Single parents Support - Dating and Marriage Advice

Author

Dating and Marriage Advice

Buster Van Buren

2004-09-02, 11:07 am

Are you tired of reading advice from dead advice columnists and their
humorless PC daughters? Come to www.dearbuster.com for advice on all
topics. Advice for the 21st century from a man's point of view. A little
bit of humor, a little bit of entertainment, and a lot of attitude. Never
again will the questions be more interesting than the answers. Never again
will you see a politically-correct "sensitive" answer. Common sense is the
rule here. Come visit! Letters change each week.

Thanks for listening,

Buster Van Buren
buster@dearbuster.com

'Kate

2004-09-02, 7:07 pm

On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 08:06:16 GMT, "Buster Van Buren"
<buster@dearbuster.com> wrote:

>Are you tired of reading advice from dead advice columnists and their
>humorless PC daughters? Come to www.dearbuster.com for advice on all
>topics. Advice for the 21st century from a man's point of view. A little
>bit of humor, a little bit of entertainment, and a lot of attitude. Never
>again will the questions be more interesting than the answers. Never again
>will you see a politically-correct "sensitive" answer. Common sense is the
>rule here. Come visit! Letters change each week.
>
>Thanks for listening,
>
>Buster Van Buren
>buster@dearbuster.com

LOL... 'cause we're all about sensitivity here.

'Kate

CME

2004-09-03, 2:07 am

"'Kate" <nothere@home.com> wrote in message
news:ascej0dpf7g7cq4rhdvkijsifhg1f4rfgg@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 08:06:16 GMT, "Buster Van Buren"
> <buster@dearbuster.com> wrote:
>
little[vbcol=seagreen]
Never[vbcol=seagreen]
again[vbcol=seagreen]
the[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> LOL... 'cause we're all about sensitivity here.
>
> 'Kate
>

Yeah he obviously didn't lurk long, if at all. lol

Christine

Buster Van Buren

2004-09-03, 2:07 am

That's where both of you are wrong. I'm not lurking. I'm actively watching
this newsgroup, and imparting advice to everyone.

And, if you read my little "ad-post" more carefully, you'd understand that I
was talking about typical advice columnists like Dear Abby, Ann Landers,
Miss Manners, and the assortment of 70 year old to dead women giving advice
to people. I wasn't talking about the group. I happen to like this group,
as it gives me lots of topics to think about and explore.

And Kate? Thanks for liking that other post. It's always nice to see that
people "sometimes" read and understand what I say.

Have a great night.

Buster
www.dearbuster.com

"CME" <cmedwards9@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:mFPZc.87384$X12.46627@edtnps84...
>
> "'Kate" <nothere@home.com> wrote in message
> news:ascej0dpf7g7cq4rhdvkijsifhg1f4rfgg@4ax.com...
> little
> Never
> again
> the
>
> Yeah he obviously didn't lurk long, if at all. lol
>
> Christine
>
>

2004-09-03, 2:07 am

On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 03:11:37 GMT, "Buster Van Buren"
<buster@dearbuster.com> wrote:

>That's where both of you are wrong. I'm not lurking. I'm actively watching
>this newsgroup, and imparting advice to everyone.
>
>And, if you read my little "ad-post" more carefully, you'd understand that I
>was talking about typical advice columnists like Dear Abby, Ann Landers,
>Miss Manners, and the assortment of 70 year old to dead women giving advice
>to people. I wasn't talking about the group. I happen to like this group,
>as it gives me lots of topics to think about and explore.
>
>And Kate? Thanks for liking that other post. It's always nice to see that
>people "sometimes" read and understand what I say.
>
>Have a great night.
>
>Buster
>www.dearbuster.com

OK, since you're an actual human person responding to actual comments.
I looked at your site. Even though there are dozens of advice sites
like yours (you might want to lose the "only" from your intro) I
looked anyway. I didn't get far because the red-on-black was hard to
read and your html doesn't fit in a window. It's not worth having to
scroll left-right for every line of text. I dunno how to fix that but
it's worth fixing.

lm

'Kate

2004-09-03, 2:07 am

On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 03:11:37 GMT, "Buster Van Buren"
<buster@dearbuster.com> wrote:

>That's where both of you are wrong. I'm not lurking.

Show me where I said "lurking" and I'll let you tell me I'm wrong.

> I'm actively watching this newsgroup,

Ok, that's for sure not lurking. That's more like stalking...

>and imparting advice to everyone.

But not reprinting from this newsgroup to your site, right? You
wouldn't do that.

>And, if you read my little "ad-post" more carefully, you'd understand that I
>was talking about typical advice columnists like Dear Abby, Ann Landers,
>Miss Manners, and the assortment of 70 year old to dead women giving advice
>to people. I wasn't talking about the group.

Yeah, yeah.. got it..

> I happen to like this group,
>as it gives me lots of topics to think about and explore.

um hum.

>And Kate? Thanks for liking that other post. It's always nice to see that
>people "sometimes" read and understand what I say.

Darlin'..... that wasn't me. Again.

>Have a great night.
>
>Buster
>www.dearbuster.com

You too. I sure hope you learn how to read threaded posts soon.

'Kate

Buster Van Buren

2004-09-03, 2:07 am

You are correct...It was Christine who liked my post. I take back anything
nice I said to you, and redirect it towards Christine.

Could it be perhaps your confrontational attitude that resulted in you being
a single parent, by the way?

Just a thought to ponder

Buster
"'Kate" <nothere@home.com> wrote in message
news:o8pfj099oij3dcda6fdm8jlhn2sqv06n9n@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 03:11:37 GMT, "Buster Van Buren"
> <buster@dearbuster.com> wrote:
>
>
> Show me where I said "lurking" and I'll let you tell me I'm wrong.
>
>
> Ok, that's for sure not lurking. That's more like stalking...
>
>
>
> But not reprinting from this newsgroup to your site, right? You
> wouldn't do that.
>
that I[vbcol=seagreen]
advice[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Yeah, yeah.. got it..
>
>
> um hum.
>
>
that[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Darlin'..... that wasn't me. Again.
>
>
>
>
> You too. I sure hope you learn how to read threaded posts soon.
>
> 'Kate
>

Cele

2004-09-03, 2:07 am

On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 04:20:45 GMT, "Buster Van Buren"
<buster@dearbuster.com> wrote:

>I'm glad you checked out the site. Sorry you didn't like the colors, but
>after 5000 some hits, you are the first to complain. The site is set up in
>a standard size for computer screens to capture without having to "scroll"
>left or right. (It is not set to be a "wide capture") In fact, I've got
>server statistics that show that 97.8% of all my readers are set up to read
>the site without the problem you stated. You must have a smaller monitor,
>or have set your screen settings larger to make the type larger.
>
>If you go to the letters section, you will find the questions in white, and
>my answers in bold red on a black background. I'm sorry that you have
>difficulty reading that, but once again, I haven't had that complaint
>before.

You may not have, but it's a legitimate one, IMO. For good visibility,
yellow on black is the most universally visible colour. Red on black
is a challenge to some people and particularly to people with vision
impairment. To reach the widest audience, you might like to run your
site through an accessibility checker, like Bobby:
http://bobby.watchfire.com/bobby/html/en/index.jsp

You'd be amazed how many people would really appreciate it.

Cele

Cele

2004-09-03, 2:07 am

On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 04:14:54 GMT, "Buster Van Buren"
<buster@dearbuster.com> wrote:

>You are correct...It was Christine who liked my post. I take back anything
>nice I said to you, and redirect it towards Christine.
>
>Could it be perhaps your confrontational attitude that resulted in you being
>a single parent, by the way?
>
>Just a thought to ponder

Don't go there. You really, really don't want to go there. You don't
know Kate, or her overall posting style, and I guarantee you, tossing
off hurtful remarks about why people are own around here can be a
*lot* more destructive than any cracks sent your way are likely to
have been. And they gain nothing.

For the record, Kate's attitude has *nothing* to do with her status as
a single parent.

Cele

Buster Van Buren

2004-09-03, 2:07 am

Thanks Cele:

Actually, I'm not too concerned about the visibility of the site to older
adults who may have vision problems. The site is already almost entirely
made from Flash, which typically is not a program most older people have.
The demo for my audience is typically more for young adults, or so it seems
from the letters I've received.

I'm all for constructive criticism, and I'll check out that site you
recommended, however my site was previously set up as you described, and I
got tons of complaints about how it wasn't "edgy" enough for the audience it
was attracting.

By the way, I'm not going to get into a pissing match with Kate. She
unjustly came at me with attitude, and I'm not one to take that. And, as
"well" as you may know her from her postings, you cannot say with 100%
certainty that her confrontational style was not a mitigating factor (no
matter how small or large) in the reason she CURRENTLY is "spouseless". I
just made an observation from a man's point of view, based on what I saw.
If I observed it, certainly any other guy entering her life will notice it
as well. Kindness is returned by kindness. Snippiness is returned by the
type of response I gave.

Buster

"Cele" <cltemple@shaw.spam-me-at-your-peril.ca> wrote in message
news:qi0gj0poks1hqa44kqcai38494djbnofc4@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 04:20:45 GMT, "Buster Van Buren"
> <buster@dearbuster.com> wrote:
>
in[vbcol=seagreen]
"scroll"[vbcol=seagreen]
read[vbcol=seagreen]
monitor,[vbcol=seagreen]
and[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> You may not have, but it's a legitimate one, IMO. For good visibility,
> yellow on black is the most universally visible colour. Red on black
> is a challenge to some people and particularly to people with vision
> impairment. To reach the widest audience, you might like to run your
> site through an accessibility checker, like Bobby:
> http://bobby.watchfire.com/bobby/html/en/index.jsp
>
> You'd be amazed how many people would really appreciate it.
>
> Cele

Betsy

2004-09-03, 7:09 am

"Buster Van Buren" <buster@dearbuster.com> wrote in message
news:wXTZc.229035$8_6.12253@attbi_s04...
> Thanks Cele:
>
> Actually, I'm not too concerned about the visibility of the site to older
> adults who may have vision problems. The site is already almost entirely
> made from Flash, which typically is not a program most older people have.
> The demo for my audience is typically more for young adults, or so it
seems
> from the letters I've received.
>
> I'm all for constructive criticism, and I'll check out that site you
> recommended, however my site was previously set up as you described, and I
> got tons of complaints about how it wasn't "edgy" enough for the audience
it
> was attracting.
>
> By the way, I'm not going to get into a pissing match with Kate. She
> unjustly came at me with attitude, and I'm not one to take that. And, as
> "well" as you may know her from her postings, you cannot say with 100%
> certainty that her confrontational style was not a mitigating factor (no
> matter how small or large) in the reason she CURRENTLY is "spouseless". I
> just made an observation from a man's point of view, based on what I saw.
> If I observed it, certainly any other guy entering her life will notice it
> as well. Kindness is returned by kindness. Snippiness is returned by the
> type of response I gave.
>
> Buster
>
>
>

Well, we aren't necessarily talking about older adults with vision problems.
There are lots of young people with vision problems too. Whether it be need
for glasses or a neurological impairment. It's very biased of you to think
that the only people that would have difficulty with your site would be
older folks. I read it, didn't like the colors either. But it's not my
site.
>
> "Cele" <cltemple@shaw.spam-me-at-your-peril.ca> wrote in message
> news:qi0gj0poks1hqa44kqcai38494djbnofc4@4ax.com...
but[vbcol=seagreen]
up[vbcol=seagreen]
> in
> "scroll"
> read
> monitor,
> and
>
>

Betsy

2004-09-03, 7:09 am

"Buster Van Buren" <buster@dearbuster.com> wrote in message
news:2dSZc.280554$eM2.197084@attbi_s51...
> You are correct...It was Christine who liked my post. I take back
anything
> nice I said to you, and redirect it towards Christine.
>
> Could it be perhaps your confrontational attitude that resulted in you
being
> a single parent, by the way?
>
> Just a thought to ponder
>
> Buster

So you think all single parents are single because of divorce or ending of a
relationship? What about death of a spouse? You may want to think things
out fully before spouting out comments. You don't know the situation at
all. Sometimes the other partner was abusive physically, sometimes they
died. Think about that. Insensitive clod.

Betsy
> "'Kate" <nothere@home.com> wrote in message
> news:o8pfj099oij3dcda6fdm8jlhn2sqv06n9n@4ax.com...
> that I
Landers,[vbcol=seagreen]
> advice
> that
>
>

Cele

2004-09-03, 7:09 am

On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 06:12:44 GMT, "Buster Van Buren"
<buster@dearbuster.com> wrote:

>Thanks Cele:
>
>Actually, I'm not too concerned about the visibility of the site to older
>adults who may have vision problems. The site is already almost entirely
>made from Flash, which typically is not a program most older people have.
>The demo for my audience is typically more for young adults, or so it seems
>from the letters I've received.

I know a ten year old with major vision impairment. Actually, I know
quite a few. Uncorrectable with glasses. All people with vision
impairments are not elderly.

>I'm all for constructive criticism, and I'll check out that site you
>recommended, however my site was previously set up as you described, and I
>got tons of complaints about how it wasn't "edgy" enough for the audience it
>was attracting.

Ok, well, it was a thought.

>By the way, I'm not going to get into a pissing match with Kate. She
>unjustly came at me with attitude, and I'm not one to take that. And, as
>"well" as you may know her from her postings, you cannot say with 100%
>certainty that her confrontational style was not a mitigating factor (no
>matter how small or large) in the reason she CURRENTLY is "spouseless". I
>just made an observation from a man's point of view, based on what I saw.
>If I observed it, certainly any other guy entering her life will notice it
>as well. Kindness is returned by kindness. Snippiness is returned by the
>type of response I gave.

I *do* know that her style in talking with you has nothing to do with
her status as a single parent. I've known Kate for years. She's quite
regularly one of the most reasonable and sensible and non
confrontational posters here. She's also a deeply compasionate and
kind person.

I'm suggesting to you that you can certainly toss off snippy remarks,
but that you might be better advised to know a little bit more about a
person before you judge their whole life. Your opinion, however valid
you may feel that it is, is based on a very brief interaction. You've
seen a few of Kate's sentences. Here on assp, we've seen hundreds of
thousands. And there's a lot more to Kate than her posting here. Your
remark wasn't in the same vein as hers....it was potentially a lot
nastier.

Anyway, that's what I have to say on that.

Cele

Buster Van Buren

2004-09-03, 7:09 am

Wow Moon Shine:

Actual constructive advice without trying to insult me. I appreciate the
effort you put forth to give me this information, and I certainly will look
into some of the items you've mentioned.

Sincere Thanks from an Insenstive Clod.

Buster

"Moon Shyne" <moonshyne__@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2pr0fnFnho6hU1@uni-berlin.de...
>
> "Buster Van Buren" <buster@dearbuster.com> wrote in message
> news:xiSZc.24580$_g7.12164@attbi_s52...
but[vbcol=seagreen]
in[vbcol=seagreen]
"scroll"[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Actually, Buster, you have your table set to 883 pixels wide - and the
standard
> for websites for ease in readability is 800 x 600. You may want to
consider a
> few changes:
>
> 1. Set your table to 100% - then you will be set for just about any
monitor,
> with the exception of the hand-held devises - you would need to recreate
your
> site in XML to make it accessible for the handhelds.
>
> 2. There is quite a bit of knowledge in the area of typography and usage
of
> colors, and red on black is one of the most difficult to read.
>
> 3. The other thing that ruins most websites is having animation behind
the
> words - the percentage of people who enjoy reading words when there is
movement
> behind them is really quite small - everyone else experiences motion
sickness
> after varying periods of time.
>
> 4. If you're going to use a flash intro of any duration, you really need
a
> "skip intro" link visible and accessible.
>
> 5. If you really want to be able to speak knowledgeably about your web
traffic,
> who stays and for how long, you need to invest in some decent web traffic
> reporting tool - webtrends tends to be a good one, and reasonably user
friendly.
>
> 6. You may want to work a bit on your metatags - the good news is that you
have
> some, the bad news (with a little help from a meta tag analyzer) is:
>
> <TITLE>Dear Buster - Home Page</TITLE>
>
> This Tag is 23 characters in length including tabs, spaces and carriage
returns
> Status: This Tag is considered acceptable and search engine friendly.
However
> this Tag may or may not be properly optimized or descriptive enough to put
your
> Web page on the top of the search engines. This Tag should contain
keywords and
> keyword phrases that is important to your site. The recommended maximum
number
> of characters for this tag is 60.
>
>
> <META NAME="Description" CONTENT="Not your grandma's advice column. This
is 21st
> Century advice from a man's point of view. Entertaining, informative,
> provocative, and always brutally honest.">
>
> This Tag is 158 characters in length including tabs, spaces and carriage
returns
> Status: Warning! This Tag contains too many characters for what we would
> consider a "robot friendly" Web page. The maximum number of characters
> recommended for this Tag is 150.
>
>
> <META NAME="Keywords" CONTENT="buster, dear buster, dear abby, ann
landers,
> advice, advice column, abby, dear, dearbuster.com, advice columnist,
buster van
> buren, miss manners, help, opinions, dear buster.com, van buren,
questions,
> problems, dating, sex, marriage, marraige, ask buster, ask, column,
> relationships, divorce, separation, teen, teen advice, ombudsman">
>
> This Tag is 333 characters in length including tabs, spaces and carriage
returns
> WARNING! THIS TAG MAY BE DISQUALIFIED!
>
> REASON: The following keywords were repeated more than 3 times in the META
> Keywords Tag:
>
> The word advice was repeated 4 times
> The word buster was repeated 4 times
> The word dear was repeated 4 times
> While you have separated at least one of your keywords with a comma, but
this
> does NOT mean all search engines will separate your keywords by the comma.
With
> some search engines this may be considered "word spamming". YOu need to
use
> caution with regard to these multiple keywords.
>
>
> As for accessibility issues, for people who may be living with vision
problems
> (for example), I ran a Bobby Check (http://bobby.watchfire.com/bobby/) on
the
> accessibility of your home page (the one past the flash intro that you
can't
> escape because there's no skip intro link) -
>
> <drumroll>
>
> This page does not yet meet the requirements for Bobby AAA Approved
status. To
> be Bobby AAA Approved, a page must pass all of the Priority 1,2 and 3
> accessibility checkpoints established in W3C Web Content Accessibility
> Guidelines 1.0.
>
> You had 10 issues at priority one, 17 at priority 2, and 9 at priority 3.
>
> Ok, so much for Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0. Let's try the
real
> nitty gritty stuff.
>
> Did you know that the ADA (Americans with Disabilities folks) sued AOL for
> megabucks because their site (AOL's, that is) did not comply with
Department of
> Justice (DOJ) Section 508 Guidelines? (those are the guidelines that deal
with
> accessibility)
>
> It didn't do any better than the AAA approval requirements.
>
> Just some things to consider, rather than telling people "No one ELSE had
a
> problem with my page" - I'd hate to think that's the sort of advice you
dish out
> to people who write to you.
>
>

Joelle

2004-09-03, 7:09 am

> And, as
>"well" as you may know her from her postings, you cannot say with 100%
>certainty that her confrontational style was not a mitigating factor (no
>matter how small or large) in the reason she CURRENTLY is "spouseless"

Okay you are busted. This assinine commet makes you a jerk in my eyes and
unfit to give advice to anyone. You sir, are an idiot.

Now go ahead and tell me that my comments are the reason my husband is dead as
well.

Jackass.

Joelle
The world is a book and those who do not travel read only one page - St
Augustine
Joelle

P. Fritz

2004-09-03, 11:06 am

"Joelle" <revjoelle@aol.comgoaway> wrote in message
news:20040903075020.22406.00000110@mb-m01.aol.com...

<snip>
>
> You sir, are an idiot.
>

Staight to the point once again Joelle LOL

Tiffany

2004-09-03, 11:06 am

"Buster Van Buren" <buster@dearbuster.com> wrote in message
news:JhRZc.92118$9d6.37104@attbi_s54...
> That's where both of you are wrong. I'm not lurking. I'm actively
watching
> this newsgroup, and imparting advice to everyone.
>
> And, if you read my little "ad-post" more carefully, you'd understand that
I
> was talking about typical advice columnists like Dear Abby, Ann Landers,
> Miss Manners, and the assortment of 70 year old to dead women giving
advice
> to people. I wasn't talking about the group. I happen to like this
group,
> as it gives me lots of topics to think about and explore.
>
> And Kate? Thanks for liking that other post. It's always nice to see
that
> people "sometimes" read and understand what I say.
>
> Have a great night.
>
> Buster
> www.dearbuster.com
>
>

Well well, since there is so much debate over your site I thought I would
look. I for one, do not have a problem reading it. I do tend to not frequent
sites that use all that flash as I prefer to get to the point. That is just
me. lol

I find it amazing that you make the comments about not getting advice from
dead old ladies. I do find that a bit insensitive and disrespectful to the
families of those dead old ladies.

If I go into the site farther, I am sure to offer more opinion.

T

CME

2004-09-03, 7:10 pm

"Tiffany" <tiffany@blazenet.net> wrote in message
news:10jgpj5lrho66ec@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Tiffany" <tiffany@blazenet.net> wrote in message
> news:10jgp2a5fut7130@corp.supernews.com...
> that
Landers,[vbcol=seagreen]
would[vbcol=seagreen]
> frequent
> just
from[vbcol=seagreen]
the[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> OK, I went a slight bit farther. This site seems it attract mostly those
> with sexual issues. Why are you here in the single parenting group Buster?
> Are you a single parent? (I didn't read all your views.... the ONE I
looked
> at was to long winded.... who has time??)
>
> T

Yeah I thought that as well, he goes on and on... um NEXT. Short, sweet and
to the point Buster.

Christine

2004-09-03, 7:10 pm

On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 15:20:22 GMT, "CME" <cmedwards9@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>
>"Tiffany" <tiffany@blazenet.net> wrote in message
>news:10jgp2a5fut7130@corp.supernews.com...
>that
>frequent
>just
>
>I checked the site out myself, just to see what the commotion was and I
>don't think the comments about Ann Landers, and Dear Abby as dead are
>appropriate. Sure it's a fact, but it's crass. As for what the site looks
>like, I find it hard to read and I don't have any vision problems. White
>text on a black background with then red font as well just doesn't appeal to
>me, however that is just my own personal opinion.
>
>Christine

LOL I'm beginning to see where he gets all his hits from. He goes and
annoys people enough so they'll critique his site and he counts them
all as hits.

lm

Istara

2004-09-03, 7:10 pm

Tiffany wrote:

> "Tiffany" <tiffany@blazenet.net> wrote in message
> news:10jgp2a5fut7130@corp.supernews.com...
>
>
> that
>
>
> frequent
>
>
> just
>
>
>
> OK, I went a slight bit farther. This site seems it attract mostly those
> with sexual issues. Why are you here in the single parenting group Buster?
> Are you a single parent? (I didn't read all your views.... the ONE I looked
> at was to long winded.... who has time??)
>
> T
>

[de-lurking long enough to comment...]

If stuff on his website is accurate, then no, he's not a single parent.
In the section where he gives his "views" of life, at the end, he's
offering "clues" to women - one of them is that we should all be as
sweet, kind, considerate, etc, ad nauseum, as his wife. From whom he's
hoping to get back a 'grateful' response for having posted such an
opinion of her on his website.

BTW, I'm not elderly, I've vision impaired since age 9, and I found
parts of the website difficult and or uncomfortable to read due to the
red-on-black color scheme. He needs a "skip intro" link on the home
page, a 'what qualifies me to give advice' post somewhere in there, and
it definitely would do him no harm to take a class or three in writing -
his letter responses tend to be short and pointed (putting it politely),
but his other stuff is excessively verbose.

~ Dor

'Kate

2004-09-03, 7:10 pm

'Kate

2004-09-03, 7:10 pm

On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 10:51:27 GMT, "Buster Van Buren"
<buster@dearbuster.com> wrote:

>If you notice my most recent answer, I said that her CURRENT state may be
>because of her attitude. Not the ORIGINAL reason as to why she is now
>alone.
>
>That's the one thing I dislike about women. They hear what they want to
>hear, and in this case, they read what they want to read. You can't put
>your emotions to the side for one moment to hear something logical.

Which is exactly what you did. You took exception to what you felt
was my attitude and then attempted to use that to attack me and
criticize my lifestyle.

>Either way, if speaking the truth and giving my honest opinions makes me an
>insensitive clod, I'll proudly wear that badge and any other you'd like to
>assign to me. Because, after all YOU know ME and MY SITUATION(S) so well,
>that you have every right to attempt to insult me. When someone you don't
>know starts getting bitchy with you, do you react? do you respond?....or do
>you just sit there and say "Gosh, she must have had a hard life, she's
>within her rights to be bitchy to me?". That's what's wrong with this world
>today. Everyone is afraid of speaking their mind, and when someone does
>they get chastised for it because it might "hurt someone's feelings". Waa
>Waa Waa. Call me any name in the book you want. It won't change the fact
>that I made an honest observation that probably isn't too far from the
>truth, and the only one who'll know that is Kate and however many men she's
>psychologically pummelled along her way....leading her to a life where she
>has to find her friends anonymously on a newsgroup.

It's obvious that you're an ugly person inside.

'Kate

'Kate

2004-09-03, 7:10 pm

On 03 Sep 2004 12:15:45 GMT, revjoelle@aol.comgoaway (Joelle) wrote:

>
>Well of course it's due to her attitude. Her attitude is that her children
>come first. Her attitude is that unlike many women, she does not believe that
>"anyman" is better than no man.
>
>Unfortunately there are a lot of idiots like you around and she's smart and
>confident enough not to bother with them and not to pretend like everyword they
>say is worth listening to. And that pisses off idiots like you. And so she's
>still waiting for the few good men that are left. You are not one of them.
>
>
>Ah. Issues with women. Very common. Sorry to hear that. Dont' you think you
>should deal with your issues before you claim to give out advice?
>
>
>Oh dear, sounds like you are projecting again. Something to bring up with your
>therapist.
>
>
>No, imaginging that you know the truth when you know nothing and having stupid
>honest opinions are what make you an XXX. Sometimes insensitive clods can be
>charming. You are not charming--you are just an arrogant XXXXXXX.
>
>
>And how would we know anything about you? Have you told us about why you are a
>single parent or anything about your children? Anything that qualifies you to
>give advice? Or did you just come on here presuming to know more about us and
>give us stupid advice, like a man's greatest shame is being cheated on. Like
>his "shame" was the only thing his wife should be worried about. I don't
>believe you said a word about the children. Do you even have children?
>
>
>Oh that's ironic, when you are the one whining because you got back a dose of
>your own medicine. I think it goes back to your issues with women. Time to go
>back to the therapist.
>
>
>No, what you did was get your feelings hurt because Kate didn't embrace your
>stupid website and so you childishly threw back a comment you thought would
>hurt. It's not even an original comment. WHenever newbies get advice and
>comments they don't like they come up with the "Uh duh, no wonder you are a
>single parent" so it didn't even achieve your goal of hurting her.
>
>
>Oh dear, projecting again. Maybe you should just print off this whole post for
>your therapist.
>
>By the way, your website is unreadable
>
>Joelle
>The world is a book and those who do not travel read only one page - St
>Augustine
>Joelle

Wow... you're one hell of a counselor! Not that I didn't know that but
Loved the freudian references. :-)

'Kate

Cele

2004-09-03, 10:07 pm

On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 08:10:14 -0400, "P. Fritz"
<paulfritzREMOVEME@voyager.net> wrote:

>
> "Cele" <cltemple@shaw.spam-me-at-your-peril.ca> wrote in message
>news:1kegj0pjd9rs5ll8tnuvtacs7hr58mlsib@4ax.com...
>older
>entirely
>have.
>seems
>
> I've had worse than 20-300 vision since I was about 6. Even with glasses
>or contacts sites like that put a real strain on my eyes.

I know what you mean. T, my nearly 17 year old, is 20/400 uncorrected.
She corrects to normal range, but sites like that are still hard for
her, too. With a focal length as long as that (she's farsighted) it's
an act of muscular strength to view little red letters on black.

[time elapsed]

I asked her to check it out. She said she could handle the red on
black, but wouldn't choose to read it voluntarily. She preferred the
yellow on black in the same font. We did this with her contacts in. If
they hadn't been in, she wouldn't've been able to find the computer.
:-) She's got good enough vision with contacts to be eligible for a
driving license.

>and I
>audience it
>as
>(no
>I
>saw.
>it
>the
>
> You forgot candid, intelligent and a few other qualities :-)

No, I would never forget. I was just going for the Reader's Digest
version. But I agree.

Cele
>

Cele

2004-09-03, 10:07 pm

On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 10:51:27 GMT, "Buster Van Buren"
<buster@dearbuster.com> wrote:

>If you notice my most recent answer, I said that her CURRENT state may be
>because of her attitude. Not the ORIGINAL reason as to why she is now
>alone.

You don't know Kate anywhere near well enough to draw that conclusion.

>That's the one thing I dislike about women. They hear what they want to
>hear, and in this case, they read what they want to read. You can't put
>your emotions to the side for one moment to hear something logical.

All of us? Ah. Then why are we talking? Sounds like you'd find it a
waste of time?

Not to...uh....move in any unfortunate directions...but...could your
negativity towards woman be any kind of barrier in your own life?

>Either way, if speaking the truth and giving my honest opinions makes me an
>insensitive clod, I'll proudly wear that badge and any other you'd like to
>assign to me.

I don't believe I called you any names. My own suggestions were that
you consider the potential impact of your words relative to the
knowledge base with which they were informed.

> Because, after all YOU know ME and MY SITUATION(S) so well,
>that you have every right to attempt to insult me.

Because you top posted, I'm not sure to whom this is directed, but in
my newsreader, it threads directly beneath my post, so....

I don't recall insulting or attempting to insult you. Could you please
refresh my memory?

>When someone you don't
>know starts getting bitchy with you, do you react? do you respond?....or do
>you just sit there and say "Gosh, she must have had a hard life, she's
>within her rights to be bitchy to me?".

In my particular line of work I deal with people who are very upset
for quite good reason who often vent at me all the time. My strategy
is to let them vent, and they virtually always thank me for my
patience. Of course, I get paid in that role, but then again, as a
parent of teens, one of whom has significant special needs, I find
that skillset is actually handy in my private life as well.

I can tell you that our family's current strategy for dealing with
other people's road rage involves the clown nose in the glove box, if
that helps. :-)

>That's what's wrong with this world
>today. Everyone is afraid of speaking their mind, and when someone does
>they get chastised for it because it might "hurt someone's feelings". Waa
>Waa Waa.

Well, if that was their motivation, that would be unfortunate. In my
case, I A) choose to recognise that 'my mind' is not always especially
of interest to others, and B) say what I have to say in as considerate
a way as possible, if for no other reason than because that's
generally how it's best heard.

Now, of course, being the patently imperfect being that I am, I
certainly don't always succeed. But I grow in the trying.

>Call me any name in the book you want.

To what end?

>It won't change the fact
>that I made an honest observation that probably isn't too far from the
>truth, and the only one who'll know that is Kate and however many men she's
>psychologically pummelled along her way....leading her to a life where she
>has to find her friends anonymously on a newsgroup.

I guess the frying pan wasn't hot enough, eh? So you've leapt straight
into the flames...and I do use the word with all its meanings. :-)

I'll be very clear now:

1) You don't know Kate or anyone else here.
2) If your sole purpose in this group is to advertise your site,
thankyou for the input, you may consider your mission accomplished.
3) If you were hoping to meet people here and share insights, you
might find a bit of lurking and a bit of getting the lay of the land
will increase your success dramatically.
4) There are very many people in this newsgroup who heartily favour
the 'tell it like it is' approach and who manage to do it quite often
without cruelty. You may find their strategies useful.
5) Did you want to introduce yourself and your kids and talk with us
about single parenting, as is the mandate for this group?

Cele
daughters, 19 & nearly 17
Canada

Moon Shyne

2004-09-07, 2:07 am

"Cele" <cltemple@shaw.spam-me-at-your-peril.ca> wrote in message
news:v30ij0d4gum0m6bkfci4ddsk91shlm4cnr@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 05:46:54 -0500, "Moon Shyne"
> <moonshyne__@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
standard[vbcol=seagreen]
a[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Which, I'll just interject here, are about to really take off bigtime,
> as in North America, Starbucks and McDonalds are among two of the
> major chains putting in wifi in all their outlets. As for England,
> London has the most per capita wifi hotspots in the world. So this is
> a market well worth paying attention to, IMO.

Absolutely - which is why I'm taking classes in XML these days, to strengthen
those skills - not only are they useful for web design with the handhelds in
mind, they also make the more traditional sites far lighter and faster loading -
statistically speaking, you have approximately 7-15 seconds to get that page
loaded or the surfer is gone.

>
>
> Agreed.
>
movement[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Agreed.
>
>
> Especially for slower machines, whose owners will generally just
> cancel the link if they haven't got a skip intro option.

I won't stick around if there isn't a 'skip intro' link - I'm looking for
information, not a display of what someone else learned in their Flash class
that week. Sometimes you come across a site that uses Flash in a selective way,
and the results are elegant....... it's the ones that want to use up the home
page to entertain you with their Flash talents that lose the surfers.

Of course, THIS guy will lose 'em with his ever so charming advice, so the Flash
is really a moot point.

>
traffic,[vbcol=seagreen]
friendly.[vbcol=seagreen]
have[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Nice job. Bobby can help with that too, for access issues, beyond the
> regular web stuff, which isn't my field. :-) Thankfully, we've got
> you!

Thanks :-)

Of course, the OP may want to recheck his tags anyway, since I'm pretty sure
he'll get himself into some copyright infringement type problems by using the
dear abby, ann landers and miss manners names (to name just a few).

Some people still refuse to accept that I really *am* a webmaster..... 'course,
I think my ex might have been behind that one....

>
returns[vbcol=seagreen]
your[vbcol=seagreen]
and[vbcol=seagreen]
number[vbcol=seagreen]
21st[vbcol=seagreen]
returns[vbcol=seagreen]
van[vbcol=seagreen]
returns[vbcol=seagreen]
With[vbcol=seagreen]
problems[vbcol=seagreen]
To[vbcol=seagreen]
of[vbcol=seagreen]
with[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> I didn't, but that's an interesting datapoint. I'll be keeping that in
> mind in building our special needs online website this fall.

It's useful to keep in mind, even though it's a scenario that's unlikely to
recur - ADA went after AOL for the headline/publicity value - they were big
enough with deep enough pockets. The point wasn't the money, it was all about
getting the point across. We require brick and morter businesses to be
ADA-accessible, why not our internet businesses as well?

>
out[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Cele

Buster Van Buren

2004-09-07, 2:07 am

CME

2004-09-07, 2:07 am

"Joelle" <revjoelle@aol.comgoaway> wrote in message
news:20040903075020.22406.00000110@mb-m01.aol.com...
>
> Okay you are busted. This assinine commet makes you a jerk in my eyes and
> unfit to give advice to anyone. You sir, are an idiot.
>
> Now go ahead and tell me that my comments are the reason my husband is
dead as
> well.
>
> Jackass.
>
> Joelle
> The world is a book and those who do not travel read only one page - St
> Augustine
> Joelle

LOL you always know how to peg them Joelle.

Christine