Options?

[Onideus Mad Hatter]

http://www.backwater-productions.net...tform/cbstory/

Works perfect in IE but in Netscape/Firefox it fuxors. The problem is
the transparent image overlays. The obvious approach would be to
split apart the overlaid images into 4 sections and just leave the
text area uncovered...however that would require at least a good 3 to
4 hours of work and...well I'd rather just set the text box on top,
loose the aesthetics and say to hell with the Netscape and FF users.

The only other thing I can think of is using the Javascript focus()
function...however even if the focus is put on the text box I'm bettin
it still won't work. Does anyone have any other ideas? Maybe
something that works like wmode?

--

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net

[kyra]

Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:

http://www.backwater-productions.net...tform/cbstory/

Works perfect in IE but in Netscape/Firefox it fuxors. The problem is
the transparent image overlays. The obvious approach would be to
split apart the overlaid images into 4 sections and just leave the
text area uncovered...however that would require at least a good 3 to
4 hours of work and...well I'd rather just set the text box on top,
loose the aesthetics and say to hell with the Netscape and FF users.

The only other thing I can think of is using the Javascript focus()
function...however even if the focus is put on the text box I'm bettin
it still won't work. Does anyone have any other ideas? Maybe
something that works like wmode?

could it be something with the javascript?
</iframe>
should be <\/iframe>

or in the .net iframe you are defining the same id 2x?

div class='pos' id='image_map' style='left: 61px; top:371px;

div class='pos' id='image_map' style='left:645px; top:371px;

--
http://www.aleeya.net - Before there was a Geekette, there was a Girl.
http://www.girlgeekette.net - Where the Girl ends and the Geekette Begins.

[kyra]

kyra wrote:

Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:

http://www.backwater-productions.net...tform/cbstory/

Works perfect in IE but in Netscape/Firefox it fuxors. The problem is
the transparent image overlays. The obvious approach would be to
split apart the overlaid images into 4 sections and just leave the
text area uncovered...however that would require at least a good 3 to
4 hours of work and...well I'd rather just set the text box on top,
loose the aesthetics and say to hell with the Netscape and FF users.

The only other thing I can think of is using the Javascript focus()
function...however even if the focus is put on the text box I'm bettin
it still won't work. Does anyone have any other ideas? Maybe
something that works like wmode?

could it be something with the javascript?
</iframe>
should be <\/iframe>

or in the .net iframe you are defining the same id 2x?

div class='pos' id='image_map' style='left: 61px; top:371px;

div class='pos' id='image_map' style='left:645px; top:371px;

BTW why do you have the iframe set to no in scroll? in FF it looks like
it needs to...

--
http://www.aleeya.net - Before there was a Geekette, there was a Girl.
http://www.girlgeekette.net - Where the Girl ends and the Geekette Begins.

[Onideus Mad Hatter]

On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 01:25:44 GMT, kyra <ky**@cotse.com> wrote:

Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:

http://www.backwater-productions.net...tform/cbstory/

Works perfect in IE but in Netscape/Firefox it fuxors. The problem is
the transparent image overlays. The obvious approach would be to
split apart the overlaid images into 4 sections and just leave the
text area uncovered...however that would require at least a good 3 to
4 hours of work and...well I'd rather just set the text box on top,
loose the aesthetics and say to hell with the Netscape and FF users.

The only other thing I can think of is using the Javascript focus()
function...however even if the focus is put on the text box I'm bettin
it still won't work. Does anyone have any other ideas? Maybe
something that works like wmode?

could it be something with the javascript?

Oh it's not really a problem it's just the way the two browsers
operate. In IE if you click on an image that has a transparent
section it'll focus onto whatever is beneath it, but in
Netscape/FireFox it treats the transparent section as if it were like
a solid pane of glass and won't focus on the text layer underneath it.
But then even if there were a way to put the focus on the text layer
it'd probably still be impossible to move the scroll bar since it's in
effect underneath a "pane of glass".
</iframe>
should be <\/iframe>
Ahhh, yup...doesn't change anything though.
or in the .net iframe you are defining the same id 2x?

div class='pos' id='image_map' style='left: 61px; top:371px;

div class='pos' id='image_map' style='left:645px; top:371px;

Similar to above, those IDs aren't being used to alter anything so it
shouldn't be a problem (although validators might see it as an error).

I've decided to just reconstruct the whole thing into partial
sections, it'll work that way in Netscape and FF, however my primary
motivation for doing it is that it'll reduce the overall file size to
one eight of it's current size (which is about 3.5 megabytes).
Altering the code isn't too bad, but converting all the images will
take me a couple hours...although I suppose I could throw together a
batch script to speed it up.

--

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net

[Onideus Mad Hatter]

On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 01:58:54 GMT, kyra <ky**@cotse.com> wrote:

kyra wrote:

Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:

http://www.backwater-productions.net...tform/cbstory/

Works perfect in IE but in Netscape/Firefox it fuxors. The problem is
the transparent image overlays. The obvious approach would be to
split apart the overlaid images into 4 sections and just leave the
text area uncovered...however that would require at least a good 3 to
4 hours of work and...well I'd rather just set the text box on top,
loose the aesthetics and say to hell with the Netscape and FF users.

The only other thing I can think of is using the Javascript focus()
function...however even if the focus is put on the text box I'm bettin
it still won't work. Does anyone have any other ideas? Maybe
something that works like wmode?

could it be something with the javascript?
</iframe>
should be <\/iframe>

or in the .net iframe you are defining the same id 2x?

div class='pos' id='image_map' style='left: 61px; top:371px;

div class='pos' id='image_map' style='left:645px; top:371px;

BTW why do you have the iframe set to no in scroll? in FF it looks like
it needs to...

For some reason in Netscape and Firefox it puts in a bottom margin
that I've so far been unable to remove (I found several sites that
gave several options for getting around it, but all of them that I
tried didn't seem to work on my versions of Netscape and FF. Out of
curiosity what OS are you using? Linux?

--

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net

[kyra]

Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:

On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 01:58:54 GMT, kyra <ky**@cotse.com> wrote:

kyra wrote:

Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:
http://www.backwater-productions.net...tform/cbstory/

Works perfect in IE but in Netscape/Firefox it fuxors. The problem is
the transparent image overlays. The obvious approach would be to
split apart the overlaid images into 4 sections and just leave the
text area uncovered...however that would require at least a good 3 to
4 hours of work and...well I'd rather just set the text box on top,
loose the aesthetics and say to hell with the Netscape and FF users.

The only other thing I can think of is using the Javascript focus()
function...however even if the focus is put on the text box I'm bettin
it still won't work. Does anyone have any other ideas? Maybe
something that works like wmode?
could it be something with the javascript?
</iframe>
should be <\/iframe>

or in the .net iframe you are defining the same id 2x?

div class='pos' id='image_map' style='left: 61px; top:371px;

div class='pos' id='image_map' style='left:645px; top:371px;

BTW why do you have the iframe set to no in scroll? in FF it looks like
it needs to...

For some reason in Netscape and Firefox it puts in a bottom margin
that I've so far been unable to remove (I found several sites that
gave several options for getting around it, but all of them that I
tried didn't seem to work on my versions of Netscape and FF. Out of
curiosity what OS are you using? Linux?

When I wrote that, I was in Windows.
In opera the scrollbar worked, in Flock it did not (like FF)

I could test it on linux when i get home

--
http://www.aleeya.net - Before there was a Geekette, there was a Girl.
http://www.girlgeekette.net - Where the Girl ends and the Geekette Begins.

[Onideus Mad Hatter]

On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 02:54:15 GMT, kyra <ky**@cotse.com> wrote:

When I wrote that, I was in Windows.
In opera the scrollbar worked, in Flock it did not (like FF)

I could test it on linux when i get home

Uh, the scrollbar shouldn't be an issue anymore I restructured the
whole thing, total site size is down to 804KB (the earlier version was
3.66MB).

The problem I'm running into now is how different browsers handle
stacked PNG alpha transparencies over like images to create an overlay
fade/fog effect...I think.

Maybe someone would like to try and explain this:
http://www.backwater-productions.net...xplainthis.png

An optical illusion is the best I can come up with for some of the
problems. I ~think~ I've gotten around it by altering the gamma on
the PNG files. For example the ones that are used in IE I've got set
at 51500 and that seems to work with ~most~ of them...except this one:
http://www.backwater-productions.net...es/annoyed.png

On that one I used like 59000 for IE and 51500 for Netscape and
Firefox. Also for the later two browsers I used 45455 for the gamma
on those and they seemed to turn out alright (except for the one
mentioned above)

....I have no idea why, I used the same image encoding methodology,
recheck it 6 times, emptied out the browser caches, checked it
again...maybe if it's really dark and purple...*shrugs*...that's what
I mean, there's no discernable pattern that I can make out. It just
doesn't make sense outside of maybe browser makers just REALLY fucked
up on how their shit handles PNG alpha transparencies and gamma
settings...and/or it's the product of an optical illusion...I suppose
it'd have to be both since otherwise I wouldn't get inconsistent
results between browsers. I also found some other strange
differences, like in Netscape if I used a REALLY light fade over a
dark image it seemed to blend perfectly, but then in Firefox it seemed
to transfer the gamma onto the bottom image and made that section look
uber bright..and then in IE it seemed to be about in the middle,
lightened it, but not a whole lot.

I'm curious though as to how other browsers and other operating
systems handle it, so if anyone has the time and wants to help
research this, please test the site:
http://www.backwater-productions.net...tform/cbstory/

Scroll through and check for any abnormalities. Abnormalities will
look like this:
http://www.backwater-productions.net...s/abnormal.png

This is what it should look like:
http://www.backwater-productions.net...es/perfect.png

If you find one a screen cap would really help, along with the
specific browser you were using and the operating system...and the
brand and model of your monitor and graphics card would also help,
although at this point I'm really praying to God that, that's not a
relevant factor cause if it is it's just gonna screw the whole thing
up. So far the results have been consistent on a Radeon AIW 9600
using a an NEC MultiSync P750 and a NEC MultiSync M500.

--

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net

[Noodles Jefferson]

In article <u6********************************@4ax.com>, Onideus Mad
Hatter took the hamburger, threw it on the grill, and I said "Oh wow"...

On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 02:54:15 GMT, kyra <ky**@cotse.com> wrote:

When I wrote that, I was in Windows.
In opera the scrollbar worked, in Flock it did not (like FF)

I could test it on linux when i get home

Uh, the scrollbar shouldn't be an issue anymore I restructured the
whole thing, total site size is down to 804KB (the earlier version was
3.66MB).

The problem I'm running into now is how different browsers handle
stacked PNG alpha transparencies over like images to create an overlay
fade/fog effect...I think.

Maybe someone would like to try and explain this:
http://www.backwater-productions.net...xplainthis.png

An optical illusion is the best I can come up with for some of the
problems. I ~think~ I've gotten around it by altering the gamma on
the PNG files. For example the ones that are used in IE I've got set
at 51500 and that seems to work with ~most~ of them...except this one:
http://www.backwater-productions.net...es/annoyed.png

On that one I used like 59000 for IE and 51500 for Netscape and
Firefox. Also for the later two browsers I used 45455 for the gamma
on those and they seemed to turn out alright (except for the one
mentioned above)

...I have no idea why, I used the same image encoding methodology,
recheck it 6 times, emptied out the browser caches, checked it
again...maybe if it's really dark and purple...*shrugs*...that's what
I mean, there's no discernable pattern that I can make out. It just
doesn't make sense outside of maybe browser makers just REALLY fucked
up on how their shit handles PNG alpha transparencies and gamma
settings...and/or it's the product of an optical illusion...I suppose
it'd have to be both since otherwise I wouldn't get inconsistent
results between browsers. I also found some other strange
differences, like in Netscape if I used a REALLY light fade over a
dark image it seemed to blend perfectly, but then in Firefox it seemed
to transfer the gamma onto the bottom image and made that section look
uber bright..and then in IE it seemed to be about in the middle,
lightened it, but not a whole lot.

I'm curious though as to how other browsers and other operating
systems handle it, so if anyone has the time and wants to help
research this, please test the site:
http://www.backwater-productions.net...tform/cbstory/

Scroll through and check for any abnormalities. Abnormalities will
look like this:
http://www.backwater-productions.net...s/abnormal.png

This is what it should look like:
http://www.backwater-productions.net...es/perfect.png

If you find one a screen cap would really help, along with the
specific browser you were using and the operating system...and the
brand and model of your monitor and graphics card would also help,
although at this point I'm really praying to God that, that's not a
relevant factor cause if it is it's just gonna screw the whole thing
up. So far the results have been consistent on a Radeon AIW 9600
using a an NEC MultiSync P750 and a NEC MultiSync M500.

You should put your files here:

[image/jpg]

--
Noodles Jefferson
mhm31x9 Smeeter#29 WSD#30
sTaRShInE_mOOnBeAm aT HoTmAil dOt CoM

"Our earth is degenerate in these latter days, bribery and corruption
are common, children no longer obey their parents and the end of the
world is evidently approaching."
--Assyrian clay tablet 2800 B.C.

[Onideus Mad Hatter]

On Wed, 9 Nov 2005 04:51:31 -0600, Noodles Jefferson
<si*********@tacoshells.com> wrote:

You sh<COCK SLAP>

First of all, only cunt headed down syndrome trainables post binaries
to non-binary froups. Second, when you attach an image to a thread,
make sure your idiot news browser is setup to NOT include the file
name in the subject, cause otherwise it fucks up thread continuity.
Third, your ability to encode images and determine the proper format
to use is slap in the face to intelligence design, you drooling little
muppet fuck.

Your file was encoded in lossy JPG with the quality set to "uber shit"
apparently. This resulted in a crappy looking image with a file size
of 1.43KB, where as if you hadn't been an idiot, you would have chosen
a palette based PNG or GIF file, using optimized octree and setting
the max color to about 100, which would have resulted in this:
http://www.backwater-productions.net/_images/trash.png
Which is only 919 bytes. Of course if you weren't stupid you would
have cropped it down to just the image part, in which case you could
have gone down to as low as 890 bytes.

Feel free to continue being a stupid fucking drooler, Noodle Head,
it's amusing if nothing else to watch you try and bite at my heels for
attention.

--

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net

[Matthew Jakeman]

On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 02:30:25 -0800, Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:

<snip>

I'm curious though as to how other browsers and other operating
systems handle it, so if anyone has the time and wants to help
research this, please test the site:
http://www.backwater-productions.net...tform/cbstory/

<snip>

The only thing i noticed on here that was slightly annoying is that the
scroll bar, although now working better than before, only detects the
mouse if it is over the bottom half of it initially so presumably
something is being overlayed on the top half of it when it is in the top,
not sure if it does this on every browser, that was using Mozilla on
Linux, same happens in Opera as well!

Matt

[iehsmith]

On 11/9/05 10:30 AM, Onideus Mad Hatter uttered:

Uh, the scrollbar shouldn't be an issue anymore I restructured the
whole thing, total site size is down to 804KB (the earlier version was
3.66MB).

The problem I'm running into now is how different browsers handle
stacked PNG alpha transparencies over like images to create an overlay
fade/fog effect...I think.

Maybe someone would like to try and explain this:
http://www.backwater-productions.net...xplainthis.png

An optical illusion is the best I can come up with for some of the
problems. I ~think~ I've gotten around it by altering the gamma on
the PNG files. For example the ones that are used in IE I've got set
at 51500 and that seems to work with ~most~ of them...except this one:
http://www.backwater-productions.net...es/annoyed.png

On that one I used like 59000 for IE and 51500 for Netscape and
Firefox. Also for the later two browsers I used 45455 for the gamma
on those and they seemed to turn out alright (except for the one
mentioned above)

...I have no idea why, I used the same image encoding methodology,
recheck it 6 times, emptied out the browser caches, checked it
again...maybe if it's really dark and purple...*shrugs*...that's what
I mean, there's no discernable pattern that I can make out. It just
doesn't make sense outside of maybe browser makers just REALLY fucked
up on how their shit handles PNG alpha transparencies and gamma
settings...and/or it's the product of an optical illusion...I suppose
it'd have to be both since otherwise I wouldn't get inconsistent
results between browsers. I also found some other strange
differences, like in Netscape if I used a REALLY light fade over a
dark image it seemed to blend perfectly, but then in Firefox it seemed
to transfer the gamma onto the bottom image and made that section look
uber bright..and then in IE it seemed to be about in the middle,
lightened it, but not a whole lot.

I'm curious though as to how other browsers and other operating
systems handle it, so if anyone has the time and wants to help
research this, please test the site:
http://www.backwater-productions.net...tform/cbstory/

Scroll through and check for any abnormalities. Abnormalities will
look like this:
http://www.backwater-productions.net...s/abnormal.png

This is what it should look like:
http://www.backwater-productions.net...es/perfect.png

If you find one a screen cap would really help, along with the
specific browser you were using and the operating system...and the
brand and model of your monitor and graphics card would also help,
although at this point I'm really praying to God that, that's not a
relevant factor cause if it is it's just gonna screw the whole thing
up. So far the results have been consistent on a Radeon AIW 9600
using a an NEC MultiSync P750 and a NEC MultiSync M500.

I'm on Mac OS 9.2.2, Netscape and IE 5.1.7, sucky Rage 128, LaCie electron
22 blue II:

The images look fine for me in NS 7, but the scrollbar is misalligned:
imagessence.com/imageviewer/cbstory.jpg

But in IE 5.1.7 both images and code is going bad. Here are 4 screenshots:
imagessence.com/imageviewer/cb/cb.html

inez

[Onideus Mad Hatter]

On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 11:46:04 -0000, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
<Po*********@gmx.de> wrote:

Only complete antisocial idiots

- post using only a ridiculous nickname instead of real name or no name
Actually you stupid drooling moron I often use the name "Mad Hatter"
as my "real name" it's essentially my pen name. Of course, as fucking
retarded as you are you obviously haven't noticed that this is the
Inet and NOT RL...although as fucking pathetic as you are I can
understand your NEED to try and confuse the two. Wha'ts the matter,
too gawd damn Jesus killing stupid to make friends in RL? Are
you...are you ugly? Hrmmm? Is that the problem?
- change the Subject header without reasonable cause
The subject header was already altered, Stupid, try and pay better
attention next time.
- include (nick)names of netizens in the Subject header
You're new to this whole "Usenet" thing, aren'tcha dootchie?
- crosspost wildly through Usenet, without Followup-To
Whose cross posting wildly? A26 and the Flonk are my home froups and
all the other xposts are relevant to the topic of web design and
development.
- don't use e-mail to clear up private things
....antisocial people only use email? That doesn't even make any
fuckin sense, Junior. What is it raining stupid where you're at and
you forgot to bring an umbrella? Retarding back to private email
would be antisocial in that you're attempting to AVOID a social
situation of belittlement. And how exactly is it a private matter,
you windmill fucker? The stupid tard made a public ass of himself, so
I gave him a public ass blistering. Don't start nothin, won't be
nothin, Bitch.
- use terrible things like diseases in insults as excuses
for their own selfish misbehavior

Awww, is someone close to you a chromosomal deficient? Tsch, tsch,
tsch...dats too bad, did it hurt your USENET feewings, kiddo? Free
cl00, bitch, this is Usenet, it's not RL and no one here is gonna hold
yer fuckin hand and wipe your ass for you or coddle you and take your
personal shit ridden little insecurities into account when they make
posts. Here on the net...nobody could give a frosty FUCK what
"offends" you, child. If you don't like it, feel free to shut
yourself the fuck up and stop reading and replying to my posts...ANY
time you like. Go on child, put on your blinders, filter my posts,
cause it's more than obvious that you need to have a program to make
such decisions for you.

--

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net

[Onideus Mad Hatter]

On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 12:52:42 +0000, Matthew Jakeman
<ma************@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 02:30:25 -0800, Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:

<snip>

I'm curious though as to how other browsers and other operating
systems handle it, so if anyone has the time and wants to help
research this, please test the site:
http://www.backwater-productions.net...tform/cbstory/

<snip>

The only thing i noticed on here that was slightly annoying is that the
scroll bar, although now working better than before, only detects the
mouse if it is over the bottom half of it initially so presumably
something is being overlayed on the top half of it when it is in the top,
not sure if it does this on every browser, that was using Mozilla on
Linux, same happens in Opera as well!

Yeah that's a bit unavoidable unless I don't want the scroll bar to be
apart of the faded portion. It's not too bad on short sections, but
on longer sections where the bar gets real small it can be a bit of a
bother...mostly if you don't have a scroll mouse.

--

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net

[Onideus Mad Hatter]

On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 19:15:57 GMT, iehsmith
<in*****************@earthlink.net> wrote:

I'm on Mac OS 9.2.2, Netscape and IE 5.1.7, sucky Rage 128, LaCie electron
22 blue II:

The images look fine for me in NS 7, but the scrollbar is misalligned:
imagessence.com/imageviewer/cbstory.jpg
Woah, that's a bit off...*looks at code*...hrmmm...does Netscape on
the Mac not support PNG alpha transparencies? The scroll bar looks
like it's in the right place, it's just the arrow portions aren't
being covered by the semitransparent PNG top layers.
But in IE 5.1.7 both images and code is going bad. Here are 4 screenshots:
imagessence.com/imageviewer/cb/cb.html

Ahhh, I can fix the image parts pretty easy, I just need to create a
third version for IE on the Mac (which supports the use of PNG alpha
transparencies without the use of DirectX filters) that's using the IE
specific image portions. Not sure what's goin on with the double
scroll bars though...I'm guessing IE on the Mac doesn't support the
CSS overflow property? I can do a workaround for that, I'll use a
table to create a buffer space around the text portion, rather than
relying on dual division layers (which I prefer to use).

On the whole...and no offense to Mac users or anything, but yer
browser options kinda...suck. I don't suppose anyone has got some
Safari screen shots? Surely Safari won't let me down!

I'm also wondering what it looks like on Konqueror for
Linux...probably severely screwed up, Konqueror is pretty backwards,
but at least Linux users can use like Firefox. With Opera I'm not too
concerned, that's mostly a dead browser, they're barely hanging onto
1% of the market according to the W3CSchools site stats. Since the
content is primarily text I'll probably make a semi-pure text fallback
version for Lynx users.

--

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net

[Noodles Jefferson]

In article <82********************************@4ax.com>, Onideus Mad
Hatter took the hamburger, threw it on the grill, and I said "Oh wow"...

On Wed, 9 Nov 2005 04:51:31 -0600, Noodles Jefferson
<si*********@tacoshells.com> wrote:

You sh<COCK SLAP>
First of all, only cunt headed down syndrome trainables post binaries
to non-binary froups.

Oh shut the fuck up. It was small. You're more pissed that it was
accurate.
Second, when you attach an image to a thread,
make sure your idiot news browser is setup to NOT include the file
name in the subject, cause otherwise it fucks up thread continuity.
Shows up fine here. Thread continuity. Nice ridiculous argument.
Third, your ability to encode images and determine the proper format
to use is slap in the face to intelligence design, you drooling little
muppet fuck.

Your file was encoded in lossy JPG with the quality set to "uber shit"
apparently. This resulted in a crappy looking image with a file size
of 1.43KB, where as if you hadn't been an idiot, you would have chosen
a palette based PNG or GIF file, using optimized octree and setting
the max color to about 100, which would have resulted in this:
http://www.backwater-productions.net/_images/trash.png
Which is only 919 bytes.
Oooh la la. Nobody cares.
Of course if you weren't stupid you would
have cropped it down to just the image part, in which case you could
have gone down to as low as 890 bytes.

Feel free to continue being a stupid fucking drooler, Noodle Head,
it's amusing if nothing else to watch you try and bite at my heels for
attention.

Way to write thinly disguised homoeroticism masquerading as care bears
fanfic, loser.

Good luck on building the most loserly site ever.

--
Noodles Jefferson
mhm31x9 Smeeter#29 WSD#30
sTaRShInE_mOOnBeAm aT HoTmAil dOt CoM

"Our earth is degenerate in these latter days, bribery and corruption
are common, children no longer obey their parents and the end of the
world is evidently approaching."
--Assyrian clay tablet 2800 B.C.

[Guillaume]

Onideus Mad Hatter:
....shouted a lot and disturbed my ears.

It would be appreciated you stop being childish.

--
My desktop is worth a million of dollars. Put an icon on it.
http://www.milliondollarscreenshot.com/

[Onideus Mad Hatter]

On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 22:07:46 +0100, Guillaume <no****@nospam.com>
wrote:

Onideus Mad Hatter:
...shouted a lot and disturbed my ears.

It would be appreciated you stop being childish.

It would be appreciated if you would stop reading posts on Usenet that
you find upsetting. I mean, seriously Junior, it's like I think pres.
Bush is a fuckin idiot, so like when I'm reading the newspaper...yeah,
I just skip over any article that has anything even remotely to do
with the drooling deficient. Now you see how easy that is? Come on,
Child, if some as "childish" as me can do it I'm sure a BIG BOY like
YOU can do it too! *snicker*

--

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net

[Onideus Mad Hatter]

On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 05:36:59 -0600, Noodles Jefferson
<si*********@tacoshells.com> wrote:

>You sh<COCK SLAP>

First of all, only cunt headed down syndrome trainables post binaries
to non-binary froups.

Oh shut the fuck up. It was small.
The point was that it wasn't as small as it could be and the other
point is volume. Just image if you were building a site for CNN.com
and it was going to be downloaded several MILLION times a day...that's
when the difference between a few hundred bytes can wind up making the
difference between gigabytes of data traffic.
You're more pissed that it was accurate.
....how was it accurate? You're the only one I see complaining about
the graphic style, Kiddo. Oh but hey, do pray tell, just what as it
about the graphics that bothered you so much? Was it the clouds? Do
clouds scare you? Hrmmm? Did you have a bad experience?

....btw Noodle Head...weren't you the idiot who yammering on and on
about how I'm ~supposedly~ *SO* good at graphic design and *SO* bad at
web coding? *snicker* How are you delusions holding up these days?

Oh, BTW, I saw the thread where you talked about how you got Paint
Shop Pro...seems a little...odd. I'm quite sure that whatever poverty
of a public education system you're attending would have told you
Photoshop was yer best bet...and last I checked I was the only one
running around A26 touting the wondrous merits of my lil 6 year old
version of Paint Shop Pro.
Second, when you attach an image to a thread,
make sure your idiot news browser is setup to NOT include the file
name in the subject, cause otherwise it fucks up thread continuity. Shows up fine here.
Why don't you just join a fuckin webbie board, I think that'd be more
yer speed.
Thread continuity. Nice ridiculous argument.
Yeah, yer definitely not a Netter.
Third, your ability to encode images and determine the proper format
to use is slap in the face to intelligence design, you drooling little
muppet fuck.

Your file was encoded in lossy JPG with the quality set to "uber shit"
apparently. This resulted in a crappy looking image with a file size
of 1.43KB, where as if you hadn't been an idiot, you would have chosen
a palette based PNG or GIF file, using optimized octree and setting
the max color to about 100, which would have resulted in this:
http://www.backwater-productions.net/_images/trash.png
Which is only 919 bytes. Oooh la la. Nobody cares.
You cared enough to suddenly start experimenting:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.2...9672f80775dbd1

And oh, look at that, you're using PNG files...and you're not posting
images inline either. I don't get it, Noodles, what are you too
fuckin high on yourself to admit yer wrong? Hell I'm a fucking
asshole but even *I* know when to admit I fucked up.
Of course if you weren't stupid you would
have cropped it down to just the image part, in which case you could
have gone down to as low as 890 bytes.

Feel free to continue being a stupid fucking drooler, Noodle Head,
it's amusing if nothing else to watch you try and bite at my heels for
attention.

Way to write thinly disguised homoeroticism masquerading as care bears
fanfic, loser.
....I can only guess that you didn't read it (not that, that was the
point of my posts). There's nothing homoerotic about it...well unless
you think relationships between girls and guys is gay, in which case
you should probably get yer head checked. One also shouldn't let the
subject confuse them, part of the reason I made teh CB fanfic was to
create my own personal idealized version of the fuzzy lil bastages.
It starts out pretty PG, but in chapter 7 (soon to be added), a
teenage girl winds up having her emotions and memories ripped
separately out of her while her body is atomized. And later, in
chapter 10, one of the baddies becomes unstable and goes nuclear on a
small town, killing this one little girls parents...along with
everyone else in the town. Needless to say...it gets pretty dark. I
liken it to American McGee's "Alice"...only with no gore...well except
the part in chapter 8 when one of the baddies makes like a whirlwind
through a room filled with shards of glass...but there's no blood.
Good luck on building the most loserly site ever.

I make my sites for the people that enjoy them...obviously you're not
one of them...and yet you look at them anyway...funny that, huh?
^_^

--

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net

[Noodles Jefferson]

In article <ds********************************@4ax.com>, Onideus Mad
Hatter took the hamburger, threw it on the grill, and I said "Oh wow"...

On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 05:36:59 -0600, Noodles Jefferson
<si*********@tacoshells.com> wrote:

>You sh<COCK SLAP> First of all, only cunt headed down syndrome trainables post binaries
to non-binary froups.

Oh shut the fuck up. It was small.
The point was that it wasn't as small as it could be and the other
point is volume. Just image if you were building a site for CNN.com
and it was going to be downloaded several MILLION times a day...that's
when the difference between a few hundred bytes can wind up making the
difference between gigabytes of data traffic.

This doesn't stop them from putting up interviews and other things that
are much larger files. Doesn't stop the AP or C-Span either.

You're more pissed that it was accurate.
...how was it accurate? You're the only one I see complaining about
the graphic style, Kiddo. Oh but hey, do pray tell, just what as it
about the graphics that bothered you so much? Was it the clouds? Do
clouds scare you? Hrmmm? Did you have a bad experience?

...btw Noodle Head...weren't you the idiot who yammering on and on
about how I'm ~supposedly~ *SO* good at graphic design and *SO* bad at
web coding?

I've seen your pages. You do the same thing every time. <iframe> is your
little buddy. Except you should probably be using the frameset DTD, you
don't have a lot of interactivity beyond click a button. Now granted the
background changes too, so you get some props for that, after all, you
make pretty pictures but I have like 12 links on a page, okay graphics
and people can do a search from it. I'm learning how to generate HTML
now and I'm starting to see how it's all fitting together. So pretty
soon the task of updating will become easier which means and I can make
more pages with a consistent look quicker. Conforms to W3C, works in any
browser. No further assembly required. Coding wise it's actually more
complex than your site. It's got a 3 column div layout and uses a style
sheet. You have a an iframe that you abuse the hell out of and a hacked
DTD. Pictures only carry you so far. People will consume everything in a
site then move on to another.
*snicker* How are you delusions holding up these days?
Hey, I figured out your browser testing problem but you're acting like a
twat so I'm not gonna tell you.

Oh, BTW, I saw the thread where you talked about how you got Paint
Shop Pro...seems a little...odd. I'm quite sure that whatever poverty
of a public education system you're attending would have told you
Photoshop was yer best bet...and last I checked I was the only one
running around A26 touting the wondrous merits of my lil 6 year old
version of Paint Shop Pro.
Photoshop was a hundred bucks more and to be honest, I like paintshop.
I'm not a professional graphic artist and it does a okay enough job to
handle what I need from it. Now, I won't rule getting photoshop in the
future out but for now, I think I'm set. There's always the GIMP too.
Second, when you attach an image to a thread,
make sure your idiot news browser is setup to NOT include the file
name in the subject, cause otherwise it fucks up thread continuity.

Shows up fine here.
Why don't you just join a fuckin webbie board, I think that'd be more
yer speed.

Hey you're the one that gets laughed out of...er...I mean trolls
webforums, not me. Why should I lower myself just because even web
boards think you suck?

Thread continuity. Nice ridiculous argument.
Yeah, yer definitely not a Netter.

Excuse me? Who the fuck are you? Nobody, that's who. You're welcome.

Sister fucking diaper tard.
Third, your ability to encode images and determine the proper format
to use is slap in the face to intelligence design, you drooling little
muppet fuck.

Your file was encoded in lossy JPG with the quality set to "uber shit"
apparently. This resulted in a crappy looking image with a file size
of 1.43KB, where as if you hadn't been an idiot, you would have chosen
a palette based PNG or GIF file, using optimized octree and setting
the max color to about 100, which would have resulted in this:
http://www.backwater-productions.net/_images/trash.png
Which is only 919 bytes.

Oooh la la. Nobody cares.
You cared enough to suddenly start experimenting:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.2...9672f80775dbd1

Sure. But I'd been experimenting.

And oh, look at that, you're using PNG files...
Usually gives me the smallest size.
and you're not posting
images inline either.
I still do. If I want to show more than one thing at a time, I do.
I don't get it, Noodles, what are you too
fuckin high on yourself to admit yer wrong? Hell I'm a fucking
asshole but even *I* know when to admit I fucked up.
What have I fucked up? I think everyone knows I'm experimenting with
something new to me. I made that pretty clear in the original post.
Of course if you weren't stupid you would
have cropped it down to just the image part, in which case you could
have gone down to as low as 890 bytes.

Feel free to continue being a stupid fucking drooler, Noodle Head,
it's amusing if nothing else to watch you try and bite at my heels for
attention.

Way to write thinly disguised homoeroticism masquerading as care bears
fanfic, loser.

...I can only guess that you didn't read it (not that, that was the
point of my posts). There's nothing homoerotic about it...well unless
you think relationships between girls and guys is gay, in which case
you should probably get yer head checked. One also shouldn't let the
subject confuse them, part of the reason I made teh CB fanfic was to
create my own personal idealized version of the fuzzy lil bastages.
It starts out pretty PG, but in chapter 7 (soon to be added), a
teenage girl winds up having her emotions and memories ripped
separately out of her while her body is atomized. And later, in
chapter 10, one of the baddies becomes unstable and goes nuclear on a
small town, killing this one little girls parents...along with
everyone else in the town. Needless to say...it gets pretty dark. I
liken it to American McGee's "Alice"...only with no gore...well except
the part in chapter 8 when one of the baddies makes like a whirlwind
through a room filled with shards of glass...but there's no blood.

I like how one sentence generates a paragraph of denial from you. Very
telling.
Good luck on building the most loserly site ever.

I make my sites for the people that enjoy them...obviously you're not
one of them...and yet you look at them anyway...funny that, huh?

It's like a trainwreck or a car crash. You can't help but look.
--
Noodles Jefferson
mhm31x9 Smeeter#29 WSD#30
sTaRShInE_mOOnBeAm aT HoTmAil dOt CoM

"Our earth is degenerate in these latter days, bribery and corruption
are common, children no longer obey their parents and the end of the
world is evidently approaching."
--Assyrian clay tablet 2800 B.C.

[Onideus Mad Hatter]

On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 07:05:34 -0500, Meat Plow <me**@meatplow.local>
wrote:

On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 01:02:14 -0800, Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:

On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 04:50:31 -0600, Noodles Jefferson
<si*********@tacoshells.com> wrote:

[quoted text muted]

[quoted text muted]

Interviews or video files are naturally bigger, but even with that the
idea is to encode them for the best quality with the smallest size.
If they were treating their video the way you treat your images they
would be several hundred megs per and would overwhelm their servers to
the point where they wouldn't even be able to have that service. It
all counts, Cupcake and a potential employer isn't going to want to
hire someone with your attitude, they're going to want the best...and
the best is the guy who knows what the fuck he's doing.

[quoted text muted]

[quoted text muted]

[quoted text muted]

I use an iframe to center my web content, most of which is currently
configured for an 800x600 display...I'm sorry that you're so gawd damn
deficient you can't look at the source code within the iframe, but
hey, that's your problem, Kiddo. Maybe someday when you figure it the
fuck out what you're doing and you'll be able to see the code that
runs my sites.

[quoted text muted]

Why would I do that when I can use my own custom hacked DTD that
allows me to do everything in the frameset DTD and more?

[quoted text muted]

...oh I'm sorry, what other interfaces do you have on your computer,
Screwball? Do you have an electronic dildo that you shove up yer ass
that's set to go off every time there's a popup or something? Wait,
no, I got it...keyboard commands. This doofy assed Noodle guy wants
to do away with mice and work off the keyboard...LOL...someone get
this loser a fuckin Mac! `, D

[quoted text muted]

Sunshine...I do shit on my sites that you couldn't even fucking BEGIN
to comprehend. Or did you forget who has the ONLY perfect liquid
website prototypes in existence?

http://www.backwater-productions.net...atform/liquid/
http://www.backwater-productions.net/alt.2600/

That's pure code, Dumbass. Every image you see is resized,
reconstructed and placed on the fly by the hybrid PHP/Javascript
code...and it's completely custom you fuckin tard, there's no other
site on the whole of the PLANET that does what those two prototypes
do. And hey, all I gotta do is throw in a lil server side image
caching and create some can opener code and I can market the concept
as freely as I like...you can't though Noodle head...because as
fucking stupid as you are you can't even comprehend how the PHP code
is reconstructing PNG alpha transparent files...hell, yer dumbass
probably can't even comprehend the javascript placement and division
resizing code that you can actually access...of course, as downs as
you are you probably haven't even figured out what an external
javascript file is let alone how to open one...LOL...yer such a loser
kid.

Oh and hey, on those perfect liquid prototypes, try clicking on the
tops of the boxes...dynamic interaction Sunshine...and you don't know
how I did that either, do you? ^_^

In fact, there's a lot of things that you probably have NO idea how I
did...hell even on my main backwater site:
http://www.backwater-productions.net

Touch the frog with yer mouse, Stupid...now tell me how I coded that.
He, he, he...oh and the new downloads section with DVD style
interface, tell me how I coded that, Noodle Dick...what's the matter,
yer "education" comin up short? Typical half breed fuck, goes to
school thinkin he's gonna learn about computers...LOL. You don't go
to school to learn about tech, Stupid, you go there to get a magic
piece of fuckin paper so you can convince some no brained corp exec
that yer smarter than they are. Only dropouts and fools like you go
to school looking to LEARN. Cause really...if you can't learn it the
fuck on yer own...yer never gonna make it. *shrugs* Reality's a
bitch, innt? `, )

[quoted text muted]

WOW...you know how to make LINKS! Jeez, yer like the fuckin MASTER of
HTML code or something! My GAWDS! Do you guys over in alt.html hear
that? He's got TWELVE LINKS! HA! BEAT THAT!

*snicker*

[quoted text muted]

...I don't think shit you slurped up out of a sloppy Google image
search count as "graphics"...well at least not professionally.

[quoted text muted]

...yes child, anyone can link to a search engine...I think I did that
back in like...1999...
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.h...116f9bdef9f3f5

Oh and unlike yours, mine was original code, not cookie cutter...and
it had an original interface too.

[quoted text muted]

D00d, you've been "learning" HTML for like YEARS now...what's the hold
up?

I mean, come on, I had never even fuckin touched Flash until last
August and hrmmm...
http://www.backwater-productions.net/

Even experimenting with PHP integration now:
http://www.backwater-productions.net...P%20Index.html

I mean, think about it...last AUGUST...that wasn't even four months
ago!

[quoted text muted]

Consistent crap is still crap.

[quoted text muted]

Yeah that's not too hard to do when you're barely touching outside of
HTML v2, child. Let me know when you start hacking your own DTDs,
then maybe I'll consider you close to my level:
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=ht...roductions.net

[quoted text muted]

You're claiming to have tested your site in EVERY browser now, eh?
Are you REALLY sure about that? Do I need to break out the list?

[quoted text muted]

*snicker*

[quoted text muted]

WOW, three WHOLE division layers, huh? Try this, Stupid:
http://www.backwater-productions.net/hatter-blog/

Roughly SEVENTY dynamically controlled division layers...he, he,
he...like I said...you can't even comprehend working on my level.

[quoted text muted]

WOW, style sheets, boy those are sure hard...um...what on your site
NEEDS a style sheet though? I mean, really. Do you even know WHY you
should be using a style sheet as opposed to inline styles? Oh BTW, a
lot of my sites use style sheets...just the parts that benefit from
them though.

[quoted text muted]

The iframe does nothing but center the content, child, it's quit sad
that you think it's some magical tool that somehow does any more than
just that.

[quoted text muted]

Let's see...how many people can hack a DTD and still get it to parse
on the W3Cs validator...oh hey, ME! ^_^

Canned DTD hacks aren't too hard to come by...but mine are the only
ones that I've seen that can pass validation through the W3C and not
just some fifth wheel service.

[quoted text muted]

Well it's a good thing my skill in graphics design is as bad ass as my
coding ability, eh Junior?

[quoted text muted]

[quoted text muted]

...what browser testing problem? Do you even KNOW what you're saying
or do you just roll yer stupid head across the keyboard hoping
something meaningful or poignant will pop up?

[quoted text muted]

[quoted text muted]

The program really doesn't matter all that much...hell I use a 6 year
old version of Paint Shop Pro for most of my stuff.

[quoted text muted]

[quoted text muted]

Oh? Was Chet laughing when I forced him to obliterate a multithousand
post forum on his lil PoE News board just to try and shut me up? He,
he, he...oh there was laughing alright...from me. `, )

[quoted text muted]

[quoted text muted]

There are no excuses for your stupidity.

[quoted text muted]

Better than you...that's who.

[quoted text muted]

That's it, lash out incoherently with insults...that's the idea you
know...when you reach the point where you stop mixing insults with
facts and arguments and fall into a state of perpetual lamedom, where
you have nothing left but failing delusions and lies to keep you
going. ^_^

[quoted text muted]

[quoted text muted]

[quoted text muted]

Post proof.

[quoted text muted]

[quoted text muted]

Now come on, Child, we all know yer stupid, but you could at least try
and hide it better. Coincidentally in the majority of settings
without proper understanding of image encoding methodology PNG would
actually produce some of the largest sizes...and given the stuff that
you've posted so far...yeah yer failing grasp of the subject is more
than apparent.

[quoted text muted]

[quoted text muted]

Again, post proof that you've done this from the time I made that
original post to you till this post.

[quoted text muted]

[quoted text muted]

It's the parts where you're emulating me whilst foolishly attempting
to verbally attack me, Tard Boi...and doing a shit job of hiding it.

[quoted text muted]

[quoted text muted]

Denial is conjecture without facts, I presented facts. So come on,
Doctor Phil, point out yer facts, point out what part of the story you
think is so "gay"...or continue with YOUR denial...oh, and make it
SHORT too, we wouldn't want anyone to mess up and think you had any
literary skills, now would we? ^_^

[quoted text muted]

[quoted text muted]

[quoted text muted]

Oh how cliche, Noodlehead, when all else fails rip off someone else's
material, what an AMAZING tactic, boy I bet that's gonna get me to
stop tormenting you, neh?

Nice me<COCK SLAP>

You'll have to forgive Butt->Plow Piddle Pants, he constantly craves
my attention. I destroyed his soul so he has no sense of self, so
you'll have to forgive him if he seems a bit...uh...empty.

--

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net