How was this made?

Peter W.. Rowe replied to Abrasha who wrote:

You don't even know how to make an URL that adheres to certain
conventions of "general aesthetics". I used tinyurl, in the links
above...

How is this remotely on topic for a jewelry discussion group?


Oh, but it is--personally, I'm glad he said it!
It needs to be said MORE!

Long urls come out all un-clickable when they do that text-wrap thingy (eh
whatever, I'm not in IT for khrissakes), which happens in most email
programs.. (yeah, not all of us use that "google groups" crap)

When you can't simply *click* a link, but have to copy & paste--not just
once, but two seperate parts... it's just SO ****ing irritating!

Spread the good word!
TINYURL.com IS OUR FRIEND!!!!!
Praise be!
Amen!
http://tinyurl.com/27aqx3 !
Hell-uh-loo-yuh!



-- m3rma1d
--
To reply by email, carefully remove my panties.

On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 02:55:15 +0000, m3rma1d wrote:

Peter W.. Rowe replied to Abrasha who wrote:

You don't even know how to make an URL that adheres to certain
conventions of "general aesthetics". I used tinyurl, in the links
above...

How is this remotely on topic for a jewelry discussion group?

Long urls come out all un-clickable when they do that text-wrap thingy (eh
........
Spread the good word!
TINYURL.com IS OUR FRIEND!!!!!

Oh, I would agree!

We *are* drifting off topic, but I suppose I should explain,
since people are taking notice of Abrasha's odd attack:

I did not post the long URLs to the thread, and I would
have used tinyurl if I had.

Abrasha evidently found them on my website,
and did not understand what they were.

The URLs in question are calls to a server side CGI program that displays
most of the enlargements of images on my website.
The the extra stuff in the URL allows me to change the look
of the page -- the color and width of the border around the
image, the color of the background, which image to use, etc.

This one program substitutes for hundreds of html pages, and *most*
advanced websites use server side programming for a *lot* of the content.
You can make changes to a single program to affect the whole website,
instead of rewriting hundreds of pages.

His website is made up static pages only, as far as I can tell. If he
wanted to make the changes that I could do within a few minutes, he would
basically have to rewrite his website -- which might be a good thing to
do, since it flunks the tests at
http://validator.w3.org
....and is written in an old markup style right out of the mid-1990s.
--
mbstevens
http://www.mbstevens.com/

On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 02:55:15 GMT, "m3rma1d"
wrote:

Peter W.. Rowe replied to Abrasha who wrote:

You don't even know how to make an URL that adheres to certain
conventions of "general aesthetics". I used tinyurl, in the links
above...

How is this remotely on topic for a jewelry discussion group?


Oh, but it is--personally, I'm glad he said it!
It needs to be said MORE!

Long urls come out all un-clickable when they do that text-wrap thingy (eh
whatever, I'm not in IT for khrissakes), which happens in most email
programs.. (yeah, not all of us use that "google groups" crap)

When you can't simply *click* a link, but have to copy & paste--not just
once, but two seperate parts... it's just SO ****ing irritating!

Spread the good word!
TINYURL.com IS OUR FRIEND!!!!!
Praise be!
Amen!
http://tinyurl.com/27aqx3 !
Hell-uh-loo-yuh!

How do you know they'll be around for much longer? If you want
tinyurl, at least put the full URL in, too.
--
Marilee J. Layman
http://mjlayman.livejournal.com/

mbstevens wrote:
On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 02:55:15 +0000, m3rma1d wrote:

Peter W.. Rowe replied to Abrasha who wrote:

You don't even know how to make an URL that adheres to certain
conventions of "general aesthetics". I used tinyurl, in the links
above...
How is this remotely on topic for a jewelry discussion group?

Long urls come out all un-clickable when they do that text-wrap thingy (eh
........
Spread the good word!
TINYURL.com IS OUR FRIEND!!!!!

Oh, I would agree!

We *are* drifting off topic, but I suppose I should explain,
since people are taking notice of Abrasha's odd attack:

I did not attack you, you attacked me. Allow me to quote: "You are
confused in matters of general aesthetics.".


I did not post the long URLs to the thread, and I would
have used tinyurl if I had.

I posted those URLs to illustrate YOUR confusion in "matters of general
aesthetics".


Abrasha evidently found them on my website,
and did not understand what they were.

Oh I understand alright. Unfortunately for you, in life, understanding
only gets you the booby price.


The URLs in question are calls to a server side CGI program that displays
most of the enlargements of images on my website.
The the extra stuff in the URL allows me to change the look
of the page -- the color and width of the border around the
image, the color of the background, which image to use, etc.

This one program substitutes for hundreds of html pages, and *most*
advanced websites use server side programming for a *lot* of the content.
You can make changes to a single program to affect the whole website,
instead of rewriting hundreds of pages.

blah, blah, blah, yawn.


His website is made up static pages only, as far as I can tell.

So?!?

If he
wanted to make the changes that I could do within a few minutes, he would
basically have to rewrite his website -- which might be a good thing to
do, since it flunks the tests at
http://validator.w3.org

Oh ****, I flunked the test. Do I get to go to the principal's office
now and get spanked? Does my site get thrown out by the html police,
will it self destruct?

...and is written in an old markup style right out of the mid-1990s.

Hey look pal, my site works, and quite well I might add. I get between
50,000 and 80,000 unique visitors a month. Your site, which may pass
some test that most people who write html pages never even heard of (in
your book probably an major offense in itself), is still butt ugly!

It's about "general aesthetics", a phrase you brought into the
discussion, not me. As far as I was concerned, this was about making
things, goldsmithing, apprentices, etc.

--
Abrasha
http://www.abrasha.com

On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 17:04:10 +0000, Abrasha wrote:

Abrasha wrote:
Your site, which may pass
some test that most people who write html pages never even heard of (in
your book probably an major offense in itself), is still butt ugly!

I would be far too embarrassed to write something like that. As Hume
understood more than two hundred years ago:

"Beauty is no quality in things themselves: It exists merely in
the mind which contimplates them; and each mind percieves a different
beauty. One person may even perceive deformity, where another is sensible
of beauty; and every individual ought to acquiesce in his own sentiment,
without pretending to regulate those of others. To seek the real beauty,
or real deformity, is as fruitless an enquiry, as to pretend to ascertain
the real sweet or real bitter... "

....and...

"Beauty, whether moral or natural, is felt more properly than perceived.
Or if we reason concerning it and endeavor to fix the standard, we regard
a new fact, to wit, the general taste of mankind, or some such fact which
may be the object of reasoning and inquiry... When we run over libraries,
persuaded of these principles, what havoc must we make? If we take in our
hand any volume -- of divinity or school metaphysics for instance -- let
us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or
number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter
of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames, for it can
contain nothing but sophistry and illusion."