Posted by Neredbojias on 11/27/05 03:57

With neither quill nor qualm, Onideus Mad Hatter quothed:

> On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 20:27:14 -0700, Neredbojias
> <invalid@neredbojias.com> wrote:
>
> >That's the story now, huh? But you said:
> >
> >"Look, Dumbass, maybe you're just slow or something, but maybe you can
> >explain to everyone here why you can't seem to get that FAT head of
> >yours around the fact that however flawed you think it is, it's been
> >tested and shown to work on ALL major operating systems with ALL major
> >browsers."
> >
> >-only 2 messages back.
> >
> >So who's really the dumbass, dumbass?
>
> Well I guess the slow children like you need a little more
> clarification, huh? Would you be less of a pissy little girl if I
> said all major browser engines?

"If you said" and "what you said" are 2 different things, aren't they?
Would you be less of a jerk if you really knew what you were doing?

> Of course I suppose then you'll start
> wetting your training panties and whining that the text of the script
> labels it as Netscape instead of Mozilla, but then I never claimed the
> script was mine, Stupid, I just claimed it worked.

Duh, and it doesn't, as I claimed. Of course, it looks like you'll just
never be able to understand that.

> >As I said before, even if you accept browser-sniffing as a tactic of
> >value,
>
> Are you claiming there's ANOTHER way of detecting whether a browser
> can handle the various aspects of PNG files? Oh, please, oh great
> master of the stupid, tell us all what it is!

You ask me a question, assume the answer, then attach another question
onto the arbitrary choice you've made. You're a real beauty...

> >that script simply doesn't do what you claimed it did.
>
> http://www.backwater-productions.net/_test_platform/detect.html
>
> Oh no? Seems to detect FF just fine, Downs.

So? Did I ever say it didn't. I said it didn't detect Mozilla in spite
of your feeble attempt to "adjust" the issue.

> >Furthermore, you sound like a child in the process of being raised
> >improperly. Everyone has an ego, yes, but everyone makes mistakes, too.
>
> Yes, yes they do...but then I can correct them:
> http://www.backwater-productions.net/_test_platform/detect.html
>
> You weren't arguing against my work originally, Stupid, you were
> arguing against someone elses. Doesn't work so well when I'm the one
> whose rewritten it, neh?

Who cares whose work it is? This isn't a personal attack on the author,
it's a statement that the script is sub-par.

> >Own up to it, Onideus: you ain't as good as it gets by a long shot.
>
> Oh no? Well then you should be able to tell me of a site that has
> fading text effects like this one:
> http://www.backwater-productions.net/_test_platform/cbstory/

This is your idea of "as good as it gets?"

> You should also be able to tell me of a site that employs a perfect
> liquid image structure using multiple images:
> http://www.backwater-productions.net/alt.2600/

And this is your idea of "as good as it gets?"

> I'm as good as it gets, Kiddo...in a lot of areas.

I doubt that. As they say, "There's always someone better."
Furthermore, the evidence you offer for your claim is especially
dubious.

> Oh but hey, do
> feel free to attempt to prove me wrong.

Why should I? You going to pay me? Besides, you're doing a pretty good
job of it yourself, anyway.

> And, you know, when you
> backpedal,

Yeah, lots of people who converse with you backpedal, don't they?

> try and pick a better tactic than arguing semantics, cause
> that shit just ain't workin.

Uh huh, "browser" and "primary browser rendering engine" is quite a
semantic subtlety, isn't it? Phffft...

--
Neredbojias
Contrary to popular belief, it is believable.

[Back to original message]