Boojum

The Wife of Brian She thought she was marrying the guy next door.

Prion.

Prion.

I can't help but greet this news with mixed emotions. It does mean another potential vector of advancement in space exploration, but I'm also afraid it represents another step toward accommodating the eventual exodus of the "best and brightest" (read wealthiest) when our world ceases to be habitable. And that in turn frees those in authority (at least, those who care not a farthing for their fellow citizens; and they are legion) from any concern that their own grandchildren will be among those who will have to live with the consequences of our collective ravaging of nature. It explains all too well our current head-in-the-sand policy on issues like global warming: After all, why should the affluent care if half the United States becomes a shallow sea if their own descendants need no longer be here to suffer? Consequences felt by their socioeconomic "inferiors" are no consequences to them. As in the nineteenth century, so today.

Odd. I tried enclosing the Javascript menu in <script> ... </script> tags, and it disappeared altogether. Any other fairly simple ways to handle this, or shall I simply delete the non-Javascript menu? (Here's the URL: http://www.squort.com.)

A Sale of Two Cities Order today, and get a free gift! (I've always loved that phrase. A free gift. As distinguished from what—a gift that you pay for? Then again, since you have to pay to get it ....)

Thanks, kasey. I'll try that first solution. It's a lot simpler, and besides, I don't have a stylesheet yet.

Danube. (Although I was tempted to say "melancholy" again.)

Each of my pages contains two navigation menus, one with Javascript rollover buttons, and another that appears only in browsers without Javascript active. I created the latter (consisting of plain text in a table) for the benefit of those with Javascript and/or images turned off. Without Javascript, both menus appear, although of course the first does not roll over. I have two questions about this state of affairs. 1) Is it possible that the existence of a second, generally invisible menu could lead Google to think I'm trying to abuse it? 2) Assuming the dual menus are not a problem, is there any way to make the Javascript menu invisible when Javascript is not on?

In the immortal words of that great philosopher, Homer Simpson: "Mmmmm ... beer!"

J.

That was the case for me as well, annie. I think Google's figured out how easy it is to spam the search engines with hundreds or thousands of posts, and implemented a safeguard against that practice.

I actually had my URL spelled out in my signature. And the signature did not appear on Google's pages.

Ah. Somehow I was looking for a "moved" folder icon.

Something I notice in the TCH forums: Controversial subjects, such as politics, religion and philosophy are generally avoided, and when threads veer into them, those threads are likely to be closed. This is quite understandable, given the tendency for people not involved in the debates that can develop to be irritated by the polemics of those who are. But I think it is possible to discuss even the most divisive and emotional issues in a generally rational and mutually respectful manner, and to do so without offending non-participants. I therefore propose the creation of one or more forums reserved exclusively for discussing political, religious and other controversial subjects. Thus, only those who wish to enter the fray (or observe it) would be present in the forums or aware of their content. This seems to work well for other online communities of a size and diversity comparable to TCH's. Now, I would imagine that we would all like to see a degree of decorum in these proceedings, so I also suggest that we not only "agree to disagree" as a condition of joining the forums, but that the forums themselves be designated as protected. Like the "Family Only" forum, they can require passwords; unlike it, they should perhaps retain the option of expelling any participant who cannot remain civil. (On the other hand, perhaps the forums should go the opposite way: no holds barred. That is up to the staff.) Let's channel our controversy, not squelch it.

Where is the thread moved to?

Let me preface what I am about to say by stipulating that it is no more than my own observations of Google's listings as pertains to my own site. Searching for my site by name, I find that Google lists among its results those forum posts in which I have referred to my site in the body of the post. What I do not find is any sign of any of my signatures. This leads me to believe that Google may have an algorithm or other mechanism for filtering out forum signatures in general. (Note, however, that I say may. Your experience could well be completely different.)

Tracy, However belatedly, my thanks. Very kind of you to say.

May. (Our fourth was on the 20th.)

FIAT = Fix It Again, Tony (Soon to be heard at No. 10 Downing Street.)

An oldie, but (as the proverb has it) a goodie.

Melancholy.

A word about "forte": Easily among the most often mispronounced words in English, "forte" (pronounced fort) is a French noun literally meaning "strength" and used as a syonym for "metier" or "specialty." "Forté" (pronounced for-TAY), on the other hand, is an Italian adverb literally meaning "strongly" and used as a musical direction. Thanks for bearing with me in yet another rant. [Edit: When I expressed the foregoing, it was meant not as an attack on kussie, but as a scholarly remark on the usage of a common English term. If it was perceived as a personal rebuke, my apologies for my lack of clarity. I have been an editor for 19 years, and as such took the opportunity to address a pet peeve. Again: I hope that kussie will not feel singled out or slighted; I bear him no ill will, and I hope no one will read any animus into the foregoing.]

Nat, It is certain that Murphy was an optimist, and many are the corollaries begotten from his eponymous law. That this is a platform issue seems quite probable: You are designing your site in Windows 98, and I am viewing it in Mac OS 9.1, on a less-than-current browser not native to my OS. So numerous are the differences between our systems that I am probably very nearly your ideal distaff tester, in that my experience of your site is likely to be about as different from yours as it is possible to get. But this leads in turn to a question: On my system, changing resolutions is virtually instantaneous; I have simply to open (using a keyboard command) the control strip at the bottom left of my screen, select the monitor resolution icon, and select the new resolution I want from a short menu. It sounds, however, as though the process is somewhat more cumbrous for you. Do you have any convenient way to change resolutions quickly? Because, if you don't, you may want to search the web for something equivalent to the control strip for your system. It will be more than worth your while when you want to check your web and graphic work for cross-compatibility. Periphrastically yours, Brian

Natalie, As requested, here's a screenshot of the page. My apologies for the time this took. Unfortunately, I'm using an ancient machine and had to take the shot, save it as a PICT, quit Internet Exploiter, open Graphic Converter, open the screenshot in GC, save a copy of it as a GIF so I could upload it, quit GC, reopen IE and write this reply.