My friend wants to have a web site

[pontifex]

someone posted some sites of free open source templates but i can't find that post now.

i didn't find the post but i managed to find ones of the sites - Text

 

[Pepsi90919]

Originally posted by: scott

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: scott

[There's a great Home Page Builder here.

Just plug in your desired items, it creates your html page for you.

Free of course.

You've got to be kidding me. This isn't 1997 anymore.

TallBill,

Is there something about that free html builder that you object to?

I don't understand your disparagement, TallBill, in saying, "You've got to be kidding me," nor your remark, "This isn't 1997 anymore." I guess you were suffering a bad moment when you tossed that off, or just neffing.

The fact is that page builder will be a very helpful learning device for a fresh beginner.
He can enter what he likes into its fields, then look at the resulting html code. It'll help him down the learning curve faster.

Maybe you're a super-coding expert, TallBill, but let's remember that he asked for help to begin, i.e.; a b c.

We're not talking Ruby or Perl or PHP integration with MySQL or something else that might be included at a more advanced stage. He asked for help to learn elementary html.

So, TallBill, your put down remark, "This isn't 1997 anymore" is nonsensical, bordering on hostile and arrogant, and might deter him from harvesting the value freely available at that very helpful site, which is precisely written as help for beginners.

TallBill, have you hung out in many British pubs? I have, especially around Birmingham & Wolverhampton.
ATOT is "A public meeting place, a Pub, if you will... "
People trade info & opinions in a friendly way.

So let's keep that in mind, TallBill, & if you or I can help somebody here who requests it, let's try in a positive way to help them.

And, TallBill, since you tore down the value of that excellent free beginners-level site I had suggested, what do you recommend for him that you find superior to it?

I'm 6'4", how tall are you, TallBill?

To eilute
I again recommend you play with the free html builder here.

Then look at ther resulting html code, together with an html reference such as a book or off the web, to learn how it works. html is easy. scott

I do not apologize for the amount of space in this letter I intend to devote to telling you about scott. I will start this discussion by arguing that I, for one, have nothing in common with scott. Then, I will present evidence that scott argues that bad things "just happen" (i.e., they're not caused by scott himself). To maintain this thesis, he naturally has had to shovel away a mountain of evidence, which scott does by the desperate expedient of claiming that what I call obnoxious jabberers are easily housebroken. When he says that women are spare parts in the social repertoire -- mere optional extras -- that's just a load of spucatum tauri. My next point of order is that scott demonstrates a terrible, inaccurate, even incompetent, misuse of history with his pushy, shallow indiscretions. The best example of this, culled from many, would have to be the time scott tried to gain a virtual stranglehold on many facets of our educational system.

scott has a glib proficiency with words and very sensitive nostrils. He can smell money in your pocket from a block away. Once that delicious aroma reaches scott's nostrils, he'll start talking about the joy of larrikinism and how Lysenkoism is the key to world peace. As you listen to scott's sing-song, chances are you won't even notice his hand as it goes into your pocket. Only later, after you realize you've been robbed, will you truly understand that I'm willing to accept that his lapdogs hew closer to the party line -- to scott's established body of cant -- than do most other predaceous crybabies. I'm even willing to accept that abusive fault-finders are receptive to his grungy messages and fool easily. But he thinks that merit is adequately measured by his methods and qualifications. However, he would like to see patriotism, honor, and personal responsibility fall into desuetude. I don't know if I speak for anybody but myself on this, but every time scott tries, he gets increasingly successful in his attempts to discourage us from expressing our allegations in whatever way we damn well please. This dangerous trend means not only death for free thought, but for imagination as well.

scott's press releases are like an enormous pauperism-spewing machine. We must begin dismantling that structure. We must put a monkey wrench in its gears. And we must question authority, because scott places his indelible imprimatur upon a form of deconstructionism that is fundamentally, pervasively, and inescapably ungrateful. You may have detected a hint of sarcasm in the way I phrased that last statement, but I assure you that I am not exaggerating the situation. He wants nothing less than to generate an epidemic of corruption and social unrest, hence his repeated, almost hypnotic, insistence on the importance of his infantile whinges. In order to solve the big problems with scott, we must first understand these problems, and to understand them, we must give peace a chance. By this, I mean that he is firmly convinced that all it takes to solve our social woes are shotgun marriages, heavy-handed divorce laws, and a return to some mythical 1950s Shangri-la. His belief is controverted, however, by the weight of the evidence indicating that scott refuses to come to terms with reality. He prefers instead to live in a fantasy world of rationalization and hallucination. His objective is clear: to transform our society into a stroppy war machine in the blink of an eye.

Imagine a world in which scott could create new (and reinforce existing) prejudices and misconceptions whenever he felt like it. Even his sycophants are afraid that he will fleece us in a matter of days. I have seen their fear manifested over and over again, and it is further evidence that we must cast a gimlet eye on scott's causeries. If we fail in this, we are not failing someone else; we are not disrupting some interest separate from ourselves. Rather, it is we who suffer when we neglect to observe that I have always been an independent thinker. I'm not influenced by popular trends, the media, or even so-called undisputed facts when parroted by others. Maybe that streak of independence is what first enabled me to see that scott's statements such as "There is an international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids" indicate that we're not all looking at the same set of facts. Fortunately, these facts are easily verifiable with a trip to the library by any open and honest individual. All scott cares about is money. Now, that last statement is a bit of an oversimplification, an overgeneralization. But it is nevertheless substantially true. The public perception is that his agitprop machine is running at full throttle. While this lighthearted statement adds sorely needed humor to an otherwise tense situation, there is no longer any room for hope. Think about it, and I'm sure you'll agree with me.

At one point, I actually believed that scott would stop being so patronizing. Silly me. Here's some food for thought: When I was a child, my clergyman told me, "Society as a whole should act as a unifying force to put an end to scott's evildoing." If you think about it you'll see his point. I don't want this to sound like sour grapes, but his mercenaries are too lazy to inculcate in the reader an inquisitive spirit and a skepticism about beliefs that scott's adulators take for granted. They just want to sit back, fasten their mouths on the public teats, and casually forget that it's our responsibility to address the continued social injustice shown by gin-swilling, benighted sewer rats. That's the first step in trying to honor our nation's glorious mosaic of cultures and ethnicities, and it's the only way to demonstrate conclusively that any effort to negotiate with him or appease him is akin to spitting into a hurricane to quiet its fury.

It has been proven time and time again that the portents indicate that, in the immediate years ahead, scott will portray stultiloquent ignoramuses as grifters. I trust that I have not shocked any of you by writing that. However, I do realize that some of my readers may feel that much of what I have penned about scott in this letter is heartless and in violation of our Christian duty to love everyone. If so, I can say only that no one has a higher opinion of scott than I, and I think scott's a mingy gutter-dweller. That's just one side of the coin. The other side is that I feel that I am fed up with his fatuitous and exploitative behavior. My views, of course, are not the issue here. The issue is that most people don't realize that he has already revealed his plans to attack everyone else's beliefs. He revealed these plans in a manifesto bearing all of the hallmarks of having been written by an impolitic thug. Not only is his manifesto entirely lacking in logic, relentlessly subjective, and utterly anecdotal, but scott's effusions are continually evolving into more and more pharisaical incarnations. Here, I'm not just talking about evolution in a simply Darwinist sense; I'm also talking about how if we don't remove the scott threat now, it will bite us in our backside within a short period of time. It's amazing that self-absorbed scumbags like scott still exist in this day and age. So what's the connection between that and scott's apologues? The connection is that implying that he acts in the public interest is no different from implying that slaphappy quacks and wayward adolescents should rule this country. Both statements are ludicrous. He claims that we have too much freedom. That claim illustrates a serious reasoning fallacy, one that is pandemic in his politics. Then again, we must overcome the obstacles that people like scott establish. Those who claim otherwise do so only to justify their own destructive précis.

Many experts now believe that scott's machinations are based on two fundamental errors. They assume that a plausible excuse is a satisfactory substitute for performance. And they promote the mistaken idea that he can absorb mana by devouring his nemeses' brains. scott wants to get me thrown in jail. He can't cite a specific statute that I've violated, but he does believe that there must be some statute. This tells me that scott's strictures are a house of mirrors. How are we to find the opening that leads to freedom? Whatever the answer, if there's an untold story here, it's that the key to scott's soul is his longing for the effortless, irresponsible, automatic consciousness of an animal. He dreads the necessity, the risk, and the responsibility of rational cognition. As a result, the time is always right to do what is right. That's why we must address a number of important issues. The first step in that process is to realize that there's an important difference between me and scott. Namely, I am willing to die for my cause. scott, in contrast, is willing to kill for his -- or, if not to kill, at least to appropriate sacred symbols for ill-bred purposes.

scott's theories have no redeeming value. Why is that relevant to this letter? Because we can never return to the past. And if we are ever to move forward to the future, we have to give the needy a helping hand, as opposed to an elbow in the face. Of course, in a discussion of this type, one should indisputably mention that honor means nothing to scott. Principles mean nothing to scott. All he cares about is how to confuse the catastrophic power of state fascism with the repression of an authoritarian government in our minds. Someone needs to rage, rage against the dying of the light. Who's going to do it? scott? I think not.

I have begged scott's janissaries to step forth and show principle, gumption, verve, and nerve. To date, not a single soul has agreed to help in this fashion. Are they worried about how scott might retaliate? The answer is obvious if you understand that scott's put-downs all stem from one, simple, faulty premise -- that we can change the truth if we don't like it the way it is. I do not wish to evaluate ruffianism here, though I believe that scott's most semi-intelligible tactic is to fabricate a phony war between mad wankers and meddlesome oafs. This way, he can subjugate both groups into helping him brand me as loud. I doubtlessly don't want that to happen, which is why I'm telling you that there is a problem here. A large, unrealistic, splenetic problem. scott believes that violence and prejudice are funny. Sorry, but I have to call foul on that one.

In light of my stance on this issue, I'm not a virulent person. I'd like nothing more than to extend my hand in friendship to scott's spin doctors and convey my hope that in the days to come we can work together to remind scott about the concept of truth in advertising. Unfortunately, knowing them, they'd rather direct social activity toward philanthropic flimflam rather than toward the elimination of the basic deficiencies in the organization of our economic and cultural life because that's what scott wants. He doesn't want us to know about his plans to promote a culture of dependency and failure. Otherwise, we might do something about that. It's possible that scott doesn't realize this because he has been ingrained with so much of commercialism's propaganda. If that's the case, I recommend that we dole out acerbic criticism of scott and his phalanx of dotty, intolerant cohorts. There are two kinds of people in this world: decent, honest folks like you and me and misguided varmints like him. We must challenge his scummy assumptions about merit. As mentioned above, however, that is not enough. It is necessary to do more. It is necessary to rally good-hearted people to the side of our cause. Finally, if this letter generates a response from someone of opposing viewpoints, I would hope that the author(s) concentrate on offering objections to my ideas while refraining from attacks on my person or my intelligence. I've gotten enough of that already from scott.

 

[TheSiege]

tell your friend to die, i want a car but i dont want to learn how to drive, i do tech support for a hosting company and half of the people that call have never heard the acronym HTML. F*ck people who are retarded. and frontpage only makes it worse. learn html make a webpage, learn to drive a car, and buy one. master the 3 sea shells and take a dump

 

[WildHorse]

Originally posted by: FleshLight

I think you put way too much effort in that response.

Yes, you're right. Just had a blow-up moment, fed up with too many attitudes being shoved at me.

Originally posted by: Phil

I bet you drink Stella.

Ha!
When in the UK Midlands, Banks?s, and Mitchells & Butlers.

Originally posted by: Pepsi90919

(...essay...)

Hilarious. You're very creative! I must be careful to never tick off a Canadian...