Which version in LH for?

[Jane Withnolastname]

I have a web page that uses an unordered list (<UL>) and the LH (list
header) tag. I know LH is a valid tag because it is clearly defined by
the W3C here: http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/html3/bulletlists.html
The problem is, when I try to validate the page at W3C, it tells me:
" element "LH" undefined "
My page is 4.01 Transitional, using charset windows-1252.
Any ideas why this won't validate?

[Jane Withnolastname]

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 21:39:02 +0000, Isofarro
<sp*******@spamdetector.co.uk> wrote:

Jane Withnolastname wrote:

You have no idea what my site is about. Why would you want to visit
it?

To see what its about.

.... but you don't have IE6. How could you see it anyway?

[Jane Withnolastname]

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 07:04:27 -0500, kchayka <kc*********@sihope.com>
wrote:

Jane Withnolastname wrote:

On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 14:44:23 +0100, Jim Dabell
<ji********@jimdabell.com> wrote:

You _do_ however care if somebody sees that your page is invalid.

Well, yeah. If I'm saying it's valid, it has to actually *be* valid,
right?

This is the part I don't get. Why do you even care that it's valid code?

You didn't read my previous posts, did you?

The text of the page in question, from memory:

You are here because this site does not display well in your browser.
This site is written for IE6 and validates.
If it doesn't work in your browser, try IE6.

Now, I'd look awfully foolish if they happened to go to W3C and run my
page through the Validator and it didn't validate, wouldn't I?

[Jane Withnolastname]

On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 01:47:56 +0930, Tim <ad***@sheerhell.lan> wrote:

More reading. Seriously folks, I hate reading on the internet.
Really? Then why are you still here? Why do you persist in being a
pain in the neck?

Why do you keep reading my posts?

Most people who write on the internet cannot spell* or have no grasp of
proper grammar. Or both. The other folks seem to be journalists paid
by the word, whose point is buried deep in the third or fourth page of
whatever article they've written.
I don't wanna read these articles.

It's clear that you just don't want to learn. Incidentally, the morons

I have no time to learn right now. Please do read all my posts before
launching into something you know so little about (me). I've said
before that when I have finished everything and am bored, I'll learn
how to do other things. Right now, I have no time.
page is spelt properly, uses proper grammar and punctuation (most of
which a lot people really do not know about), is technically correct,
and I can't think of a more deserving person to read it, than you.

I may be deserving, I'm just not interested.

[Jane Withnolastname]

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 21:43:08 +0000, Isofarro
<sp*******@spamdetector.co.uk> wrote:

A list of websites that are "optimised" to work only in Internet Explorer.

That would be a bloody long list. Haven't you seen any?

Nope. You'd be the first.

I'm not gonna give you a long list, but here's a few I can think of:

http://www.headpins.net/
https://www.aucd.org/nirs/db/index.cfm
http://www.apmp-nca.org/apmplibrary.html
http://www.ricfierabracci.com/
http://www.ca.inter.net/en/help/navigate.php?topic=7
http://www.pro-techpainting.com/
http://www.hannabery.com/bestviewed.shtml (this one is very much like
the page on my site that is causing everyone conniptions)

[Daniel R. Tobias]

Jane Withnolastname wrote:

You are here because this site does not display well in your browser.
This site is written for IE6 and validates.
If it doesn't work in your browser, try IE6.

Now, I'd look awfully foolish if they happened to go to W3C and run my
page through the Validator and it didn't validate, wouldn't I?

So you're using validation as a meaningless figurehead to flaunt in the
faces of anybody who dares take you to task for your lack of browser-
and platform-neutral code. You're complying, just barely, with the
letter of the standards of the validator by doing things that flout the
*spirit* of the standards, like hiding nonstandard tags from the
validator by outputting them via JavaScript. And you're doing it not
because you care in the slightest whether you're following the standards
of the World Wide Web so that your documents are likely to be broadly
usable (if you did, you'd expect them to be best viewed in a more
standards-compliant browser like Mozilla), but only because when your
pages fall apart in any browser other than your own preferred one, you
can stick out your tongue at the user and say, "Well, it *validates*, so
it's *your* problem!" Did I peg you right?

My own page about validators:
http://webtips.dan.info/validators.html

Validators are a great tool, but they're hardly the be-all and end-all
of good Web development.

--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/

[John]

In article <o7********************************@4ax.com>,
Ja**********************@yahoo.com says...

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 00:52:21 -0500, John <jc****@delete.email.com>
wrote:

>> I'm sorry. Did you want to visit it? No, I didn't think so. If you
>> did, I would have heard from you long ago.
>
>I'd like to visit it, but I can't find the URL. What is it?

You have no idea what my site is about. Why would you want to visit
it?

I have IE6. Why wouldn't I?

It's not a site about IE6.

Nonresponsive, eh? Your head must be stopped up. High pollen count in
Vancouver today?

[kchayka]

Jane Withnolastname wrote:

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 07:04:27 -0500, kchayka <kc*********@sihope.com>
wrote:

Jane Withnolastname wrote:

On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 14:44:23 +0100, Jim Dabell
<ji********@jimdabell.com> wrote:

You _do_ however care if somebody sees that your page is invalid.

Well, yeah. If I'm saying it's valid, it has to actually *be* valid,
right?
This is the part I don't get. Why do you even care that it's valid code?

You didn't read my previous posts, did you?

Actually, I've been following this thread from the beginning. It's been
pretty mind-boggling.
The text of the page in question, from memory:

You are here because this site does not display well in your browser.
This site is written for IE6 and validates.
If it doesn't work in your browser, try IE6.

Now, I'd look awfully foolish if they happened to go to W3C and run my
page through the Validator and it didn't validate, wouldn't I?

Perhaps, but you still didn't really answer the question. You have no
qualms about using invalid markup as long as the W3C validator doesn't
complain about it. Hiding invalid markup in JavaScript doesn't make it
any more valid.

So, why do you even bother with validation at all? In your particular
case, there is absolutely nothing to gain from it.

--
To email a reply, remove (dash)ns(dash). Mail sent to the ns
address is automatically deleted and will not be read.

[Jane Withnolastname]

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 21:19:09 -0500, John <jc****@delete.email.com>
wrote:

In article <o7********************************@4ax.com>,
Ja**********************@yahoo.com says...

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 00:52:21 -0500, John <jc****@delete.email.com>
wrote:

>> >> I'm sorry. Did you want to visit it? No, I didn't think so. If you
>> >> did, I would have heard from you long ago.
>> >
>> >I'd like to visit it, but I can't find the URL. What is it?
>>
>> You have no idea what my site is about. Why would you want to visit
>> it?
>
>I have IE6. Why wouldn't I?

It's not a site about IE6.

Nonresponsive, eh? Your head must be stopped up. High pollen count in
Vancouver today?

How is my response nonresponsive?

[Jane Withnolastname]

On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 10:06:26 +0100, Steve Pugh <st***@pugh.net> wrote:

I'm just going to jump onto this thread and actually talk about the
original topic.

From reading it looks like Jane has discovered that the code

<ul>
<lh>header</lh>
<li>list item</li>
...
</ul>

produces the look she wants.
Correct.

<snip a bunch of good stuff>
Jane has also dimissed even looking for CSS solutions on the grounds
that she lacks the time. (But somehow finds time to post many, many
messages to this thread). Surely anyone with all the experience she
claims to have would have come up with a simple CSS solution in less
than the two minutes it took to write the JavaScript?
I never claimed to have a lot of experience with CSS. It baffles me a
lot of times, actually. JavaScript is even more baffling to me, but I
had a similar code laying around and knew how to use it. I didn't have
any CSS laying around that I could have implemented here. And while
you are correct that I don't have time to look for a CSS-based
solution, I am fully open to the idea of it and will do so when I get
the time. (Actually ... reading on, I see I won't have to look very
far....)
The simplest solution is

<ul>
<li class="lh">header</li>
<li>list item</li>
...
</ul>

with li.lh {list-style-type: none;} produces the exact same rendering
as the two invalid examples above (again tested in the four browsers
previously listed).

However, as this is a heading the following probably conveys the
semantics better:

<h3 class="lh">header</h3>
<ul class="wlh">
<li>list item</li>
...
</ul>
with the styles:
h3.lh { margin-bottom: 0; margin-left: 40px; }
ul.wlh {margin-top: 0;}

Obviously <h3> should be swapped for the appropriate level of heading
as dictated by the document structure.

This does vary somewhat in appearance across browsers but is well
within the limits of graceful degradation. (It appears the same as
earlier examples in O7.11, Moz 1.4 and IE6 but NN4 adds extra vertical
margins and I'm sure that the 40px value will not hold true for all
browsers on all OS.)

Now I've finished typing all that I wonder why I bothered. Jane is
I'm glad you did, and I thank you. I will definitely try it out and
see how it looks. I said I found CSS baffling, but I do know a bit
about to tweak and mess around with it until it comes up right.
Thanks.
almost certainly too stubborn to change her page and everyone else
From everything I've written, I can see why you would think I was
stubborn, but I really do embrace change ... it just has to happen
when I have time for it :)
here already knew all of the above. Oh well maybe some poor newbie
will stumble across this post on Google one day and find it helpful.
I guess some or most or all the people already knew it, but since this
newsgroup is about ...authoring.html, I would never have dared ask
about CSS here.

cheers,
Steve

Thanks again.

[John]

In article <f2********************************@4ax.com>,
Ja**********************@yahoo.com says...

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 21:19:09 -0500, John <jc****@delete.email.com>
wrote:

In article <o7********************************@4ax.com>,
Ja**********************@yahoo.com says...

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 00:52:21 -0500, John <jc****@delete.email.com>
wrote:

>> >> I'm sorry. Did you want to visit it? No, I didn't think so. If you
>> >> did, I would have heard from you long ago.
>> >
>> >I'd like to visit it, but I can't find the URL. What is it?
>>
>> You have no idea what my site is about. Why would you want to visit
>> it?
>
>I have IE6. Why wouldn't I?

It's not a site about IE6.

Nonresponsive, eh? Your head must be stopped up. High pollen count in
Vancouver today?

How is my response nonresponsive?

What's your site's URL?

[EightNineThree]

"Jane Withnolastname" <Ja**********************@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fb********************************@4ax.com...

On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 06:54:02 -0400, "EightNineThree"
<ei************@REMOVEeightninethree.com> wrote:

>>>A list of websites that are "optimised" to work only in Internet

Explorer.

>>
>> That would be a bloody long list. Haven't you seen any?
>
>Nope. You'd be the first.

I'm not gonna give you a long list, but here's a few I can think of:

http://www.headpins.net/

AHAHAHAHA
Splash page
Terrible graphics
Amateurish javascript tricks like a button that says "Bookmark our page"
Meta refresh
Bad hair metal background music
Spaces in document names
Unquoted attributes
Use of deprecated <font> element
Use of <tbody> element for non-data tables
Missing alternative text attributes
Plus scores of usability problems such as use of <u> element (nothing thatis not a link should be underlined)
AND -

http://www.htmlhelp.com/cgi-bin/vali...2Fwww.headpins.

net%2F&warnings=yes&input=yes&spider=yes&hidevalid =yes

These are who you use as an example?!?!

http://www.ricfierabracci.com/

Uses frames
Uses OS-Specific fonts
I won't even get into the HIDEOUS clusterfuck markup created by FrontPage...

http://www.pro-techpainting.com/

Another example of your good taste?
More amateurish Javascript "tricks" like scrolling text.
"pro-techpainting.com" was registered in October 2002 and their little
counter says they've had 701 visitors.
Does that say enough?
No?
It uses frames.
And here's a sign of true genius - "<p>This page uses frames, but your
browser doesn't support them.</p>"
Not one alt attribute on the whole site (not like it matters. A screen
reader wouldn't get that far thanks to the un-helpful <noframes> above)
More atrocious markup everywhere created by FrontPage

http://www.htmlhelp.com/cgi-bin/vali...Fwww.pro-techp

ainting.com%2F&warnings=yes&input=yes&spider=yes&h idevalid=yes

http://www.hannabery.com/bestviewed.shtml (this one is very much like
the page on my site that is causing everyone conniptions)

"The Company That Cares"
They care so much that they think they can give their visitors helpful
advice on how to "fix" their settings to work with their site.
These morons are apparently unaware that most users will spend a minute orless per site. Do they honestly think that someone is going to change theirsettings to visit this website?
BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHA

This site probably violates next to every common usability guideline I've
ever seen.

Idiotic use of CSS in some places and deprecated presentational attributeslike "hspace" in others.
The friggin site is so messed up that it froze my browser during the WDG'sBatch Validate (and I'm on 1.5mbps cable!)

These are who you list as examples?
You're smart not to let us see your site...

Uh, yeah, I think you missed the point entirely. The original request
was for a list of sites "optimized for IE". I asked if the person had
never seen a site that was optimized for IE and he responded that he
hadn't. This surprised me because I see them all the time. So I did a
Google search and listed a few that claimed on their page that they
were optimized for IE. I never said the web designers were geniuses.
Just that the sites were designed for IE. That was the only point of
this list.

ok, just a little advice -

If someone says "Designing for just one browser is a bad idea"
Don't post a list of shitty websites as an example of the practice.
It further demonstrates their point, not yours.
--
Karl Core

Charles Sweeney says my sig is fine as it is.

[Brian]

Jane Withnolastname wrote:

The reason I will not post the URL is because I am not interested in
hundreds of meaningless hits that could end up knocking my site
offline for a time, thereby preventing it from being seen by people
who actually *want* to see it.

This really is getting hilarious. Hundreds of hits will knock your
site offline? Praytell, what is your server software? MS IIS? :-D

--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me

[Harlan Messinger]

"Jukka K. Korpela" <jk******@cs.tut.fi> wrote in message
news:Xn*****************************@193.229.0.31. ..

Jane Withnolastname <Ja**********************@yahoo.com> wrote:

Yet you cite something that is part of a 3.0 spec that never even went
public.

Well, see, that's all I wanted to know. I had no idea it was not
carried forward to newer versions, and there was nothing I could find
on the W3C site to tell me that.

Actually the cover page
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/html3/
shouts: "HTML 3.0 Draft (Exprired!) Materials
HTML 3.0 has been superceded by HTML 3.2"
which is incorrect on several accounts. In particular, HTML 3.2 could not
possibly supersede (sic) HTML 3.0, since HTML 3.0 did not exist when the

FYI, "[sic]" is used after the incorrect usage, not after a correction you
may choose to provide. It means "thus" in Latin, and it's a note to the
reader meaning, "Don't blame me--this is the way it was in the original".

[Eric Jarvis]

Harlan Messinger wrote:

"Jukka K. Korpela" <jk******@cs.tut.fi> wrote in message
news:Xn*****************************@193.229.0.31. ..

Jane Withnolastname <Ja**********************@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Yet you cite something that is part of a 3.0 spec that never even went
>public.

Well, see, that's all I wanted to know. I had no idea it was not
carried forward to newer versions, and there was nothing I could find
on the W3C site to tell me that.

Actually the cover page
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/html3/
shouts: "HTML 3.0 Draft (Exprired!) Materials
HTML 3.0 has been superceded by HTML 3.2"
which is incorrect on several accounts. In particular, HTML 3.2 could not
possibly supersede (sic) HTML 3.0, since HTML 3.0 did not exist when the

FYI, "[sic]" is used after the incorrect usage, not after a correction you
may choose to provide. It means "thus" in Latin, and it's a note to the
reader meaning, "Don't blame me--this is the way it was in the original".

the correct spilling is "supercede"

--
eric
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"Hey Lord don't ask me questions
There ain't no answer in me"

[Alan J. Flavell]

On Thu, Aug 14, Harlan Messinger inscribed on the eternal scroll:

[addressing Jukka:]

FYI, "[sic]" is used after the incorrect usage,
Yes, and also after correct usage which one fears might be
mis-interpreted by the reader.
not after a correction you may choose to provide.
I'd say you are mistaken in that regard. Please see the latter part
of this quote from the OED:

A parenthetical insertion used in printing quotations or reported
utterances to call attention to something anomalous or erroneous in
the original, or to guard against the supposition of misquotation.
It means "thus" in Latin,

Indeed it does (as I supposed Jukka would know already).

ttfn.

[Alan J. Flavell]

On Thu, Aug 14, Eric Jarvis inscribed on the eternal scroll:

the correct spilling is "supercede"

Those who choose to get involved in spelling disputes would be
well advised to consult a reliable dictionary first!

Your spelling was once an alternative, but is now considered
incorrect. Etymology "super"=above + "sedere" = to sit.

[Harlan Messinger]

"Alan J. Flavell" <fl*****@mail.cern.ch> wrote in message
news:Pi*******************************@lxplus003.c ern.ch...

On Thu, Aug 14, Eric Jarvis inscribed on the eternal scroll:

the correct spilling is "supercede"

Those who choose to get involved in spelling disputes would be
well advised to consult a reliable dictionary first!

Your spelling was once an alternative, but is now considered
incorrect. Etymology "super"=above + "sedere" = to sit.

I hoped he was joking, given that he wrote "spilling". Yes, "supersede" is
correct, for exactly the reason you stated.

[Harlan Messinger]

"Alan J. Flavell" <fl*****@mail.cern.ch> wrote in message
news:Pi*******************************@lxplus003.c ern.ch...

On Thu, Aug 14, Harlan Messinger inscribed on the eternal scroll:

[addressing Jukka:]

FYI, "[sic]" is used after the incorrect usage,

Yes, and also after correct usage which one fears might be
mis-interpreted by the reader.

not after a correction you may choose to provide.

I'd say you are mistaken in that regard. Please see the latter part
of this quote from the OED:

A parenthetical insertion used in printing quotations or reported
utterances to call attention to something anomalous or erroneous in
the original, or to guard against the supposition of misquotation.

I understand both parts of this to refer to the same circumstance. If you
are quoting something with an incorrect spelling or even a mistake of fact,
you can write "[sic]" either to highlight the mistake (sometimes done to
make the person quoted seem foolish, usually as a signal to others who might
repeat the quote not to "correct" it), or, as the OED says, and as I stated
before, to keep people from thinking the mistake is yours, introduced by
misquoting what had originally been written correctly.

[Jukka K. Korpela]

"Harlan Messinger" <h.*********@comcast.net> wrote:

A parenthetical insertion used in printing quotations or reported
utterances to call attention to something anomalous or erroneous in
the original, or to guard against the supposition of misquotation.

I understand both parts of this to refer to the same circumstance.

Actually, no. This is way off topic, but apparently we're all getting
trolled in this thread anyway, so why not make this additional note:

The dictionary http://www.m-w.com/ describes the adverb "sic" as
follows:

"intentionally so written -- used after a printed word or passage to
indicate that it is intended exactly as printed or to indicate that it
exactly reproduces an original"

It's hardly conceivable that the two alternatives separated by "or"
refer to the same circumstance. In fact, if there's any relation, the
former meaning encompasses the latter as a special case.

ObHTML: in HTML I should probably write
(<span lang="la" title=
"(the preceding expression is intentionally so written)">sic</span>)
even at the risk of making a speech browser read "sic" correctly by
classical pronunciation (with a long i, roughly as "seek") and thereby
causing potential problems in understandability.

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html

[Isofarro]

Jane Withnolastname wrote:

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 21:41:37 +0000, Isofarro
<sp*******@spamdetector.co.uk> wrote:

Jane Withnolastname wrote:

Then everybody
pounced on me and won't let me leave.

How is anyone here preventing you from leaving?

I have to keep answering your questions, don't I?

No.

--
Iso.
FAQs: http://html-faq.com http://alt-html.org http://allmyfaqs.com/
Recommended Hosting: http://www.affordablehost.com/
Web Standards: http://www.webstandards.org/

[Eric Jarvis]

Alan J. Flavell wrote:

On Thu, Aug 14, Eric Jarvis inscribed on the eternal scroll:

the correct spilling is "supercede"

Those who choose to get involved in spelling disputes would be
well advised to consult a reliable dictionary first!

Your spelling was once an alternative, but is now considered
incorrect. Etymology "super"=above + "sedere" = to sit.

interesting...I need to talk to my spellchecker which
balks at the wrong version

--
eric
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"Hey Lord don't ask me questions
There ain't no answer in me"

[Alan J. Flavell]

On Thu, Aug 14, Harlan Messinger inscribed on the eternal scroll:

[OED:]

A parenthetical insertion used in printing quotations or reported
utterances to call attention to something anomalous or erroneous in
the original, or to guard against the supposition of misquotation.
I understand both parts of this to refer to the same circumstance.

Well, with respect, I don't.
If you
are quoting something with an incorrect spelling or even a mistake of fact,
you can write "[sic]" either to highlight the mistake
yesyes, this part is not in dispute...
or, as the OED says, and as I stated
before, to keep people from thinking the mistake is yours, introduced by
misquoting what had originally been written correctly.

While it's true that the word 'or' can be used to separate alternative
ways of expressing the same concept, I'd have to disagree that this is
what's happening here. In this case it's separating two distinct
usages of the term ('sic'). In either case, it means "what I'm
quoting is an accurate quote", but in the one case the point is
stressed because the original was wrong, whereas in the other case the
point is stressed because there's a worry that the reader will suppose
that the original is wrong, when in fact it's right.

I don't much visit a.u.e these days, sorry.

[Jane Withnolastname]

On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 06:34:00 -0400, "EightNineThree"
<ei************@REMOVEeightninethree.com> wrote:

ok, just a little advice -

If someone says "Designing for just one browser is a bad idea"
Don't post a list of shitty websites as an example of the practice.
It further demonstrates their point, not yours.

Well, if I had been responding to someone who said that "designing for
just one browser is a bad idea" with a list of shitty websites, you
might have a point. As it was, I was responding to someone who claimed
he had never seen a site that was optimized for IE. The list was of
sites optimized for IE. Not a list of fantastic sites showing how
wonderful it would be if everyone used just one browser.
In fact, I believe the person requesting this list does not even have
IE on his computer and may not be able to have it due to the OS he is
using, though of course that is all inferred by me from his posts. I
could be completely wrong.
In short, I would advise that you actually read posts and the context
in which they are posted before replying. Thanks :)

[Jane Withnolastname]

On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 22:25:43 +0200, "Alan J. Flavell"
<fl*****@mail.cern.ch> wrote:

On Thu, Aug 14, Harlan Messinger inscribed on the eternal scroll:

[OED:]

> A parenthetical insertion used in printing quotations or reported
> utterances to call attention to something anomalous or erroneous in
> the original, or to guard against the supposition of misquotation.

I understand both parts of this to refer to the same circumstance.

Well, with respect, I don't.

If you
are quoting something with an incorrect spelling or even a mistake of fact,
you can write "[sic]" either to highlight the mistake

yesyes, this part is not in dispute...

or, as the OED says, and as I stated
before, to keep people from thinking the mistake is yours, introduced by
misquoting what had originally been written correctly.

While it's true that the word 'or' can be used to separate alternative
ways of expressing the same concept, I'd have to disagree that this is
what's happening here. In this case it's separating two distinct
usages of the term ('sic'). In either case, it means "what I'm
quoting is an accurate quote", but in the one case the point is
stressed because the original was wrong, whereas in the other case the
point is stressed because there's a worry that the reader will suppose
that the original is wrong, when in fact it's right.

I don't much visit a.u.e these days, sorry.

Wow, you folks will argue about anything, huh?

[Tim]

On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 08:25:53 +0200,
Leif B. Kristensen <le******@alfanett.no> wrote:

Apart from that, I had to turn down over 50 (!) third-party cookies from
the site.

Isn't that two spec violations? (Third party, and that many.)

--
My "from" address is totally fake. (Hint: If I wanted e-mails from
complete strangers, I'd have put a real one, there.) Reply to usenet
postings in the same place as you read the message you're replying to.

[Tim]

On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 16:45:18 +0000 (UTC),
"Jukka K. Korpela" <jk******@cs.tut.fi> wrote:

ObHTML: in HTML I should probably write
(<span lang="la" title=
"(the preceding expression is intentionally so written)">sic</span>)
even at the risk of making a speech browser read "sic" correctly by
classical pronunciation (with a long i, roughly as "seek") and thereby
causing potential problems in understandability.

Just curious, but I thought that no-one knew how Latin was supposed to
be pronounced.

--
My "from" address is totally fake. (Hint: If I wanted e-mails from
complete strangers, I'd have put a real one, there.) Reply to usenet
postings in the same place as you read the message you're replying to.

[Jane Withnolastname]

On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 22:38:07 GMT, Brian
<us*****@mangymutt.com.invalid-remove-this-part> wrote:

Jane Withnolastname wrote:

I think this must be the most asked - AND ANSWERED - question. I came
to ask a simple question. I got a simple answer. I even got some bonus
advice, which I expressed appropriate gratitude for. Then everybody
pounced on me and won't let me leave.

"won't let you leave?" Do you have no off switch on your computer?

No, actually, I don't. There's a Power switch, but it's not used for
turning it off.

[Jane Withnolastname]

On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 20:44:32 -0500, "Shawn K. Quinn"
<sk*****@xevious.kicks-ass.net> wrote:

Jane Withnolastname <ja****************@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 01:05:36 -0500, John <jc****@email.com>
wrote:

What's your site's URL?

I will repeat:

The reason I will not post the URL is because I am not interested in
hundreds of meaningless hits that could end up knocking my site
offline for a time, thereby preventing it from being seen by people
who actually *want* to see it.

Any decent server will be able to take a few hundred hits. It's not like
this is Slashdot or something.

Ah, well, it's a lame excuse, obviously.
The point is, even if I had a perfectly perfect site that worked on
every browser available (which is impossible, but this is a
hypothetical situation) and the site had won every award worth
winning, for site design and who knows what else they give out awards
for, I *still* would not post the URL here. Ever.
Maybe it's irrational (sure it is) but I have absolutely no reason for
this. You should be used to my irrational thought processes by now.
Get over it.

[Jane Withnolastname]

On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 09:03:14 +0100, "William Tasso" <ng*@tbdata.com>
wrote:

Jane Withnolastname wrote:

On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 22:25:43 +0200, "Alan J. Flavell"
<fl*****@mail.cern.ch> wrote:

On Thu, Aug 14, Harlan Messinger inscribed on the eternal scroll:

[OED:]
> A parenthetical insertion used in printing quotations or reported
> utterances to call attention to something anomalous or erroneous
> in the original, or to guard against the supposition of
> misquotation.

I understand both parts of this to refer to the same circumstance.

Well, with respect, I don't.

If you
are quoting something with an incorrect spelling or even a mistake
of fact, you can write "[sic]" either to highlight the mistake

yesyes, this part is not in dispute...

or, as the OED says, and as I stated
before, to keep people from thinking the mistake is yours,
introduced by misquoting what had originally been written correctly.
...

Wow, you folks will argue about anything, huh?

aww shucks - they're just trying to help you feel 'at home'

They weren't even talking to me. I had nothing to do with that
whatsoever. And, for the record, I didn't start the initial argument
in this thread.

[EightNineThree]

"Jane Withnolastname" <Ja**********************@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b2********************************@4ax.com...

On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 22:38:07 GMT, Brian
<us*****@mangymutt.com.invalid-remove-this-part> wrote:

Jane Withnolastname wrote:

I think this must be the most asked - AND ANSWERED - question. I came
to ask a simple question. I got a simple answer. I even got some bonus
advice, which I expressed appropriate gratitude for. Then everybody
pounced on me and won't let me leave.

"won't let you leave?" Do you have no off switch on your computer?

No, actually, I don't. There's a Power switch, but it's not used for
turning it off.

Try it some time.
In fact, there's also this nifty cord that goes from the back of the
computer and the wall.
Pull it out from either end.
--
Karl Core

Charles Sweeney says my sig is fine as it is.

[William Tasso]

EightNineThree wrote:

"Jane Withnolastname" <Ja**********************@yahoo.com> wrote in
message news:b2********************************@4ax.com...

On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 22:38:07 GMT, Brian
<us*****@mangymutt.com.invalid-remove-this-part> wrote:

Jane Withnolastname wrote:
...
Then everybody pounced on me and won't let me leave.

"won't let you leave?" Do you have no off switch on your computer?

No, actually, I don't. There's a Power switch, but it's not used for
turning it off.

Try it some time.
In fact, there's also this nifty cord that goes from the back of the
computer and the wall.
Pull it out from either end.

he hee - I feel another BOFH thread coming ;o)

--
William Tasso - http://WilliamTasso.com

[Jane Withnolastname]

On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 07:07:19 -0400, "EightNineThree"
<ei************@REMOVEeightninethree.com> wrote:

"Jane Withnolastname" <Ja**********************@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b2********************************@4ax.com.. .

On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 22:38:07 GMT, Brian
<us*****@mangymutt.com.invalid-remove-this-part> wrote:

>Jane Withnolastname wrote:
>>
>> I think this must be the most asked - AND ANSWERED - question. I came
>> to ask a simple question. I got a simple answer. I even got some bonus
>> advice, which I expressed appropriate gratitude for. Then everybody
>> pounced on me and won't let me leave.
>
>"won't let you leave?" Do you have no off switch on your computer?

No, actually, I don't. There's a Power switch, but it's not used for
turning it off.

Try it some time.
In fact, there's also this nifty cord that goes from the back of the
computer and the wall.
Pull it out from either end.

Why, exactly, would I do that when there are much easier ways of
turning off my computer?

[EightNineThree]

"Jane Withnolastname" <Ja**********************@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ae********************************@4ax.com...

On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 07:07:19 -0400, "EightNineThree"
<ei************@REMOVEeightninethree.com> wrote:

"Jane Withnolastname" <Ja**********************@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:b2********************************@4ax.com.. .

On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 22:38:07 GMT, Brian
<us*****@mangymutt.com.invalid-remove-this-part> wrote:

>Jane Withnolastname wrote:
>>
>> I think this must be the most asked - AND ANSWERED - question. I came >> to ask a simple question. I got a simple answer. I even got some bonus >> advice, which I expressed appropriate gratitude for. Then everybody
>> pounced on me and won't let me leave.
>
>"won't let you leave?" Do you have no off switch on your computer?

No, actually, I don't. There's a Power switch, but it's not used for
turning it off.

Try it some time.
In fact, there's also this nifty cord that goes from the back of the
computer and the wall.
Pull it out from either end.

Why, exactly, would I do that when there are much easier ways of
turning off my computer?

Listen to the expert here. Its time you give respect where it is due and
follow the simple instructions I have given.
I will give them in more detail here.
1. There is a thick cord in the back of your computer. It is most likely
thicker than all of the others. It is also most likely grey, black, or even
a peach/ tan color. This cord is connected to your computer on one end and a
wall socket on the other.
2. Once you have located the cord, take a firm grasp upon it.
3. Pull VERY HARD in any direction you would like. Use your legs for more
power, as the leg muscles are the strongest in your body.
4. If you've done this right, you've unplugged the cord from both the wall
and the computer. This is good.
5. Now, in preparation for the next time you use your computer, find a fork,
knife, scissors or other sharp, pointed, metal object and make sure there
are no obstructions in the wall socket by sticking the implement into it and
moving it around.

You should be all set! HTH!
--
Karl Core

Inspired by Mr. Tasso's BOFH comment

[Jane Withnolastname]

On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 09:07:12 -0400, "EightNineThree"
<ei************@REMOVEeightninethree.com> wrote:

>In fact, there's also this nifty cord that goes from the back of the
>computer and the wall.
>Pull it out from either end.

Why, exactly, would I do that when there are much easier ways of
turning off my computer?

Listen to the expert here. Its time you give respect where it is due and
follow the simple instructions I have given.
I will give them in more detail here.
1. There is a thick cord in the back of your computer. It is most likely
thicker than all of the others. It is also most likely grey, black, or even
a peach/ tan color. This cord is connected to your computer on one end and a
wall socket on the other.
2. Once you have located the cord, take a firm grasp upon it.
3. Pull VERY HARD in any direction you would like. Use your legs for more
power, as the leg muscles are the strongest in your body.
4. If you've done this right, you've unplugged the cord from both the wall
and the computer. This is good.
5. Now, in preparation for the next time you use your computer, find a fork,
knife, scissors or other sharp, pointed, metal object and make sure there
are no obstructions in the wall socket by sticking the implement into it and
moving it around.

You should be all set! HTH!

Uh, yeah, I know how to unplug a computer. My question was, why would
I want to?

EightNineThree "... is most likely thicker than all of the others."