Tue, 06 May 2008 17:24:41 -0700, /Mason C/:
> On Tue, 6 May 2008 17:33:27 -0400, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
> <a.nony.mous@example.invalid> wrote:
>> Mason C wrote:
>>
>>> And, obviously, it *was* unexpected or someone would have warned me
>>> about it as a cause of my problem.
>>
>> Someone might have, if you had posted the requested screenshot.
>
> Oh, ok. I am learning. This is the age of Television. No longer the age of
> Radio and Reading. Seriously, I do some writing and this is not trivial.
>
> Simply stating "there is no color" is not enough.
[...]

You could have at least answered my first question I've posted in
another reply: "Do you observe the 'missing' colors only on that
page of yours using those browsers?" Also, you've repeated "no *bg*
colors" quite a few times which initially led me to think you see
your customized text colors, just not the background ones.

--
Stanimir

Mason C wrote:

> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote:
>>Mason C wrote:
>>> And, obviously, it *was* unexpected or someone would have warned me
>>> about it as a cause of my problem.
>>
>> Someone might have, if you had posted the requested screenshot.
>
> Oh, ok. I am learning. This is the age of Television. No longer
> the age of Radio and Reading. Seriously, I do some writing and this
> is not trivial.
>
> Simply stating "there is no color" is not enough. The words cannot
> be visualized by people raised on TV.

Are you saying everyone who replied to you in this thread is young? I've
been retired for seven years.

Like everyone else, I looked at your page and saw colors all over the
place, in several browsers. A simple screenshot would have shown us all
there was some messed up setting on your computer. Heck, even you
looking using another computer would have proved that.

--
-bts
-Friends don't let friends drive Windows

> The spirit of this group amazes me. Anger. Attacking trivia.
> What's going on? This would be a place for a psychologist to study.

This group (and *.stylesheets) are worthwhile to browse and search through
previously answered posts, but that's it. It's not a place to ask
questions. You'll receive more commentary about your posting style
(particularly quoting styles, as you noted) and your failure to account for
the entire Earth's population before one of the ful posters comes
around. There are far better and efficient places to ask questions.

That said, it's still worth it to scan the threads now and then to pick up
some tidbits - and perhaps laugh at the absurd flame wars that just keep
coming around here.

Just bear in mind that responses are almost entirely geared towards
accessiblity with issues such as development time, target audience, design
aesthetics, etc. all trivial in comparison. As such, for private ventures,
the advice often fails the "real world" test. Think "academia": there's a
wealth of knowledge (and arrogance) but chances are you'll need to tweak
what you read/learn to make it useful in the real world. Don't take the
replies in here as gospel, despite the convictions of those posting.

steve wrote:
>> The spirit of this group amazes me. Anger. Attacking trivia.
>> What's going on? This would be a place for a psychologist to study.
>
> This group (and *.stylesheets) are worthwhile to browse and search
> through previously answered posts, but that's it. It's not a place to
> ask questions.

It's a good place to test your Buddhist detachment from things that
don't matter. I find it most useful in that respect.

--
Steve Swift
http://www.swiftys.org.uk/swifty.html
http://www.ringers.org.uk

Scripsit steve:

> This group (and *.stylesheets) are worthwhile to browse and search
> through previously answered posts, but that's it.

And you need to be able to recognize useful content from crap (which
sometimes _looks_ useful).

A poster's name is usually informative. If it doesn't even look like
anyone's real full name, the odds are that nothing in the message is
real.

> It's not a place to ask questions.

Unless, of course, you wish to ask well, by the netiquette, which
includes informativeness and answering any clarifying questions.

Moreover, the odds are that if you have resisted any temptation to read
tutorials and FAQs, you will just get more confused. In this group, you
just learn that faster than elsewhere.

--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

On Wed, 7 May 2008 09:40:03 +0300, "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>
wrote:

>Scripsit steve:
>
>> This group (and *.stylesheets) are worthwhile to browse and search
>> through previously answered posts, but that's it.
>
>And you need to be able to recognize useful content from crap (which
>sometimes _looks_ useful).
>
>A poster's name is usually informative. If it doesn't even look like
>anyone's real full name, the odds are that nothing in the message is
>real.

But be wary of using your mail address without something to keep
robot spammers from hitting you. Some time ago there was (and is?) a
virus called "swen" -- news spelled backwards -- which used
addresses collected from newsgroups here. I had the misfortune of
getting it by carelessness in displaying my address.
>
>> It's not a place to ask questions.

an exception to my usenet experience (Mason C)
>
>Unless, of course, you wish to ask well, by the netiquette, which
>includes informativeness and answering any clarifying questions.
>
>Moreover, the odds are that if you have resisted any temptation to read
>tutorials and FAQs, you will just get more confused. In this group, you
>just learn that faster than elsewhere.

Mason C <masoncXXX@XXXfrontal-lobe.info> writes:

> But be wary of using your mail address without something to keep
> robot spammers from hitting you.

One of the few good things Hotmail is good for - spamtrap addresses. :-)

sherm--

--
My blog: http://shermspace.blogspot.com
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net

Mason C wrote:
> On Wed, 7 May 2008 09:40:03 +0300, "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>
> wrote:

>> A poster's name is usually informative. If it doesn't even look like
>> anyone's real full name, the odds are that nothing in the message is
>> real.
>
> But be wary of using your mail address without something to keep
> robot spammers from hitting you. Some time ago there was (and is?) a
> virus called "swen" -- news spelled backwards -- which used
> addresses collected from newsgroups here. I had the misfortune of
> getting it by carelessness in displaying my address.

Been using my real email for at least a decade. Same email address as
well. Get so spam but not as much as most folks, SeaMonkey filters most.
Biggest trigger to catch spam I have found is to go to the "wrong"
websites... Now that my kids are gone and there are no teenagers in the
house the spam load is a fraction of past levels...

>> Unless, of course, you wish to ask well, by the netiquette, which
>> includes informativeness and answering any clarifying questions.

Learn to ask you questions better. Give a URL, and learn to be more
accurate in your description and your results may improve.

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

>>This group (and *.stylesheets) are worthwhile to browse and search through
>>previously answered posts, but that's it. It's not a place to ask
>>questions. You'll receive more commentary about your posting style
>>(particularly quoting styles, as you noted) and your failure to account
>>for
>>the entire Earth's population before one of the ful posters comes
>>around. There are far better and efficient places to ask questions.
>
> Regarding html and css problems, please suggest some place.
>
> Mason C

Give http://www.codingforums.com/index.php a try. I've had positive
experiences there.

http://www.webmasterworld.com *was* probably the best, prior to it moving to
a subscription model. I've heard the occasional comment that it's still
worth it, but I can't claim to know much about the present paying community.
Still appears very active.

> And you need to be able to recognize useful content from crap (which
> sometimes _looks_ useful).
>
> A poster's name is usually informative. If it doesn't even look like
> anyone's real full name, the odds are that nothing in the message is real.

In my opinion the authenticity of a poster's name is not a valid indicator
of the usefulness of the post.

Far more relevant is the context from which the author is speaking. Some
posters are indeed experts and provide very accurate information about HTML
(or CSS, in the other group), yet move far beyond their scope of knowledge
and add unsolicited criticism and advice about design and UI decisions. Far
too often the advice is horrible, particularly when the OP's objective is
revenue or lead generation versus the newsgroup's seemingly pre-defined goal
of content delivery.

This is an interesting newsgroup to discuss theory, and perhaps learn best
practices for sites destined to serve a public interest. For the authors of
sites serving commercial interests, following the (technically accurate)
advice offered on this group is often a horrible idea. It's better to find
an online community that caters to webmasters working within a similar
context, in contrast to what is found here.