|
|
Posted by dorayme on 09/08/05 11:41
> From: Leonard Blaisdell <leo@greatbasin.com>
>
> In article <BF460BBE.16B1B%dorayme@optusnet.com.au>,
> dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>>> From: Leonard Blaisdell <leo@greatbasin.com>
>
>> As I said, I would be unlikely to make a framed site for a commercial
>> client. So what quite is the relevance of your remark? I will pass over this
>> idea of yours of discussing technical matters with clients...
>
> "Unlikely to" is a qualifier and doesn't close the door. Say "Won't".
>
Excuse me? What was the relevance of the remark referred to? And
your authority for telling me what I should say is...? Got any
idea about this? I gave you one of my best NZ jokes and this is
how you treat me?
(Suppose a commercial site wanted me to put in a short section
on the use of frames in the history of web design? And offered
me big money? Suppose they wanted frames for silly reasons and
offered me bigger money? Suppose I want to carry out a project
that needs frames to be wild and crazy. There are famous sites,
I think, I must dig them out again... What the hell should I
say? "O no, there is this Leo character who has made me take
some qualifier to some extreme. Sorry, can't do this!")
>>>> But it is a different thing
>>>> to the fact of the easy advantages of some features of frames.
>
> Again, from a designer standpoint. The client gets less than a benefit.
>
You don't know this at all given that you do not know the client
bases of all clients. I am getting tired... Who would have
thought you folk could sap the energy and life from a poor old
person like me...
>> You are spraying stuff all over the place. (Just btw, how come you left out
>> a phrase about the popularity of IE? Did not suit your fundamentalist
>> stance?). I took some trouble to make a distinction between the overall
>> balance of the ledger sheet - admittedly in favour of dropping frames
>> technology - on all this and you make exactly the mistake in scope that I
>> described.
>
> I make mistakes by the dozens all the time, but I don't stick to a
> position because it was confusing to learn in the first place and hard
> to give up once I did. Well, not in this case.
>
You do not know that I cannot change my framed site with the
skills I have. Please restrain yourself, I have more NZ jokes if
that will encourage you. I have changed my personal formerly
framed home site to a non framed one at great trouble to myself.
And when it was done I flatly refused to pay.
It is a bit different with a commercial client who like their
site (quite rightly because it is incredibly beautiful). I
forgave myself for not paying myself, but I would not forgive a
company. Given an earlier remark of yours, you do not seem to
realise how little one can always discuss technical matters with
clients. In the case of my own home site, I found it very easy
to discuss every single aspect of the proposed change with
myself. In fact, at one point I was dragged off as a lunatic
talking to himself and only released when I explained about the
importance overall for a website to be unframed... "No! I am not
saying I think people are framing me officer." I said. Tricky
situation.
>> Yes, well, there you go. You do what I do myself when I am more unreasonable
>> than I should be.
>
> I'm not being unreasonable. I truly tried to 'soft shoe' my objection to
> frames for you. I had a fairly large commercial site made of them until
> this group made me see the light.
>
You miss the point. I know what the objection to frames are (not
as well as others but not too bad). I am not recommending frames
to anyone. I am just putting my arms and body around this
miserable wretched creature for one compassionate moment. It has
been set upon by all you thugs, it is badly bruised and bleeding
and for God's sake let someone, me, anyone, just to say a kind
few words about it... Please? I beg you?
>>> Yup.
>>>
>> This last little snip of yours (to which you reply "Yup")
>> is rather unfair and manages to completely alter my meaning.
>> Nothing is beneath a fundamentalist to argue and do in the cause eh?
>
> I felt the heat at, what is it, 8000 miles away. I'm not unfair. But us
> fundamentalists sometimes see the 'true' light. Reach for the light. Oh,
> and smiley, smiley, smiley.
> Don't be angry with me. I'm a Labrador Retriever living in Reykjavik and
> struggling with the lava. My old master Olaf told me to spread the
> message that frames must die.
>
I am not angry with you my dear Leo... now that you have
explained how you are a convert to the fundamentalist creed, I
understand. You have the zeal of a convert. It is not anything
you can control. Have some mulled wine, it must be cold there
(but have a good slug of cold whisky with it... the heating of
the wine removes the ingredient you need to calm and truly warm
your zealatous body)
dorayme
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|