For your enjoyment, I'd like to craft a reply summarized of existing sane rebuttals to this topic, flavored with a touch of ridicule, as it is the seasoning spice of internet communication.
On Dec 20, 2006, at 8:27 PM, noachstern wrote: > At risk of inflaming further this somewhat circular topic, let me > add my vocal support for magnoliasoutherly's quite reasonable request. I guess that's fair warning, so let's just skip to the inflammatory part. > Where's your commitment to usability and "total user freedom" guys? > Why force some users to use a method YOU think best and THEY hate? Ah there it is. How about, you're free to have your browser do whatever you tell your browser to do with a hypertext link? There you go, total freedom on the part of the user. Attempting to force the application designers to munge things because you can't be bothered to figure out how to work with your system has nothing to do with freedom. Those links don't somehow tell the browser "this referenced URL *must* be opened in this window," they just indicate the URL and let the software on your side decide what's best. The ball is then in your court, and it's up to your side to act accordingly. > Not a good sign, mate as we say here down-under; and goodonya > magnolia (up there azalea, well-known footy-garden song). More of the inflammatory part I guess? "Not a good sign?" What "signs" are you reading exactly? Or is this just a lame attempt at emotional bullying; that you must have your petty changes made, or else everything must be going terribly wrong? Did you stomp your foot and pout, too? That's been known to work. Sequined Grapevines, - siege --- Christopher (siege) O'Brien [EMAIL PROTECTED]
