By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
438,767 Members | 1,255 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 438,767 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

How To: Use CSS Properly

P: n/a

http://css.maxdesign.com.au/listamatic/

Check out the great menus that show great use of heavy CSS

Bon Bo
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted via http://www.forum4designers.co
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
View this thread: http://www.forum4designers.com/message37289.htm

Jul 20 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
19 Replies


P: n/a
Bon Bon wrote:
http://css.maxdesign.invalid/listamaniac/

Check out the great menus that show great use of heavy CSS. Posted via http://www.forum4designers.com


This is it for that 'forum': Ploink and a good dau to all of you.

--

Barbara

http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/weblog.html
http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/webontwerp.html

Jul 20 '05 #2

P: n/a

"Barbara de Zoete" <b_********@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bv************@ID-52872.news.uni-berlin.de...
Bon Bon wrote:
http://css.maxdesign.invalid/listamaniac/

Check out the great menus that show great use of heavy CSS.

Posted via http://www.forum4designers.com


This is it for that 'forum': Ploink and a good dau to all of you.


Two or three people have complained about them here in the last couple of
days, but I don't see what the problem is. What's going on?

Jul 20 '05 #3

P: n/a
Harlan Messinger wrote:
"Barbara de Zoete" <b_********@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bv************@ID-52872.news.uni-berlin.de...
Posted via http://www.forum4designers.com


This is it for that 'forum': Ploink and a good dau to all of you.


Two or three people have complained about them here in the last couple of
days, but I don't see what the problem is. What's going on?


Cannot speak for the others, but, _for_me_ I dislike the length of the
posts added because of all the unnecessary links. Ik feel like the added
links are spamming the group involved.

Besides that, the poster through this 'forum' has no clue to where
his/her message goes and therefore doesn't know what is regarded as
'usual behaviour'. Usual being not topposting, not spamming, using a sig
separator, including relevant lines from previous post in thread,
reading previous messages, reading the FAQ, searching Google for
possible previous discussion about topic etcetera.

That's why I don't want to see them any more. Their posts irritate me.

--

Barbara

http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/weblog.html
http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/webontwerp.html

Jul 20 '05 #4

P: n/a
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 21:32:30 +0100, Barbara de Zoete
<b_********@hotmail.com> wrote:

Cannot speak for the others, but, _for_me_ I dislike the length of the
posts added because of all the unnecessary links. Ik feel like the added
links are spamming the group involved.

Besides that, the poster through this 'forum' has no clue to where
his/her message goes and therefore doesn't know what is regarded as
'usual behaviour'. Usual being not topposting, not spamming, using a sig
separator, including relevant lines from previous post in thread,
reading previous messages, reading the FAQ, searching Google for
possible previous discussion about topic etcetera.


I'm not defending the action but it seems that your main disagreement
("... the poster through this 'forum' has no clue to where
his/her message goes ...") is not really valid.

Backtracking to the posted link would demonstrate that that particular
forum is, in reality, a posting of the
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets newsgroup. Looks to me like
the forum is a web-based interface for Usenet, much like a Dejavu or
Google interface. Posting anything at
http://www.forum4designers.com/forum29.html will result in it being
posted here, and vice-versa.
Jul 20 '05 #5

P: n/a
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 21:32:30 +0100, Barbara de Zoete
<b_********@hotmail.com> wrote:
Besides that, the poster through this 'forum' has no clue to where
his/her message goes and therefore doesn't know what is regarded as
'usual behaviour'.


From http://www.forum4designers.com/index.php :

"Convenient web based access to our favorite web design Usenet groups"

It would seem that those who do not know that this forum is a Usenet
portal cannot read.

At any rate, I wonder why anyone would choose this forum over simply
accessing ciwas throgh their newsgroup client.
Jul 20 '05 #6

P: n/a
Neal wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 21:32:30 +0100, Barbara de Zoete
<b_********@hotmail.com> wrote:
Besides that, the poster through this 'forum' has no clue to where
his/her message goes and therefore doesn't know what is regarded as
'usual behaviour'.

From http://www.forum4designers.com/index.php :

"Convenient web based access to our favorite web design Usenet groups"

It would seem that those who do not know that this forum is a Usenet
portal cannot read.


Nah, the message was added just a couple days ago. Probably because of
all the complaints. But of course that doesn't tell the forum user how
to behave properly.

At any rate, I wonder why anyone would choose this forum over simply
accessing ciwas throgh their newsgroup client.


Indeed.
Matthias

Jul 20 '05 #7

P: n/a
Neal <ne*****@spamrcn.com> wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 21:32:30 +0100, Barbara de Zoete
<b_********@hotmail.com> wrote:
Besides that, the poster through this 'forum' has no clue to where
his/her message goes and therefore doesn't know what is regarded as
'usual behaviour'.


From http://www.forum4designers.com/index.php :

"Convenient web based access to our favorite web design Usenet groups"

It would seem that those who do not know that this forum is a Usenet
portal cannot read.

At any rate, I wonder why anyone would choose this forum over simply
accessing ciwas throgh their newsgroup client.


It's my impression that most people have no idea what Usenet,
newsgroups, or newsreaders are. If the the Internet is a Marx Brothers
movie, and Web, e-mail, and IRC are Groucho, Chico, and Harpo, then
Usenet is Zeppo.

--
Harlan Messinger
Remove the first dot from my e-mail address.
Veuillez ôter le premier point de mon adresse de courriel.
Jul 20 '05 #8

P: n/a
Harlan Messinger wrote:
If the the Internet is a Marx Brothers
movie, and Web, e-mail, and IRC are Groucho, Chico, and Harpo, then
Usenet is Zeppo.


I am not a fan of using quotes in sig, but you just gave me a perfect one...

Berislav
Jul 20 '05 #9

P: n/a
In message <bv************@ID-52872.news.uni-berlin.de>, Barbara de
Zoete <b_********@hotmail.com> writes
Harlan Messinger wrote:
"Barbara de Zoete" <b_********@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bv************@ID-52872.news.uni-berlin.de...
Posted via http://www.forum4designers.com

This is it for that 'forum': Ploink and a good dau to all of you. Two or three people have complained about them here in the last
couple of
days, but I don't see what the problem is. What's going on?


Cannot speak for the others, but, _for_me_ I dislike the length of the
posts added because of all the unnecessary links. Ik feel like the
added links are spamming the group involved.

Besides that, the poster through this 'forum' has no clue to where
his/her message goes and therefore doesn't know what is regarded as
'usual behaviour'. Usual being not topposting, not spamming, using a
sig separator, including relevant lines from previous post in thread,
reading previous messages, reading the FAQ, searching Google for
possible previous discussion about topic etcetera.


......... sounds a bit 'elitist' to me.
That's why I don't want to see them any more. Their posts irritate me.

..... and I'm sure they'll be losing sleep over your decision ;-)

--
Jake
Jul 20 '05 #10

P: n/a
jake wrote:
In message <bv************@ID-52872.news.uni-berlin.de>, Barbara de
Zoete <b_********@hotmail.com> writes
That's why I don't want to see them any more. Their posts irritate me.

..... and I'm sure they'll be losing sleep over your decision ;-)


I just cared to answer a question. That's all I did.

--

Barbara

http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/weblog.html
http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/webontwerp.html

Jul 20 '05 #11

P: n/a
jake <ja**@gododdin.demon.co.uk> wrote in
<r$**************@gododdin.demon.co.uk>
In message <bv************@ID-52872.news.uni-berlin.de>, Barbara de
Zoete <b_********@hotmail.com> writes
Harlan Messinger wrote:
"Barbara de Zoete" <b_********@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bv************@ID-52872.news.uni-berlin.de...

> Posted via http://www.forum4designers.com

This is it for that 'forum': Ploink and a good dau to all of you.
Two or three people have complained about them here in the last
couple of
days, but I don't see what the problem is. What's going on?


Cannot speak for the others, but, _for_me_ I dislike the length of
the posts added because of all the unnecessary links. Ik feel like
the added links are spamming the group involved.

Besides that, the poster through this 'forum' has no clue to where
his/her message goes and therefore doesn't know what is regarded as
'usual behaviour'. Usual being not topposting, not spamming, using a
sig separator, including relevant lines from previous post in thread,
reading previous messages, reading the FAQ, searching Google for
possible previous discussion about topic etcetera.


........ sounds a bit 'elitist' to me.

That's why I don't want to see them any more. Their posts irritate
me.

.... and I'm sure they'll be losing sleep over your decision ;-)


I woudn't know about that but it has obliged them to change the way they
describe their site - it's now "Convenient web based access to our favorite
web design Usenet groups."

I'm surprised that they think that there's anything more convenient for
accessing Usenet groups than Usenet client software.

I think it's a little less than honest that they are telling their users
that they have to register before they can post when that's only true within
the limited setting of their web site - I'm not registered and yet I have a
feeling that this post will appear there.

--
PeterMcC
If you feel that any of the above is incorrect,
inappropriate or offensive in any way,
please ignore it and accept my apologies.

Jul 20 '05 #12

P: n/a
In message <Ik*********************@wards.force9.net>, PeterMcC
<pe***@mccourt.org.uk> writes
jake <ja**@gododdin.demon.co.uk> wrote in
<r$**************@gododdin.demon.co.uk>
In message <bv************@ID-52872.news.uni-berlin.de>, Barbara de
Zoete <b_********@hotmail.com> writes
Harlan Messinger wrote:

"Barbara de Zoete" <b_********@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bv************@ID-52872.news.uni-berlin.de...

>> Posted via http://www.forum4designers.com
>
> This is it for that 'forum': Ploink and a good dau to all of you.
Two or three people have complained about them here in the last
couple of
days, but I don't see what the problem is. What's going on?

Cannot speak for the others, but, _for_me_ I dislike the length of
the posts added because of all the unnecessary links. Ik feel like
the added links are spamming the group involved.

Besides that, the poster through this 'forum' has no clue to where
his/her message goes and therefore doesn't know what is regarded as
'usual behaviour'. Usual being not topposting, not spamming, using a
sig separator, including relevant lines from previous post in thread,
reading previous messages, reading the FAQ, searching Google for
possible previous discussion about topic etcetera.


........ sounds a bit 'elitist' to me.

That's why I don't want to see them any more. Their posts irritate
me.

.... and I'm sure they'll be losing sleep over your decision ;-)


I woudn't know about that but it has obliged them to change the way they
describe their site - it's now "Convenient web based access to our favorite
web design Usenet groups."

I'm surprised that they think that there's anything more convenient for
accessing Usenet groups than Usenet client software.

I think it's a little less than honest that they are telling their users
that they have to register before they can post when that's only true within
the limited setting of their web site - I'm not registered and yet I have a
feeling that this post will appear there.

You're right, of course. In fact I'm pretty sure that it's not the only
one as I've seen my postings on NGs turning up on other forums.

However, I'm rather keen that regulars in the NGs don't pass on their
personal dislike of what's happening onto the poor unfortunates that are
posting through these forums ;-)

Education is the key.

regards.
--
Jake
Jul 20 '05 #13

P: n/a
On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 17:03:54 +0000, jake <ja**@gododdin.demon.co.uk> wrote:
........ sounds a bit 'elitist' to me.

That's why I don't want to see them any more. Their posts irritate me.

.... and I'm sure they'll be losing sleep over your decision ;-)


Expecting people to log in and be a member of a website to use a free
Usenet channel is not making it more elite? If all the users over there
know they could have gotten all this and more without having to 'sign up',
that's breaking down unnecessary elitism to me.

Also - frustration with top-posting and not following other Usenet
conventions isn't elitist anymore than being pissed at the jerk who's
sitting in the intersection preventing you from getting to work on time is
elitist.
Jul 20 '05 #14

P: n/a
jake wrote:

In fact I'm pretty sure that it's not the only one as I've seen my
postings on NGs turning up on other forums.
I've come across 3 after a very quick search. I'm sure there are more.
It appears to be the latest craze.
I'm rather keen that regulars in the NGs don't pass on their
personal dislike of what's happening onto the poor unfortunates
that are posting through these forums ;-)

Education is the key.


At some point, users must take it upon themselves to learn the proper
behavior of any forum, web-based, usenet, list, or otherwise. The
problem with the web forums is that they provide no help to their
users, and the interface does not lend itself to proper posting. I've
looked through topics, and they are not threaded. No wonder replies
from its users appear at random places in the thread.

--
Brian (follow directions in my address to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/

Seen on the web:
This page best viewed by coming over to my office and looking at it on
my monitor.

Jul 20 '05 #15

P: n/a
Harlan Messinger wrote:
Posted via http://www.forum4designers.com


Two or three people have complained about them here in the last couple of
days, but I don't see what the problem is. What's going on?


Their users do not follow usenet norms, like quoting a bit of the
message to which they reply; often, their reply to one message in a
thread ends up somewhere random. For a while, its users didn't even
*know* that their posts were going to usenet. They have apparently
changed that, but the interface is still not conducive to useful
participation in a newsgroup.

--
Brian (follow directions in my address to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/

Seen on the web:
This page best viewed by coming over to my office and looking at it on
my monitor.

Jul 20 '05 #16

P: n/a
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 01:38:51 GMT, Brian
<us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid-remove-this-part> wrote:

Their users do not follow usenet norms, like quoting a bit of the
message to which they reply; often, their reply to one message in a
thread ends up somewhere random. For a while, its users didn't even
*know* that their posts were going to usenet. They have apparently
changed that, but the interface is still not conducive to useful
participation in a newsgroup.


Sounds just like the days back when AOL first allowed its members
access to Usenet! Remember all the "Me, too!" messages with no
quoting? <grin>

Jul 20 '05 #17

P: n/a
jake <ja**@gododdin.demon.co.uk> wrote in
news:r$**************@gododdin.demon.co.uk:
Besides that, the poster through this 'forum' has no clue to where
his/her message goes and therefore doesn't know what is regarded as
'usual behaviour'. Usual being not topposting, not spamming, using a
sig separator, including relevant lines from previous post in thread,
reading previous messages, reading the FAQ, searching Google for
possible previous discussion about topic etcetera.


........ sounds a bit 'elitist' to me.


Sounds more like "when in Rome, do as the Romans do" to me. Usenet
newsgroups have established cultures of their own. Hiding that fact from
people is Not A Good Thing. The conventions mentioned above were developed
over several decades by Usenet posters based on observations of what worked
well and what didn't.
Jul 20 '05 #18

P: n/a
In message <Xn*******************************@130.133.1.4>, Eric Bohlman
<eb******@earthlink.net> writes
jake <ja**@gododdin.demon.co.uk> wrote in
news:r$**************@gododdin.demon.co.uk:
Besides that, the poster through this 'forum' has no clue to where
his/her message goes and therefore doesn't know what is regarded as
'usual behaviour'. Usual being not topposting, not spamming, using a
sig separator, including relevant lines from previous post in thread,
reading previous messages, reading the FAQ, searching Google for
possible previous discussion about topic etcetera.
........ sounds a bit 'elitist' to me.


Sounds more like "when in Rome, do as the Romans do" to me. Usenet
newsgroups have established cultures of their own. Hiding that fact from
people is Not A Good Thing.


Exactly. Let's educate them, rather than take the attitude that as
they're coming through another gateway let's give them a hard time.
The conventions mentioned above were developed
over several decades by Usenet posters based on observations of what worked
well and what didn't.


--
Jake
Jul 20 '05 #19

P: n/a
In article <40***************@news1.mm.com>,
de****@mm.com (Steve Sundberg) writes:
Sounds just like the days back when AOL first allowed its members
access to Usenet! Remember all the "Me, too!" messages with no
quoting? <grin>


No I don't.

I do remember that meltdown was predicted ahead of AOL joining. And
that it never happened. AOL's admins handled the join extremely well,
and have been a remarkably well-behaved ISP ever since.

I get buckets of spam from roadrunner, optonline, comcast, verizon, gte,
etc, etc, mostly forged as "from" either a big scapegoat (aol, hotmail,
yahoo, etc) or a non-US country the rednecks want to nuke. And I see
very little spam or other trouble originating from AOL. That's
quite remarkable given how big they are.

They certainly wouldn't meet my needs, but ISTM they do a decent job
of meeting the needs of their target audience, and a *very* good job
of running a clean shop and not damaging the rest of the 'net.

A total contrast with Microsoft unleashing software that's such a
fertile breeding-ground for viruses, and refusing even to try and fix
it over the years.

--
Nick Kew
Jul 20 '05 #20

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.