Style vs. substance.

Hello gentlemen. I am new to web design and I have a question concerning a
client. He has given me freedom to redesign his website. Is it better for a
website to have a "corporate" feel such as http://www.ea.com/language.jsp
or a more clean feel such as this small site at
http://globalwarmingawareness2007.org.uk which I think is a clean and very
simple design. While EA is definitely tough for a beginner, I feel that
writing a website like this (minus the JSP/flash part) would look better in
my portfolio. But on the other hand, I have deadlines for customers so I
don't know. Any advice please?

Re: Style vs. substance.

Jane Jesi wrote:
> Hello gentlemen.

Poor Heidi, Els, Adrienne and Louise :-(

> I am new to web design and I have a question concerning a
> client. He has given me freedom to redesign his website.

He *says*... Wait unitl you show him something. ;-)

> Is it better for a
> website to have a "corporate" feel such as http://www.ea.com/language.jsp

Doesn't look particularly "corporate" to me; _this_ looks corporate:
http://www.ubs.com/ (and BTW, it seems clean and simple to me, too).

> or a more clean feel such as this small site at
> http://globalwarmingawareness2007.org.uk which I think is a clean and very
> simple design.

Google ads and bold-on-black design, all in a 1200px table. Rather ick,
IMHO.

> While EA is definitely tough for a beginner, I feel that writing a
> website like this (minus the JSP/flash part) would look better in
> my portfolio.

If you take out the JS/Flash part, there's nothing left! The entire
content of the page (that which search engines will see and maybe try to
index) is:
"You don't have the latest version of Flash, download _here_."

You could add the *graphics work* to your portfolio, but as a *site* it
stinks, and its designer shouldn't mention it to anyone important.

I wouldn't pay money for either of these sites, so I wouldn't care to
recommend the look of either one.

The real answer to the question "Is it better for a website to have a
"corporate" feel or a more clean feel" is: Ask your client. Or at least,
it depends on the client. You didn't say whether the client is an
investment bank or governmental agency (rather corporate, usually), or a
music distributor targeting young people (friendly, casual, maybe
busier), or maybe an information resource for elderly folks (very clean,
clear, simple, large type, whitespace).

So: whatcha want? Or what does the client want? (Your freedom to
redesign his website includes freedom to ask what he's generally looking
for, how he wants to be seen, what results he hopes for from the site, etc.)

--
John

Re: Style vs. substance.

In article ,
Jane Jesi wrote:

> Hello gentlemen. I am new to web design and I have a question concerning a
> client. He has given me freedom to redesign his website. Is it better for a
> website to have a "corporate" feel such as http://www.ea.com/language.jsp
> or a more clean feel such as this small site at
> http://globalwarmingawareness2007.org.uk which I think is a clean and very
> simple design.

Which is better? Well it depends...is your client a punk rock band, a
bank or tea shop? All of these have different needs.

> While EA is definitely tough for a beginner, I feel that
> writing a website like this (minus the JSP/flash part) would look better in
> my portfolio. But on the other hand, I have deadlines for customers so I
> don't know. Any advice please?

Whether or not the site will look good in your portfolio seems besides
the point. The work is about satisfying the client, no? I imagine a
portfolio of satisfied clients would be the best possible one.

Good luck

--
Philip
http://NikitaTheSpider.com/
Whole-site HTML validation, link checking and more

Re: Style vs. substance.

On Apr 26, 7:19 pm, Jane Jesi wrote:
> Hello gentlemen. I am new to web design and I have a question concerning a
> client....

I think you just wanted us to see the silly blame the humans for
natural global warming site.

Re: Style vs. substance.

On 27 Apr, 00:19, Jane Jesi wrote:
> He has given me freedom to redesign his website.

That's 'freedom' as in 'freedom to vote for Robert Mugabe' ?

Just wait until you show him mockups!

>Is it better for a website to have a "corporate" feel or a more clean feel ?

Both of the examples you posted are appalingly bad, but for different
reasons. They're technically diabolical and neither of them even has
the occasional saving grace of at least looking good.

Re: Style vs. substance.

On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 23:19:25 GMT Jane Jesi scribed:

> Hello gentlemen. I am new to web design and I have a question
> concerning a client. He has given me freedom to redesign his website.
> Is it better for a website to have a "corporate" feel such as
> http://www.ea.com/language.jsp or a more clean feel such as this small
> site at http://globalwarmingawareness2007.org.uk which I think is a
> clean and very simple design. While EA is definitely tough for a
> beginner, I feel that writing a website like this (minus the JSP/flash
> part) would look better in my portfolio. But on the other hand, I have
> deadlines for customers so I don't know. Any advice please?

Let me ask you this: do you actually know what you're doing? If you are
new to web design, you shouldn't have a client until you've learned
something about the craft you are trying to execute.

In any event, the best website is one which most closely sticks to
acceptable standards, -"feel" aside. Naturally, it should be aesthetically
pleasing, but how it works is more important than any visual rush that
probably wouldn't occur in most visitors, anyway. A facile, easy-to-digest
and -navigate site is highly preferable to multitudes of bells and whistles
which quickly become boring upon repeated encounters. Constructing such a
site does, of course, take some expertise.

--
Neredbojias
He who laughs last sounds like an idiot.

Re: Style vs. substance.

On Apr 27, 9:19 am, Jane Jesi wrote:
> Hello gentlemen. I am new to web design and I have a question concerning a
> client. He has given me freedom to redesign his website. Is it better for a
> website to have a "corporate" feel such ashttp://www.ea.com/language.jsp
> or a more clean feel such as this small site athttp://globalwarmingawareness2007.org.ukwhich I think is a clean and very
> simple design. While EA is definitely tough for a beginner, I feel that
> writing a website like this (minus the JSP/flash part) would look better in
> my portfolio. But on the other hand, I have deadlines for customers so I
> don't know. Any advice please?
Web Design is about meeting your clients needs and from a users point
of view, assisting them in solving a problem. If your sites can do
that then your doing well.
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.cjb.cc

Re: Style vs. substance.

In article ,
Neredbojias wrote:

> If you are
> new to web design, you shouldn't have a client until you've learned
> something about the craft you are trying to execute.

You old fuddy duddy! America was built on people taking wild
risks, learning on the job and so on. Do you have some book on
attitudes to take or do you actually think them up yourself?

--
dorayme

Re: Style vs. substance.

On 28 Apr, 14:38, Chaddy2222
wrote:

> Web Design is about meeting your clients needs and from a users point
> of view, assisting them in solving a problem.

It's largely about recognising that these "clients" and "users" and
separate groups, often with conflicting interests. Good web design
(and I mean design, not just coding technicalities) is often about
resolving this conflict without either group realising they're being
manipulated.

Re: Style vs. substance.

On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 23:03:50 GMT dorayme scribed:

> In article ,
> Neredbojias wrote:
>
>> If you are
>> new to web design, you shouldn't have a client until you've learned
>> something about the craft you are trying to execute.
>
> You old fuddy duddy! America was built on people taking wild
> risks, learning on the job and so on. Do you have some book on
> attitudes to take or do you actually think them up yourself?

America was built on the backs of labourers too stupid and/or desperate to
oppose the entreprenurial elite. Often these labourers were foreign or
immigrants who felt themselves lucky just to have a job no matter how
shitty. There's a rule-of-thumb in Labor even today: "The harder you work
(physically), the less you get paid." I'm not saying that supervisors
aren't needed, but historically the disparity in wages is ludicrous.

America developed much like biological evolution. Not the best way, hardly
ever, but a viable way. It was far from perfect, but it worked. Now while
I support the concept that a man should benefit from the fruit of his
labors in proportion to his efforts, there are (to me) obvious limits which
should not be exceeded. I seriously doubt that it is equitable for someone
to earn 10,000 times the money of the average employee no matter what he
does or how good he is at doing it.

--
Neredbojias
He who laughs last sounds like an idiot.

Re: Style vs. substance.

In article ,
Neredbojias wrote:

> On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 23:03:50 GMT dorayme scribed:
>
> > In article ,
> > Neredbojias wrote:
> >
> >> If you are
> >> new to web design, you shouldn't have a client until you've learned
> >> something about the craft you are trying to execute.
> >
> > You old fuddy duddy! America was built on people taking wild
> > risks, learning on the job and so on.

> America was built on the backs of labourers too stupid and/or desperate to
> oppose the entreprenurial elite.

You are putting up a smoke screen, babbling [1] will not get you
out of fuddy duddiness.

_________________
[1] copyright JK

--
dorayme

Re: Style vs. substance.

On Tue, 01 May 2007 22:01:36 GMT dorayme scribed:

>> >> If you are
>> >> new to web design, you shouldn't have a client until you've
>> >> learned something about the craft you are trying to execute.
>> >
>> > You old fuddy duddy! America was built on people taking wild
>> > risks, learning on the job and so on.
>
>> America was built on the backs of labourers too stupid and/or
>> desperate to oppose the entreprenurial elite.
>
> You are putting up a smoke screen, babbling [1] will not get you
> out of fuddy duddiness.

Well, I was _trying_ to give you my honest opinion. There are times to
take risks, but producing and selling a product or service you know little
about is not one of them. Do you wing it when you deal with your own
customers? (-Or aren't wombats particularly fussy?)

--
Neredbojias
He who laughs last sounds like an idiot.

Re: Style vs. substance.

In article ,
Neredbojias wrote:

> On Tue, 01 May 2007 22:01:36 GMT dorayme scribed:
>
> >> >> If you are
> >> >> new to web design, you shouldn't have a client until you've
> >> >> learned something about the craft you are trying to execute.
> >> >
> >> > You old fuddy duddy! America was built on people taking wild
> >> > risks, learning on the job and so on.
> >
> >> America was built on the backs of labourers too stupid and/or
> >> desperate to oppose the entreprenurial elite.
> >
> > You are putting up a smoke screen, babbling [1] will not get you
> > out of fuddy duddiness.
>
> There are times to
> take risks, but producing and selling a product or service you know little
> about is not one of them.

And now you repeat this fuddy duddy opinion again! So I will take
the opportunity to label it a bit stronger. It is a miserable,
cowardly, moral dictum.

If a person knows a little and has confidence in themselves and
wants to strike out in a new direction and is quoting for a job
and delivers as agreed, then it it does not matter that he or she
learnt on the job. Get real!

--
dorayme

Re: Style vs. substance.

On Wed, 02 May 2007 19:53:02 GMT dorayme scribed:

>> There are times to
>> take risks, but producing and selling a product or service you know
>> little about is not one of them.
>
> And now you repeat this fuddy duddy opinion again! So I will take
> the opportunity to label it a bit stronger. It is a miserable,
> cowardly, moral dictum.
>
> If a person knows a little and has confidence in themselves and
> wants to strike out in a new direction and is quoting for a job
> and delivers as agreed, then it it does not matter that he or she
> learnt on the job. Get real!

Kudos, you'd fit right in at Microsoft. Their stuff works as stipulated,
too, despite the bloat, security lapses, and less-than-efficient algorthms
and methods of accomplishing the aims.

Listen here, sister, ways and means always count. Joe the mechanic might
be able to make a nuclear reactor, but would you rather have his or one
constructed by J.R. Oppenheimer?

I can't believe you're so argumentative! Well, actually, I _can_ believe
it because it's an obvious fact (though I used to attribute such to
approximately lunar cycles.)

--
Neredbojias
He who laughs last sounds like an idiot.

Re: Style vs. substance.

In article ,
Neredbojias wrote:

> On Wed, 02 May 2007 19:53:02 GMT dorayme scribed:
>
> >> There are times to
> >> take risks, but producing and selling a product or service you know
> >> little about is not one of them.
> >
> > And now you repeat this fuddy duddy opinion again! So I will take
> > the opportunity to label it a bit stronger. It is a miserable,
> > cowardly, moral dictum.
> >
> > If a person knows a little and has confidence in themselves and
> > wants to strike out in a new direction and is quoting for a job
> > and delivers as agreed, then it it does not matter that he or she
> > learnt on the job. Get real!
>
> Kudos, you'd fit right in at Microsoft. Their stuff works as stipulated,
> too, despite the bloat, security lapses, and less-than-efficient algorthms
> and methods of accomplishing the aims.
>

This is pure babble. If you want help, tell us what your real
problem is. And use your real name. it is cowardly to try to
escape a charge of fuddy duddiness in an anonymous name.

> Listen here, sister, ways and means always count. Joe the mechanic might
> be able to make a nuclear reactor, but would you rather have his or one
> constructed by J.R. Oppenheimer?

Brother, you really do have a cheek. A website is not something
to endanger a life and if someone offers to make one for you and
is obviously keen and knows a bit, then sure. I would see it when
it is made and confirm the delivery was worth the quote. You are
babbling hard, brother, but you still cannot lift that weight of
fuddy duddiness.

Look, you can just take a different attitude, rejoice in being
old and rigid and o so stiffly moral.

>
> I can't believe you're so argumentative!

As I said, you have an awful cheek!

--
dorayme

Re: Style vs. substance.

On Fri, 04 May 2007 01:47:26 GMT dorayme scribed:

>> Kudos, you'd fit right in at Microsoft. Their stuff works as
>> stipulated, too, despite the bloat, security lapses, and
>> less-than-efficient algorthms and methods of accomplishing the aims.
>>
>
> This is pure babble. If you want help, tell us what your real
> problem is. And use your real name. it is cowardly to try to
> escape a charge of fuddy duddiness in an anonymous name.

What's my real name got to do with it? I suppose your real name is
"dorayme"... Furthermore, I wasn't the one seeking help. Further
furthermore, I'm virtually certain that fuddy duddiness isn't even a
word. And speaking of babble: pot-kettle-black. It must be lonely out
thare in that Australian outback, or perhaps you're just a hopeless
hypernagissimist.

>> Listen here, sister, ways and means always count. Joe the mechanic
>> might be able to make a nuclear reactor, but would you rather have
>> his or one constructed by J.R. Oppenheimer?
>
> Brother, you really do have a cheek. A website is not something
> to endanger a life and if someone offers to make one for you and
> is obviously keen and knows a bit, then sure. I would see it when
> it is made and confirm the delivery was worth the quote. You are
> babbling hard, brother, but you still cannot lift that weight of
> fuddy duddiness.

Uh, I have 4 cheeks - 2 upper and 2 lower. If you wish to kiss a pair, I
can direct you accordingly.

Btw, exactly what criteria do you use to determine if someone "is
obviously keen"?

> Look, you can just take a different attitude, rejoice in being
> old and rigid and o so stiffly moral.
>
>>
>> I can't believe you're so argumentative!
>
> As I said, you have an awful cheek!

No, you didn't say "awful". Can't you remember what you said just a few
sentences ago when it's even written before your eyes??

(PS: I hope you realize my comments are made good-naturedly in the spirit
of convivial sparring. I thought it best to add this disclaimer because
things do sometimes seem to go over your head. )

--
Neredbojias
He who laughs last sounds like an idiot.

Re: Style vs. substance.

In article ,
Neredbojias wrote:

> > As I said, you have an awful cheek!
>
> No, you didn't say "awful". Can't you remember what you said just a few
> sentences ago when it's even written before your eyes??

With an online reader, it is not so. If someone wants to have a
go at something and is keen and has confidence in himself or
herself, please don't sit up on that high moral horse and say
stuffy old fuddy duddy things to him or her.

--
dorayme

Re: Style vs. substance.

On Sun, 06 May 2007 01:07:28 GMT dorayme scribed:

> In article ,
> Neredbojias wrote:
>
>> > As I said, you have an awful cheek!
>>
>> No, you didn't say "awful". Can't you remember what you said just a
>> few sentences ago when it's even written before your eyes??
>
> With an online reader, it is not so. If someone wants to have a
> go at something and is keen and has confidence in himself or
> herself, please don't sit up on that high moral horse and say
> stuffy old fuddy duddy things to him or her.

Well, that sounds like a nice sentiment, but what you are really saying is
should someone want to make a fool of himself or herself, let him or her do
it. You probably won't be surprised that I demure, but if it works for
you...

--
Neredbojias
He who laughs last sounds like an idiot.

Re: Style vs. substance.

In article ,
Neredbojias wrote:

> On Sun, 06 May 2007 01:07:28 GMT dorayme scribed:
>
> > In article ,
> > Neredbojias wrote:
> >
> >> > As I said, you have an awful cheek!
> >>
> >> No, you didn't say "awful". Can't you remember what you said just a
> >> few sentences ago when it's even written before your eyes??
> >
> > With an online reader, it is not so. If someone wants to have a
> > go at something and is keen and has confidence in himself or
> > herself, please don't sit up on that high moral horse and say
> > stuffy old fuddy duddy things to him or her.
>
> Well, that sounds like a nice sentiment, but what you are really saying is
> should someone want to make a fool of himself or herself, let him or her do
> it. You probably won't be surprised that I demure, but if it works for
> you...

You still don't get it. First it has nothing to do with it
working for you or me. A person who is prepared to learn on a
job, has confidence and sense to seek advice, can very
satisfactorily satisfy both himself and the client. You are
fixated by the hysterical picture of the adventurer falling flat
on his face. This inability to respect the possibilities of good
and wholesome futures based on dash and nerve is fuddy duddiness.

--
dorayme

Re: Style vs. substance.

On Mon, 07 May 2007 22:42:31 GMT dorayme scribed:

>> > With an online reader, it is not so. If someone wants to have a
>> > go at something and is keen and has confidence in himself or
>> > herself, please don't sit up on that high moral horse and say
>> > stuffy old fuddy duddy things to him or her.
>>
>> Well, that sounds like a nice sentiment, but what you are really
>> saying is should someone want to make a fool of himself or herself,
>> let him or her do it. You probably won't be surprised that I demure,
>> but if it works for you...
>
> You still don't get it. First it has nothing to do with it
> working for you or me. A person who is prepared to learn on a
> job, has confidence and sense to seek advice, can very
> satisfactorily satisfy both himself and the client. You are
> fixated by the hysterical picture of the adventurer falling flat
> on his face. This inability to respect the possibilities of good
> and wholesome futures based on dash and nerve is fuddy duddiness.

Well coitainly, dash and nerve will save the day sometimes, but isn't it
more likely that education and experience shall better serve? That's only
logical, and to consider reasonableness fuddy-duddiness is surely a sign of
erroneous thinking on the part of the boo-booer. I'm not saying that
enthusiasm will _never_ work, just that it's less dependable than a more
calculated and erudite approach. This is or at least should be self-
evident, like not whizzing into the wind.

--
Neredbojias
He who laughs last sounds like an idiot.

Re: Style vs. substance.

On 2007-05-09, Neredbojias wrote:
> On Mon, 07 May 2007 22:42:31 GMT dorayme scribed:
>
>>> > With an online reader, it is not so. If someone wants to have a
>>> > go at something and is keen and has confidence in himself or
>>> > herself, please don't sit up on that high moral horse and say
>>> > stuffy old fuddy duddy things to him or her.
>>>
>>> Well, that sounds like a nice sentiment, but what you are really
>>> saying is should someone want to make a fool of himself or herself,
>>> let him or her do it. You probably won't be surprised that I demure,
>>> but if it works for you...
>>
>> You still don't get it. First it has nothing to do with it
>> working for you or me. A person who is prepared to learn on a
>> job, has confidence and sense to seek advice, can very
>> satisfactorily satisfy both himself and the client. You are
>> fixated by the hysterical picture of the adventurer falling flat
>> on his face. This inability to respect the possibilities of good
>> and wholesome futures based on dash and nerve is fuddy duddiness.
>
> Well coitainly, dash and nerve will save the day sometimes, but isn't
> it more likely that education and experience shall better serve?
> That's only logical, and to consider reasonableness fuddy-duddiness is
> surely a sign of erroneous thinking on the part of the boo-booer.

Your logic is based on a false premise. When it comes to IT (which is
quick to learn) people with decades of experience who are idiots occur
with a frequency roughly equal to that of people with none but who are
able to pick things up in a few months.

Re: Style vs. substance.

In article ,
Neredbojias wrote:

> I'm not saying that
> enthusiasm will _never_ work, just that it's less dependable than a more
> calculated and erudite approach. This is or at least should be self-
> evident, like not whizzing into the wind.

You are talking dependable, you are talking certainty over a bit
of adventurousness, you are cartooning everything in a direction
that shows an ingrained fuddy duddy mindset. Loosen up there Boji.

--
dorayme

Re: Style vs. substance.

In article ,
Ben C wrote:

> On 2007-05-09, Neredbojias wrote:
> > On Mon, 07 May 2007 22:42:31 GMT dorayme scribed:
> >
> >>> > With an online reader, it is not so. If someone wants to have a
> >>> > go at something and is keen and has confidence in himself or
> >>> > herself, please don't sit up on that high moral horse and say
> >>> > stuffy old fuddy duddy things to him or her.
> >>>
> >>> Well, that sounds like a nice sentiment, but what you are really
> >>> saying is should someone want to make a fool of himself or herself,
> >>> let him or her do it. You probably won't be surprised that I demure,
> >>> but if it works for you...
> >>
> >> You still don't get it. First it has nothing to do with it
> >> working for you or me. A person who is prepared to learn on a
> >> job, has confidence and sense to seek advice, can very
> >> satisfactorily satisfy both himself and the client. You are
> >> fixated by the hysterical picture of the adventurer falling flat
> >> on his face. This inability to respect the possibilities of good
> >> and wholesome futures based on dash and nerve is fuddy duddiness.
> >
> > Well coitainly, dash and nerve will save the day sometimes, but isn't
> > it more likely that education and experience shall better serve?
> > That's only logical, and to consider reasonableness fuddy-duddiness is
> > surely a sign of erroneous thinking on the part of the boo-booer.
>
> Your logic is based on a false premise. When it comes to IT (which is
> quick to learn) people with decades of experience who are idiots occur
> with a frequency roughly equal to that of people with none but who are
> able to pick things up in a few months.

It never ceases to amaze me what talent some upstarts naturally
show, quite sobering in fact in many different fields. These are
often the people that would simply give the game away if they
went the 'study thoroughly and when fully qualified, only then,
gingerly step out in a modest manner to the commercial world etc"

--
dorayme

Re: Style vs. substance.

On Wed, 09 May 2007 10:03:06 GMT Ben C scribed:

>> Well coitainly, dash and nerve will save the day sometimes, but isn't
>> it more likely that education and experience shall better serve?
>> That's only logical, and to consider reasonableness fuddy-duddiness is
>> surely a sign of erroneous thinking on the part of the boo-booer.
>
> Your logic is based on a false premise. When it comes to IT (which is
> quick to learn) people with decades of experience who are idiots occur
> with a frequency roughly equal to that of people with none but who are
> able to pick things up in a few months.

-The false premise being that educated people are usually more productive
than less-educated people? -In any field? I don't think so...

--
Neredbojias
He who laughs last sounds like an idiot.

Re: Style vs. substance.

On Wed, 09 May 2007 21:30:40 GMT dorayme scribed:

> In article ,
> Neredbojias wrote:
>
>> I'm not saying that
>> enthusiasm will _never_ work, just that it's less dependable than a
>> more calculated and erudite approach. This is or at least should be
>> self- evident, like not whizzing into the wind.
>
> You are talking dependable, you are talking certainty over a bit
> of adventurousness, you are cartooning everything in a direction
> that shows an ingrained fuddy duddy mindset. Loosen up there Boji.

I am loose. Only get tight on Friday nights...

--
Neredbojias
He who laughs last sounds like an idiot.

Re: Style vs. substance.

In article ,
Neredbojias wrote:

> On Wed, 09 May 2007 10:03:06 GMT Ben C scribed:
>
> > Your logic is based on a false premise. When it comes to IT (which is
> > quick to learn) people with decades of experience who are idiots occur
> > with a frequency roughly equal to that of people with none but who are
> > able to pick things up in a few months.
>
> -The false premise being that educated people are usually more productive
> than less-educated people? -In any field? I don't think so...

"The" false premise? Is this some premise you have found in
Fuddyduddyland in some corner where all the falsehoods are kept?
Perhaps this one sneaked in there under false pretences because
it is cosier? Perhaps Roger Rabbit was entertaining in there, the
only little den with a bit of spirit in it. You see, in
Fuddyduddyland, the truth is less important than the general
ambience.

--
dorayme

Re: Style vs. substance.

On Fri, 11 May 2007 22:45:38 GMT dorayme scribed:

>> -The false premise being that educated people are usually more
>> productive than less-educated people? -In any field? I don't think
>> so...
>
> "The" false premise? Is this some premise you have found in
> Fuddyduddyland in some corner where all the falsehoods are kept?
> Perhaps this one sneaked in there under false pretences because
> it is cosier? Perhaps Roger Rabbit was entertaining in there, the
> only little den with a bit of spirit in it. You see, in
> Fuddyduddyland, the truth is less important than the general
> ambience.

Ya know, it's starting to sound like you think I'm a fuddy-duddy.

How you could come to such a conclusion is beyond me, although with a
plethora of delusions from which to choose, the fallacy might just be
inevitable. Since I am a gracious and easy-going person by nature, this
produces no major negative feelings within my corpus notwithstanding a bit
of light-headedness and a slight thermal increase of the buttocks. Be that
as it may, you certainly have the right to express your unrightness no
matter how embarrassing it would be to a normal sentient being.

--
Neredbojias
He who laughs last sounds like an idiot.

Re: Style vs. substance.

In article ,
Neredbojias wrote:

> On Fri, 11 May 2007 22:45:38 GMT dorayme scribed:
>
> >> -The false premise being that educated people are usually more
> >> productive than less-educated people? -In any field? I don't think
> >> so...
> >
> > "The" false premise? Is this some premise you have found in
> > Fuddyduddyland in some corner where all the falsehoods are kept?
> > Perhaps this one sneaked in there under false pretences because
> > it is cosier? Perhaps Roger Rabbit was entertaining in there, the
> > only little den with a bit of spirit in it. You see, in
> > Fuddyduddyland, the truth is less important than the general
> > ambience.
>
> Ya know, it's starting to sound like you think I'm a fuddy-duddy.

I think you are getting the picture now, Boji. Look, the truth is
that I am probably a bit jealous of the cosiness you enjoy there,
that is, in Fuddyduddyland where everything is all simple and in
slippers.

--
dorayme

Re: Style vs. substance.

On Sun, 13 May 2007 08:23:13 GMT dorayme scribed:

>> Ya know, it's starting to sound like you think I'm a fuddy-duddy.
>
> I think you are getting the picture now, Boji. Look, the truth is
> that I am probably a bit jealous of the cosiness you enjoy there,
> that is, in Fuddyduddyland where everything is all simple and in
> slippers.

Well, with your fondness for killfiles, I can understand your affinity for
fuddiness. The question then is why you are so antipathically
obnoxious...?

--
Neredbojias
He who laughs last sounds like an idiot.