On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 19:10:17 +0100, Geoff Berrow
wrote:

Message-ID: from Arny Krueger
contained the following:

Show where I said that the HTML was could not be further perfected, and
you've got a complaint.

I'm not going to argue about things you haven't said. Your attitude
however is that it's good enough and that it will do for most people on
most platforms. Now I bet a lot of blind people are interested in audio. -
how does your site work in a text reader?

As I stated before, it works fine with lynx, far better than most
"hand-crafted" sites I know. lynx is the most frequently used
newsreader for blind and partially-sighted people with text-to-speech
systems.

I've never denied that the site has err, suboptimal HTML.
Well you're just lucky that the links that point to your hard drive aren't
doing anything.

Seen on many commercial sites. NASA have done it, as have CERN, if
you're interested in the "reflects badly on you as a scientist" angle.

Of course, you're really got no complaint, here.
Seems it's you doing the complaining. I've done loads of sub optimal sites
but I'm learning all the time and getting better all the time. I'm not in
the business of making excuses for them. You are encouraging people to be
better listeners(with my ears? you gotta be kidding!) I am encouraging you
to care about your code.

As far as I could see, there was nothing much wrong with his code apart
from the broken links. In what browser did it not render reasonably?

Chris C

In uk.net.news.config, in ,
Chris Croughton wrote:
On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 19:10:17 +0100, Geoff Berrow
wrote:
[...]
Well you're just lucky that the links that point to your hard drive aren't
doing anything.

Seen on many commercial sites. NASA have done it, as have CERN, if
you're interested in the "reflects badly on you as a scientist" angle.

I'm saying nowt. ;-)

Adam
(Who once had an office down the corridor from part of CERN's Web
Services team)
--
Dennis Ritchie: "So fsck was originally called something else."
Question: "What was it called?"
Dennis Ritchie: "Well, the second letter was different."
-- Q&A at Usenix

"Geoff Berrow" wrote in message

Message-ID: from Arny Krueger
contained the following:

What do you mean?

That he couldn't connect? You do have _such_ a problem with English
don't you Arny?

Ironically Kurt, you guessed wrong. When he explained himself, he
said that he was commented on the freedom of FP-generated errors.

In what Universe was this?

The one that most of us live in.

Geoff, you responded to CC's post on 7/8. However, your response suggests
that you didn't read the post very carefully.

"Kurt Hamster" wrote in message

On Wed, 9 Jul 2003 14:05:13 -0400, Arny Krueger used
to say...

Barking, absolutely ****ing barking........

Merely the truth. Kurt's all talk and precious little action.

And there was us thinking the very same of you.

Kurt, snip this clown hard or you'll follow him into the ****ter -
I've seen enough of his raving crap ( most by 'accident') to last
two lifetimes......

It's hard for Kurt to do that while he's (metaphorically) squirming
on the ground like that...

Your arrogance is amazing.

It's wildly exceeded by yours.

I've never ever done this to any person in all my time on Usenet
(which is probably longer than yours), but *plonk* - even I know when
to stop banging my head on a brick wall.

Kurt, I shall now enjoy doing a running commentary on your screw-ups without
any interference from you!

;-)

On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 11:24:11 +0100, Kurt Hamster
wrote:

On 10 Jul 2003 07:47:04 GMT, Chris Croughton used
to say...

Your so-called "paraphrase" was not a "restatement of a text or passage
in another form or other words", it was so incorrect that it was not a
'restatement' at all,

It was an innaccurate recollection of a memory, it didn't take into
account the anal nature of so many here.

But when you included his statement as 'proof' of your assertion you had
both of them there in the same message to compare before you sent it.
Granted that your original assertion that all the tools he uses are
"error ridden" may have been a mistake, you then compounded it by
offering as 'proof' a statement which contradicts it, and then tried to
justify that.

and your so-called 'proof' was nothing of the
kind. Your statement implies that all of his work tools are both
trivial and "error ridden" (which phrase implies so full of errors that
they are useless) whereas what he said was that he uses some tools which
are 'trivial' (in hardware, a screwdriver or hammer would be a
'trivial' tool, in software a 'copy' command would be regarded as
'trivial'), and others which have some defects (all tools have some
defects, this does not mean that they are "error ridden").

I believe he uses Cool Edit for some of his audio hijinx, whichever way
you look at it that is not a trivial program so certainly can't be
compared with a hammer or screwdriver.

Then that is not one of the "trivial tools" to which he was referring
(and it does have defects and deficiencies). I expect that he does use
'trivial' tools such as copying files as well.

The other tools which were relevant to the thread were OE and Frontpage
4 both of which are known to be "error ridden".

But he probably doesn't use them in his occupation as a scientist.
Hell, he uses Windoze, as do most people who post to newsgroups, which
is certainly 'defective' (in fact anyone using a computer is using a
"tool known to be defective in some senses", there is no non-trivial
bug-free software, nor is there any hardware which never fails).

Chris C

On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 13:15:17 +0100, Kurt Hamster
wrote:

On 10 Jul 2003 11:42:53 GMT, Chris Croughton used
to say...

Nor do several of the W3C's ones (which ones fail tends to change, but
rarely are they all perfect). And lynx /will/ complain about bad HTML
(and about HTML much later than 3.0), and render it badly. The
'Hamster' website you quote comes off worse than his...

And deliberately so. The site is designed to use graphics as part of its
presentation thereby precluding Lynx. I made a conscious decision about
this, it didn't occur by accident which is more than can be said about
the pre-determination of Arny's site.

Oh, so you deliberately decided that you didn't want blind people to
read your site (which is about a /music/ band, and that involved the
ears not graphics last time I listened to music). That is supposed to
be somehow better than someone making a mistake, is it?

(His website works fine in links as well, another text-mode browser, and
it is that about which Geoff was enquiring.)

So what do you think a 'scientist' should do if areas of his work are
shown to be error riddled? Argue the point or correct them?

If it's in an area he doesn't care about, why should he do anything
about it? Especially if the areas affected aren't that important anyway
(audio is, again, about listening).

Voted by whom, by the way? I looked at the web site and the only
mention I could find was about "The Hamsters have been voted one of
the U.K.'s best unsigned bands by 'Kerrang' magazine..." -- I note "one
of" not "the" best. I'd have thought that a claim of being voted "the
best" would have received prominence on the site...

Firstly I have no control over the text which is used on the site, I
only do the 'coding, secondly they were voted as UK's Best Blues-Rock
band by the readers of Blueprint magazine.

You have control over what is in your .sig, though.

When? Last year (2002) it was the Nimmo Brothers.

As for prominence, it is shown on the site's index page.

Where? Not in text mode it isn't.

Chris C

"Kurt Hamster" wrote in message

On 10 Jul 2003 11:33:01 GMT, Chris Croughton used
to say...

On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 11:24:11 +0100, Kurt Hamster
wrote:

On 10 Jul 2003 07:47:04 GMT, Chris Croughton used
to say...

Your so-called "paraphrase" was not a "restatement of a text or
passage in another form or other words", it was so incorrect that
it was not a 'restatement' at all,

It was an innaccurate recollection of a memory, it didn't take into
account the anal nature of so many here.

But when you included his statement as 'proof' of your assertion you
had both of them there in the same message to compare before you
sent it. Granted that your original assertion that all the tools he
uses are "error ridden" may have been a mistake, you then compounded
it by offering as 'proof' a statement which contradicts it, and then
tried to justify that.

Because to me the paraphrase I used and the quote amount to the same
thing. I'm probably not as anally retentive as you.

and your so-called 'proof' was nothing of the
kind. Your statement implies that all of his work tools are both
trivial and "error ridden" (which phrase implies so full of errors
that they are useless) whereas what he said was that he uses some
tools which are 'trivial' (in hardware, a screwdriver or hammer
would be a 'trivial' tool, in software a 'copy' command would be
regarded as 'trivial'), and others which have some defects (all
tools have some defects, this does not mean that they are "error
ridden").

I believe he uses Cool Edit for some of his audio hijinx, whichever
way you look at it that is not a trivial program so certainly can't
be compared with a hammer or screwdriver.

Then that is not one of the "trivial tools" to which he was referring
(and it does have defects and deficiencies). I expect that he does
use 'trivial' tools such as copying files as well.

Given that the context of the original thread was related to both his
audio work and to his website it is logical to assume that he
considered CE to be trivial. Also I note that you failed to notice
and comment on the fact that he quite clearly used the term "every
tool".

Now you may argue that he also used "or" instead of "and", but as I
previously stated I considered them to have similar meaning in this
context.

The other tools which were relevant to the thread were OE and
Frontpage 4 both of which are known to be "error ridden".

But he probably doesn't use them in his occupation as a scientist.
Hell, he uses Windoze, as do most people who post to newsgroups,
which is certainly 'defective' (in fact anyone using a computer is
using a "tool known to be defective in some senses", there is no
non-trivial bug-free software, nor is there any hardware which never
fails).

He uses FP to publish his 'findings' thereby effectively using it in
his role as a 'scientist'.

Obviously Kurt has never read a scientific paper in his life, as most have
equally-trivial errors.

The fact still remains though that it is a bad scientist who won't
correct his work when it has been shown to be in error. YMMV

This stretches a relatively unimportant point beyond its breaking point.
The HTML error in question is akin to a typewriter with a slightly worn type
bar for the upper case letter "z".

There are many cases involving the publication of important scientific
results with small clerical and/or typographic errors that were never ever
addressed.

Most people have lives, Kurt obviously doesn't.

Message-ID: from Arny Krueger
contained the following:

That he couldn't connect? You do have _such_ a problem with English
don't you Arny?

Ironically Kurt, you guessed wrong. When he explained himself, he
said that he was commented on the freedom of FP-generated errors.

In what Universe was this?

The one that most of us live in.

Geoff, you responded to CC's post on 7/8. However, your response suggests
that you didn't read the post very carefully.

I assume you mean my response to Chris Croughton on 8/7 (it's not August
yet and haven't you ever heard of message IDs?), in which I said (and I
quote in full):

shrug It did not work at the time I tried it.

Explain yourself properly please, with correct referencing, or get out of
the game.
--
Geoff Berrow
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs http://www.ckdog.co.uk/rfdmaker/

"Geoff Berrow" wrote in message

Message-ID: from Arny Krueger
contained the following:

That he couldn't connect? You do have _such_ a problem with
English don't you Arny?

Ironically Kurt, you guessed wrong. When he explained himself, he
said that he was commented on the freedom of FP-generated errors.

In what Universe was this?

The one that most of us live in.

Geoff, you responded to CC's post on 7/8. However, your response
suggests that you didn't read the post very carefully.

I assume you mean my response to Chris Croughton on 8/7 (it's not
August yet

But it is the 7th month. Where I'm sitting right now, dates are written
mm/dd/yy.

and haven't you ever heard of message IDs?),

Of course I have, but that seems like a lot of work to describe something
that happened two days ago.

in which I said (and I quote in full):

shrug It did not work at the time I tried it.

Read the rest of CC's post.

Explain yourself properly please, with correct referencing, or get
out of the game.

You obviously aren't trying very hard Geoff. I'm not your daddy, so paddle
your own canoe.

"Ronnie McKinley" wrote in
message news
In uk.rec.audio Kurt Hamster wrote:

I've never ever done this to any person in all my time on Usenet
(which is probably longer than yours), but *plonk* - even I know
when to stop banging my head on a brick wall.

Thanks for all the entertainment, Kurt


Ronnie, you'll be *entertained* even more when you have to figure out
whether to spit or swallow.