|
|
Posted by Brendan Gillatt on 10/10/07 15:49
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 16:09:57 +0100, Brendan Gillatt
> <brendanREMOVETHIS@brendanREMOVETHISgillatt.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:
>>> On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 19:32:22 +0100, Brendan Gillatt
>>> <brendanREMOVETHIS@brendanREMOVETHISgillatt.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> *snicker*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You retard! That won't even work on IE 5 on teh Mac!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not to mention:
>>>>>> http://www.backwater-productions.net/_test_platform/URAMORON.swf
>>>>>>
>>>>>> LOL, you can achieve the same effect in Flash with NO HTML or CSS code
>>>>>> and it's ONLY 280 bytes...that's a nearly FORTY PERCENT reduction in
>>>>>> size from yer idiot bloat code! 100 Kilobytes, what the fuck are you
>>>>>> thinkin, Sunshine? All you stupid ass gawd damn poser, wannabe,
>>>>>> college flunkie, halfass retards are all alike...runnin the fuck at
>>>>>> the mouth about shit you don't know about and then getting BITCH
>>>>>> SLAPPED for it.
>>>>> Oh wait, sorry, my bad. Did I say 280 bytes? Silly me, using default
>>>>> object names. *alters object names* There we go, now it's 270 bytes!
>>>>> ^_^
>>>>>
>>>>> One should probably also mention the fact that Flash allows for
>>>>> custom, embedded font types and proper font anti-aliasing, both of
>>>>> which HTML is wholly incapable of achieving.
>>>> Sure it is - I know for a fact it can do so on a Solaris graphics
>>>> workstation. Can flash do that? Ummmm.....
>>> You don't have any fuckin cl00 as to what you're babbling about, do
>>> you? Tell us, how ~exactly~ is it that your HTML code is magically
>>> embedding fonts into itself? Show us the code, Goober! LOL, this
>>> should be good for a laugh or six.
>>>
>>> And as for the anti-aliasing...um, that has nothing to do with the
>>> operating system directly so much as it has to deal with the browser
>>> and no browser I'm aware of has proper font-antialiasing (mostly cause
>>> it's seen as being too resource heavy, so they simply don't support
>>> it). In Flash you have the option to turn on and off anti-aliasing
>>> not only on the Flash file as a whole, but individual objects within
>>> the Flash construct can be dynamically set for anti-aliasing.
>
>> Ah I see where you're comprehension is failing.
>
> And here's his backpedal, get ready for it folks!
>
>> The font that a website
>> is displayed in should be up to the users to decide - why shouldn't
>> they? Their is no way that flash gives a user choice. And anti-aliasing?
>> That's also the user's choice.
>
> If you wanted to give your users a choice, you could, it'd be very
> simple. You uh, you DO know that you can style Flash with CSS in the
> same way that you can HTML, right Junior?
>
>> Flash does one sort of ant-aliasing - grayscale. It doesn't have support
>> at all for sub-pixel anti aliasing which is far, f<COCK SLAP>
>
> WRONG!
>
> It has sub-pixel anti-aliasing when you use "best" quality.
>
>>> And, once
>>> again, Flash is smaller.
>
>> No, not always.
>
> This coming from the stupid fuckin retarded prepub who just got his
> ass blistered over trying make a similar claim (or did you forget
> about your EIGHT HUNDRED PERCENT LARGER site size already). I mean,
> what is it with you, are you TRYING to get yer ass blistered? What
> are you lacking a father figure in your life and you're trying to use
> me to fill that role?
>
>>> with a greater level of cross
>>> compatibility.
>
>> Did you really just say that? Did you actually say flash has a wider
>> cross-compatibility than plain HTML?
>
> Depends on how "plain" you mean. HTML's inherent flaw is that the way
> it looks on one browser/OS is often NOT the way it will look on
> another. It's that inconsistency which makes it non cross-compatible.
> Just because you can take a square peg and rip it all up into little
> pieces doesn't mean that it fits in a round hole, cause what yer
> gettin out on the other end ain't a square peg...it's retarded
> bullshit, that's all you're getting. Flash is more cross compatible
> in that what in looks like on one machine/browser is pretty much
> exactly the way it's going to look on another machine/browser.
>
> Your deficient line of thinking is to sacrifice design
You mean your site has a good design?
> usability
Do you even check 508? You do realise that flash is nearly impossible for
screen readers to interpret.
> and
> stability
Flash is somehow more stable than plain ASCII now?
> for miniscule market gains. It's sort of like Pepsi could
> probably make a whole fuckin lot more cans and get them to more people
> around the world if they just skipped the whole "cola" thing and
> filled their cans with tap water...but uh...it wouldn't be Pepsi then,
> now would it, you stupid goober.
Please explain to me and all the other readers of usenet what exactly was
the meaning of that? I don't understand how you relate me using HTML to
filling pepsi cans with water.
>> Yet again I am astounded by your unbelievable short-sightedness.
>
> This from the retard who thinks he can embed fonts into HTML code.
When did I say that? Please quote, my usenet archives are obviously
incorrect.
- --
Brendan Gillatt
brendan {at} brendangillatt {dot} co {dot} uk
http://www.brendangillatt.co.uk
PGP Key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xBACD7433
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (MingW32)
iD8DBQFHDPRwkA9dCbrNdDMRAsX2AJ9uG8ADW5jQ7WdhcAAG+YHgctnJ4gCdFsEo
iC0+Qo/vNlD179P25FBbUQI=
=8XUI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|