There any serious statistics showing Flash popularity?

I wondering if there are any serious data showing compatibilty in % of
flash web sites.

Help!

TIA

Re: There any serious statistics showing Flash popularity?

In article
<46c3bdb7$0$22583$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>,
- <"bgyuobhjo[i"@hotmail.com> wrote:

> I wondering if there are any serious data showing compatibilty in % of
> flash web sites.
>
> Help!


Yes there are some extremely serious, nay, _grave_ stats. 99.999%
of the members of alt.html have bad things to say about 100% of
flash sites. 0.001% have good things to say in vague terms and
then only on condition that all the others are stridently
critical. The mirror is true of this last: 0.001% have bad things
to say in vague terms and then only on condition that all the
others are stridently effusive. If you need more detailed stats,
don't hesitate to ask.

--
dorayme

Re: There any serious statistics showing Flash popularity?

On Aug 15, 10:01 pm, - <"bgyuobhjo[i"@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I wondering if there are any serious data showing compatibilty in % of
> flash web sites.

I looked at http://www.w3schools.com and found the below statement in
their section on flash.

____________________________________________________________ ______________________________________

Who can View Flash?

In September 2000, NPD Research, the parent company of MediaMetrix,
conducted a study to determine what percentage of Web browsers have
Flash preinstalled. The results show that 96.4% of Web users can
experience Macromedia Flash content without having to download and
install a player.

____________________________________________________________ ______________________________________

A very high percentage of computer users have used computers with
flash installed for a long time. Some of the lesser used OSs will
allow installing of special programs to view flash when an official
version is not made for their OS. However these versions are often one
or two upgrades behind the most recent official flash versions for the
more popular browsers. If you are interested in the small number of
little used OSs, it pays to write your flash in perhaps versions 7 or
8 rather than the current 9 version. I often write in 7 or 8, but the
flash player I have installed is a 9. So far as I have seen, the
latest player usually plays flash movies written in an earlier
version, but the reverse sometimes is not the case if you used
something that is new in the latest version. If you do not use flash
much, there are programs more limited that the official ones that cost
much less and meet the needs of many.

Like all compressed media formats, flash has advantages and
disadvantages depending on what you want to do. It can make videos of
fair quality for slow connections unlike some of the other video file
types. But using the newer FLV/SWF format and high bit rates, it also
can make very high quality videos suitable only for broadband viewing.
There is no video format best for everything, especially if it needs
great compression - different video formats respond to great
compression in different ways. There is now a great glut of video
formats and many are used for special purposes such as for viewing on
various mobile devices etc. There always will be a few to many users
who can not view any video format. Thus, if you are selling things,
you need to provide something else other than just video to not lose
potential customers. Many things have been used such as a link to a
still picture, a text description, etc. Although I have no statistics
to quote, I doubt if many people will bother to download a player for
any video format even if your page tries to direct them to a download
site, if the video format you use is not supported on the computer.

The reasons for the bad reputation of flash in many quarters are the
excesses often used by high pressure ad execs. Many are annoyed by
flash displays that auto start, especially if they can not be turned
off. I am most annoyed by flash displays that rapidly flash images or
text at you at a rapid rate and displays that expand greatly and
obscure text when you just pass the cursor over them, perhaps on your
way to click some link not related to the flash.

Re: There any serious statistics showing Flash popularity?

On Aug 15, 11:01 pm, - <"bgyuobhjo[i"@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I wondering if there are any serious data showing compatibilty in % of
> flash web sites.

What do you mean "compatibility"? Do you mean how many people have
the potential of seeing Flash? Well that number is in the 90% range.

But why does it matter? If using a blue background brings you more
business than using a red background, then you would be dumb to not
use the Blue background. If using Flash brings you more business than
not using flash, then you would be dumb to not use Flash.

Use the technology(s) that brings you the most business. It is a
simple concept that seems to elude many people here.

Re: There any serious statistics showing Flash popularity?

"Travis Newbury" wrote in message
news:1187274616.884326.8470@a39g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 15, 11:01 pm, - <"bgyuobhjo[i"@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> I wondering if there are any serious data showing compatibilty in % of
>> flash web sites.
>
> What do you mean "compatibility"? Do you mean how many people have
> the potential of seeing Flash? Well that number is in the 90% range.
>
> But why does it matter? If using a blue background brings you more
> business than using a red background, then you would be dumb to not
> use the Blue background. If using Flash brings you more business than
> not using flash, then you would be dumb to not use Flash.
>
> Use the technology(s) that brings you the most business. It is a
> simple concept that seems to elude many people here.
>
>

Hurrah, at last. Well said.

Re: There any serious statistics showing Flash popularity?

"asdf" wrote in message
news:46c4f7de$0$22581$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.n et.au...
>
>> Use the technology(s) that brings you the most business. It is a
>> simple concept that seems to elude many people here.
>>
>>
>
> Hurrah, at last. Well said.

I agree wholeheartedly, even if the site is not about commerce. The
designer's client is the Web site owner, which may very well be himself.
Regardless, the site should please the owner. This is not to say that the
designer doesn't have an obligation to offer solid, practical advice
regarding design but, in the end, it's the owner who has to be happy.

Could he be wrong and his decisions cause him to actually lose sales, (or
visitors if the site is not about commerce?) Of course. The wonderful thing
about free market democracy is we all have the right to fail miserably,
utterly and totally... then get up and try again.

So if Flash trips the owner's trigger, he should have it, and who knows,
maybe he knows *his* clientele better than the designer knows them. It's
win-win for the designer because, he might get more work getting rid of the
Flash later on.

El

Re: There any serious statistics showing Flash popularity?

In article ,
"El Kabong" wrote:

> It's
> win-win for the designer because, he might get more work getting rid of the
> Flash later on.

Now you have your thinking cap on...

--
dorayme

Re: There any serious statistics showing Flash popularity?

El Kabong wrote:
>
> So if Flash trips the owner's trigger, he should have it, and who knows,
> maybe he knows *his* clientele better than the designer knows them.

Or maybe he doesn't. Business people think *lots* of things about
customers that aren't true. The weird thing is that business execs who
wouldn't imagine they have the skills to design their own logos instead
of getting a graphic designer's advice or to write their own advertising
copy instead of getting an advertising firm to create their campaigns or
to decorate their own office buildings instead of hiring an interior
design consultant, will see things like Flash and go "ooh, pretty" and
assume that they know better than their web consultant about how the
advantages will trade off against the disadvantages.

Re: There any serious statistics showing Flash popularity?

On Aug 17, 7:06 am, Harlan Messinger
wrote:
> > So if Flash trips the owner's trigger, he should have it, and who knows,
> > maybe he knows *his* clientele better than the designer knows them.
> Or maybe he doesn't. Business people think *lots* of things about
> customers that aren't true....

Lets use MTV.com as an example. MTV.com went from an HTML site to an
all flash site because they knew their visitors liked the way MTV was
presenting itself with Flash. Well the Business side said "Hey lets
make the entire site Flash based because they like Flash so much!"

And they did. But after watching the site for a while, they notices a
decrease in visitors and revenue from the site. So they went back to
a HTML site with some heavy usage of Flash where it was most
appropriate.

The moral is, keep an eye on your site. Tweak, change, try new
things, and monitor the results. Even after you find the right
combination that works for your site, you still have to continually
monitor and maintain the site. A website should be fluid in the sense
that you are continually tweaking to get the most out of it that you
can. As your audience, product, service, technology, and a million
other factors change, so should your site.

Re: There any serious statistics showing Flash popularity?

Harlan Messinger wrote:
> El Kabong wrote:
>>
>> So if Flash trips the owner's trigger, he should have it, and who
>> knows, maybe he knows *his* clientele better than the designer knows
>> them.
>
> Or maybe he doesn't. Business people think *lots* of things about
> customers that aren't true.

which is very much true. It's all about out of the box thinking, and
business people need an outsider to tell them how they are being
perceived by their customers, they can't know it from themselves. If you
just fulfill the wishes of your client, then you are not doing him a
favour. If he wishes to see 'Flash' on his new website, then you have to
step back, and argue about the pros and cons of such a technology.
That's why he has hired a designer to do the job for him, so you as a
designer knows it better...

just my two cents
bernhard

--
www.daszeichen.ch
remove nixspam to reply

Re: There any serious statistics showing Flash popularity?

Travis Newbury wrote:
>
> MTV.com went from an HTML site to an all flash site
> But after watching the site for a while, they notices a
> decrease in visitors and revenue from the site. So they went back to
> a HTML site with some heavy usage of Flash where it was most
> appropriate.

I would have expected a different outcome from a site in the
entertainment industry. Very interesting.

--
Berg

Re: There any serious statistics showing Flash popularity?

On Aug 17, 10:15 am, Bergamot wrote:
> > MTV.com went from an HTML site to an all flash site
> > But after watching the site for a while, they notices a
> > decrease in visitors and revenue from the site. So they went back to
> > a HTML site with some heavy usage of Flash where it was most
> > appropriate.
> I would have expected a different outcome from a site in the
> entertainment industry. Very interesting.

I will try to find the URL to the announcement that their all flash
site is going away. IT was an interesting read. they did what a
company should do, that is, they listened to their visitors, and took
actions to make the site better for the majority (not all)

Re: There any serious statistics showing Flash popularity?

Travis Newbury wrote:
> On Aug 17, 7:06 am, Harlan Messinger
> wrote:
>>> So if Flash trips the owner's trigger, he should have it, and who knows,
>>> maybe he knows *his* clientele better than the designer knows them.
>> Or maybe he doesn't. Business people think *lots* of things about
>> customers that aren't true....
>
> Lets use MTV.com as an example. MTV.com went from an HTML site to an
> all flash site because they knew their visitors liked the way MTV was
> presenting itself with Flash. Well the Business side said "Hey lets
> make the entire site Flash based because they like Flash so much!"
>
> And they did. But after watching the site for a while, they notices a
> decrease in visitors and revenue from the site. So they went back to
> a HTML site with some heavy usage of Flash where it was most
> appropriate.

I didn't know that. Good story. It is true that websites for multimedia
companies are themselves multimedia enterprises. People come to them for
the entertainment. But on the other hand those who just want to catch up
on story lines or see the schedule for the coming week shouldn't need
Flash for that.

Last night I clicked on an ad for the Heineken Draft Keg because I was
interested in its features and the technology behind it--not because I
wanted dancing and music and flashy graphics and difficult-to-use
controls. (I happen to have been watching "So You Think You Can Dance"
at the time, so I definitely did not go the Heineken URL for lack of
entertainment.) It's a good thing I do have Flash because if I had been
using my Treo at the time, Heineken would have displayed a message (I
know, I turned off Javascript and refreshed the page to check) telling
me to install Flash, and would not have taken the opportunity to give me
the information I had gone there to find, something they could have had
a copywriter write up in an extra thirty minutes.

Re: There any serious statistics showing Flash popularity?

"-" <"bgyuobhjo[i"@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:46c3bdb7$0$22583$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.n et.au...
>I wondering if there are any serious data showing compatibilty in % of
>flash web sites.

I address the word "popularity" in the subject rather than the word
"compatibility" in the body:

Consider http://www.perisherblue.com.au/winter/snowreport/index.php , where
I live for parts of the winter. The, to me, totally intrusive flash of a
bloody flying flag advertising a motorway, of all things, almost prevents me
from reading the content of this page. It's the 'is that a tiger in the
trees?' subconscious compulsion. If it moves it _must_ be looked at.

Even worse is http://www.perisherblue.com.au/winter/snowreport/v_eight.php ,
a picture I like to sort of use as wallpaper on a spare screen (the page
refreshes every 30 minutes, I can see the conditions throughout the day).

Well, I finally got cranky with it and started googling. Found flashblock:
http://flashblock.mozdev.org/

This replaces flash with a nice friendly button to allow one to download and
start the flash _if required_. Since installing this gem I have found it far
more "popular" to me than any amount of flash advertising on a page. If I
really really need to look at the flash, and it is obviously "content", I
still easily can.

--
Richard.

Re: There any serious statistics showing Flash popularity?

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sat, 18 Aug 2007 01:00:06
GMT rf scribed:

> Consider http://www.perisherblue.com.au/winter/snowreport/index.php ,
> where I live for parts of the winter. The, to me, totally intrusive
> flash of a bloody flying flag advertising a motorway, of all things,
> almost prevents me from reading the content of this page. It's the 'is
> that a tiger in the trees?' subconscious compulsion. If it moves it
> _must_ be looked at.
>
> Even worse is
> http://www.perisherblue.com.au/winter/snowreport/v_eight.php , a
> picture I like to sort of use as wallpaper on a spare screen (the page
> refreshes every 30 minutes, I can see the conditions throughout the
> day).
>
> Well, I finally got cranky with it and started googling. Found
> flashblock: http://flashblock.mozdev.org/
>
> This replaces flash with a nice friendly button to allow one to
> download and start the flash _if required_. Since installing this gem
> I have found it far more "popular" to me than any amount of flash
> advertising on a page. If I really really need to look at the flash,
> and it is obviously "content", I still easily can.

Sounds like a great plugin; I will have to look into that.

The nucleus of your story is not only what's wrong with Flash, but several
other things as well, including stuff like Active-X. It boils down to lack
of user-control. I don't want anything on my computer that I can't control
(-yes, one has to put up with some things), and the morons and a-holes who
design these "flashy"-type sites and "hidden" systems seem totally
incapable of grasping the concept that this is the prevailing attitude.

--
Neredbojias
Half lies are worth twice as much as whole lies.

Re: There any serious statistics showing Flash popularity?

In article
,
Neredbojias wrote:

> and the morons and a-holes who
> design these "flashy"-type sites and "hidden" systems seem totally
> incapable of grasping the concept that this is the prevailing attitude.

Strong words, Boji. I thought you were almost going to say
schmucks...

Now what was that plugin that my browser (Safari) did not wait to
tell me I had to get if I was not going to "miss out on some of
the content" on your own website?

--
dorayme

Re: There any serious statistics showing Flash popularity?

"rf" writes:

> Well, I finally got cranky with it and started googling. Found flashblock:
> http://flashblock.mozdev.org/
>
> This replaces flash with a nice friendly button to allow one to download and
> start the flash _if required_. Since installing this gem I have found it far
> more "popular" to me than any amount of flash advertising on a page. If I
> really really need to look at the flash, and it is obviously "content", I
> still easily can.

Very useful little extension - thanks for the tip!

sherm--

--
Web Hosting by West Virginians, for West Virginians: http://wv-www.net
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net

Re: There any serious statistics showing Flash popularity?

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sat, 18 Aug 2007 03:30:51 GMT
dorayme scribed:

>> and the morons and a-holes who
>> design these "flashy"-type sites and "hidden" systems seem totally
>> incapable of grasping the concept that this is the prevailing attitude.
>
> Strong words, Boji. I thought you were almost going to say
> schmucks...
>
> Now what was that plugin that my browser (Safari) did not wait to
> tell me I had to get if I was not going to "miss out on some of
> the content" on your own website?

I don't really know if it applies to Safari, but there is an MS plugin for
Firefox (-I think it also works for SeaMonkey and possibly Opera) that
allows functioning of an embedded Windows Media Player. I got mine from
Microsoft via the www.mozilla.com plugins page.

This, however, on my page at least, probably wouldn't be worth it just to
see a hi-speed-designed movie trailer if you don't have hi-speed.

--
Neredbojias
Half lies are worth twice as much as whole lies.

Re: There any serious statistics showing Flash popularity?

On Aug 17, 10:50 pm, Neredbojias wrote:
> The nucleus of your story is not only what's wrong with Flash, but several
> other things as well, including stuff like Active-X. It boils down to lack
> of user-control. I don't want anything on my computer that I can't control
> (-yes, one has to put up with some things), and the morons and a-holes who
> design these "flashy"-type sites and "hidden" systems seem totally
> incapable of grasping the concept that this is the prevailing attitude.

Or we grasp it, but we just don't care because we found that losing
people with a thought process like yours (not saying it is wrong) have
fewer consequences than losing the business of people they are
designing the site for.

Bottom line it is all a numbers game. What works best for one site,
may not work at all for another.

Re: There any serious statistics showing Flash popularity?

"Travis Newbury" wrote in message
news:1187603025.647166.11790@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 17, 10:50 pm, Neredbojias wrote:
>> The nucleus of your story is not only what's wrong with Flash, but
>> several
>> other things as well, including stuff like Active-X. It boils down to
>> lack
>> of user-control. I don't want anything on my computer that I can't
>> control
>> (-yes, one has to put up with some things), and the morons and a-holes
>> who
>> design these "flashy"-type sites and "hidden" systems seem totally
>> incapable of grasping the concept that this is the prevailing attitude.
>
> Or we grasp it, but we just don't care because we found that losing
> people with a thought process like yours (not saying it is wrong) have
> fewer consequences than losing the business of people they are
> designing the site for.

I am well aware that you are totally pro-flash and I agree to a certain
extent, flash has its place. It's nice when well done. But not in a bloody
advertisement for a motorway, on a ski site FFS :-(

Did you look at the site I posted about? A really really non-event. Not even
good flash. And repeating. Forever. Do you really think that you might
_gain_ viewers if you put something like this on your page? Why do you think
I found a hammer with which to squash it? Reminds me of that bloody monkey
with the big hammer that was around a few years ago. Where is that thing
now?

> Bottom line it is all a numbers game. What works best for one site,
> may not work at all for another.

This aforementioned advertisement IMHO would not work for *any* site. I
agree with Neredbojias (to a certain extent). I want control over my
computer, in that I want to choose to not display such abhorrant
advertisements. If the rest of the sometimes good flash goes with it then so
be it.

Meta tags used to be good for placement in the search engines. Abused.
Ignored.

Popups used to be good for the occasional help screen or whatever. Abused.
Ignored.

Is this to be the way for flash?

--
Richard.

Re: There any serious statistics showing Flash popularity?

In article
<1187603025.647166.11790@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
Travis Newbury wrote:

> Bottom line it is all a numbers game.

Bottom line is that all this crap is without human worth, thought
or moral spirit. It is all numbers and money. There is more soul
in one of the sides of one of those waltzing stars than a whole
world of this nonsense. No wonder you felt you'd lost two minutes
of life. To think, you could have been bloody well calculating
how much more money could be earned doing x rather than doing y.

Naturally, there will not be too many souls on this ng who
understand a word of this. So, you are with the overwhelming
majority. I am sure this is a comforting thought.

--
dorayme

Re: There any serious statistics showing Flash popularity?

On Aug 20, 6:31 am, "rf" wrote:
> > Or we grasp it, but we just don't care because we found that losing
> > people with a thought process like yours (not saying it is wrong) have
> > fewer consequences than losing the business of people they are
> > designing the site for.
> I am well aware that you are totally pro-flash and I agree to a certain
> extent, flash has its place.

Not so much pro-Flash, as pro-correct-technology.

> It's nice when well done. But not in a bloody
> advertisement for a motorway, on a ski site FFS :-(

90% of the flash on the web sucks. It is a complete waste of time,
bandwidth, and space. Flash designers are just now starting to learn
the advantages of thinking before they just do something in Flash.

> Did you look at the site I posted about? A really really non-event. Not even
> good flash. And repeating. Forever. Do you really think that you might
> _gain_ viewers if you put something like this on your page?

I completely agree with your assessment.

>Why do you think
> I found a hammer with which to squash it? Reminds me of that bloody monkey
> with the big hammer that was around a few years ago. Where is that thing
> now?

Flash Block is a great add-on for FF.

> > Bottom line it is all a numbers game. What works best for one site,
> > may not work at all for another.

> This aforementioned advertisement IMHO would not work for *any* site. I
> agree with Neredbojias (to a certain extent). I want control over my
> computer, in that I want to choose to not display such abhorrant
> advertisements. If the rest of the sometimes good flash goes with it then so
> be it.
> Meta tags used to be good for placement in the search engines. Abused.
> Ignored.
> Popups used to be good for the occasional help screen or whatever. Abused.
> Ignored.
> Is this to be the way for flash?

I don't think so. With broadband, video, multimedia, etc, becoming
more and more popular on the web, if Flash goes away, it will be
replaced with something equally (or more) obnoxious. I think Adobe is
moving in the right direction with Flash. Accessibility and
functionallity is improving with each new version. Add to that the
developers are starting to get a clue now and I think Flash has a long
welcome future on the web.

Re: There any serious statistics showing Flash popularity?

On Aug 20, 6:47 am, dorayme wrote:
> > Bottom line it is all a numbers game.
> Bottom line is that all this crap is without human worth, thought
> or moral spirit. It is all numbers and money.

Absolutely. A corporate/business website is about numbers and money.
I like it that way. I want the free market to control the web NOT
some "feel-good" government agency.

> No wonder you felt you'd lost two minutes
> of life.

No I just thought that the flash you shared sucked. That is why it was
a waste of my life. I appreciate good humor, what you showed us was
not (in my mind) good humor or thought provoking.

> To think, you could have been bloody well calculating
> how much more money could be earned doing x rather than doing y.

Or watching some _good_ flash humor...

> Naturally, there will not be too many souls on this ng who
> understand a word of this.

You completely misunderstood my wasted 2 minute response. So if the
shoe fits...

> So, you are with the overwhelming
> majority. I am sure this is a comforting thought.

Since it was you that misunderstood, maybe it is you that is in the
overwhelming majority?

Re: There any serious statistics showing Flash popularity?

"Travis Newbury" wrote in message
news:1187610784.230477.47250@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 20, 6:31 am, "rf" wrote:

>> I am well aware that you are totally pro-flash and I agree to a certain
>> extent, flash has its place.
>
> Not so much pro-Flash, as pro-correct-technology.

Noted and accepted.

>> It's nice when well done. But not in a bloody
>> advertisement for a motorway, on a ski site FFS :-(
>
> 90% of the flash on the web sucks. It is a complete waste of time,
> bandwidth, and space. Flash designers are just now starting to learn
> the advantages of thinking before they just do something in Flash.

Do you really think so? When your 90% drops down to, say, 10% then perhaps I
will agree. Until then Flash is very close to being "popup-blocked". There
might be some designers out there doing the right thing (and you have
notably advised us of a few of them on occasion) but IMHO they are, at the
moment, swamped by those who do it because they can.

I think the kind of drezigners that built that ad on that web site I cited
will have to actually die out before the web will be rid of their rubbish.

Re: There any serious statistics showing Flash popularity?

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Mon, 20 Aug 2007 10:47:53 GMT
dorayme scribed:

>> Bottom line it is all a numbers game.
>
> Bottom line is that all this crap is without human worth, thought
> or moral spirit.

I've been in those moods; luckily, they pass.

Travis is right in saying that a Flash site _can_ be good, but rf is more
right (today) because most Flash sites suck. I _can_ win the lottery, too,
but will I? Will the majority of Flash sites be acceptible in the near
future? I don't think so to both.

--
Neredbojias
Half lies are worth twice as much as whole lies.

Re: There any serious statistics showing Flash popularity?

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Mon, 20 Aug 2007 12:14:38 GMT
Travis Newbury scribed:

>> Bottom line is that all this crap is without human worth, thought
>> or moral spirit. It is all numbers and money.
>
> Absolutely. A corporate/business website is about numbers and money.
> I like it that way. I want the free market to control the web NOT
> some "feel-good" government agency.

Absolutely! And because all those moron teenagers just love Flash, I would
never advocate to ban it from temporal existence. However, don't expect me
to promote or utilize it, either. I view it as a sort of "George Bush"
program.

--
Neredbojias
Half lies are worth twice as much as whole lies.

Re: There any serious statistics showing Flash popularity?

In article
<1187612078.939021.238170@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
Travis Newbury wrote:

> On Aug 20, 6:47 am, dorayme wrote:
> > > Bottom line it is all a numbers game.
> > Bottom line is that all this crap is without human worth, thought
> > or moral spirit. It is all numbers and money.
>
> Absolutely. A corporate/business website is about numbers and money.
> I like it that way. I want the free market to control the web NOT
> some "feel-good" government agency.
>

What has the free market and 'feel good' or 'feel bad' government
agency got to do with selling your soul so constantly to cold
calculations that take only bottom line things like how much
money individual business owners can make employing various
strategies? No one has disputed you on free market control. Yopu
are fighting shadows and conflating issues.

> > No wonder you felt you'd lost two minutes
> > of life.
>
> No I just thought that the flash you shared sucked. That is why it was
> a waste of my life. I appreciate good humor, what you showed us was
> not (in my mind) good humor or thought provoking.

Yes, I have seen what you defend as humour (crass things about
Hillary Clinton's body and god knows what else?). It was not
meant to be good humour nor to provoke much thought. It was a bit
of schmaltz and had nice big readable text. There had been some
discussion and complaints about text in Flash. There are not too
many examples of big text i Flash that come across my desk. It
had things in it that were worth seeing and hearing. Can you sing
and phrase like that? Can you make stars waltz and flex in
specific happiness?

>
> You completely misunderstood my wasted 2 minute response. So if the
> shoe fits...

I understood you only too well. You simply missed what was good
in it because you have a mindset quite elsewhere.

--
dorayme

Re: There any serious statistics showing Flash popularity?

In article
,
Neredbojias wrote:

> Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Mon, 20 Aug 2007 10:47:53 GMT
> dorayme scribed:
>
> >> Bottom line it is all a numbers game.
> >
> > Bottom line is that all this crap is without human worth, thought
> > or moral spirit.
>
> I've been in those moods; luckily, they pass.

Don't let them pass completely, that would be very bad luck.

>
> Travis is right in saying that a Flash site _can_ be good,

No one but the most soul-less schmuck can fail to agree with such
a thing. Are we forever to be into motherhood statements on this?
What the hell is up with Travis that he keeps saying all his
obvious crap and can miss heart and soul and spirit.

Is there a plan here? Is all this meant to make people react
turning to God? I at least will keep my head and refuse to go to
extremes. I think the middle ground is the right ground, about
half way between Travis and God. I really would hate to be any
closer to either. In the middle is the sweet spot, with hells on
either side.

--
dorayme

Re: There any serious statistics showing Flash popularity?

Bergamot wrote:
> Travis Newbury wrote:
>> MTV.com went from an HTML site to an all flash site
>> But after watching the site for a while, they notices a
>> decrease in visitors and revenue from the site. So they went back to
>> a HTML site with some heavy usage of Flash where it was most
>> appropriate.
>
> I would have expected a different outcome from a site in the
> entertainment industry. Very interesting.
>
The operative phrase here is "all flash site." What impact on search
engines? What percent of the potential visitors have slow connections
(or short attention spans) and don't wait for the show to load. The key
is trying to strike a balance.

How often do you read here about "graceful degradation?" If the site
depends on javascript or flash, it's audience is limited by some
percentage. If however a site can be enjoyed by all, but those with the
additional technology get a bonus, that's good.

I frequently advise against large high-res graphics, but if a client is
in the art business large graphics files may be appropriate. More
importantly, if a visitor knows that to get a quality picture of the new
Harley-Davidson they have to be patient, they will. IMHO it's when the
designer tries to force feed javascript, flash or really big images that
visitors bail.

Re: There any serious statistics showing Flash popularity?

- wrote:
> I wondering if there are any serious data showing compatibilty in % of
> flash web sites.
>
> Help!
>
> TIA

Your question is a bit unclear to me. Are you looking for compatibility
of browsers with flash? Or are you asking how many sites are bug-free
when showing flash objects (i.e. to say, that these sites don't do what
they intend to do)?

Re: There any serious statistics showing Flash popularity?

On Aug 20, 6:00 pm, William Gill wrote:
> >> MTV.com went from an HTML site to an all flash site
> >> But after watching the site for a while, they notices a
> >> decrease in visitors and revenue from the site. So they went back to
> >> a HTML site with some heavy usage of Flash where it was most
> >> appropriate.
> > I would have expected a different outcome from a site in the
> > entertainment industry. Very interesting.
> The operative phrase here is "all flash site." What impact on search
> engines?

Actually today there is very little impact on search engins if the
Flash developer is good.

> What percent of the potential visitors have slow connections
> (or short attention spans) and don't wait for the show to load. The key
> is trying to strike a balance.

Again, conection speed is irrelevant if the Flash was developed by a
competent Flash developer. If the developer has to put a "loading..."
then it is bad Flash development.

> How often do you read here about "graceful degradation?" If the site
> depends on javascript or flash, it's audience is limited by some
> percentage.

But the point is, if the Flash drives more people to the site than it
drives away form the site, then it is a good thing.

> If however a site can be enjoyed by all, but those with the
> additional technology get a bonus, that's good.

Enjoyed by all is an unreachable goal. You could never develop a site
that will please everyone. The best site developers will know their
audience, monitor the site continuesly, tweak the site as needs to
insure that the technology they are using is correct for the site. A
site that has the ability to be seen on every browser or reader or
phone or pda in the world will not make it a great site. Such a site
could actually lose money. Every site, even those that sell the same
product is unique. And a competent site developer knows how to use
the tools and technologies available to make the site look and feel in
a manner that makes it sucessful.


> I frequently advise against large high-res graphics, but if a client is
> in the art business large graphics files may be appropriate. More
> importantly, if a visitor knows that to get a quality picture of the new
> Harley-Davidson they have to be patient, they will. IMHO it's when the
> designer tries to force feed javascript, flash or really big images that
> visitors bail.

It is equally likely that those same things that drive one visitor
away from a site could draw two visitors to the site. Coming up with
some blanket rule about what makes a site a good site is a complete
waste of time. Know your audience. Know what draws them to the
site. Then do that.

Re: There any serious statistics showing Flash popularity?

On Aug 20, 5:06 pm, dorayme wrote:
> > > Bottom line is that all this crap is without human worth, thought
> > > or moral spirit. It is all numbers and money.
> > Absolutely. A corporate/business website is about numbers and money.
> > I like it that way. I want the free market to control the web NOT
> > some "feel-good" government agency.
> What has the free market and 'feel good' or 'feel bad' government
> agency got to do with selling your soul so constantly to cold
> calculations that take only bottom line things like how much
> money individual business owners can make employing various
> strategies?

It has everything to do with it. If you force me to use rules that
drive my good customers away just so someone that would never be a
customer of mine can ignore the site anyway you will hurt my
business. And I am sorry,I am in this business to make a living. So
money has everything to do with it.

> > No I just thought that the flash you shared sucked. That is why it was
> > a waste of my life. I appreciate good humor, what you showed us was
> > not (in my mind) good humor or thought provoking.
> Yes, I have seen what you defend as humour (crass things about
> Hillary Clinton's body and god knows what else?). It was not
> meant to be good humour nor to provoke much thought.

It provoked no thought what so ever because I found it incredibly
boring. This again proves, different strokes for different folks.
Nothing is pleasing to all.


> Can you sing
> and phrase like that? Can you make stars waltz and flex in
> specific happiness?

Sorry, I think the flash sucked.

> I understood you only too well. You simply missed what was good
> in it because you have a mindset quite elsewhere.

No, I think it just plain sucked. Both content and technology

Re: There any serious statistics showing Flash popularity?

On Aug 20, 5:15 pm, dorayme wrote:

> What the hell is up with Travis that he keeps saying all his
> obvious crap and can miss heart and soul and spirit.

I do this for a living, to make money for my customers. And I do it
very well. If I want to make people smile, and feel good, I play
piano.

Re: There any serious statistics showing Flash popularity?

In article
<1187654667.051468.259140@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
Travis Newbury wrote:

> > What has the free market and 'feel good' or 'feel bad' government
> > agency got to do with selling your soul so constantly to cold
> > calculations that take only bottom line things like how much
> > money individual business owners can make employing various
> > strategies?
>
> It has everything to do with it.

Perhaps we have different interests in what is worth talking
about here.

--
dorayme

Re: There any serious statistics showing Flash popularity?

In article
<1187655269.749684.233140@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
Travis Newbury wrote:

> On Aug 20, 5:15 pm, dorayme wrote:
>
> > What the hell is up with Travis that he keeps saying all his
> > obvious crap and can miss heart and soul and spirit.
>
> I do this for a living, to make money for my customers. And I do it
> very well. If I want to make people smile, and feel good, I play
> piano.

Yes yes... this is not in dispute. Why is it that whenever Flash
is discussed, everyone rushes to say the bleeding obvious? If
someone else says that Flash is good when it is done right and
where it is appropriate again, I am going to scream and you will
hear me over the Pacific Ocean. Why is not everyone else
screaming too? What is going on?

--
dorayme

Re: There any serious statistics showing Flash popularity?

> Again, conection speed is irrelevant if the Flash was developed by a
> competent Flash developer. If the developer has to put a "loading..."
> then it is bad Flash development.
Advertising loading delay with "loading..." isn't very good. However,
if you are suggesting that bandwidth is not a factor, I don't agree.
Everything must load eventually. A good developer may disguise the
loading, he may optimize the file size, but he can't accelerate it. That
doesn't mean never use high volume technology. Look at youtube.com.
Video is pretty high volume, but the audience knows what to expect and
is willing to wait. I don't think you could do a text only version of
youtube.

> But the point is, if the Flash drives more people to the site than it
> drives away form the site, then it is a good thing.
I can't disagree with your logic, but I wonder about your metrics. How
do you measure how many were driven away?

> Enjoyed by all is an unreachable goal. You could never develop a site
> that will please everyone.
Enjoyed may have been a poor choice of words on my part, taste is
subjective. However, I'm pretty sure if someone can't view my site, the
chances that they will like it are greatly reduced.

> It is equally likely that those same things that drive one visitor
> away from a site could draw two visitors to the site.
No disagreement there.

>... Coming up with
> some blanket rule about what makes a site a good site is a complete
> waste of time.
Did I suggest any rule, blanket or otherwise? If so, that is just the
opposite of what I was trying to say.

>Know your audience. Know what draws them to the
> site. Then do that.
My point exactly! We all make assumptions about our target audience.
Hopefully those assumptions have some basis in reality, and when we
realize they don't, we react.

Re: There any serious statistics showing Flash popularity?

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Mon, 20 Aug 2007 21:15:31
GMT dorayme scribed:

>> >> Bottom line it is all a numbers game.
>> >
>> > Bottom line is that all this crap is without human worth, thought
>> > or moral spirit.
>>
>> I've been in those moods; luckily, they pass.
>
> Don't let them pass completely, that would be very bad luck.

I don't like to be pessimistic.

>> Travis is right in saying that a Flash site _can_ be good,
>
> No one but the most soul-less schmuck can fail to agree with such
> a thing. Are we forever to be into motherhood statements on this?
> What the hell is up with Travis that he keeps saying all his
> obvious crap and can miss heart and soul and spirit.

Perhaps he's a Trekky attuned to the Vulcan mystique.

> Is there a plan here? Is all this meant to make people react
> turning to God? I at least will keep my head and refuse to go to
> extremes. I think the middle ground is the right ground, about
> half way between Travis and God. I really would hate to be any
> closer to either. In the middle is the sweet spot, with hells on
> either side.

Average is good. The trouble is one can't get fanatical over it without
loosing that very characteristic.

One day we'll all be as close to God as we can get. It may not be
permanent, but I intend to use whatever time I have to tell Him just
exactly how badly he screwed up down here, so don't worry.

--
Neredbojias
Half lies are worth twice as much as whole lies.

Re: There any serious statistics showing Flash popularity?

In article
,
Neredbojias wrote:

> One day we'll all be as close to God as we can get. It may not be
> permanent, but I intend to use whatever time I have to tell Him just
> exactly how badly he screwed up down here, so don't worry.

Ah... Boji... you are sometimes a great comfort to me.

(I know most people are against me here. Just because I am a bit
moody, just because I attack at the drop of a hat, that I show
great contempt, that I am rude and confronting and sarcastic and
OT so much. The truth is that they never told me about newsgroups
before I came here, I just stumbled on you lot.)

--
dorayme

Re: There any serious statistics showing Flash popularity?

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Tue, 21 Aug 2007 06:32:37 GMT
dorayme scribed:

>> One day we'll all be as close to God as we can get. It may not be
>> permanent, but I intend to use whatever time I have to tell Him just
>> exactly how badly he screwed up down here, so don't worry.
>
> Ah... Boji... you are sometimes a great comfort to me.
>
> (I know most people are against me here. Just because I am a bit
> moody, just because I attack at the drop of a hat, that I show
> great contempt, that I am rude and confronting and sarcastic and
> OT so much. The truth is that they never told me about newsgroups
> before I came here, I just stumbled on you lot.)

Ah, don't be so paranoid. Or thin-skinned. You're an Aussie, so be saucy.
In other words: just be you. I'm me, -sometimes more'n others. Ergo,
you can be you. 'Course, if I ever get down around Sydney-way, I'll wash
your mouth out with soap - and enjoy doing it, he he!

--
Neredbojias
Half lies are worth twice as much as whole lies.

Re: There any serious statistics showing Flash popularity?

In article
,
Neredbojias wrote:

> Ah, don't be so paranoid. Or thin-skinned.

I have not got skin. I am always far more naked than even your
lurid imagination could cope with.

--
dorayme

Re: There any serious statistics showing Flash popularity?

"Neredbojias" wrote in message
news:Xns9993CBBE2FC8nanopandaneredbojias@198.186.190.161...

> 'Course, if I ever get down around Sydney-way, I'll wash
> your mouth out with soap - and enjoy doing it, he he!

Jpegs will be required. Might even pop over the river and watch :-)

--
Richard.

Re: There any serious statistics showing Flash popularity?

On Aug 20, 10:10 pm, William Gill wrote:
> Advertising loading delay with "loading..." isn't very good. However,
> if you are suggesting that bandwidth is not a factor, I don't agree.
> Everything must load eventually.

It is your lack of knowledge about Flash development and Actionscript
that causes you to disagree. What I am saying is that a good Flash
developer can make a site filed with Flash that is no heavier than the
same site with HTML and images. The Flash you are use to seeing is
fat and bloated.

> A good developer may disguise the
> loading, he may optimize the file size, but he can't accelerate it.

A good flash developer has nothing to disguise. Flash is not
inherently fat and bloated. Bad Flash is. The problem comes from
Flash was originally used my artists, Actionscript was almost
powerless. When MX was released Marcomedia started to see the
benefits in having a powerful scripting language. The ability to make
Flash lighter had appeared. Now with Flash CS and AS 3.0, a very
powerful development language, I now have the ability to create very
light Flash object that are more powerful that anything earlier
version of Flash could do.


> > But the point is, if the Flash drives more people to the site than it
> > drives away form the site, then it is a good thing.
>
> I can't disagree with your logic, but I wonder about your metrics. How
> do you measure how many were driven away?

Well you take a base line. From there you look and listen.

> > Enjoyed by all is an unreachable goal. You could never develop a site
> > that will please everyone.
>
> Enjoyed may have been a poor choice of words on my part, taste is
> subjective. However, I'm pretty sure if someone can't view my site, the
> chances that they will like it are greatly reduced.

Google's product is words, and its visitors are looking for words. It
would be dumb for them to use Flash for anything that produces those
words. The Warcraft site is visual, about a game, its visitors are
looking for fun and action. You can't do that with words (at lease
not to todays kids). A site developer has to do a little research
before they can make any decision about the technologies they will use
on their site, and how they will use them. Blanket rules don't work.
Every site must cater to its customers or the customers will go to
another site that does cater to them. So using flash just because you
can is dumb. Using Flash because it make your site better to those
that will actually use your site is smart. And the exact opposite is
true too. NOT using Flash when that is what your customers are
demanding is equally as dumb.

Re: There any serious statistics showing Flash popularity?

On Aug 20, 8:47 pm, dorayme wrote:
> Flash
> is discussed, everyone rushes to say the bleeding obvious? If
> someone else says that Flash is good when it is done right and
> where it is appropriate again, I am going to scream and you will
> hear me over the Pacific Ocean. Why is not everyone else
> screaming too? What is going on?

So many here are polluting visitors with this "Web sites must be
usable by all no matter what!" Philosophy that I must chime in with
business reality.

Re: There any serious statistics showing Flash popularity?

On Aug 21, 12:23 am, Neredbojias wrote:
> Perhaps he's a Trekky attuned to the Vulcan mystique.

No, but did anyone else think that 7-of-9 was REALLY hot when she had
the Borg makeup on?

> Average is good. The trouble is one can't get fanatical over it without
> loosing that very characteristic.

Average is good? Come on Nerebojias. That has such a socialistic
ring to it. KIDS Grow up to be AVERAGE!!!

> One day we'll all be as close to God as we can get. It may not be
> permanent, but I intend to use whatever time I have to tell Him just
> exactly how badly he screwed up down here, so don't worry.

;-)

Re: There any serious statistics showing Flash popularity?

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Tue, 21 Aug 2007 08:23:49 GMT
dorayme scribed:

> In article
> ,
> Neredbojias wrote:
>
>> Ah, don't be so paranoid. Or thin-skinned.
>
> I have not got skin. I am always far more naked than even your
> lurid imagination could cope with.

I've heard of skinless wieners, but...

Well, whaddya have? Scales? An exoskeleton, perhaps. I hope you're not
one of those boogary, blob-type creatures which slithers around sliming up
the whole world for sport. The last time I saw a movie like that, I didn't
pick my nose for a whole week.

--
Neredbojias
Half lies are worth twice as much as whole lies.

Re: There any serious statistics showing Flash popularity?

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Tue, 21 Aug 2007 08:31:40 GMT
rf scribed:

>
> "Neredbojias" wrote in message
> news:Xns9993CBBE2FC8nanopandaneredbojias@198.186.190.161...
>
>> 'Course, if I ever get down around Sydney-way, I'll wash
>> your mouth out with soap - and enjoy doing it, he he!
>
> Jpegs will be required. Might even pop over the river and watch :-)

'kay, but I doubt that dorayme will be so inclined to pose for you. What
should I use, dish-liquid, detergent, or grandma's famous big-bar lye soap?
I think I'll go with grandma's 'cause she is a repeat-offender.

--
Neredbojias
Half lies are worth twice as much as whole lies.

Re: There any serious statistics showing Flash popularity?

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Tue, 21 Aug 2007 09:20:21 GMT
Travis Newbury scribed:

> On Aug 21, 12:23 am, Neredbojias wrote:
>> Perhaps he's a Trekky attuned to the Vulcan mystique.
>
> No, but did anyone else think that 7-of-9 was REALLY hot when she had
> the Borg makeup on?

Yeah, and I had a picture of whoever-it-is (jpeg), -probably a promo from a
movie or something, where she looked even better. Unfortunately, the crash
got it.

>> Average is good. The trouble is one can't get fanatical over it without
>> loosing that very characteristic.
>
> Average is good? Come on Nerebojias. That has such a socialistic
> ring to it. KIDS Grow up to be AVERAGE!!!

No, kids grow up to be mundane. Average is anything but mundane. Average
is wonderful, but it's a gift, not something one can usually attain by
merit or self-ability.

>> One day we'll all be as close to God as we can get. It may not be
>> permanent, but I intend to use whatever time I have to tell Him just
>> exactly how badly he screwed up down here, so don't worry.
>
> ;-)

How come all the ascii smiley-faces I see are sideways?

--
Neredbojias
Half lies are worth twice as much as whole lies.

Re: There any serious statistics showing Flash popularity?

"Neredbojias" wrote in message
news:Xns99932EB36D5F1nanopandaneredbojias@198.186.190.161...
> Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Tue, 21 Aug 2007 08:31:40
> GMT
> rf scribed:
>
>>
>> "Neredbojias" wrote in message
>> news:Xns9993CBBE2FC8nanopandaneredbojias@198.186.190.161...
>>
>>> 'Course, if I ever get down around Sydney-way, I'll wash
>>> your mouth out with soap - and enjoy doing it, he he!
>>
>> Jpegs will be required. Might even pop over the river and watch :-)
>
> 'kay, but I doubt that dorayme will be so inclined to pose for you. What
> should I use, dish-liquid, detergent, or grandma's famous big-bar lye
> soap?
> I think I'll go with grandma's 'cause she is a repeat-offender.

I once left to soak overnight my industrial strength leather gardening
gloves, in dishwasher (you know, the machine type, not the wife type)
powder. Next morning the gloves had totally disappeared into a slimy sludge
at the bottom of the sink.

Should be suitable :-)

--
Richard.

Re: There any serious statistics showing Flash popularity?

Neredbojias wrote:
> Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Tue, 21 Aug 2007 09:20:21 GMT
> Travis Newbury scribed:
>
>> On Aug 21, 12:23 am, Neredbojias wrote:
>>> Perhaps he's a Trekky attuned to the Vulcan mystique.
>> No, but did anyone else think that 7-of-9 was REALLY hot when she had
>> the Borg makeup on?
>
> Yeah, and I had a picture of whoever-it-is (jpeg), -probably a promo from a
> movie or something, where she looked even better. Unfortunately, the crash
> got it.

It's probably here:

http://images.google.com/images?q=jeri%20ryan&ie=UTF-8&oe=UT F-8&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search

--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
http://mozilla.edmullen.net
http://abington.edmullen.net
Dyslexics of the world, UNTIE!

Re: There any serious statistics showing Flash popularity?

> It is your lack of knowledge about Flash development and Actionscript
> that causes you to disagree. What I am saying is that a good Flash
> developer can make a site filed with Flash that is no heavier than the
> same site with HTML and images. The Flash you are use to seeing is
> fat and bloated.
>
I admit my flash/actionscript skills are limited. I am sure they don't
match yours or your definition of a good developer, they are however
better than some "professionals" I have worked "with" mostly because
they took the "flash for flash sake" approach you appropriately disdain.

I must concede it is possible that "optimization" with the current state
of the technology may render my opinions as dated. I am an old dog and
thus cling to old tricks. I started creating the network long before I
became a user, so my personal base line is such that just because you
can build a faster processor, and a faster pipe, does not excuse
inefficient code or unnecessary volume (bloat). I am amazed at how
often a site will generate each page with each request (just because
they can), even though the request is fairly standard, easily
anticipated, and could thus be achieved via a static page (possibly
generated by a daily batch to accommodate updates).


> ... Bad Flash is. The problem comes from
> Flash was originally used my artists, ...
I once worked with one of those "artists" who insisted on resizing the
viewer's browser window to "maintain the proper aspect ratio." Never
mind the slap in the face to welcome a new visitor, or the fact that
javascript disabled browsers were forced to view his "art"
inappropriately. Do you suppose this experience may be tainting my
opinions?

> Google's product is words, and its visitors are looking for words. It
> would be dumb for them to use Flash for anything that produces those
> words. The Warcraft site is visual, about a game, its visitors are
> looking for fun and action. You can't do that with words (at lease
> not to todays kids). A site developer has to do a little research
> before they can make any decision about the technologies they will use
> on their site, and how they will use them. Blanket rules don't work.
> Every site must cater to its customers or the customers will go to
> another site that does cater to them. So using flash just because you
> can is dumb. Using Flash because it make your site better to those
> that will actually use your site is smart. And the exact opposite is
> true too. NOT using Flash when that is what your customers are
> demanding is equally as dumb.
I wonder how you and I can be in so much agreement and yet this thread
would suggest otherwise? If blanket rules, or any rules for that matter
could be condensed into some kind of formulaic approach, there would be
no need for people like us (I'm sure the people in Redmond would have
packaged it by now if that were possible). Sometimes even "good" rules
need to be broken. That's why I think of them as suggestions, or
starting points, not inflexible constraints.

Re: There any serious statistics showing Flash popularity?

On Aug 21, 11:48 am, William Gill wrote:
> I admit my flash/actionscript skills are limited. I am sure they don't
> match yours or your definition of a good developer, they are however
> better than some "professionals" I have worked "with" mostly because
> they took the "flash for flash sake" approach you appropriately disdain.

I do not believe in Flash for Flash sake. And from those that I have
seen labeled as "professionals" I do agree, if you are looking at
bandwidth, accessibility, etc... then you are better than most.you are
probably better

> I once worked with one of those "artists" who insisted on resizing the
> viewer's browser window to "maintain the proper aspect ratio." Never
> mind the slap in the face to welcome a new visitor, or the fact that
> javascript disabled browsers were forced to view his "art"
> inappropriately. Do you suppose this experience may be tainting my
> opinions?

Na, you sound like you have a brain, and as you learn it seems your
opinions change.


> I wonder how you and I can be in so much agreement and yet this thread
> would suggest otherwise? If blanket rules, or any rules for that matter
> could be condensed into some kind of formulaic approach, there would be
> no need for people like us (I'm sure the people in Redmond would have
> packaged it by now if that were possible). Sometimes even "good" rules
> need to be broken. That's why I think of them as suggestions, or
> starting points, not inflexible constraints.

We don't disagree, not really.

Re: There any serious statistics showing Flash popularity?

On Aug 21, 10:15 am, Ed Mullen wrote:
> >> No, but did anyone else think that 7-of-9 was REALLY hot when she had
> >> the Borg makeup on?
> > Yeah, and I had a picture of whoever-it-is (jpeg), -probably a promo from a
> > movie or something, where she looked even better. Unfortunately, the crash
> > got it.
> It's probably here:
> http://images.google.com/images?q=jeri%20ryan&ie=UTF-8&oe=UT F-8&hl=en...

I think she look hotter as a borg. I remember she divorced her hubby
because he was into swinging and took her to swing clubs to watch her
F**k other men.

Re: There any serious statistics showing Flash popularity?

In article ,
"rf" wrote:

> "Neredbojias" wrote in message
> news:Xns9993CBBE2FC8nanopandaneredbojias@198.186.190.161...
>
> > 'Course, if I ever get down around Sydney-way, I'll wash
> > your mouth out with soap - and enjoy doing it, he he!
>
> Jpegs will be required. Might even pop over the river and watch :-)

Just don't throw the empty tinnies in, there might be a few, the
show will not be short, I am likely to show some resistance...

--
dorayme

Re: There any serious statistics showing Flash popularity?

In article
,
Neredbojias wrote:

> dorayme... is a repeat-offender.

I have been very restrained in language, perhaps you are judging
by one rude word I could not resist in your personal website blog
(which I distractedly did not pay attention to, vaguely thinking
it was a test and you would vet it all). But, you f#¶&^!!
b%3@!!*, you let me hang out to dry in public and now everyone
knows my low class.

Apparently some very famous and good public figures are truly
foul mouthed in private.

--
dorayme

Re: There any serious statistics showing Flash popularity?

"dorayme" wrote in message
news:doraymeRidThis-BCFD80.08090822082007@news-vip.optusnet. com.au...
> In article ,
> "rf" wrote:
>
>> "Neredbojias" wrote in message
>> news:Xns9993CBBE2FC8nanopandaneredbojias@198.186.190.161...
>>
>> > 'Course, if I ever get down around Sydney-way, I'll wash
>> > your mouth out with soap - and enjoy doing it, he he!
>>
>> Jpegs will be required. Might even pop over the river and watch :-)
>
> Just don't throw the empty tinnies in, there might be a few, the
> show will not be short, I am likely to show some resistance...
>
Give 'em heck, do!

Re: There any serious statistics showing Flash popularity?

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Tue, 21 Aug 2007 13:22:23
GMT rf scribed:

>> I think I'll go with grandma's 'cause she is a repeat-offender.
>
> I once left to soak overnight my industrial strength leather gardening
> gloves, in dishwasher (you know, the machine type, not the wife type)
> powder. Next morning the gloves had totally disappeared into a slimy
> sludge at the bottom of the sink.
>
> Should be suitable :-)

Ah, electric dishwasher powder. Bet she'll get a charge outta that! (And
as a safety measure, I'll make sure she don't eat no gloves for 24 hours.)

--
Neredbojias
Half lies are worth twice as much as whole lies.

Re: There any serious statistics showing Flash popularity?

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Tue, 21 Aug 2007 22:23:33 GMT
dorayme scribed:

>> dorayme... is a repeat-offender.
>
> I have been very restrained in language, perhaps you are judging
> by one rude word I could not resist in your personal website blog
> (which I distractedly did not pay attention to, vaguely thinking
> it was a test and you would vet it all). But, you f#¶&^!!
> b%3@!!*, you let me hang out to dry in public and now everyone
> knows my low class.
>
> Apparently some very famous and good public figures are truly
> foul mouthed in private.

I suppose the definitive example is "Tricky Dick". His prodigal tapes
really opened the public eye to "high class invective". Nonetheless,
cussin' is an art-form, and when used adeptly, can really invigorate an
otherwise boring conversation. Often, a good way to introduced yourself to
a fellow co-worker is by starting a spontaneous verbal exchange with
something like "Hey, dickhead..." You're sure to get his or her undivided
attention in a minimum of time.

Btw, just to leave no doubt about the main subject extant, Flash is good
when it is done right and used where it is appropriate to do so.

--
Neredbojias
Half lies are worth twice as much as whole lies.

Re: There any serious statistics showing Flash popularity?

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Wed, 22 Aug 2007 00:26:43 GMT
El Kabong scribed:


>>> Jpegs will be required. Might even pop over the river and watch :-)
>>
>> Just don't throw the empty tinnies in, there might be a few, the
>> show will not be short, I am likely to show some resistance...
>>
> Give 'em heck, do!

To be semantically correct, you probably should have said "doh".

--
Neredbojias
Half lies are worth twice as much as whole lies.

Re: There any serious statistics showing Flash popularity?

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Tue, 21 Aug 2007 14:15:33
GMT Ed Mullen scribed:

>>> No, but did anyone else think that 7-of-9 was REALLY hot when she
>>> had the Borg makeup on?
>>
>> Yeah, and I had a picture of whoever-it-is (jpeg), -probably a promo
>> from a movie or something, where she looked even better.
>> Unfortunately, the crash got it.
>
> It's probably here:
>
> http://images.google.com/images?q=jeri%20ryan&ie=UTF-8&oe=UT F-8&hl=en&b
> tnG=Google+Search

Yup, yep, and what a yapper. It is, and I just realized for the 1st time
she's the same girl who's in "Shark". Don't really watch TV much (-like
0.0001 percent), but I'm a James Woods fan. Thought he was super in
"Salvador".

--
Neredbojias
Half lies are worth twice as much as whole lies.

Re: There any serious statistics showing Flash popularity?

"Neredbojias" wrote in message
news:Xns9993B8F5BF83Ananopandaneredbojias@198.186.190.161...
> Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Wed, 22 Aug 2007 00:26:43
> GMT
> El Kabong scribed:
>
>
>>>> Jpegs will be required. Might even pop over the river and watch :-)
>>>
>>> Just don't throw the empty tinnies in, there might be a few, the
>>> show will not be short, I am likely to show some resistance...
>>>
>> Give 'em heck, do!
>
> To be semantically correct, you probably should have said "doh".
>

Yes, but I'm a conservationist. I might need that h later.

El

Re: There any serious statistics showing Flash popularity?

In article <96Nyi.5441$ze.2880@trnddc07>,
"El Kabong" wrote:

> > To be semantically correct, you probably should have said "doh".
> >
>
> Yes, but I'm a conservationist. I might need that h later.

The alphabet is like a magic pudding, it likes to be used and
never runs out. Just btw, sorry to stray from the topic even
further, you can download the e-book at:

http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/4910

--
dorayme

Re: There any serious statistics showing Flash popularity?

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Wed, 22 Aug 2007 02:23:01 GMT
El Kabong scribed:

>>> Give 'em heck, do!
>>
>> To be semantically correct, you probably should have said "doh".
>>
>
> Yes, but I'm a conservationist. I might need that h later.

Oh, no, don't tell me you're an 'h' addict?

--
Neredbojias
Half lies are worth twice as much as whole lies.

Re: There any serious statistics showing Flash popularity?

In article
,
Neredbojias wrote:

> Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky

You change your x-face thingy more times than a conductor pokes a
stick at different bits of the air in Beethoven's 5th.

--
dorayme

Re: There any serious statistics showing Flash popularity?

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Wed, 22 Aug 2007 03:11:53 GMT
dorayme scribed:

> In article
> ,
> Neredbojias wrote:
>
>> Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky
>
> You change your x-face thingy more times than a conductor pokes a
> stick at different bits of the air in Beethoven's 5th.

What can I say; I'm easily bored. I'm also easily depressed, easily
nauseated, and easily constipated, among other things. The girlies used to
call me "Mr. Easy" incessantly - at least until I showed them my harder
side.

--
Neredbojias
Half lies are worth twice as much as whole lies.