View Full Version : Blown threads

Jack Heinlen
09-11-2004, 04:27 PM
To our list of children we can add 'Enforcer', whoever that is, Dan(I really thought better of you Dan, but then I thought better of Mike too), and Ljb(it conforms to his style of argument, though I thought better of him too).

Get a grip gents. Ignore or refute, but to blow things up is just stupid, not to mention adolescent and passive agressive and neurotic.

Almost all(all?) have been blown up by Bush haters, who are losing. My sincere condolences go to their fear and frustration. Go beat a pillow or a punching bag until you've tired your anger out.

Stop taking it out on this forum !

[ 09-11-2004, 05:30 PM: Message edited by: Jack Heinlen ]

09-11-2004, 04:36 PM
booo hooo hooo

John C. Gresham
09-11-2004, 04:44 PM
Obviously, PUDDINTANE, some people are also little old girls when it comes to being adults.

captain's gig
09-11-2004, 05:00 PM
when I get a little frustrated.. I like to take a nice hot shower..


09-11-2004, 05:37 PM
Originally posted by huisjen:
... I apologize. I added something to that thread which, at the time, I thought was in keeping both with Stan's style, and with Bruce's, um, redundancy. I soon realized that I was generating more heat than light and pulled my post, but only after crashing my old G3 a couple times trying to bring up the edit page.


09-11-2004, 05:40 PM
Whoa! I didn't blow anything up.

I posted a picture that was relevant to the discussion.

I asked John to re-size it for me, as he offered in this thread (http://media5.hypernet.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=5;t=018091) but he hasn't done it yet.

09-11-2004, 05:41 PM
Many are "brave" enough to attack in the bilge. Few are braver yet, enough to apologize here. I can only think of two or three. Thanks, Huisjen, for joining and strengthening their ranks.

John C. Gresham
09-11-2004, 05:48 PM
LJB, I have no way to get it to you post-resizing aside from the board. I saw you posted it there, though. Can you possibly give me your e-mail address so I can send it to you?

Jack Heinlen
09-11-2004, 05:53 PM

So your post that blew up the CBS commentary thread wasn't intentional? It was, in any case, disruptive.

Thanks Dan for the apology and the retraction. We all do things we regret, but it's a real person who retracts when they know they are wrong. My estimation has returned. smile.gif

09-11-2004, 06:15 PM
Originally posted by Jack Heinlen:

So your post that blew up the CBS commentary thread wasn't intentional? It was, in any case, disruptive.It wasn't intended to blow up the thread. It proved a point.

By showing that the superscript "th" was used on another typewritten document whose authenticity is unquestioned, I showed that the superscript "th" does not prove the CBS documents were forged.

Posting evidence that is relevant to the discussion is not "blowing up" a thread.

09-11-2004, 06:20 PM
Originally posted by John C. Gresham:
LJB, I have no way to get it to you post-resizing aside from the board. I saw you posted it there, though. Can you possibly give me your e-mail address so I can send it to you?Ah, but then what would I do with it? To use it on the forum, it needs to be accessible on a webpage somewhere. If you resize it, I'd have it, but I wouldn't be able to post it.

If you put it up on an unreferenced back-page of the Awesome Report, I could reference it there.

09-11-2004, 06:36 PM
Ain't nobody here what can blow up a reasonable discussion as could Stan and his morphs.

09-11-2004, 06:58 PM
Chill, Norm. Never saw Stan blow up a thread into unreadability...

09-11-2004, 07:16 PM
You chill. You're a foreigner. What would you know about anything?

That is typical of what Stan and a couples of others contribute to the forum. You characterize it as being true to ones self and therefore acceptible. I call it blowing up a thread. Big pictures are certainly childish to be sure.

If you walk through a barnyard ya can't ignore the truds lest you step in one.

09-11-2004, 07:29 PM
Norm , Is that how you see all foreigners?

I expected better from you.

09-11-2004, 07:32 PM
Originally posted by NormMessinger:
You chill. You're a foreigner. What would you know about anything?

That is typical of what Stan and a couples of others contribute to the forum. I fully agree ;)

High C
09-11-2004, 07:40 PM
Norm, I think you stepped in a trud. :D

Peter Malcolm Jardine
09-11-2004, 07:43 PM
I, for one, apologize. I am very sorry. I feel awful,and I will try to not let it happen again. Once again, my most sincere apologies. It's this damn woodenboat I have. It seems to sucked the reason out of my mortal soul. :eek:
I hear sounds like oars splashing in the water when I take a bath :eek: I hear whale noises when I'm sleeping. :confused: I dream about Tugboats. :cool: I spend hours on the internet looking at pictures of boats. :rolleyes: I had the horn on my car converted to a foghorn. tongue.gif My best pair of shoes are deck shoes. I have five compasses. tongue.gif I'm sorry.

[ 09-11-2004, 08:44 PM: Message edited by: Peter Malcolm Jardine ]

Peter Malcolm Jardine
09-11-2004, 07:50 PM
One of them has to do with being wrong, and the other has to do with apologies.
These are two things you will never see Donn post about ;)

Peter Malcolm Jardine
09-11-2004, 07:55 PM
Hmmm I have remisunderestimated Donn.

Misunderestimated. :rolleyes:

09-11-2004, 07:56 PM
On the other hand, I have seen Donn be reasonable, and logical, and persuasive. That is more than can be said for a lot of his regular adversaries...

BTW, Donn, I, for one, would appreciate it if you would always correct my spelling and syntax. For a foreigner, one of the pleasures of the bilge is to practice one's English...

09-11-2004, 08:00 PM
Bull, Donn. You'll do it for free. You can't help it. :D

Joe (SoCal)
09-11-2004, 08:00 PM
He he George he corrects mine for free LOL :D

Peter Malcolm Jardine
09-11-2004, 08:02 PM
For sheer entertainment, He'll use words that don't exist :D

09-11-2004, 08:06 PM
Precisely, Donn. Stiletto's interpretation illustrates another problem with The Bilge, the failure to communicate, either from a position not clearly stated or from reading a comment with a preconceived misconceptions. Another is needleing each other in fun to point where it get out of hand, a fight begins and things get serious.

I still take seriously the lecture Das gave me about sarcasm. It's a flaw in my personality.

Truth be told, Stiletto, there are several regulars on The Forum from England, Canada, Australia and Germany (maybe even Brazil) who see the United States much more clearly and objectively than do many of us. And they sure know a heck of a lot more about what is going on in the World than most of us do. Snide remarks about foreigners have drive other good people away.

Peter Malcolm Jardine
09-11-2004, 08:08 PM
Not in the english language. Maybe in the american one. :rolleyes:

Of course I do try to keep up with new words and embetter myself. ROTFLMAO :D :D :D

Peter Malcolm Jardine
09-11-2004, 08:19 PM
"Embetter" is one of his "new" words too. I can't help the fact your president can't speak english properly. ;) The word you used does not exist in the english language.

09-11-2004, 08:24 PM
The word you used does not exist in the english language.[/QB]The English language

09-11-2004, 08:39 PM
the sarcastic on here are frequently wasted

09-11-2004, 08:44 PM
Especially on a Saturday night, when everyone's typing goes awry..

09-11-2004, 08:47 PM
By the way, George. Did you notice how much better your spelling and syntax is than mine? And I've only noticed one slip, or perhaps a twisted idiom, by Martin.

[ 09-11-2004, 09:48 PM: Message edited by: NormMessinger ]

09-11-2004, 09:01 PM

"Don't give us none of your aggravation, had it with your discipline.

Saturday night's all right for fighting, get a little action in"

09-12-2004, 12:42 AM
Norm If I misunderstood you I apologoise. I did look for quotation marks and there werent any.

No worries, I understand now.

Domesticated_Mr. Know It All
09-12-2004, 07:48 AM
This is one of the funniest threads I've ever seen. :D

09-12-2004, 09:46 AM
Ya gotta admit it and others like it has taken our attention away from other unresolvable questions. Just shows we can fight about the most inconsequential things.

09-12-2004, 09:07 PM
Originally posted by Ironmule:
A few weeks back, someone posted the HTML code to have your browser resize a picture automaticly.

</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: fixed;">&lt;img src=&quot;picture web address&quot; width=&quot;478&quot; height=&quot;356&quot;&gt;</pre>The part you use is from the "<" to the ">". This would take whatever sized picture is at the given web address, and display it 478 pixels wide, and 356 pixels high. Choosing the wrong numbers can stretch the picture.

When making something smaller, divide the pixel size by wharever fraction makes it right on the forum page. It works on .bmp, .png, .gif, .jpg I don't know if it resizes animated .gifs.

I'll try sizing up a forum smilie by +1/3

As you can see what it did to the winkie, sizing a small image up isn't a good idea. But it should be pretty clean when sizing down.

Now when taking a dirty, much copied image like the one ljb5 wants to post, you can't read the lettering when it's small. Documents can't be shrunk much before the print becomes unreadable. But this will work when the information to be delivered is in a bikini or sailing across the sunset.

Whenever you want to see how someone did something, click the "quote" button on his post, and copy the section that's useful. :D

Jeff Smith[/quote]"Someone" eh? tongue.gif

The tag should be closed by "/>", not just a ">"

As for people who blow up threads - I guess their only contribution is giving blow jobs. :D

John C. Gresham
09-13-2004, 01:39 PM
But they're both broken.

09-13-2004, 01:40 PM
Sorry, you are incorrect. While some software will accept an incorrectly formed tag, a tag with no content is properly terminated by "/>". A tag with content, such as a paragraph tag ("p" tag), is properly terminated with a slashed "p" tag (see below).

Browsers are pretty sloppy about what they accept as HTML. This is one of the things that makes the web work. Especially in the early days, authors did not fully understand how to write good HTML and so a lot of content (pages) would have been displayed badly or not at all unless the browsers made allowances for this. A prime example of this is the frequent omission of end tags, especially "p" tags. It's not uncommon to see:

</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: fixed;">&lt;p&gt; yada yada yada

&lt;p&gt; blah blah blah</pre>[/QUOTE]when it should be:

</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: fixed;">&lt;p&gt; yada yada yada

&lt;p&gt; blah blah blah
&lt;/p&gt;</pre>[/QUOTE]You can find out a lot more by reading http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/ and the corresponding and increasingly more important http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/

09-13-2004, 02:48 PM
Dang it Jeff. I thought for a second there you'd posted a stereo pair. No amount of eye crossing and staring could resolve them as such.