Posted by Imperial_Leader on 11/09/04 11:23

In article with msg ID:
<42f53002$0$74196$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net>, BuZZard,
buzzard@buzzardnest.US_of_A_!!! took the time to etch the following
into Usenet History:



>
>"Onideus Mad Hatter" <usenet@backwater-productions.net> wrote in message
>news:60aaf1h1jlt8feh8ai0d581gdaebeerdcr@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 6 Aug 2005 15:41:15 -0500, Noodles Jefferson
>> <silverbells@tacoshells.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> Noodles -
>> >> "It looks very cool. That's fucking trippy. I dig that alot.
>> >> Props on that. Very inventive."
>>
>> >That was on your trippy flippy links things. Not the page itself.
>> >
>> >You did what I told you you were going to do. iframe all the way.
>>
>> The iframe is necessary, Bungles, it's how the script knows where the
>> fuck yer mouse is at.
>>
>> >It's also a just small box in the middle of the screen.
>>
>> Bungles, any site would technically be classified as "a box on the
>> screen", the fact that I can center mine both vertically and
>> horizontally just shows that I understand that concept better than you
>> do.
>>
>> >And a testament to pure vanity.
>>
>> Me, vain?! What, what?!
>>
>> >You have neato links thingies, not a cool webpage.
>>
>> ...neato links thingies?
>>
>> >It won't work if you don't have js turned on.
>>
>> Did you know that your computer doesn't work unless it's turned on?
>>
>> o_O
>>
>> >No alts for you pictures,
>>
>> Why do they need alt tags, can't you see them?
>>
>> >as usual, not that'd you'd even know what to do for that since you're
>"site" is
>> >just a neato picture crammed in an iframe.
>>
>> Aren't ALL sites just "neato" pictures crammed into a box? Seriously
>> Bungles, what the fuck are you trippin on?
>>
>> >Even better, your iframe's nested in a table. Nice um...layout.
>>
>> Can you come up with a better way to vertically and horizontally
>> center content on the screen? The best Mimic could come up with isn't
>> compatible with Macs, do you think you can do better than him?
>>
>> >Why are you using xhtml doctypes when you could just as easily have used
>> >an html doctype?
>>
>> Uh, I'm not using an xhtml doc type for the index page, you fuckin
>> idiot. The layout centering wouldn't even work with an xhtml doc type.
>>
>> >Glad to see you don't have more meta tags than actual tags this time.
>> >Well, it's only because of your horrific idea of putting an iframe into
>> >a table but we'll go with it.
>>
>> Bungles is too gawd damn Jesus killing stupid to figure out how to
>> look at the content of a .js file, otherwise he might realize how
>> entirely fucking stupid he sounds right now and would promptly shut
>> himself the fuck up in order to avoid any further embarrassment.
>>
>> >It's just another neato pretty picture that doesn't do dick except for
>> >move from your sites to torrent/anime sites.
>>
>> ...what anime sites? And of course leave it to Bungles to overlook
>> the actual content, three entries already. Maybe Bungles is just
>> trying to look so gawd damn mother fucking stupid that I'll do a
>> feature on his special brand of retard. I think teh poor boi wants to
>> be net.famous. Ssorry Junior, but I don't give free rides to
>> unproducing little fuckwits like yourself.
>>
>> --
>>
>> Onideus Mad Hatter
>> mhm � x �
>> http://www.backwater-productions.net
>
>
>Mr babbles.. pass the bowl of chex mix around you fat bastard.


He prefers to be called by his bottom name, *Julie*.



>

[Back to original message]