In article <85d0f$482b680b$40cba7bc$1043@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
"Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> ??? What ever you're take you'd better cut the dose. I don't understand
> any of your posts lately.
>
You don't understand any of them? Really? I must look back on some of
them to see what you might have found so difficult. I expect it is too
much to ask you to offer some question marks at the time rather than
insulting me at a time of your choosing?
But never mind, perhaps you will at least understand (if not believe)
the following sentences:
I don't do drugs. I drink one or, at most, two gl***** of wine a day
with meals usually.
With this profile, and yours unknown, perhaps you should look to your
own mind for the reason you cannot imagine what is being meant in *any*
of my latest posts. Remember, your complaint is not just about this
particular post about a pic. It is with *all* my recent posts.
What contempt do I actually deserve when it comes down to it? True, I
have been a bit vicious with some vicious characters. But that is no
crime is it? Perhaps it is a bit beneath an honourable being to indulge
in such temptations. But I am not so perfectly honourable.
You are a simple uncomplicated man, Jonathan. But mostly a good one.
Take no comfort from endorsements from the more vicious of my enemies
who will be wanting to jump in like rats to sup****t you in insulting me.
But perhaps you are too simple and gullible a man to follow this advice.
A 4" isolated martian makes easy prey eh? You goose!
Tell me if you don't understand any of the following:
There is nothing that would justify the sentence:
"Your picture WSLS Header4.png looks bad because it has 800px width"
on the evidence of seeing the non-native dimensioned pic (*not*
comparing the two side by side) on my Safari, on my screen. There is
just too little in it for almost all website users. That was all.
If the person had said, "best practice is not to resize your pic in the
html...", I would have no disagreement. But he did not say this. He said
it looked bad. And I am telling you that it did not look bad to me cf
with the correct size in my Safari on my OS X on my LCDs. I know from
experience that I have had bad trouble with other browsers and platforms
with html resizing. But the bad effects are not so evident on my
platform on Safari on my preferences. That is a simple enough and
innocuous enough a point to make. Surely.
I am *not* meaning this "cf" in the sense of both (at 700 and at 800)
side by side.
About the bet:
We gather 10,000 people together and make 5000 of them sit at *my*
computer while WSLS.png is showing on my screen at its natural width in
Safari and we ask them:
Does picture WSLS.png look bad?
And we do the same with the other 5000 but with the pic showing at 100px
different width as redrawn by the browser.
What do you reckon will be the comparative score given average users?
Do say if you want to refine the experiment before shelling out your
miserable $US25,000 to escrow.
Don't understand what escrow is? What a bet is? What it means to refine
an experiment? Do ask! Don't sit there insulting me for no purpose than
to draw out the rats in the rank or to hurt my feelings or to vent your
frustration. There are more productive ways to vent them.
Wondering why I have upped the bet from 25 to 25,000? Because I realise
I could be without my computer for ages while 10,000 unwashed humans
tramp through my office and put my business on hold.
--
dorayme
|
