As a web-dev-for-food, I can say that trying to design a site that works on all browsers, all the time, is an impossible task. You think that a few odd settings producing this: http://tinypic.com/r/2ch9ykj/5 or this: http://oi39.tinypic.com/2s7e1dy.jpg is horrible. Try using a browser that doesn't properly support a certain CSS feature, or a small javascript bug with some sites and they are literally unusable.
I get that "well other sites are worse" is not an excuse, but you've got to judge it accordingly. If, under normal browser settings, the site looks good, then that should be enough. If you then have suggestions, present them as such, do not try to present the site as broken and needing to be fixed. Web design is hard, trying to cover as many bases as possible is a nightmarish task. For example: "Long lines?" "They should be broken, otherwise it looks bad"/"They shouldn't be broken because it looks bad." - Some lines are broken by the software the person is using, other times the user has done it deliberately because of the interface they are using and the reflow has broken things. There are a potentially infinite number of possible configurations, and sites need to be aimed at the lowest-common denominator. Doesn't look right with an enlarged font size? Tough. Doesn't look good on Netscape 2.0? Tough. Of course you try to code to make it works as well as /possible/ in browsers outside the Webkit/Firefox/IE trifecta, and you try to make it flexible, but at some point, you need to sacrifice portability for aesthetics, otherwise we're still stuck in the early nineties... I'm pretty sure that making a website work in all browsers and all configurations is a punishment in hell for IE developers... -- James Miller