Received: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 05:40:15 +0200  
Thu, 10 Aug 2006 23:34:08 -0400 (EDT)  
From: "G[omit] Catalano" gcatalan@twcny.[omit] 
To:   [omit]
Subject: tenebrae mentis 
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 23:34:15 -0400 
MIME-Version: 1.0 
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0005_01C6BCD5.7E043A20"  
X-Priority: 3 
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal 
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 
Disposition-Notification-To: "G[omit] Catalano" gcatalan@twcnyr[omit]
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 

I Googled Stephanie Seymour and, instead of getting the image I was looking at, got you and your pretentious and presumptious dialog box implying that I was here for the wrong reasons.
 
There are, apprently, no right reasons for visiting your site.  Furthermore, you have no cause, no basis, and no right for speculating about my reasons for doing anything.
 
Your site does not speak of the unity of beauty, it speaks of the uniformity and thoroughgoingness of your self-involvement.
 
I am ashamed that beings such as yourself still exist.  I pity you and your self-righteous opinions, which, like most opinions, are based on nothing.
 
There's an excellent little tract by Harry Frankfurt you might want to check out, it's called "On Bullshit."  You could be its poster child.

1. this
2. this
3. this
4. this
5. this
6. this
7. this
8. this

• Netscape top 30 listing
• Altavista top 30 listing
• Amazon top 30 listing
• AOL top 30 listing
• Excite top 30 listing
• Tiscali top 30 listing
• Google top 30 listing
• Dmoz top 30 listing
• Lycos top 30 listing

• Developer biz top 30 listing
• Sciencedaily top 30 listing
• Perth directory top 30 listing
• Africa Online top 30 listing
• National Directory top 30 listing
• Best Catalog top 30 listing
• Master Of Web top 30 listing
• Citybay top 30 listing
• Dinonet top 30 listing
• ABC Net top 30 listing
• Interactiva Org top 30 listing
• Palace Directory top 30 listing
• Slider top 30 listing
• ...

«I am not coming to hear your thoughts on plato, michaelangelo, socrates, the french, or johann strauss!

Ever read Ulysses? Your site reminds me of that book because of the nonsensical comments thrown about.
What I am saying is that if you want a blog, open a blog. If you want a javascript directory that people will love, then cut the crap and give them what they want.
It almost seems as if you use a thesaurus to change any word you find a duplicate of.
And PS: If you are going to post peoples emails, at least post all of them in their entirety

Copyright 2004»

PRECISELY

ABSOLUTELY THE SAME

PRECISELY MY GOAL

«This site blends mathematics, beauty, literature and the arts, and partakes in the everlasting western Frontier, that Utopia which encompasses us all in one breed: for, like with Milton and like with Kafka, America is firstly a state of mind, not just a place on earth.»

ULYSSES ONLINE

• "Your blinking line «real frame address» is annoying crap!"
  
  I am going to credit this with too much if I assume the perception derives by the old Netscape blink tag and the (at times) hysteria against it. Probably, these guys don't even know what I am talking about.
  However, I do not introduce elements without a purpose. It is Css standard compliant experts who make pointless things, like endless navigational menu demos whose links lead nowhere and whose codes no one uses.
  
  Unitedscripters icludes a reframing tecnique (if a page meant to reside within a frameset is loaded independently of it, it gets reinstalled within the proper frameset), so that i can implement breadcrumbs navigation.
  
  This means that whenever you access a page, in the location bar you will not see the address of the page, but that of the main domain.
  Besides, such address may include also the whole query string of the referrer link which led the surfer here: if that was a search engine, it will include the searched for keywords. This, obviously enough, is so that I can create logs (I just cannot afford paying for a service that does that for me, I am not rich).
  Eventual result: in your location bar may appear a not user friendly address. You may be surprised how many persons in order to link say http://www.unitedscripters.com/phps/mergesort.html would rather link:
  
  http://www.unitedscripters.com/index.html?file= /phps/mergesort.html&ref=http://www.google.com/search?sourceid= navclient&hl=it&ie=UTF-8amp;& rls=GGLD,GGLD:2004-23,GGLD:it &q=php+mergesort+insertion+sort+bubblesort
  
  They seem completely unaware there is a frame there. I do not blame them, but I do want to help them. Making the real frame address blink (besides, for 20 times, not forever) was a way to say to them: I can make things easier for you.
  But it seems that too often the stupidity of the others gets ascribed to my intentions, namely those who cannot understand the reason for a thing (or just anything), feel authorized to call me names.
  
  There is a reason for things, and the fact you cannot see it, does not mean there is none.
• "Your navigational menus are crazy, long and crappish, and full of unrelated things"
  
  My navigational menus occupy 15% of files whose average is of being 80Kbs long. I am still to see a site whose navigational menus occupy less than 15% of the contents, though I have seen some where they occupy 20% and lead to pages where are included 10 lines of text (those for the pages where contents abound).
  
  As for the unrelated things, this is my personal website, and a menu is supposed to provide links to what is in. I find it difficult, since I like programming, to ignore what happens in the world where I live. So if I write a 120Kb file about The War On Terrorism As A Paradigm Beyond International Legality: Terrorist Activity In The Last 30 Years, I put it in the menus.
  How this insults and harms you, is honestly beyond my understanding.
• "You're an inferior coder you put semicolons after if/else statements!" - said by an allegedly relatively expert scripter, or so his friends vouch - which is what makes the type of comment even more absurd, as if there would be persons who need to periodically bolster their low professional self esteem by inventing something to trash for the purpose.
  
  I am entitled to my own coding style without being insulted for it.
  Semicolons after conditional statements are not bugs, they are allowed. Scripts run as smooth as the bottom of a kid also if you scatter them with semicolons.
  
  Yet there is a reason I use them: since I write complex scripts and not bagatelles, I often have to deal with quadratic algorithms which host nested conditional statements: I resort then to semicolons after the conditionals so to spot in an easier, more immediate way where a loop ends and where a conditional set ends, without relying upon indentations only namely without having to climb every time the indentations hierarchy ladder in order to determine what is that is closing now.
  
  So, when I see a semicolon after a curly bracket }; I know at first glance it is a conditional group, and not a loop or a nested function what is ending there.
  
  There is a reason for things, and the fact you cannot see it, does not mean there is none.
• "You are an awfully inferior coder, you use nested shortcuts rather than if/else statements!" - said by an allegedly relatively expert scripter, or so his friends vouch - which is what makes the type of comment even more absurd, as if there would be persons who need to periodically bolster their low professional self esteem by inventing something to trash for the purpose.
  
  It would be true, if it would have been, the other way round: what is naive is filling a script with
  if/else/if/else/elseif/elseif/if/else/elseif/elseif/elseif
  sets.
  That would be truly puerile and inferior indeed.
  
  I like using the so called ternary operator, even in sequences each on a line, rather than if else statements whenever possible (Javascript allows it, Java too; Php allows ternary operators as well, but not nesting them, which I regret, and which is a limitation with no plausible reason).
  To my eyes that's crystal clear.
  That is, I find absolutely obvious things like:
  var foo=
(x)?1:
(y)?2:
(z)?3:
4;
  The fact you prefer:
  var foo;
if(x){
foo=1
}
else if(y){
foo=2
}
else if(z){
foo=3
}
else{
foo=4
}
  constitutes no condition for me to call you inferior, unless you come upon me arguing that what you cannot understand is such because it cannot be understood rather than because of a preference (or a limitation) of your own intellect, and that this would have laid a condition to mistreat me.
  
  To me nested ternary operators are nothing less than crystal clear; if they are not to you and you find niftier a long set of querulous if/else statements, your problem.
• "You are writing a bunch of rubbish, you put parenthesis after the typeof operator but that's not a function!" - said by an allegedly relatively expert scripter, or so his friends vouch - which is what makes the type of comment even more absurd, as if there would be persons who need to periodically bolster their low professional self esteem by inventing something to trash for the purpose.
  
  After operators many put parenthesis: there are even affirmed books that recommend doing it openly (George Schlossnagle's book on «Advanced Php Programming» does).
  
  So why seeing:
  if( ! (2%2) ) or if(!(x))
  does not cause any sense of puzzlement, and no one is unfairly accused of mistaking a function by an operator, and why seeing the identical and definitely extremely common statement:
  return (foo)
  causes rightly no sense of puzzlement as well, and no one is unfairly accused of mistaking a return by a function, but doing the very same with the typeof operator rather than with the ! operator does, and you get mocked at?
  
  I am entitled to my own coding style without being called names for it - particularly when there is absolutely nothing wrong with it, except your bad digestion you see...
  
  And even if it would have been a mistake, which as we just saw is not in the least, I would even be entitled as anyone else to mistakes without being crucified onto them by persons who find parenthesis after a return statement quite allright, but those after a typeof statement quite allwrong.
  
  Of course, in the meanwhile the impugned script style goes on smoothly, and the script keeps doing its job perfectly...
  Obviously.
• "array[++array.length-1] excuse me? Only a stupid would increment the length of an array by one and subtract one" [approximate wording]
  
  Let's allow non programmers to understand this too: arrays are programming structures that hold multiple items grouping them in a "family": each of such items can then be individually accessed via a numerical index or via an alphanumerical index, depending on whether when it was added to the structure it was added with an individual index of the former or of the latter type: the latter are no longer arrays actually but are called Objects: the difference between the two is that the former (arrays) have a length whereas the latter have no length.
  
  As soon as you introduce in an array an alphanumeric index, the whole structure is then transformed into an Object and exhibits no longer a length property (which by the way has important consequences as far as determining with which type of cycles you can loop -scan- them).
  
  Now if you pass rather than a number a literal number namely not a bare say number 5 but a "5" in between quotes to mean it is an alphanumeric string, javascript will keep considering such number as a bare number and would make out of it an array (and not an object) even if what you meant was producing an Object (thus if you insert a number like 4000 and nothing before it, javascript will allocate an array whose length is 4000).
  But you did not mean it being a number, and you did not want a length of 4000 "nothings": you wanted an Object. You will find in this file an email reprinted there by permission and sent to me by Danny Goodman (the author of the most famous javascript book, the «Javascript Bible» [amazon]) who wrote to me about these issues:

  «I did some digging on this to understand what's happening inside the JavaScript interpreter. (...) Some of the oddities come from the close relationship between JavaScript arrays and objects (...)
  I was trying to think back why this behavior never bit me (...)»

  That is: it is reasonable finding inconsistent ("this behaviour", which "bites") or being surprised even if you are the most seasoned programmer by the fact you get an Object out of an Array or an Array out of an Object although you clearly meant to get the other.
  
  Thus it is my practice when I increase an array to assign not just a number as you would with an Object, but always to increase the array length first because it is exactly the length property the only thing we are left with in order to say: this I'm manipulating is not an object but an array.
  
  Given the codes I write I obviously know that the step is not indispensable because the interpreter could do this job on the background for me (interpreters do too many things on the background at times: see the Javascript Mystery Shop), but increasing the length is a (fully legitimate) way to make things crystal clear: this is an array, not an object, and so it has a length which should be dealt with. In languages like C++ or Java it would even be impossible to introduce an new array element without first allocating a new memory slot by increasing its size first.
  
  Why using a procedure that merely reflects and betrays the long toil of a theoretical path that I as a scripter must have endured would be fit to call me a stupid is another puzzling thing that only persons who never pause a moment to think and make benign hypothesis can venture to dare: changing an array length before allocating its new entries is, simply, the most diligent way to do it, and as such it is neither indispensable nor, certainly, stupid (on the contrary, it would reveal some level of subtlety).
  
  If you don't like it, change it: I do not call you a stupid simply because you prefer let the interpreter do what the programmer should be supposed to instruct in many other languages.
• "myvar=1;
//more stuff...
if(myvar){ //etc...
  Ah that's wrong! You make conditional checks but they are not booleans! I am fed up with corrrecting your bugs!"
  
  Thank you for having taken your time to do what neither I nor anyone else ever asked to you, and to use such precious a time of yours in order to correct bugs that are not, while you peruse javascript forums in your leisure time - or do you get paid for your so qualified counseling here? Of course you don't.
  I am sorry that I made you fed up. So, whereas I am surely to be blamed, your own effort is commendable indeed. Not everyone, in fact, would ever be so dedicated to a cause till the bitter end of defending it where there is no need to get compromised.
  
  I am sure you are one of the experts of the newsgroup, because so many vouch so for you.
  However, it is rather surprising seeing that, although we are on a javascript dedicated forum, you correct my javascript after what you have learned in java.
  
  Of course, it has never been my claim neither in words or in facts to be an expert of java. But since here your claim by words and facts both, so gracefully expressed with the chorus of the cheerleaders, is that you would have been an expert of javascript, I am obliged to remind you that it is java, not javascript, what is arguably supposed to expect pure booleans for comparisons.
  At any rate, certainly not javascript.
  From Cay S. Horstmann & Gary Cornell sixth edition of Core Java copyright 2003 by Sun Microsystems Inc (my translation from italian version):

  In C++ numbers and also pointers may be utilized instead of boolean values. A value such as zero equals the boolean value of false and a value other than zero equals a boolean value of true.
  But this does not happen in java.

  It is really assuaging finally knowing that the experts of the javascript forums at usenet are at times exactly those who have not worked out yet the difference between javascript and java: so common and widespread a misunderstanding that still the experts so many times here and almost daily gleefully reproach the beginners for.
  You got fed up for wrong assumptions, in the wrong forum.
  Javascript is alike java to the same extent by which Albert and Robert sound the same as names, but summon two entirely different persons:

  "Java is Not JavaScript, JavaScript is Not Java.
  Sorry to be doubly redundant, but it is amazing how many people, including industry insiders, don't understand the difference between Java and JavaScript."

  That was Danny Goodman, author of the Javascript Bible: 300000 copies worldwide with one edition out of four, but of course none of them has ever reached you, obviously.
  Perhaps, as a javascript expert, you are an "industry insider" expert.
• foo1=(foo1==foo2)?1:0;
  You flag as a boolean an expression that returns already a boolean!
  You'd rather use (foo1==foo2) or foo=!!foo2;
  
  Aren't you the same guy who was complaining the ternary operator should have not been used in order not to write cryptic codes?
  foo=!!foo2;
  I leave to you the honour of employing such monstrosities and then sponsoring them around as clear and worth recommending.
  Pointless, questionable, and absurd. You're disputing about how many angels can sit on a pinpoint.
• foo=( !isNaN(parseFloat(foo)) )?parseFloat(foo):foo; /*more data validation follows*/
  You call in twice parseFloat and you perform an unnecessary assignment!
  
  You know what, benchmark it. After a couple of days you will finally find reported a runtime difference of a couple of milliseconds.
  
  That's called input validation, and quite frankly calling in twice parseFloat is regarded an issue only in your programs.
  Anyway, the alternative would have been:
  foo=parseFloat(foo);
if(isNaN(foo)){}
else{};
  
  If you prefer to do that do that in your codes yourself and I won't bother complaining in the least, but do not complain with me trying teaching that tecnique to me as refined: it is not. Scattering a code with if/else statements is the hallmark of obtuse codes.
  
  Your procedure forces inserting conditional statements as blocks rather than mere ternary lines, thus making the whole infinitely more complex - you advocate two opposite outcomes in the same line. What kind of simplification have you attained if the simplification at line one (foo=parseFloat(foo);) introduces the same or much more of the abandoned "complexity" we have to deal with anyway at line two producing blocks like if(isNaN(foo)){}else{};?
  
  Aside from the fact the method above is perfect to assign default values to incoming arguments:
  foo=( !isNaN(parseFloat(foo)) )? parseFloat(foo): 10;
  and so it would be consistent to reuse the same approach for similar tasks, but you do not have to lecture me about these trivialities: I knew that syntax you suggest and I deliberately chose the other. You are pointing at the solution that I intentionally refused.
  And have you worked out why? Because with mine I can just do snapshot things like:
  
  foo=( !isNaN(parseFloat(foo)) )?parseFloat(foo):0;
foo2=( !isNaN(parseFloat(foo2)) )?parseFloat(foo2):0;
return foo+foo2;
  
  With yours, the same thing becomes:

  foo=parseFloat(foo);
  foo2=parseFloat(foo2);
  if(isNaN(foo)){
  return 0;
  }
  else{/*foo is ok, but we STILL have to check if in SUCH CASE foo2 is ok TOO*/
  	if(isNaN(foo2)){
  	return 0;
  	}
  	else{
  	return foo+foo2;
  	};
  };
  

  Smart that your suggestion is: two parseFloat, two IsNaN, four conditionals, against two shortcut conditionals, two isNaN and (oh my god!) four parseFloat on a pentium [200 - 2500] machine.
  And in order not to produce an "unnecessary" assignment and not to use parseFloat twice, you produce 12 lines of code rather than 3, within which you may even have to repeat identical operations.
  All the variations on your theme end up producing conditional blocks. Both mine and yours do the very same thing. What made you think that your conditional blocks are going to be faster at runtime (your alleged concern) than my ternary operators? The fact that they were yours, isn't it?
  
  This type of pubic hair counters I have to deal with, and be mistreated and insulted by.
  
  Also, if you want to criticize my code, do not do it extracting one line: write from scratch the same whole function that performs the same task accepting the same variety of arguments and returns the same output data types. So we'll see how you solve the same riddles allowing the same features.
• "Your essay has a bad grammatical mistake! How idiotic using the term 'alterate' rather than 'alter'!"
  Eager to read your italian then, for english is not my native tongue, but italian is, and yet as you see I write in english. If you would have had to write 125 files in a language which is not your own, you probably wouldn't have even started.
  
  By the way the italian translation for the verb «to alter» is: alterare, whose past tense sounds: alterato - badaboom, thence explained the «idiotic» error.
  There can be reasons for things which may come up being less idiotic than you are.
• "Why you have a fucking background switcher on your files? It's useless, it does nothing and it only bothers me!"
  My files can easily be 80kb, and though it is possible you're running your computer with the amateur resolution of 600x800, I can assure you that with a higher resolution a background switcher can be useful to relax your eyes with a darker tone. You don't read 80kbs, if you decide to read all of them, in one minute.
  
  I use bright colors, and the background colors change with the day of the week - though I am sure you didn't guess it, file backgrounds do not change mysteriously every day for no reason. The fact you may be ignorant enough not to know some things, does not mean you can call me an idiot via email because I offer you an option.
  Anyway and in fact, file backgrounds change daily following this scheme, and not arbitrarily as you may suppose in your conceit:
  Monday - day of the moon: color moon white for the queen that shines pale in the night.
  Sunday day of the Sun: color light yellow for the star that sheds light.
  Wednesday day of Mercury: color quicksilver silver for mercury is gray.
  Tuesday, day of Mars: color martial warring red for the god of war.
  Friday, day of Venus: color prosperous nature green for Venus the beauty of nature.
  Saturday, day of Saturn: color heavy lead black for Saturn the Great Destroyer, ancient symbol of Death.
  Thursday, day of Jupiter: color regal blue for the king of the heavenly olympus.
  It is possible you may not believe in propitiatory things, but some folks do and judging from how many latin poets and greek poets invariably put propitiatory signs in their works, or even judging from what sir James Frazer writes (I know you have probably no clue who he is), they are not the most stupid of the men those who put some sort of such esoteric signs in their works.
  And, by the way bud: ever heard of EASTERN EGGS in programming languages?
  That they mean nothing to you, does not mean they mean nothing.
• "Why you put random poetry you asshole!"
  I have been taught that poetry is beautiful. I read Neruda and I feel a shiver. I read the Bible and I feel a fire in myself to become a better man. I read Garcia Lorca and I feel tears.
  
  It's all poetry to me and to my weltschaung.
  Programming codes and poetry are one thing for me. I see an even self evident parallelism between codes, anciently carved hieroglyphs, paintings traced with the wrath of a Miro, and the arts.
  Though maybe you're right: I do am crediting you of way too much when I assume you can be able to walk and chew chewing-gum at the same moment: seeing a poetry in a file devoted to programming is more than enough to make you lose any orientation.
  
  Of course, that this might spell badly against you rather than against me, is something that conveniently never crossed your mind while you call me names all the while.
• "What are those damned paintings you put on? There is no reason to put paintings there, are you one of those stupid persons who do things just because they can? You're definitely a case of a person who doesn't know that just because you can then it doesn't mean you should too. You have made a mess!"
  Whether I succeed or not in my intention is immaterial.
  But my intention is to prove that poetry, female beauty, coding mathematics, the fine arts, they all belong to the same holistic reality. The fact you cannot enjoy the beauty of an abstract painting while browsing a page, or that you're unable to listen to classical music while reading a book, does not mean that anyone else in the world should be supposed to share your reduced options.
  
  It is funny, though. You go on a website you see in it tons of banners, you do not make a wrinkle. You see Caravaggio and Michael Angelo, you complain.
  Curious, isn't it?
  Weren't you a no global supporter and Usa basher that fights against the evil of free markets and against Big Corporations bullies that do not respect the standards and vilify the human creativity of Open Source?
• "You write too long absurd bloated texts that drive me crazy!" or, another version: "Your articles are babbling and rambling and the content on your website is bordering on insanity. My eyes are lost in this mess you call a website"
  You're probably used to read files where they can articulate thoughts never beyond the scope of the Neanderthal's man.
  
  You're used to documentations where, actually, you don't find documented anything [a prestigious example: not that I imply it is bad, but do you really advocate for a whole internet made after that type of approach?].
  You're used to persons who have nothing to say, or that run out of ideas after the second line.
  You're used to think about a topic for no longer than 2 seconds.
  
  Now, not every body is like you.
  There are guys who enjoy thinking a lot.
  
  And as Roland Barthes wrote (another guy I know you have no clue who the fuck he could be) if I want to signify my grief to a mourning friend I cannot send to him a telegram with written:
  "sorry"
  But "in order to deliver the meaning, one has to give to his speech the full length of the epic" and dance with the meanings. Writing just "sorry" does not signify you're sorry: it signifies you couldn't care less.
  
  Oh, and by the way: you are not forced to read me by Don Corleone who sends to say «hallo» to you, are you?
• "Your color schemes are all wrong, you drive me nuts with your fucking disgusting colors all over" or, another version: "The colors are mismatched and the blocks and borders and scrollbars complemented with the lack of normal links is enough to drive anyone wild"
  I don't know what you mean by color schemes: there is no codified standard about them, or any prohibition about matching the colours you prefer.
  
  In fact, what's the paradigm one should have in mind as a guideline when you decide what is supposed to be matching with what so that we can say with the exhibited certainty: «this is a right/wrong color»?
  Is it perhaps the color guidelines as they have been sensed by any (or more?) of the following approaches, or the idea of proper "matches" as it has been felt and endlessly overhauled and rehearsed over time by these scores of visual examples of:
  • neoclassicism?
  • mannerism?
  • surrealism?
  • dadaism?
  • pop art?
  • opt art?
  • divisionism?
  • impressionism?
  • realism?
  • expressionism?
  • pulp art?
  • naturalism?
  • eclecticism?
  • futurism?
  • experimentalism?
  • or maybe iconoclastic approaches like this or icon taboos so that this can be portrayed, that can't, and for a few of the rest a fig leaf is required?
    Is there a fundamentalism of the colors, or an Old Covenant of aesthetics?
  By which among the above mentioned currents can we measure or declare as a given fact the presence of a "mismatch" with what?
  
  Also, I don't know what the "lack of normal links" means: not only because no one has ever assessed what a normal link could be (what is in fact an abnormal link?), but because it is impossible to understand after what pattern we can determine the lack of something. That is, it cannot be pinpointed anywhere a set of rules that satisfies the given conditions:
  • Matching colours criteria: but what is such criteria that produces such anxious an expectation for an awaited match? Perhaps this one (do click this)?
  • Borders & scrollbars & blocks (blocks is an omnicomprehensive term vague enough to fit whatever raving we want to make it fit with) that would belong to a standard such that we can say that a geometrical set like the mentioned one of [borders+scrollbars+blocks] exists, and that it is such that it is supposed to have an otherwise unspecified "complement" set, and that such expected (more: the implication is that it is prescribed) complement is to be related, for some reason, with the presence of hyperlinks, that must additionally have a specific appearance.
    But what does that mean?
  • Normality in links (?)
  • Thereof lack of such alleged normality, so that we can denounce or spell out the presence of a void syncope riddling or haunting our experiences.
  Anyway if all you see in Unitedscripters are colors, you probably belong to the white collars category of dull guys who judge that the best way to make a page is to make sure it is all gray like your fantasy, with 2 lines of text per page saying "Welcome to my Cool home page! I am going to add much more soon"
  
  But websites that start with that line (and you're going to be surprised how many do exactly that, and then insult me), are in no position to judge mine. I don't announce I am going to add something: I do it.
  
  Eventually, while you call me names, see how I endeavour to find the constructive meanings even in the simplest websites rather than following your way of running around with a limited brain baggage trying to destroy all that doesn't fit the bias you've crammed in there.
  You wouldn't tell heaping rubbish from bountiful windfalling wealth even if you'd be in the midst of its reek.
• "There are iframes all over in your stupid site!"
  There are only three files with iframes. Those that you believe iframes, are layers with an overflow property set to scroll.
  So who's stupid now?
• "I want to see you sucking a horse"
  Like that, for no reason in the world, and can be found, repeated many times here.
  I reproduce here my answer over there:
  This is a person who about a website of over 120 html files and over 1000 functions for free finds nothing better to say than this, without of course a signature to show us HIS website.
  
  As for sucking a horse (his whole world seems to revolve around this word: in all his public insults he uses it), I am single and I do am italian: we have a worldwide firmly well established reputation for pro-actively doing the wife of guys like this - which given the activity I have I can't exclude I've met already: we gentlemen do not check their passports, it is the airport clerks who do that for us. The name they declare once at our homes is the one we kindly assume as the one to use in bed, without further investigations.
  Be sure your wife doesn't stay out of town for too long; if she does call me, for there is a real chance she could be here - sucking.