Peter Lairo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Actually, the poster was putting the "blame" on the resolution *itself*
> and not Mozilla. So anyone who would consider this "adversarial" just
> didn't understand what was said.
Then perhaps you should express yourself in a slightly clearer manner.
It looked then, and still does, like you were passing off a potential cause
of the problem with a wave of your hand and a "yeah whatever". It doesn't
matter how ludicrous the suggestion is, I can gaurentee you that ending the
reply with "is lame" or a variant thereof is certain to piss someone off.
It is presumptuous and arrogant and... hey, isn't that what you're accusing
everyone ELSE of?
> You don't know my qualifications. I may not be able to program, but I
> have extensive experience with computers. Also, my powers of observation
So... you're an admitted non-programmer, yet you frequently presume to tell
those with their hands in the code what the bugs are and are not, and how
hard they are to fix.
> "qualifications", I have noticed that *no other* text program I have
> ever used has shown the kind of difficulties Mozilla has. Also, I have
*No other* text program you've seen has been Mozilla.
I can think of situations where a textarea's wrapping could be affected by
screen resolution... such as font selection depending on calculated screen
DPI, while the textbox graphic's width and wrapping point are incorrectly
calculated based on pixel-width, and so on.
It may not be likely, but, since I'm NOT one of the people with his hands in
the code, I'm not going to consider the possibility "lame".
--
Brandon Hume - hume -> BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca, http://WWW.BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca/
-> Solaris Snob and general NOCMonkey
