|
Posted by Blinky the Shark on 08/04/07 22:18
Neredbojias wrote:
> Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sat, 04 Aug 2007
> 09:07:03 GMT Blinky the Shark scribed:
>
>>>> I don't need bunnies, so I use news.individual.net for $14/year as
>>>> my primary.
>>>
>>> I tried that when I decided to go hi-speed but had trouble with the
>>> payment methods. The rules are different for Americans and
>>> Europeans, - worse for the former. They try to dun your cc (for cc
>>> usage, I guess) _as well as_ the normal charge, and I would have
>>> none of it.
>>
>> I'm the former. I had no issues with them the two times I've paid
>> for the service.
>
> So? Then I guess they tried to stiff me. This is no fantasy; the
> charge was on my bank account until I had it removed. (-Only about
> $3, but it's the principle... I also couldn't get thru to their
> hotline to inquire.)
>
> Did you use a cc?
Visa. $12.46 in April last year and 13.91 this April. No other
charges.
>>>> I'm kind of a Usenet junkie. :)
>>>
>>> You must be subscribed to a lot of different groups 'cause I don't
>>> see your tail around here that often (-lessen you just jaw much less
>>> than you read, sort of an anti-dorayme-type-paradigm.)
>>
>> Probably 30, but some of them are low-traffic groups. I only heavily
>> participate in...I guess three that run two or three hundred posts or
>> more a day. Most are mid-sized. I read a lot more than I post here
>> and in alt.www.webmaster; I'm not as versed in the issues with these
>> two groups so it's more learning for me and less helping. I did just
>> pick up a domain to take my Usenet Improvement Project to, so when I
>> get around to designing that (it'll be completely new) I'll probably
>> be standing in the help queue here more than I have been. :)
>
> I've looked at your current effort a few times, and it seems pretty
> damn good to me. Probably the best thing to remember when
Why, thank you.
My main goal has been simplicity and speed. I love fast downloading
sites; I'm heavily influenced by the plain-jane pages I get from
many/most of the Linux documentation and help sites, RFC sites, and
stuff like that. Unless I'm *looking* for images, I don't need them --
they're of little use on an informational pages. I'm on a dialup, and I
have and will try to continue NOT making stuff that takes two minutes a
page for the other good folks that are, for whatever reason(s) on
dialups.
I'm snooping for two- or three-column nontabled layouts to work from for
the new site. That doesn't imply that I'm using tables now. But I did
for one version of my present hobby site years ago. I learned a lot
with that, though. Not just in terms of coding; also a pain in the ass
maintainance was.
> html-page-making is that there are bound to be roadblocks because the
> standards aren't fully "set" yet and the browsers render markup
> differently, anyway. In some ways I think it's all a bunch of crap
> little better than what was around in the early nineties. The _move_
> towards standardization is good, but the reality of the current
> implimentations...? I dunno. I think they could have done better.
Another advantage to keep it simple is that I can do reasonably well
without being a Wizard. :)
I test new stuff and changes in FF, Opera, Konqueror, lynx
and...uh...what's that other one...the legacy browser...oh, yeah -- IE.
--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups.
Except in Thunderbird, which can't filter that well.
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|