Linux-Advocacy Digest #29, Volume #34 Sun, 29 Apr 01 02:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Blame it all on Microsoft ("AG")
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: t. max devlin: kook (T. Max Devlin)
Re: IE (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "AG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.theory,comp.arch,comp.object
Subject: Re: Blame it all on Microsoft
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 17:34:02 +1200
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> At the time, IBM's contracts PROHIBITED any non-IBM employee from
> programming thier machines.
Are you positive about the above claim? That would mean that no one COULD
use the machine at all. And I seem to recall a lot of people did program
them...
>
> Why would that be?
>
Indeed...
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 05:49:42 GMT
Said Chad Everett in alt.destroy.microsoft on 28 Apr 2001 14:32:36
>On Sat, 28 Apr 2001 17:31:52 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Said Chad Everett in alt.destroy.microsoft on 27 Apr 2001 10:12:43
>>>On Fri, 27 Apr 2001 13:16:28 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>Said Chad Everett in alt.destroy.microsoft on 24 Apr 2001 12:57:20
>>>>>On 24 Apr 2001 18:02:36 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>>Chad Everett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>You clearly stated that you personally believe that [any killing not in
>>>>>>>self defense] includes [killing at war].
>>>> [...]
>>>>>Bzzzt wrong. And you claim that you lectured on logic?
>>>>>That's not what your sentence said at all. I provided the definition
>>>>>of "includes" for a reason.
>>>>
>>>>I'm afraid you're mistaken, Chad. Roberto was perfectly correct in
>>>>pointing out that killings in self defense are possible in war, and none
>>>>of his statements have been inconsistent with his current statements.
>>>>He has not stated all killing in war is murder, and he has well
>>>>supported his logic in claiming that some killings in war are murder,
>>>>and being in war does not prevent them from being murder, unless the
>>>>intent is to defend the waging of war for no purpose.
>>>
>>>You failed to provide the one sentence where he, in fact, states that
>>>killing in war is included in the category of non self-defense killing.
>>>Perhaps he meant something else, but it's not what he wrote.
>>>
>>>So, your statement is also incorrect. All you had to do was include
>>>Roberto's sentence your post. I wonder why you did not.
>>
>>Sorry, Chad, but you seem intent on playing rhetorical games rather than
>>any more reasonable discussion. Whether I included a single sentence
>>cannot possible have an impact on the correctness of my post. I wonder
>>why you're pretending it does.
>
>Well, he either said something or he didn't, that's why it matters.
>If he says something, and then wants to waffle on it, well that's another
>story.
To say "he either said something or he didn't" is the whole problem.
Words, you see, have this rather variable thing called Meaning. So
whether he said something or not resolves to what he meant, not what was
in any particular singular word or sentence. I could "he intended to
say", but then it would sound as if I am second-guessing his meaning,
rather than providing my opinion of what he meant.
Words are both relative and uncertain; yet words cannot waffle, and
Roberto's opinion on this subject seem comprehensible and reasonable.
I'm afraid that means I think your opinion is mistaken in some way. I
think you're just mistaken about what Roberto said, not what he meant,
so perhaps you were right to say that I should have included some
particular sentence. To be honest, I'm not sure which single sentence
you're referring to, nor where any single sentence where Roberto stated
his opinion might be found.
In the end, these last few exchanges have devolved to commenting on
rhetoric, not dealing with the meaning of the terms "killing in war is
unethical".
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 05:49:46 GMT
Said Chad Everett in alt.destroy.microsoft on 28 Apr 2001 15:25:23
>On Sat, 28 Apr 2001 17:31:53 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Said Chad Everett in alt.destroy.microsoft on 27 Apr 2001 10:53:41
>>>On Fri, 27 Apr 2001 13:16:30 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> [...]
>>>T. Max, please don't post about what you know little about.
>>
>>Chad, please get your head out of your ass before addressing me.
>
>Ditto. I'm not the one spouting incorrect references and facts.
Sure you are, about as much as I am, I'd say. More, if I wanted to
resort to ad hominem attacks, since you apparently have a Faith in the
Bible which is not based on historical understanding.
[...]
>Well, it's very simple. You cited "The Jesus Project" as "a panoply
>of theists and philosophers" who have been "investigating" the historical
>Jesus "for several years". This was just plain incorrect and one
>only need to go to The Jesus Project website, www.jesusproject.com,
>for evidence of this.
What evidence might I find if I did that? I have spoken with people who
are involved in person, so I'm not sure whether what's posted on their
web site is really going to be evidence of any misunderstanding I had.
If what Robert Price said on the matter is in conflict with what's on
the web site, I'm afraid I'm going to have to go with my personal
experience. If you told me what on the web site indicates my
perspective is flawed, I would appreciate your pointing it out. Simply
saying I'm wrong in my perceptions doesn't really mean anything to me.
[...]
>This "guy named Jesus", was a actual man that lived and walked the earth,
>no? That's they guy we're talking about.
That's the problem; it wasn't "a guy". Do you want the one with the
name that translates to "Jesus", or the one that was the son of god, and
corresponds to the various mythical tails of his exploits? There were
lots of guys who were Jesus, and yet none of them were "the" Jesus, as
far as anyone can tell. Certainly no cogent evidence in history itself
of any divine nature or other particular importance to the Jesus myth.
>Whether one believes he
>was the son of God, crucified and risen is a different matter. There
>was indeed a Jesus in history, the one referred to in ancient manuscripts
>and sources of Christian scriptures.
So when they say he rose from the dead and turned water to wine, these
are 'references' to this historical Jesus?
Perhaps you need to broaden your understanding some. I'd suggest
reading some of the articles in Free Inquiry (www.secularhumansim.org, I
think, will get you there; it might be .com). They had an issue just
last year examining the myths of the historical Jesus, Abraham, Moses,
Buddha, etc. and have had a few miscellaneous articles examining other
religious figures, as well. IIRC, someone suggested that Zarethusdra
(?) seems to be far more grounded in history as a "real person" than
Jesus is, if I remember and understood what I read correctly. It was
months ago.
>>>Some people will claim, as
>>>T. Max has done, that Jesus is an "amalgam, composed of myth", but of
>>>course, using their criteria, exactly the same thing can be said about
>>>Aristotle and many other historical figures.
>>
>>Hardly. Not that there is not myth which accrues to Aristotle, as any
>>other historical figure. But the comparison is ludicrous, and indicates
>>nothing but your fervent wish that the historical results are as your
>>faith would have it, when quite the opposite is true.
>
>Well this statement about Aristotle is absolutely true. It is odd that
>you dismiss this so readily, because it is true. In fact, the
>teaching and philosophies of Aristotle were not actually put into written
>form until approx. 1400 years after he supposedly walked the earth.
I would suspect that some post-modernists have gotten hold of the "myth
of Aristotle" and used it to deconstruct him. I'm certainly not an
authority on the matter, but I would have to insist that as far as I am
aware, you are overstating the case.
>Now I am not saying that Aristotle was not an actual historical figure.
>But there is more direct historical evidence (outside of Christian
>scripture even) for the historical Jesus, that "guy named Jesus" than
>there is for Aristotle, for example.
Only because the Faithful are willing to go further in "connecting the
dots" to peg some poor shmuck as "the real Jesus". Philosophers don't
need Aristotle to be real, because his lessons on logic are still valid.
>>> There is more direct
>>>evidence for the historical Jesus than there is for Aristotle, for
>>>example.
>>
>>Ha. Well, all I know of the Jesus Seminar is what I was told about it
>>by Robert Price, who is involved with it. He would differ with your
>>conclusions, but of course he would differ with the conclusions of any
>
>Well there ya go then. I'm sure Robert Price would differ with my
>conclusions, as I do of his. But you need to understand that
>Robert Price uses speculation and beliefs not based in fact, more
>than I do.
Sorry, man. That's simply not the case.
>I can cite historical, non-scriptural, references for
>proof of the historical Jesus. Robert Price and the Jesus Seminar
>cannot do the same for their conclusions.
You are willing to do what they are not: perform an inductive error. Of
course they cannot conclusively prove their opinions; they are not
willing to rest on faith, and then build up whatever supposedly
historical justification is necessary to say "this guy here was Jesus".
[...]
>My claims for the historical Jesus are not faith based, they are based
>on historical records.
If they were historical records, then the Jesus Seminar would examine
them and change their conclusions, I'm afraid. I wouldn't mind your
telling me I'm wrong, presenting these facts of history, and letting me
consider where anyone might be mistaken, if possible.
I've found Robert Price to be an exceedingly rational and reasonable man
possessing both knowledge and intelligence. I'm not going to
second-guess him unless you give me some reason to double-check why he
isn't already convinced by your evidence.
>My faith doesn't come into play until I start
>talking about who I believe this historical Jesus really was and what
>he actually said.
You might think so, but others find your historical evidence less
compelling. Whether it is simply because they lack any faith is not
something I'd assume, of course. But lots of people out there will
believe almost anything. I don't, and I know he doesn't, so I'm not
going to fault my own knowledge and opinion until you can actually
provide this evidence, at the very least, and even then I reserve the
right to simply say "I do not believe it."
If you are going to insist on a more comprehensive argument than that,
then I guess we'll have to go to the website. Let me know.
[...]
>No, you have not insulted me at all. I don't believe anything I've written
>would indicate I was insulted. I can certainly be struck by how incorrect
>you are without being insulted.
If you need to believe I am incorrect, then I would have to say you
protest too much. I may be mistaken, and I'm happy to learn where, but
you've hardly given any reason to believe I am incorrect with your
argumentative proclamations.
[...]
>>So's every other laymen's. Its a big book, after all, and very archaic,
>>not to mention non-sensical in broad perspective.
>
>Well that's your opinion, of course. Certainly not a statement of fact.
I'm afraid I must claim that anyone who would believe that is not a
statement of fact would automatically qualify as deluded. You have to
be unreasoning and incomprehensible at some point, to believe the Bible
is not archaic and non-sensical in broad perspective. Not that this
isn't exceedingly common: I'm well aware that the majority of people are
deists, if not theists. I try not to let my knowledge I am not among
them to lead to arrogance. Much of their beliefs and behavior are
comprehensible, reasonable, ethical, and all around just fine with me; I
have no need or desire to second-guess anyone's morality or metaphysics.
I do have to insist, though, that they not second-guess mine, and thus
we should effectively presume that morality and metaphysics don't exist.
Just ethics, and the human experience of the physical world.
>>>Catholic schools and most Catholic churches
>>>teach very little about the Bible and quite a lot about Catholic
>>>theology. Using your Catholic education as a certificate of your
>>>knowledge of scripture doesn't fly.
>>
>>Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha. I wouldn't need a Catholic education to know that
>>"knowledge of scripture" is generally a matter of historical irrelevance
>>and deep self-delusion. Wake up and smell the coffee, man, it's the
>>twenty first century, for heaven's sake. The bible is just a bunch of
>>old religious tracts, no more meaningful or important than new religious
>>tracts. The "meaning" one finds by "studying" the scripture is
>>tantamount to that derived from reading the daily horoscopes in the
>>newspaper.
>
>So you say. But, of course, you are incorrect. Not suprisingly, there
>are more people in the world who know you are incorrect, than who would
>agree with you.
And there always have been. My own theory is that it is something
neurological; I believe there have always been about 8-14% of human
beings who are by nature atheists. I don't believe even that they are
somehow magically "the ones smart enough to see through religion"; most
of them have no more comprehensive or comprehensible a philosophy than
religious people do.
But it is obvious to any reasonable person that you are mistaken, in
claiming that the majority of people "know I am incorrect". They have
no capacity at all to know this, though they may believe it, and they
may be correct. If you're going to try to talk about what people "know"
in such a discussion as this, you are going to have to keep the
abstraction analytical; to believe something is not to know something to
be fact. And it really doesn't matter any bit at all how many people
may believe I am incorrect, I know I am not, because my facts, unlike
their's, do not contradict anything in the physical world, and does not
rely on metaphysics at all to explain human behavior, including
religion.
>>I'm sorry if that insults you, Mr. Everett, truly, but I will not speak
>>a lie to satisfy others' faith.
>
>Not insulted at all, so no apology is needed. I don't believe you are
>lying, you're just sadly mistaken.
I am glad you are not insulted, regardless of how mistaken you may
believe me to be. In my version of English, by the way, being mistaken
is nothing at all to be avoided, but simply an occurrence to take
advantage of. Now if you could only provide me some comprehensible
reasoning which describes how I am mistaken, I will be happy to learn
whether this is the case. Your chances are slim, I'll point out, simply
because I've already worked through plenty of religious arguments
previously to know that is a fact, but I certainly won't suggest I am
beyond convincing. Certainly a blanket statement that I am "sadly
mistaken" is neither comprehensible nor cogent.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 05:49:49 GMT
Said billh in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 28 Apr 2001 22:04:32 GMT;
>"T. Max Devlin
>
>> And so you have proven my point. There is no authorization for deadly
>> force, unless it is reasonably believed to be immediately necessary.
>
>...immediately necessary to protect my property in the jurisdiction in
>question.
How on earth could it be necessary to kill someone to protect property?
>If you are in my house uninvited, I'll reasonably believe I need
>to protect my property, especially regarding the scenario Roberto brought up
>with a thief who has one foot in the house, one foot out and some of my
>property in his hands.
Post your address, please, so we can know where your little "kill zone"
is, and avoid it.
>> So, this myth you have that you are immune from prosecution is just
>> that: a myth. In the real world, you must ensure that your belief is
>> reasonable, and that the deadly force (not merely any force) is
>> immediately necessary according to that belief, or you will be
>> prosecuted for murder.
>
>Not hard to prove in the scenario Roberto brought up, which is why we are
>discussing Texas law regarding deadly force for the protection of property.
Yea, we all know about the macho regressive neanderthals in Texas.
What's the other one? Arkansas? Great examples of an enlightened
society.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 05:49:51 GMT
Said billh in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 28 Apr 2001 21:59:53 GMT;
>"T. Max Devlin
>
>> You haven't answered the question, by the way. The fact that you are
>> mistaken in your response is rather trivial, then, but still worth
>> pointing out. You keep acting as if, because deadly force is allowed
>> when necessary, you can use it whenever you want because you can claim
>> it is necessary. That's bullshit, and shows you would prefer to avoid
>> any responsibility for your ethics, allowing your behavior to devolve
>> merely to what is legal, bringing us back, once again, to my unanswered
>> question.
>
>Damn right it is ethical to protect myself or my home from a home invasion.
>It's ethical to protect yourself. That's why I carry an M1911A1.
I'm not second-guessing your morality, dude. But if you are not aware
of your requirement to double-check your ethics before you do something
merely because it is legal, then you are not ethical, and so whether any
action you might take "is ethical" is doubtful.
Of course it is ethical to protect yourself and your home from
"invasion", and you have a right to use a gun, and potentially deadly
force. But if you're going to start putting together sentences like "it
is ethical to kill someone when..." and treat it like an excuse not to
double-check the real circumstances, as if your thought experiments in
the past excusing deadly force as ethical somehow means you are free
from liability for killing another person unnecessarily, then you are
not acting ethically, whether you are acting legally or not.
Do you see what I'm saying. You seem to be responding as if I'm
questioning your morality, and getting all defensive to the point where
you are insisting on principle that ethics is just a set of rules of
what you can and cannot do. It isn't; it is a way of determining what
you can and cannot do, that is true, but it is the result, not the set
of rules, which determine whether the process is working, whether you
are acting ethically.
You are using the law as an excuse to be judge, jury, and executioner,
not to protect your life or property. That is not an ethical position
to take, sorry.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: t. max devlin: kook
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 05:49:54 GMT
Said Peter Hayes in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 28 Apr 2001 22:45:34
>On Sat, 28 Apr 2001 17:32:03 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
>> Said Peter Hayes in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 28 Apr 2001 00:20:24
>
>> >If it's intuitive, it'll be evident to the user.
>>
>> There is no such thing, then. Nothing is evident to the user until he
>> learns about it. You have obviously not had the extensive experience
>> with new users that I have. There is nothing at all intuitive about ANY
>> computer interface.
>
>If the Apple Lisa, Classic or whatever it was that I saw in Lasky's store
>in Glasgow in the early 80s had launched its apps with a single mouse click
>I would have been attracted to it, maybe even bought one. As it was, all I
>got was precious little, and I left unimpressed.
Live and learn. Who was worse off for this, you or Apple?
>> They are not. They're the worst possible test subjects for such a
>> thing, in fact. Useful work means production, so it is how productive,
>> not how intuitive, something is which should be measured. This means it
>> is far more important how efficient and effective an interface is, then
>> how easily a novice can dope it out on their own. Designing interfaces
>> which can be doped out without instruction by a novice results in "dumb
>> interfaces", not intuitive ones.
>
>I said "the basics", being, in this context, the act of launching the app,
>not the minutiae of its use. That's a different matter altogether.
That's what menus are for. Hotkeys work pretty good to, if you work out
a set that is efficient for your needs.
>> >Double-clicking just interferes with that process. Tell someone they can
>> >launch their app with one mouse click on its icon and they'll catch on
>> >instantly.
>>
>> Sure, as soon as you explain what "launch" and "app" and "icon" mean.
>
>"Place the little arrow on the little picture and press this button. Your
>wordprocessor will start up." Explain they can start their other programs
>in a similar way.
And from that point on, they're doomed. The will never ever understand
the desktop metaphor, nor the computer underneath, but simply mindlessly
click and hope things work the way they expect or imagine.
>Of course some icons aren't exactly self-evident, but that's another story.
No, it's not. Why do you keep wanting to treat certain parts of the
desktop metaphor as separate from the desktop metaphor itself?
>> >> People have "difficulty" with single-clicking, too,
>> >
>> >?
>>
>> ! <believe it or not>
>
>:)
>
>> >> and would prefer a TUI at
>> >> every turn (telepathic user interface), at least until the OUI
>> >> (omniscient user interface) becomes practical.
>> >
>> >Or the VCI (Voice control interface).
>>
>> You are claiming that a voice interface would be on the order of a
>> telepathic or omniscient interface?
>
>No, but unlike a TUI or an OUI it is achieveable.
To be honest, that remains to be seen, and I have reason to suspect
that, despite the widely held expectation that it is effective and
efficient, it is not really very achievable at all. At least not to the
extent that the desktop metaphor is achievable. But of course, some
people think XP's "Romper Room" style GUI is effective, and most people
simple assume that voice command of a computer would be easier or better
because they are told it would be, and everyone does it in science
fiction. Voices are for talking, not for executing processes.
>> >> Until they become
>> >> familiar enough with the idea that the icons on a desktop are metaphors
>> >> for objects, and one can either just touch them (single click, select)
>> >
>> >Why "select"? I have 29 icons on my Windows desktop. Single clicking any
>> >one of them does nothing meaningful.
>>
>> Depends on what you mean be "meaningful" and "does". It *selects* them.
>> Hit the delete key, they'll be deleted, hit the enter key, they'll be
>> opened, hit alt-enter and you'll see their properties....
>
>99.999% of the time all they're there for is to run an app.
Metaphorically, perhaps. Analytically, there is only "using the
computer", and nit-picking about one part of the process or another is
self-defeating.
>Of course, there are mouse apps that emulates a double click with a right
>click. Or a middle click. Difficult on a Mac, but that's their choice...
>
><...>
>
>> You're swimming upstream, I think.
>
>Oh probably :) But I do find KDE a lot easier to use with a single click.
>The only problem is double clicking on something if I've been in Windows
>for a while. Two copies of Netscape take a lot of stopping...
<*snicker*> Perhaps you're simply flopping around in the bottom of the
boat, I should say. ;-)
>> This issue has already been sorted
>> out, which is why the standard desktop metaphor uses a doubleclick to
>> "open" an icon (launching an app or document), so it is "intuitive" to
>> everyone. KDE isn't the only one to muck this up; they actually just
>> picked it up from Microsoft, as KDE is generally a direct attempt to
>> re-implement the worst aspects of consumer GUIs on Linux.
>
>How did KDE just "pick(ed) it up from Microsoft"?
KDE's GUI was substantially designed to mimic the Windows Experience.
It's peak of production corresponded to the period in time when MS was
pushing IE5 on the masses, and one of the ways they changed their 'look
and feel', partially, was by turning the desktop metaphor into a web
page (or pretending to). This was most noticeable in the change
(optional) to "single click launch".
>My main gripe with double clicking is that it requires a degree of manual
>dexterity that many intellegent people have difficulty getting to grips
>with.
That's because they have to make the default double-click setting just a
smidge too fast for the novice user. If they didn't, then it would be
so large that any two single clicks would become a double click.
Believe it or not, even though there is no reason to, people often click
twice on something, and the computer STILL has to "do the right thing",
as best it can.
So its best to simply get in the habit of adjusting the doubleclick
window. Far more productive than griping about how hard it is, as if it
is hard.
>And repeatedly double clicking your way down several sub-directories on a
>Mac can get exhausting. Do it day after day and you'll be a candidate for
>RSI. One click on a "+" is so much easier and eventually more efficient.
For sure, but that's because you've got the "+" to click on. Having
files or directories open with a single click might seem intuitive to
the novice, but it is certainly not a functionally operational approach
to implementing the desktop metaphor.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: IE
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 05:49:56 GMT
Said Michael Pye in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 28 Apr 2001 16:49:35
>"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
>> "Things it shouldn't"? "Wrong order"? I think you are missing the
>> point of HTML and have mistaken it for a graphic design tool. Maybe you
>> should just lay out all your pages in FrameMaker and put them on the web
>> as PDF's. That way they'll look exactly the same to everyone.
>
>No, I'm talking about CSS, not HTML. Netscape actually supports SOME of the
>properties, but through HTML rather than CSS. It's them who have it the
>wrong may round, not me...
Okay, I'll give. It was a knee jerk reaction, and I may have
misinterpreted your statements about Netscape4. Still, it only causes
problems for developers, and to be honest I don't mind that, not being
one. I'd prefer if you guys didn't waste time "building" things, and
just made information available in basic text form as much as possible.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
