How to avoid opening a new window with the shift key?

[kaeli]

However, I'd be very interested to know how you were able to determine that
that it was a 'badly written web application' strictly from:

I've got a problem. I'd like to avoid opening a new window
when you have pressed the shift key and you click in the
left button of the mouse.

Either you have incredible powers of targeted analysis and reasoning, or you
made an assumption.

Because by definition, any WEB (read: internet) application that
requires the disabling of standard controls used by people with
disabilities is badly written.
It is assumed in this group (by the majority of active posters) that any
question pertains to internet usage unless otherwise stated (which the
OP did not). In fact, the FAQ for this group explicitly states such.

Hey, if you want to help people write crap, feel free. Some of us prefer
to point out flaws with the assumption that no one would code flaws on
purpose. I know the people on this group have helped me correct flaws I
didn't know about. Instead of getting pissy, I said something a little
more appropriate. I said "thank you".

--

 

[Julie]

It is completely reasonable to assume that any application that
requires standard controls to be disabled is badly written.

You pointed out our own problem -- 'assume'.

It isn't reasonable to assume.

 

[Richard Cornford]

Lee wrote:

I don't see why not? Are you self-presuming some level of
authority and capacity or control over the individual asking
the question? Protect them from themselves?

Where is the presumption of authority? If Lee decides he does not want
to encourage someone to take a cause of action that he considers stands
a reasonable chance of resulting in that individual shooting themselves
in the foot (or worse) then he is at liberty not to encourage them.

I don't disagree.

However, I'd be very interested to know how you were able to
determine that that it was a 'badly written web application'
strictly from:

I've got a problem. I'd like to avoid opening a new window
when you have pressed the shift key and you click in the
left button of the mouse.

Either you have incredible powers of targeted analysis and
reasoning, or you made an assumption.

There is no great deduction involved. There are at least half a dozen
ways of getting a web browser to open a link (or even the current page)
in a new window; that is normal and expected behaviour from browsers. An
application operating over HTTP does not have to find the opening of a
link in a new window to be a problem, it should have been authored to
take into account the normal behaviour of web browsers (and the nature
of the HTTP protocol).

A desire to inhibit any aspect of normal browser behaviour implies that
undesirable consequences will follow from their use. So an expression of
any concern about (or even interest in) the fact that a browser may open
a link in a new window implies that the back-end has not been authored
to an appropriate standard for the context of its use (over HTTP with a
web browser client).

With appropriate back-end design the question would never be asked, so
deductions can be made from no more than the fact that it was.

Richard.

 

[Richard Cornford]

Julie wrote:

So you feel that it is inappropriate for someone to expect and answer
to a question, but more appropriate for respondents to separately
arrive at unfounded conclusions and provide unsubstantiated and
unwarranted critiques?

Do you have any grounds for asserting that the conclusions were
unfounded or the critiques unsubstantiated or unwarranted? As I read the
OP, the information provided elicited the appropriate and expected
response. That response may have been modified if the OP had bothered to
provide all of the information pertinent to the question up front, but
not substantially.

Richard.

 

[Lasse Reichstein Nielsen]

You pointed out our own problem -- 'assume'.

It isn't reasonable to assume.

Of course it is. Everybody does it all the time. You assume that we
understand the words that you use, right? Why? Because it's reasonable.

Long time readers of this group has learned what to assume from new
posters. It's not assumptions caught out of thin air, but based on
experience. Yes, the assumptions can fail, but in the long run, making
these assumptions helps a lot of people faster than if they had to
explain their problems themselves (something most people are not
trained to do, and which is obviously not trivial).

These experience based assumptions are even codified in the FAQ (well,
at least some of them). Howeverm, we have also learned not to assume
that new posters have read the FAQ, even though it does answer
questions that are frequently asked

/L

 

[Lee]

Julie said:

You pointed out our own problem -- 'assume'.

It isn't reasonable to assume.

Certainly it is. You couldn't survive a day without assumptions.
What isn't reasonable is to treat an assumption as fact.

 

[Randy Webb]

I think this is flawed thinking, and it's littering this newsgroup.

You think that the answer I gave was "flawed thinking"????

this was my response:

Then redesign your page so that it doesn't break when its opened in a
new window.

So would you care to explain how thats "flawed thinking"?

What happens if I right click and "Open in new window"?

The default assumption for a (well-worded) question should always be that
the OP has a justified reason to do what he or she is trying to do, and is
looking for an answer to the QUESTION, not general discussion on the
correctness of their design decision. (In some cases, the posting style of
the original post makes it obvious that the OP has no clue about what they
are really asking).

And the very question that was asked made it obvious. The problem is not
in the browser, nor in the new window, its in the back-end that gets
screwed by a new window. Which leaves the *only* sensible answer to be
"redesign the site so that it doesn't break".

If someone has an answer to the original question, or can point the person
in the right direction, and _then_ decides to also note that there are
potential problems with the idea, then that's great.

To date, I have not yet seen you post a possible "answer" to his
question. Is that because you either:

a) do not have an answer
b) dont think it can be done

But, having multiple followups all telling the OP that they are dumb to even
think about doing what they're doing, all making the assumption that the OP
is too stupid to know it's probably a bad idea to do this in an internet
environment, is elitist behavior that reduces the effectiveness of the
group. IMO.

I never said he was "dumb to even try", nor did I make an assumption. I
fail to see how that makes me "elitist" in any sense of the word. Of
course, if you can post a better answer than what I did, then you are
welcome to do so.

 

[Randy Webb]

He didn't ask for advice, he asked for answers.

And he got an answer. Perhaps you should go back and re-read what I said.

If respondents could simply answer the question (presuming that they _have_ an
answer), and leave the critiques and advice for later, it sure would make it
easier to get _answers_ to questions.

I never did any of the things you are *assuming* that I did. I made a
statement which was the answer to his question, and then I asked a
question of my own.

Honestly, it doesn't matter whether or not the intended target is intranet,
internet, or anything else. The OP had a specific question, and respondents
felt that (for whatever reason) it was their prerogative to provide advice,
commentary, and critiques.

Now thats where you are wrong. It *does* make a difference whether its
for an intranet or internet application. Try writing code that can write
to the file system and come back and tell me if you can do it on the
internet and whether you can do it on an intranet where you know the
browser to be IE with priveleges set to allow FileSystemObject access.

Respondents: read the original question, and answer _THAT_.

And to you: Go read my reply and READ it. While you are reading, you
might want to read your own replies in this thread, with respect to the
OP's question, and then look up the word "hypocrite".

 

[Julie]

And he got an answer. Perhaps you should go back and re-read what I said.

I did -- you technically gave an answer, but not to the question:

"Then redesign your page so that it doesn't break when its opened in a
new window. What happens if I right click and "Open in new window"?"

Subject of this thread:

"How to avoid opening a new window with the shift key?"

Explain to me, in simple terms, how your 'answer' addresses the question.

I never did any of the things you are *assuming* that I did. I made a
statement which was the answer to his question, and then I asked a
question of my own.

Please point where I specifically assume anything about you.

I was speaking generally about the respondents, collectively.

I don't need to assume, the information and facts are all here in the thread.

Again, please point where I've assumed anything.

Now thats where you are wrong. It *does* make a difference whether its
for an intranet or internet application. Try writing code that can write
to the file system and come back and tell me if you can do it on the
internet and whether you can do it on an intranet where you know the
browser to be IE with priveleges set to allow FileSystemObject access.

Within the context of the original question, intranet/internet is irrelevant
until brought into the discussion by the OP.

You need to be able to make the distinction that for some program domains,
inter/intra _is_ relevant, and others, it _isn't_.

And to you: Go read my reply and READ it. While you are reading, you
might want to read your own replies in this thread, with respect to the
OP's question, and then look up the word "hypocrite".

1) Done.
2) Done.
3) Done -- "professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or
possess; falseness". I make every attempt to not assume; I make every attempt
to answer the question _asked_ -- please tell me where you feel that I've
deviated from that. You may feel that my responses do not answer the OPs
question, and that is true, but I have not feigned that my responses were to
the OPs question.

 

[Richard Cornford]

Randy Webb wrote:

I did -- you technically gave an answer, but not to the question:

"Then redesign your page so that it doesn't break when its opened in a
new window. What happens if I right click and "Open in new window"?"

Subject of this thread:

"How to avoid opening a new window with the shift key?"

The subject header of a Usenet post does not constitute a question
(regardless of any superficial similarities), as the FAQ explains.

The only statement in the original post that is terminated with a
question mark (and so unambiguously a question) is "Could anybody help
me?".

Explain to me, in simple terms, how your 'answer' addresses the
question.

<snip>

Any response made to the only question literally asked in the original
post would qualify as an answer by implication. If any one is helpful
the answer is yes, otherwise no.

But why the obsession with answering the question asked? In most cases a
question asked is an attempt to solve a problem. Solving the problem is
usually more valuable than answering a question literally asked (and
many questions would warrant nothing more than "yes" or "no" as a
response if treated literally, which is not often actually helpful).

Randy's answer proposes that the problem has been miss-identified by the
OP and that the real problem is to be solved elsewhere on the system. A
conclusion that I, for one, concur with, as fixing the back-end both
removes the problem in this application and would encourage whoever
created it not the repeat the error in their next (assuming that the
individual responsible is made to fix the problem so they have to learn
how to do it).

Richard.

 

[Randy Webb]

I did -- you technically gave an answer, but not to the question:

As Richard has pointed out, the only question in the *post* is "can
anybody help", so technically my answer should have been "yes".

"Then redesign your page so that it doesn't break when its opened in a
new window. What happens if I right click and "Open in new window"?"

Subject of this thread:

"How to avoid opening a new window with the shift key?"

You are "assuming" that I even read, or can even see, the subject of
this thread. I didn't. Remember this little point, it is referred to
later in this post.

Explain to me, in simple terms, how your 'answer' addresses the question.

Because my experience, not assumptions, tell me that when someone is
trying to prevent a new window, then the problem lies elsewhere. My
experience also tells me that you can NOT stop me from opening a new
window from a webpage, I don't care what script you put in the page. Its
simply a matter of me hitting Shift-Control-N and getting a new Tab. Or,
right clicking and choosing "Duplicate" from the menu in Opera.

If an application has a problem with it being opened in a new window,
which makes it open in 2 windows at once, then the problem lies with the
application, not the duplicate window. That deduction (not assumption)
verifies my original answer.

Please point where I specifically assume anything about you.

Read above. And, the simple fact that you are replying to my post
implies that you are referring to me. If you are referring to someone
else, then reply to them. Otherwise, I have no choice but to decide that
you are referring to me.

I was speaking generally about the respondents, collectively.

Then why did you quote me, answer inter-leaved in my response?

I don't need to assume, the information and facts are all here in the thread.

You should read it all again then. Nowhere in any of my posts in this
thread have I assumed anything, and you have. At least 3 times. They are
listed again at the end of this post.

Again, please point where I've assumed anything.

See above for the first, below for the others.

Within the context of the original question, intranet/internet is irrelevant
until brought into the discussion by the OP.

It is very relevant, and let me give you an example where it *does*
matter. When I go to work, the intranet that I work with is very
specific with regards to OS and Browser. There is a manual that is
approximately 250 pages long that explains how we set up every single
terminal on the intranet (100,000+ terminals). Everything from the color
of the desktop all the way down to the default settings for the
browsers, and including whether the user has access to change any of
these settings (they don't). So, I know beyond any doubt what I can or
can not do on the intranet. If I write an app that prevents a new
window, and manage to get it to work on the intranet, the second I put
it on the web, it will cease to "work" anymore because I no longer have
that control over the browser settings. So yes, it is *very* relevant
whether its an inter/intra-net application before the OP every brings it
in.

You need to be able to make the distinction that for some program domains,
inter/intra _is_ relevant, and others, it _isn't_.

And for this one, it is *very* relevant.

Here, you are replying to what I said. That implies that it is,
partially, directed at me. What you failed to realize is that the
recommendation that I offered does indeed work in an intranet
environment, but you are more than welcome to try to change the settings
in the registry on the PC I am on at the moment.

1) Done.

Then you obviously read where I gave a solution to the problem, and its
the only *viable* solution on an internet site, and very possible on an
intranet site.

2) Done.

Then you see where you are doing nothing to answer the OP, yet you are
complaining about other people not answering the OP? Thats one
definition of the word hypocrite, where its a "do as I say, not as I do"
scenario.

3) Done -- "professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or
possess; falseness". I make every attempt to not assume; I make every attempt
to answer the question _asked_ -- please tell me where you feel that I've
deviated from that. You may feel that my responses do not answer the OPs
question, and that is true, but I have not feigned that my responses were to
the OPs question.

1) You assumed I made an assumption when I did not.
2) You assumed I read the subject line while replying, I did not. Nor do
I even care what the subject was. I seldom do.
3) You are assuming that I have not answered the OP, when I did. Two
different methods in fact. The first is for an internet based app, the
second was for an intranet based app. Although the first solution is the
best for either scenario.

None of my answers have been based on an assumption of any kind, they
have been based on my experience and what I read in a post.

 

[Matt Kruse]

Randy's answer proposes that the problem has been miss-identified by
the OP and that the real problem is to be solved elsewhere on the
system.

All too often, people "assume" that the problem has been mis-identified,
then go on to explain to the OP (often using sarcastic, derogatory language)
that they don't even want what they think they want, and instead want
something _else_.

A sensible answer to this post might have been,
"If your page is meant for an internet audience, then you may want to
consider that there are other ways to open a new window, depending on the
browser being used. I don't believe you can prevent them all, so you might
need to re-think your strategy. If this is meant for a controlled
environment like an intranet, then I don't know the answer."

That provides guidance in the situation where the responder is
knowledgeable, while leaving open the possibility that the OP might be in a
situation where the question is perfectly valid.

A conclusion that I, for one, concur with, as fixing the
back-end both removes the problem in this application

Except that the OP never said it caused a problem in their application. Just
that they didn't want a second window to open

 

[Matt Kruse]

You think that the answer I gave was "flawed thinking"????

No, I meant that the "default assumption" part is wrong, as is your apparent
conclusion that the poster's question is not the actual problem that needed
solving.

Then redesign your page so that it doesn't break when its opened in a
new window.
So would you care to explain how thats "flawed thinking"?

Well, the OP didn't say anything "broke" at all. You assumed it broke. He
was just asking how to prevent a behavior.
Why assume that the back-end is broken?
Maybe he just has stupid users who accidently open links in new windows
which hide the previous one, and they get confused.
Maybe this is _purely_ a UI issue, with no problems at all on the back-end.
That's what I assumed, since the OP didn't say anything to make me believe
otherwise.

Your conclusion and counter-question assumed that this behavior was causing
problems on the back-end, which you had no evidence of, and that the user
was supporting all browsers in an internet environment, which turned out to
be incorrect. This was flawed thinking.

And the very question that was asked made it obvious. The problem is
not in the browser, nor in the new window, its in the back-end that
gets screwed by a new window. Which leaves the *only* sensible answer
to be "redesign the site so that it doesn't break".

Again:
1) The poster said nothing about his back-end getting "screwed" (wow, that
sounds bad
2) There's no evidence that a redesign is necessary at all

To date, I have not yet seen you post a possible "answer" to his
question. Is that because you either:
a) do not have an answer
b) dont think it can be done

Correct and correct.

I don't often open my mouth in response to a question that I don't have a
good answer to.
I think silence is often the best response to a question which I feel is not
valid to begin with.
You know, better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open
it and remove all doubt

I fail to see how that makes me "elitist" in any sense of the word.

"Elitist" refers to the general feel of the group, and the most active
posters.
Assuming that there are problems when there aren't, assuming that the user
is supporting a wide-open browser environment when they aren't, and assuming
that a goal is misguided because it doesn't fall within the 'accepted norms'
are what I think add to an 'elitist' environment.

Of
course, if you can post a better answer than what I did, then you are
welcome to do so.

Not to pick on your specifically, but I don't think you even gave the OP an
answer!!

You said:

Then redesign your page so that it doesn't break when its opened in a
new window.

a) The poster never said anything breaks
b) This doesn't even address the question, which was, how to prevent a
specific action

What happens if I right click and "Open in new window"?

This promotes further thought, but is certainly not an answer

BTW, you appear to have taken this personally, when it wasn't meant as such.
my post was just a reaction to seeing many responses following a similar
pattern, and questioning the usefulness of these kinds of responses.

 

[Lasse Reichstein Nielsen]

Subject of this thread:

"How to avoid opening a new window with the shift key?"

Explain to me, in simple terms, how your 'answer' addresses the question.

Well, the correct reply to that question, given the information
available, is "You can't".

But hey, that's not an *answer* to the stated question. Maybe that's
because the question has no answer, making it a little futile compaining
that people didn't answer it.

I was speaking generally about the respondents, collectively.

One should *never* generalize! [1]

/L
[1]

 

[Ivo]

Hi everybody.

Hi again,

I've got a problem. I'd like to avoid opening a new window when you
have pressed the shift key and you click in the left button of the
mouse.

Add the following inside all links:

------>>
<<------
------>>
<<------
------>> onclick="return !window.event.shiftKey;" <<------
------>>
<<------
------>>
<<------

Could anybody help me?

I hope so (it is what HTH means) but I haven't really done so far in this
post, now have I? But for real help I would need to know why you have a
problem with shift-clicked new windows. I refer to the other posts in this
amazing thread.

BTW, my solution is IEonly I believe. Tinkering with other browsers is
possible but requires a bit more code.
I look forward to your (or anyone's) reply, however short.

HTH
Ivo

 

[Randy Webb]

Well, the correct reply to that question, given the information
available, is "You can't".

You know I gotta:
<pedant>
That wasn't the question in the *post* <g>

But hey, that's not an *answer* to the stated question. Maybe that's
because the question has no answer, making it a little futile compaining
that people didn't answer it.

I was speaking generally about the respondents, collectively.

One should *never* generalize! [1]

Now aint that the truth

 

[Randy Webb]

No, I meant that the "default assumption" part is wrong, as is your apparent
conclusion that the poster's question is not the actual problem that needed
solving.

I still haven't come to a conclusion as to what the actual problem is, I
actually gave him/her the benefit of the doubt by assuming it was a
back-end problem instead of my initial thought.

As for the "default assumption" of web based use, that one I will stick
to, if for no other reason than its FAQ material. And, the past has
shown a lot more internet based questions than unqualified intranet
questions. Either way, unless the OP post back with more information
(including *why* the new window is a problem), everybody here is left
guessing what it is.

Well, the OP didn't say anything "broke" at all. You assumed it broke. He
was just asking how to prevent a behavior.
Why assume that the back-end is broken?
Maybe he just has stupid users who accidently open links in new windows
which hide the previous one, and they get confused.
Maybe this is _purely_ a UI issue, with no problems at all on the back-end.
That's what I assumed, since the OP didn't say anything to make me believe
otherwise.

The last possibility, which was actually my first thoughts on it, was a
popup window with no toolbar, with links, that when opened in a new
window puts the toolbars back.

Your conclusion and counter-question assumed that this behavior was causing
problems on the back-end, which you had no evidence of, and that the user
was supporting all browsers in an internet environment, which turned out to
be incorrect. This was flawed thinking.




Again:
1) The poster said nothing about his back-end getting "screwed" (wow, that
sounds bad
2) There's no evidence that a redesign is necessary at all

Nor evidence against it, but its 99% semantic and irrelevant unless the
OP clarifies it.

"Elitist" refers to the general feel of the group, and the most active
posters.

The irony there is I actually agree with you for the most part. I
actually had a conversation with one of the not-so-active posters about
the mentality and attitude displayed here in recent years.

I display it at times but I actually try not to. It comes from being on
the recieving end of that aspect enough that I alter my responses
because of it. *shrug*

Assuming that there are problems when there aren't, assuming that the user
is supporting a wide-open browser environment when they aren't, and assuming
that a goal is misguided because it doesn't fall within the 'accepted norms'
are what I think add to an 'elitist' environment.

You have to have a ground zero somewhere. Some basic assumptions or you
end up having to write a book to answer a simple question such as "how
do I open a new window" or something as simple as "how do I change an
image", which opens you up the other way to the "I asked a simple
question and you give me a book" type responses. So somewhere, there has
to be some basic assumptions.

Not to pick on your specifically, but I don't think you even gave the OP an
answer!!

That depends on what the actual problem is

This promotes further thought, but is certainly not an answer

I have never thought of, and probably never will, c.l.j as a
"ask/answer" medium. Its a discussion group and if my answer makes an OP
think (which is actually why I posted that question), then they walk
away scratching there head and thinking about "how many other ways do I
need to consider as well".

Even with popup blockers, its easier to open a popup window than it is
to try to prevent (in an internet environment) the opening of secondary
windows.

BTW, you appear to have taken this personally, when it wasn't meant as such.
my post was just a reaction to seeing many responses following a similar
pattern, and questioning the usefulness of these kinds of responses.

Yes, I will openly admit that I took it mostly directed at me. And you
say it isn't and I accept that.

Give you 5-1 on wooden nickel its a toolbar issue. Want it? <g>

 

[Matt Kruse]

The last possibility, which was actually my first thoughts on it, was
a popup window with no toolbar, with links, that when opened in a new
window puts the toolbars back.

Logical conclusion, yes. I suspected as much when I originally read the
post, and thought the post probably fell into the "not worthy of a response"
bucket

The irony there is I actually agree with you for the most part. I
actually had a conversation with one of the not-so-active posters
about the mentality and attitude displayed here in recent years.

I've received a few emails over the past few months with private responses
to public "disagreements" I've had with a few vocal posters. Like I said in
another thread, I don't think this is unique to this newsgroup at all. I
think it's typical of highly intelligent, technical, experienced people
interacting with new, inexperienced, naive users. It can be very
frustrating. Posts often become very sarcastic, very sharp and attack-like,
and generally not very helpful. The general atmosphere becomes one where
new, inexperienced users feel like they need to be at a certain level of
knowledge and experience before they _dare_ post amongst the wizards. And I
think that atmosphere makes the group worse for all readers.

I display it at times but I actually try not to. It comes from being
on the recieving end of that aspect enough that I alter my responses
because of it. *shrug*

I understand it, and I don't think you're near the top of the "worst
offenders" list
I often start replies to posts, finish the whole thing, and then cancel it,
because I realize that it's not productive at all.

You have to have a ground zero somewhere. Some basic assumptions or
you end up having to write a book to answer a simple question such as
"how do I open a new window" or something as simple as "how do I
change an image", which opens you up the other way to the "I asked a
simple question and you give me a book" type responses. So somewhere,
there has to be some basic assumptions.

A valid point.

I have never thought of, and probably never will, c.l.j as a
"ask/answer" medium.

Unfortunately, that seems to be mostly what it is. There isn't a lot to
'discuss' about, really. Personally, I'd like to see more discussions rather
than q/a, because most of the q/a here are boring

Give you 5-1 on wooden nickel its a toolbar issue. Want it? <g>

My other thought was a kiosk issue. But I won't make any bets

 

[Richard Cornford]

Richard Cornford wrote:

All too often, people "assume" that the problem has been
mis-identified, then go on to explain to the OP (often using
sarcastic, derogatory language) that they don't even want what
they think they want, and instead want something _else_.

A sensible answer to this post might have been,
"If your page is meant ... the answer."

There doesn't seem much point in telling me what response you think
should have been made to the OP. If you felt that was an appropriate
response I wasn't stopping you from posting it.

What you are failing to comprehend is that any apparent attitude
exhibited by the group arises from the sum of the contributions made.
You cannot stop individuals acting in any way that they feel
appropriate, and you should not expect many to be influenced by your
beliefs (why would they be when you have demonstrated that you cannot
cope with browser scripting issues yourself, and are not interested in
learning how to?).

What you are at liberty to do is modify the overall attitude of the
group by posting the responses to questions that you feel satisfy your
criteria for appropriate. As once a question has received an answer that
is correct and definitive that is usually the end of it. Make sufficient
suitable responses yourself and the overall attitude will have been
modified in the direction you claim to prefer.

But if you cant be bothered, or are afraid to expose you own knowledge
and skills to public scrutiny, then there is little point complaining
about the behaviour of the individuals who do choose to contribute, or
the accumulated feeling resulting from those responses.

Except that the OP never said it caused a problem in their
application. Just that they didn't want a second window to open

It is not impossible that the OP is a power mad control-freak with an
irrational desire to reduce the functionality of the user interface to
the application for no reason other than a personal whim.

In the context of this discussion I don't see how assuming insanity on
the part of the OP could be preferable to making the assumptions that
have been applied to the limited information proved.

Richard.

 

[Matt Kruse]

You cannot stop individuals acting in any way that they feel
appropriate, and you should not expect many to be influenced by your
beliefs (why would they be when you have demonstrated that you cannot
cope with browser scripting issues yourself, and are not interested in
learning how to?).

And this kind of reeponse - which is typical of you - is why you're an ass,
Richard

But if you cant be bothered, or are afraid to expose you own knowledge
and skills to public scrutiny, then there is little point complaining
about the behaviour of the individuals who do choose to contribute, or
the accumulated feeling resulting from those responses.

On the contrary, I contribute quite a lot here (often emailed responses, I
might add) and in the form of my web site, which I think is much more
beneficial and helpful than random 1000-line followups to newsgroup posts
telling people about some perfect ideal way to develop code, yet never
seeming to demonstrate those practices in real-world situations.

And although you are quite vocal about things like dynamic select lists and
how they are evil and a good solution isn't really possible, you have your
"solution" up at
http://www.litotes.demon.co.uk/example_scripts/dependent_select.html which
arguably ignores many issues one would need to address when creating such a
solution.

I recognize that our styles and approaches differ, and I recognize that
you're a very technically competent and knowledgeable person in the area of
the Javascript language. I've opened the door several times for critiques of
my ideas and code, and you've refused to participate in an exchange of
ideas, so I'm still left with no choice but to conclude that you're all talk
and no substance. You know how to talk the technical talk, but when it comes
to applying the technical mumbo-jumbo to real-world situations for users
worldwide with all levels of skill, you have nothing to contribute.
*shrug*