one in the html will win.

The last question and the last answer could be better formulated though
the intentions are clear to anyone. Obviously OP was wondering what
*rule declaration* has more weight in case of several classes applied
to the same element. Say if class .One defines color:red and class .Two
defines color:blue and one has <div class="One Two">Text</divthen
what color "Text" will be?
"the last mentioned one in the html will win" was said - and if anyone
has troubles with this explanation then _she_ has some problems.

The part of the answer stating "that either the class lower in the css
will win" is indeed an "Eh?" :-) These are *rules* cascading and being
inherited, not blocks of rules. Moreover a class is a block of rules
which are not applied yet to any element, so it cannot compete with
anyone. In stylesheet one may place:
<style type="text/css">
.One {
color: red;
}
.Two {
color: blue;
}
</style>
or
<style type="text/css">
.Two {
color: blue;
}
.One {
color: red;
}
</style>
and it has no practical importance. Important is the order you will
assign these classes via element's class attribute - class="One Two" or
class="Two One".

This way the statement that "order of classes in the html is irrelevant
(class="foo bar" is equivalent to class="bar foo" can be interpreted in
two ways:
1) one may take it as it looks like: a plain b.s.
2) other option is to try to penetrates into Korpela's personal world
from where this statement originated from. In that world everything is
so utterly complicated that only Korpela himself could once understand
it - that gives him now freedom to conduct dialogs with himself posting
occasional fragments of these internal dialogs in the Usenet.

It also seems obvious that OP did not ask "How to change default weight
of rule declarations". This way where was not need to start the OT
branch about !important modifier.

Jan 15 '07 #15

P: n/a

VK wrote:
Important is the order you will
assign these classes via element's class attribute - class="One Two" or
class="Two One".
In a word -- No

Jan 15 '07 #16

P: n/a
VK

Andy Dingley wrote:
Important is the order you will
assign these classes via element's class attribute - class="One Two" or
class="Two One".

In a word -- No
Oops - indeed. So I'm deeply wrong, dorayme was correct in all points
of his original post and Korpela was even bigger [OT]-shitter in this
thread as I first saw.

P.S. I personally never used multiple classes for styling as NN4 did
not support them and later I used to work by other means. So first I
noked me down as having no sense at all, because it's like having
var foo = 1;
var bar = 2;
and both foo and bar equal 2 with foo value overriden.

Just later it came to me that
.One {
color: red;
}
.Two {
color: green;
}
effectively is
*.One {
color: red;
}
*.Two {
color: green;
}

So first all elements with class One collected and ruleset applied,
then all elements with class Two collected and ruleset applied. This
way indeed the winner is the class located closer to the end of
stylesheet.

Jan 15 '07 #17

P: n/a
In article
<11**********************@38g2000cwa.googlegroups. com>,
"VK" <sc**********@yahoo.comwrote:
>
Andy Dingley wrote:
Important is the order you will
assign these classes via element's class attribute - class="One Two" or
class="Two One".
In a word -- No

Oops - indeed. So I'm deeply wrong, dorayme was correct in all points
of his original post and Korpela was even bigger [OT]-shitter in this
thread as I first saw.
Well, I was a bit surprised by your claim about order in HTML (it
was what I specifically bet against). But please, VK, I know old
K may seem a little severe but go easy. He is very important to
me, I am getting to like and understand him and am preparing a
contract to team up with him in the near future. We are already a
great team, like Dean Martin and Jerry Lewis (of course, he is
the straight man). I give the common touch and he comes in with
the deeper things, it is an unstoppable double act. I aim to be
promoting it. Korpela and I are going to become absurdly rich,
the oddest couple since Walter Matthau and Jack Lemmon. If you
would care to invest, good returns, send whatever and you will be
on a winner.

--
dorayme
Jan 15 '07 #18

P: n/a
Scripsit VK:
Andy Dingley wrote:
>>Important is the order you will
assign these classes via element's class attribute - class="One
Two" or class="Two One".

In a word -- No

Oops - indeed. So I'm deeply wrong,
Of course. We might now expect some apologies, but here's what we get:
Korpela was even bigger [OT]-shitter in this
thread as I first saw.
The original statement was "the last mentioned one in the html will win",
and this is provably wrong, as I wrote and as you now admit.

You have now exhibited destructive posting behavior, technically wrong
information, and refusal to really admit that after being proved wrong. This
would just make you clueless. But you also present (incidentally, completely
false) personal attacks behind a fake identity.

Thank you for making it _so_ obvious that you can safely be killfiled.

--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

Jan 15 '07 #19

P: n/a
In article <yq****************@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi>,
"Jukka K. Korpela" <jk******@cs.tut.fiwrote:
Scripsit VK:
Andy Dingley wrote:

Since this thread flared up again, I re-read my original post*.
It was very misleading indeed come to think of it. More so than I
was thinking from memory! I was thinking along the simple and
very-well-put first reply (which I had not seen till I had posted
mine) to the OP by Sherm Pendley. I expect I should have re-read
it before now after you cast harsh judgement on it instead of
relying so much on memory. It does not make at all clear that the
order that is important is NOT exhibited in the html.

Anyway, I for one, found your remarks useful for pointing out how
easily things can be not equal and that one should be aware of
these things by understanding the cascade.

Nevertheless, we perhaps have a strong disagreement over some
general principles of education. Or maybe it is simply about
newsgroups. When looking at your published tutes, they seem to me
a model.

Take no notice of all the jokes about you, it is an Australian
custom to send up mercilessly those we hold dear. <g>

* It is a bit of a procedure getting older posts in my
newsreader. I suppose there is always Google but I dislike it a
bit.

--
dorayme
Jan 15 '07 #20

P: n/a
VK
dorayme wrote:
But please, VK, I know old
K may seem a little severe but go easy. He is very important to
me, I am getting to like and understand him and am preparing a
contract to team up with him in the near future. We are already a
great team, like Dean Martin and Jerry Lewis (of course, he is
the straight man).
Hey, that is the Usenet, not a collaboration team on some project. The
basic netiquette is in effect but no one has to establish special
relations with the poster.
It is also not suitable for the Usenet to call for emotions. I don't
want to know if Mr.Korpela is old, young, healthy, sick, married,
divorced, has a secure income, doesn't know how to pay for tomorrow: I
don't want to know. Surely if some personal information is delivered I
cannot stop normal human emotions if produced by such information. The
deal is that I don't want to know that. I am someone signed VK posted
this and someone signed Jukka K. Korpela posted that - so let's stay
within this circle.

Instead of 5 posts in this thread demonstrating how smart Mr.Korpela is
and how stupid everyone else is near of him - that would be enough just
one clearly answering OP's question and clearly showing any errors in
your post.

If Mr.Korpela's personal feelings are being hurt too much, I suggest
to try to look positively on everything. After all everyone in this
thread said something partially or completely wrong but Mr.Korpela. By
taking into account that Usenet archives are "keep forever" and
freely available for search back to 1982: by taking this into account
Mr.Korpela did today another step to immortal glory and his main abuser
VK to immortal shame; though I don't worry about my immortal shame
status - it is long time ensured by efforts of c.l.j. cabbal :-)

Jan 15 '07 #21

P: n/a
In article <doraymeRidThis-36FFAD.08313716012007@news-
vip.optusnet.com.au>, do************@optusnet.com.au says...
... like Dean Martin and Jerry Lewis (of course, he is
the straight man). I give the common touch and he comes in with
the deeper things, it is an unstoppable double act. I aim to be
promoting it. Korpela and I are going to become absurdly rich,
.... Mork and Mindy; Leno and Woodley; Burns and Allen; ...
--
Please visit -
Water saving tips: http://graspages.cjb.cc/bigdry/
Jan 16 '07 #22

P: n/a
In article <MP************************@news.aardvark.net.au >,
Joe (GKF) <jo********@yahoo.com.auwrote:
In article <doraymeRidThis-36FFAD.08313716012007@news-
vip.optusnet.com.au>, do************@optusnet.com.au says...
... like Dean Martin and Jerry Lewis (of course, he is
the straight man). I give the common touch and he comes in with
the deeper things, it is an unstoppable double act. I aim to be
promoting it. Korpela and I are going to become absurdly rich,

... Mork and Mindy; Leno and Woodley; Burns and Allen; ...
Leno and Woodley was an absolute blast! Those two are still
playing on my mind.

--
dorayme
Jan 17 '07 #23

P: n/a
In article <doraymeRidThis-6CFE23.12321317012007@news-
vip.optusnet.com.au>, do************@optusnet.com.au says...
In article <MP************************@news.aardvark.net.au >,
Joe (GKF) <jo********@yahoo.com.auwrote:
... Mork and Mindy; Leno and Woodley; Burns and Allen; ...

Leno and Woodley was an absolute blast! Those two are still
playing on my mind.
I agree - with the bonus that any septics reading this won't know who
we're talking about!

--
Please visit -
Water saving tips: http://graspages.cjb.cc/bigdry/
Jan 18 '07 #24

P: n/a
In article <MP************************@news.aardvark.net.au >,
Joe (GKF) <jo********@yahoo.com.auwrote:
In article <doraymeRidThis-6CFE23.12321317012007@news-
vip.optusnet.com.au>, do************@optusnet.com.au says...
In article <MP************************@news.aardvark.net.au >,
Joe (GKF) <jo********@yahoo.com.auwrote:

... Mork and Mindy; Leno and Woodley; Burns and Allen; ...
Leno and Woodley was an absolute blast! Those two are still
playing on my mind.
I agree - with the bonus that any septics reading this won't know who
we're talking about!
It is the sort of act that is hard to imagine everyone liking
anyway... I wish they made more... it had a crazy hypnotic
rhythm. I loved the opening credits to the show too. It so
pleasant reminiscing about it. Especially here.

--
dorayme
Jan 18 '07 #25

P: n/a
In article <doraymeRidThis-FF1DC9.12260918012007@news-
vip.optusnet.com.au>, do************@optusnet.com.au says...
In article <MP************************@news.aardvark.net.au >,
Joe (GKF) <jo********@yahoo.com.auwrote:
In article <doraymeRidThis-6CFE23.12321317012007@news-
vip.optusnet.com.au>, do************@optusnet.com.au says...
In article <MP************************@news.aardvark.net.au >,
Joe (GKF) <jo********@yahoo.com.auwrote:
... Mork and Mindy; Leno and Woodley; Burns and Allen; ...
>
Leno and Woodley was an absolute blast! Those two are still
playing on my mind.
>
I agree - with the bonus that any septics reading this won't know who
we're talking about!

It is the sort of act that is hard to imagine everyone liking
anyway... I wish they made more... it had a crazy hypnotic
rhythm. I loved the opening credits to the show too. It so
pleasant reminiscing about it. Especially here.
I've had the music in my head ever since I first mentioned them.

--
Please visit -
Water saving tips: http://graspages.cjb.cc/bigdry/
Jan 19 '07 #26

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.