Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.misc > #17995 > unrolled thread

Another memo to web designers

Back to article view | Back to comp.misc

Contents

  Another memo to web designers Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-05-17 22:52 +1000
    Re: Another memo to web designers Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2019-05-17 14:16 +0000
      Re: Another memo to web designers Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-05-18 14:20 +1000
    Re: Another memo to web designers Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2019-05-17 15:24 +0000
      Re: Another memo to web designers Robert Munyer <robertm@not-for-mail.invalid> - 2019-06-07 23:02 +0000
        Re: Another memo to web designers Nyssa <Nyssa@LogicalInsight.net> - 2019-06-08 10:49 -0400
          Re: Another memo to web designers kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2019-06-08 12:03 -0400
            Re: Another memo to web designers Nyssa <Nyssa@LogicalInsight.net> - 2019-06-08 16:03 -0400
          Re: Another memo to web designers Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2019-06-08 17:16 -0300
            Re: Another memo to web designers not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2019-06-09 00:56 +0000
              Re: Another memo to web designers Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2019-06-09 02:41 -0300
                Re: Another memo to web designers The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2019-06-09 08:23 -0700
              Re: Another memo to web designers Nyssa <Nyssa@LogicalInsight.net> - 2019-06-09 10:05 -0400
                Re: Another memo to web designers Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2019-06-09 14:35 +0000
    Re: Another memo to web designers Adrian Caspersz <email@here.invalid> - 2019-05-17 16:57 +0100
      Re: Another memo to web designers Adrian Caspersz <email@here.invalid> - 2019-05-17 17:39 +0100
    Re: Another memo to web designers scott@alfter.diespammersdie.us (Scott Alfter) - 2019-05-17 17:11 +0000
      Re: Another memo to web designers The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2019-05-17 10:29 -0700
      Re: Another memo to web designers Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2019-05-17 17:43 +0000
        Re: Another memo to web designers The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2019-05-17 12:14 -0700
          Re: Another memo to web designers Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2019-05-17 20:38 +0000
            Re: Another memo to web designers The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2019-05-17 15:52 -0700
          Re: Another memo to web designers Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2019-05-17 17:45 -0300
            Re: Another memo to web designers The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2019-05-17 15:54 -0700
        Re: Another memo to web designers scott@alfter.diespammersdie.us (Scott Alfter) - 2019-05-20 18:04 +0000
      Re: Another memo to web designers RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2019-05-17 22:10 -0400
        Re: Another memo to web designers Bruce Horrocks <07.013@scorecrow.com> - 2019-05-18 05:42 +0100
          Re: Another memo to web designers RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2019-05-20 17:24 -0400
        Re: Another memo to web designers Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2019-05-18 03:20 -0300
          Re: Another memo to web designers scott@alfter.diespammersdie.us (Scott Alfter) - 2019-05-20 18:16 +0000
        Re: Another memo to web designers Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2019-05-18 19:48 +0000
          Re: Another memo to web designers The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2019-05-18 13:29 -0700
            Re: Another memo to web designers Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2019-05-18 21:46 +0000
    Re: Another memo to web designers not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2019-05-19 00:04 +0000
      Re: Another memo to web designers Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-05-19 12:36 +1000
    Re: Another memo to web designers Miss Robot <miss.robot@lozza.ca> - 2019-06-21 11:49 -0400
      Re: Another memo to web designers Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2019-06-21 16:59 +0000
      Re: Another memo to web designers not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2019-06-22 03:03 +0000
        Re: Another memo to web designers The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2019-06-21 23:06 -0700
      Re: Another memo to web designers Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-06-22 13:35 +1000
        Re: Another memo to web designers Bruce Horrocks <07.013@scorecrow.com> - 2019-06-23 11:19 +0100

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#18004

The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 05/17/2019 10:43 AM, Rich wrote:
>> Scott Alfter <scott@alfter.diespammersdie.us> wrote:
>>> Another capital offense against good taste: using JavaScript to force smooth
>>> scrolling of your page, even though I've turned off smooth scrolling in
>>> browser settings.
>>
>> The NoScript extension can help with that.  Blocking the JS also blocks
>> all the silliness that often comes along with the JS.
> 
> I've got a js switch button, but turning off js generally also turns off 
> some functionality that I want/need :-(

With NoScript it is not a global on/off switch.  You get to turn on/off 
per domain where the JS is being fetched from.  So you can turn on some 
JS, but leave others (google analytics) blocked.

But, if the bundle from one domain includes bad JS you don't want, you 
don't get a way to just enable parts of the JS from that domain.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18006

On 05/17/2019 01:38 PM, Rich wrote:
> The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 05/17/2019 10:43 AM, Rich wrote:
>>> Scott Alfter <scott@alfter.diespammersdie.us> wrote:
>>>> Another capital offense against good taste: using JavaScript to force smooth
>>>> scrolling of your page, even though I've turned off smooth scrolling in
>>>> browser settings.
>>>
>>> The NoScript extension can help with that.  Blocking the JS also blocks
>>> all the silliness that often comes along with the JS.
>>
>> I've got a js switch button, but turning off js generally also turns off
>> some functionality that I want/need :-(
>
> With NoScript it is not a global on/off switch.  You get to turn on/off
> per domain where the JS is being fetched from.  So you can turn on some
> JS, but leave others (google analytics) blocked.
>
> But, if the bundle from one domain includes bad JS you don't want, you
> don't get a way to just enable parts of the JS from that domain.

No surprise there :-(


-- 
Cheers, Bev
    Eat right. Stay fit. Die anyway.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18005

The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> writes:

> I've got a js switch button, but turning off js generally also turns off 
> some functionality that I want...

When do you arrive at the point where you say, "there is some shit I
will not eat"?  e.e. cummings (in "i sing of Olaf glad and big") was
writing of the response of Olaf ("whose warmest heart recoiled at
war") to compulsory military service.  But similar applies to "our way
or the highway" scenario in other domains.

> .../need :-(

Depending on the character of "need" in the given context, that could
be mistaken or just sad & unfortunate.

-- 
Mike Spencer                  Nova Scotia, Canada

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18007

On 05/17/2019 01:45 PM, Mike Spencer wrote:
> The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> I've got a js switch button, but turning off js generally also turns off
>> some functionality that I want...
>
> When do you arrive at the point where you say, "there is some shit I
> will not eat"?  e.e. cummings (in "i sing of Olaf glad and big") was
> writing of the response of Olaf ("whose warmest heart recoiled at
> war") to compulsory military service.  But similar applies to "our way
> or the highway" scenario in other domains.
>
>> .../need :-(
>
> Depending on the character of "need" in the given context, that could
> be mistaken or just sad & unfortunate.

I know.  You forgot "pitiful". I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be willing to 
switch banks, though.   I can't remember which sites were involved -- 
maybe all of them, which would put it down to a browser problem.

-- 
Cheers, Bev
    Eat right. Stay fit. Die anyway.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18021

In article <qbmrrq$5hk$1@dont-email.me>, Rich  <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
>Scott Alfter <scott@alfter.diespammersdie.us> wrote:
>> Another capital offense against good taste: using JavaScript to force smooth
>> scrolling of your page, even though I've turned off smooth scrolling in
>> browser settings.
>
>The NoScript extension can help with that.  Blocking the JS also blocks 
>all the silliness that often comes along with the JS.

I've used that previously.  It is effective at what it does, but figuring
out what sources need to be enabled to get a website working (to the extent
you need it working) gets to be a major PITA after a while.  I think I left
it behind when I switched from Chrome/Chromium to Brave.

  _/_
 / v \ Scott Alfter (remove the obvious to send mail)
(IIGS( https://alfter.us/           Top-posting!
 \_^_/                              >What's the most annoying thing on Usenet?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18008

On 2019-05-17, Scott Alfter <scott@alfter.diespammersdie.us> wrote:
> Another capital offense against good taste: using JavaScript to force
> smooth scrolling of your page, even though I've turned off smooth
> scrolling in browser settings.

I was reading earlier today that in the past ten years, the average web
page has grown in size by a factor of 4.  That's pretty impressive.
Wonder how much richer in information density pages are these days?
Harrumph.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18010

On 18/05/2019 03:10, RS Wood wrote:
> On 2019-05-17, Scott Alfter <scott@alfter.diespammersdie.us> wrote:
>> Another capital offense against good taste: using JavaScript to force
>> smooth scrolling of your page, even though I've turned off smooth
>> scrolling in browser settings.
> 
> I was reading earlier today that in the past ten years, the average web
> page has grown in size by a factor of 4.  That's pretty impressive.
> Wonder how much richer in information density pages are these days?
> Harrumph.
> 

An oldie but goodie article on web page bloat that makes the rather 
lovely suggestion: "text-based websites should not exceed in size the 
major works of Russian literature."

<https://idlewords.com/talks/website_obesity.htm>

-- 
Bruce Horrocks
Surrey
England
(bruce at scorecrow dot com)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18023

On 2019-05-18, Bruce Horrocks <07.013@scorecrow.com> wrote:
> An oldie but goodie article on web page bloat that makes the rather
> lovely suggestion: "text-based websites should not exceed in size the
> major works of Russian literature."
>
><https://idlewords.com/talks/website_obesity.htm>

Man, that article keeps getting funnier and funnier with time.. I was
looking for a pithy quote to post, but there are too many of them.  I
settled for one of many: 

" These comically huge homepages for projects designed to make the web
faster are the equivalent of watching a fitness video where the
presenter is just standing there, eating pizza and cookies."


So awesome.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18011

RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> writes:

> On 2019-05-17, Scott Alfter <scott@alfter.diespammersdie.us> wrote:
>
>> Another capital offense against good taste: using JavaScript to force
>> smooth scrolling of your page, even though I've turned off smooth
>> scrolling in browser settings.
> 
> I was reading earlier today that in the past ten years, the average web
> page has grown in size by a factor of 4.  That's pretty impressive.
> Wonder how much richer in information density pages are these days?
> Harrumph.

Because of my somewhat Luddite leanings and general crankiness, I not
infrequently fetch a web page from a site neither my antique nor my
very old browser will talk to.  I have telnet to my much newer laptop
open in an xterm, use wget to fetch the page to a file on my desktop
fs and edit it.

The file may be 400K.  Removing all script, svg, noscript and style
blocks, all img, div, span, link and meta tags will reduce
that to maybe 120K.  Running the result through lynx -dump and
extracting only the article I want to read (eliding all the "see other
goodies on our site/subscribe here" stuff) the resulting text file, with
anchor links as footnotes, is maybe 45K.

"Harrumph", indeed.

If I use wget as above, then load the *unedited* file into a modern
browser, it immediately starts trying to download stuff referenced in
the link tags, DNS prefetch, noscript blocks etc. rather than just
rendering the file.

For a few sites I browse daily, I do all that editing by fetching the
page through a cgi-bin script on localost that removes the crap and
jiggers anchor tags so that they go back through the script to the
desired real desitination.  Means waiting for the whole page to
download before it begins to render because the script needs the whole
thing to do global s/whatever//g.  At least wget (called from the
script) takes care of chunking.  When I first started doing this, I
was opening a socket on the remote host.  But then I had to detect and
unpack chunking where it occurred.


-- 
Mike Spencer                  Nova Scotia, Canada

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18022

In article <87y334i8r5.fsf@bogus.nodomain.nowhere>,
Mike Spencer  <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote:
>For a few sites I browse daily, I do all that editing by fetching the
>page through a cgi-bin script on localost that removes the crap and
>jiggers anchor tags so that they go back through the script to the
>desired real desitination.  Means waiting for the whole page to
>download before it begins to render because the script needs the whole
>thing to do global s/whatever//g.  At least wget (called from the
>script) takes care of chunking.  When I first started doing this, I
>was opening a socket on the remote host.  But then I had to detect and
>unpack chunking where it occurred.

Maybe you should consider setting up an RSS reader.  I've run a TTRSS
instance ever since Google Reader was shut down.  It makes keeping up with
multiple websites easy by fetching articles from them, displaying them in a
stripped-down, mostly text-only format.  It even bypasses the local
newspaper's paywall, downloading news and op-ed from the provided feeds.

There are some sites that only push summaries over RSS, but for those I run
a filter that I knocked together that retrieves full pages from the links in
the feed.  It relies on this filter to do most of the heavy lifting; you
might find it useful:

https://github.com/postlight/mercury-parser/

My PHP wrapper for mercury-parser is here:

https://gitlab.com/salfter/fullrss

  _/_
 / v \ Scott Alfter (remove the obvious to send mail)
(IIGS( https://alfter.us/           Top-posting!
 \_^_/                              >What's the most annoying thing on Usenet?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18014

RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote:
> On 2019-05-17, Scott Alfter <scott@alfter.diespammersdie.us> wrote:
>> Another capital offense against good taste: using JavaScript to force
>> smooth scrolling of your page, even though I've turned off smooth
>> scrolling in browser settings.
> 
> I was reading earlier today that in the past ten years, the average web
> page has grown in size by a factor of 4.  That's pretty impressive.
> Wonder how much richer in information density pages are these days?
> Harrumph.

Sadly, the "information density" has likely gone down by *at least* a 
factor of 4, because that factor of 4 increase in size has almost all 
arrived in the form of additional advertising inserts.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18016

On 05/18/2019 12:48 PM, Rich wrote:
> RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote:
>> On 2019-05-17, Scott Alfter <scott@alfter.diespammersdie.us> wrote:
>>> Another capital offense against good taste: using JavaScript to force
>>> smooth scrolling of your page, even though I've turned off smooth
>>> scrolling in browser settings.
>>
>> I was reading earlier today that in the past ten years, the average web
>> page has grown in size by a factor of 4.  That's pretty impressive.
>> Wonder how much richer in information density pages are these days?
>> Harrumph.
>
> Sadly, the "information density" has likely gone down by *at least* a
> factor of 4, because that factor of 4 increase in size has almost all
> arrived in the form of additional advertising inserts.

Or additional white space.  Sites designed for use by phones rather than 
computer (pretty much all of them now) are the worst offenders.

-- 
Cheers, Bev
               ...so few snipers, so many politicians...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18017

The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 05/18/2019 12:48 PM, Rich wrote:
>> RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote:
>>> On 2019-05-17, Scott Alfter <scott@alfter.diespammersdie.us> wrote:
>>>> Another capital offense against good taste: using JavaScript to force
>>>> smooth scrolling of your page, even though I've turned off smooth
>>>> scrolling in browser settings.
>>>
>>> I was reading earlier today that in the past ten years, the average web
>>> page has grown in size by a factor of 4.  That's pretty impressive.
>>> Wonder how much richer in information density pages are these days?
>>> Harrumph.
>>
>> Sadly, the "information density" has likely gone down by *at least* a
>> factor of 4, because that factor of 4 increase in size has almost all
>> arrived in the form of additional advertising inserts.
> 
> Or additional white space.  Sites designed for use by phones rather than 
> computer (pretty much all of them now) are the worst offenders.

Yeah, that is problematic.

And in that case, it is overzealous use of whitespace.  For the 
buttons/checkboxes/etc., yes they need some amount of whitespace in 
order to allow for the "fat finger" vs. the "pointy mouse".

But the text itself (assuming there is any text in the first place), 
that is merely scrolled by swiping anywhere upon it, it does not need 
huge whitespace around it.  Yet, sadly, it also gets the "lots of 
whitespace" treatment.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18018

Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote:
> Also, could the web designer who makes interactive elements run away 
> from the mouse pointer please be fired, along with the designer who 
> makes selecting a menu item a trial of hand-eye coordination lest the 
> menu disappear.

Yes, and get the new one a 1024x768 screen so that they can see that
all of their excessive spacing around menu items means that the end
of the menu ends up way off the bottom of the screen, then requiring
the page to be scrolled without using the scroll bar - even if using
a laptop without a mouse wheel or equivalent - while ensuring that
the pointer is always positioned where the menu both is and will be.
This becomes increasingly difficult once large sub-menus become
involved.

Also, show them a user who is fed up with the above obstacles
switching to a browser or view setting which doesn't use CSS, so
that they can get to the links with them ever-visible (albeit
terribly formatted). If the designer survives the shock of seeing
their flashy web page reduced to black and white text topped with
an endless string of links and mis-located images, they might be
alright.

-- 
__          __
#_ < |\| |< _#

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18020

On 19/05/2019 10:04 am, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote:
>> Also, could the web designer who makes interactive elements run away
>> from the mouse pointer please be fired, along with the designer who
>> makes selecting a menu item a trial of hand-eye coordination lest the
>> menu disappear.
> 
> Yes, and get the new one a 1024x768 screen so that they can see that
> all of their excessive spacing around menu items means that the end
> of the menu ends up way off the bottom of the screen, then requiring
> the page to be scrolled without using the scroll bar - even if using
> a laptop without a mouse wheel or equivalent - while ensuring that
> the pointer is always positioned where the menu both is and will be.
> This becomes increasingly difficult once large sub-menus become
> involved.

The particularly irritating ones are those that spot you've tried to use 
the scroll wheel, and pop-up a message box to tell you you have to use 
the on-screen widgets instead.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18273

On Fri, 17 May 2019 22:52:07 +1000
Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote:

> Don't make visual elements change size in response to the mouse being 
> over them. It's really distracting.

Do you think they read usenet?

> Also, could the web designer who makes interactive elements run away 
> from the mouse pointer please be fired, along with the designer who 
> makes selecting a menu item a trial of hand-eye coordination lest the 
> menu disappear.
> 
> Sylvia.

Do you think they read usenet?

-- 
Miss Robot <miss.robot@lozza.ca>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18275

On 2019-06-21, Miss Robot <miss.robot@lozza.ca> wrote:
> On Fri, 17 May 2019 22:52:07 +1000
> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Don't make visual elements change size in response to the mouse being 
>> over them. It's really distracting.
>
> Do you think they read usenet?
>
>> Also, could the web designer who makes interactive elements run away 
>> from the mouse pointer please be fired, along with the designer who 
>> makes selecting a menu item a trial of hand-eye coordination lest the 
>> menu disappear.
>> 
>> Sylvia.
>
> Do you think they read usenet?

Do you think a rant is supposed to achieve anything, other than allowing
the ranter to vent?


-- 
Today is Boomtime, the 26th day of Confusion in the YOLD 3185
                  Rising above bedlam

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18282

Miss Robot <miss.robot@lozza.ca> wrote:
> On Fri, 17 May 2019 22:52:07 +1000
> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> Don't make visual elements change size in response to the mouse being 
>> over them. It's really distracting.
> 
> Do you think they read usenet?
> 
>> Also, could the web designer who makes interactive elements run away 
>> from the mouse pointer please be fired, along with the designer who 
>> makes selecting a menu item a trial of hand-eye coordination lest the 
>> menu disappear.
>> 
>> Sylvia.
> 
> Do you think they read usenet?

I'm inclined to think that most don't read messages sent to feedback
forms/emails (or at least pay any attention to mine) either, so what
hope have you got?

Though I still decided to try another one yesterday. Now let's see
whether the option for plain-text emails instead of HTML+graphics
starts working again, or whether it just disappears from the
preferences menu...

P.S. Sending such emails just makes me more angry, about being
     ignored. At least on Usenet you might get a response, and just
     maybe another web designer will read it and choose not to make
     the same mistake.

-- 
__          __
#_ < |\| |< _#

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18284

On 06/21/2019 08:03 PM, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
> Miss Robot <miss.robot@lozza.ca> wrote:
>> On Fri, 17 May 2019 22:52:07 +1000
>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Don't make visual elements change size in response to the mouse being
>>> over them. It's really distracting.
>>
>> Do you think they read usenet?
>>
>>> Also, could the web designer who makes interactive elements run away
>>> from the mouse pointer please be fired, along with the designer who
>>> makes selecting a menu item a trial of hand-eye coordination lest the
>>> menu disappear.
>>>
>>> Sylvia.
>>
>> Do you think they read usenet?
>
> I'm inclined to think that most don't read messages sent to feedback
> forms/emails (or at least pay any attention to mine) either, so what
> hope have you got?

I think they're what would be called script-kiddies if they had more 
talent.  Ease of use is of only marginal consideration.  Look at those 
photos in the goddam captchas -- super-blurry, dark and the elements 
we're asked to recognize are frequently small.  And the really annoying 
sites require you to do three more sets every time you move to a 
different page.  But don't get me started...

> Though I still decided to try another one yesterday. Now let's see
> whether the option for plain-text emails instead of HTML+graphics
> starts working again, or whether it just disappears from the
> preferences menu...
>
> P.S. Sending such emails just makes me more angry, about being
>       ignored. At least on Usenet you might get a response, and just
>       maybe another web designer will read it and choose not to make
>       the same mistake.

I assume that most complaints will be ignored and am pleasantly 
surprised with useful responses.

-- 
Cheers, Bev
   In theory there is no difference between theory and practice,
   but in practice there is.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18283

On 22/06/2019 1:49 am, Miss Robot wrote:
> On Fri, 17 May 2019 22:52:07 +1000
> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> Don't make visual elements change size in response to the mouse being
>> over them. It's really distracting.
> 
> Do you think they read usenet?
> 
>> Also, could the web designer who makes interactive elements run away
>> from the mouse pointer please be fired, along with the designer who
>> makes selecting a menu item a trial of hand-eye coordination lest the
>> menu disappear.
>>
>> Sylvia.
> 
> Do you think they read usenet?
> 

Of course. Not only that, my every single missive is scrutinised by the 
CIA, FBI, MI5, KGB, and McDonalds, to glean every last bit of wisdom 
therein.

Don't believe me? Prove it false, then.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.misc

csiph-web