On Thu, 2003-09-11 at 03:44, Brant Fitzsimmons wrote:
Adam Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2003-09-10 at 19:01, Brant Fitzsimmons wrote:Try looking at the timestamps of the messages before making assumptions about my grasp of the conversation. You'll find that you're about 5 hours too late to make that statement.
In this case functionality does not dictate that the default fonts look bad. It is possible, and preferred, to have good form and function at the same time.
You seem to have lost track of the argument. It moved from "should we stop having helvetica as the preferred font?" (to which everyone seems to agree the answer is "yes") to "what should we replace it with?", with some arguing for a specific font - verdana or arial or whatever - followed by sans-serif, with others arguing for the generic alias first, followed by the specific font name.
Uh? What do the timestamps have to do with it? I was simply going by the
messages quoted above your reply. You seemed to be thinking that the
person to whom you were requiring wanted to keep Helvetica as the
default font, which wasn't the case.
Then it was my fault that I didn't place my response inline. I was responding to Han's statement that we don't need looks, we need functionality, as if they were mutually exclusive. Is it OK that I responded to Han?
How would you like me to craft my posts so as not to offend you with my *wildly off-point* comments in the future?
-- Brant Fitzsimmons [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___________________________________________________________________
Linux user #322847 | Linux machine #207465 | http://counter.li.org/ AMD Duron 1.3GHz | Mandrake 9.1 | Kernel 2.4.21-0.16mm-mdk KDE 3.1.3 | Mozilla 1.4 Mail Client Uptime: 12:00:01 up 4 days, 23:16, 1 user, load average: 0.03, 0.22, 0.19 ___________________________________________________________________
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed.
Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being
self-evident."
-Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)