DeMoN LaG wrote: > T Carr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED], on 21 Oct 2001: > >>My page does not have a problem. It displays wonderfully. There is >>no need to fix anything. LOL >> >>You anal retentive nerds are all alike. Get a freakin life. >> >> > > This is wonderful. You come in here, screaming and yelling that a site > doesn't work, get shown that the page has DOZENS of errors with the > code, make a big stink that basically you don't care what the code > should look at and someone should be implementing a magical genie into > Mozilla that reads the page authors mind for the way he wanted the page > to look, and then you call the people who were being very kind and > helpful "anal retentive nerds". You really are a riot. Let me sum up > this for you: > The problem with the web site is poor browser sniffing (incorrectly > thinks Mozilla is netscape 4.x and supports document.layers), and poor > HTML syntax. It's always lovely when you screw something up and the > results come out OK. It is lovely when you accidently add too much milk > to the pancake mix but it comes out being the best pancakes you've ever > had. But if you screwed up the ingrediants and it comes out bad, you > can't blame the stove for cooking it that way. > >
I am just gonna ignore tha validator just like I am gonna ignore the Netscape Communicator users (both of them) and handicapped people who will never see my site. Does that seem harsh? I am sorry. I think I will change my attitude and become a more sensitive and tolerant person. - - NOT
