Which begs the question - which is which?
>Nobody seems to have mentioned that the TV Forum and the SOTCAA one are now separate.
Lots of people have commented on it. The simple reason is that we now have the disk space for both.
And whilst the TV forum is for all TV, sotcaa is more for comedy issues, be they TV, radio or otherwise.
Great. Spreading self thin, now...
I hadn't actually noticed until today... Well I'm only too pleased to give up the TV Forum for this, can't possibly patrol both. I look forward to joining in wherever possible.
Happy New Year to everyone!
As it happens, I found the film parodies to be the most irritating elements alongside disliked the Widdecombe finale. They may well have knocked French and Saunders-style parodies into a cocked hat, but they still suffer from being Wood-style parodies ie. a surfeit of immensely detailed non-sequiturs about biscuit crumbs and the like. They're almost twee.
I could have done without Michael Parkinson, or Alan Titchmarsh playing a gardener. A little too pleb-pleasing for my taste.
Wood's work would be perfect if it developed a harder edge.
My apologies, that was supposed to go into the Victoria Wood thread.... too much red wine last night
>>Nobody seems to have mentioned that the TV Forum and the SOTCAA one are now separate.
>
>Lots of people have commented on it. The simple reason is that we now have the disk space for both.
Rob, I spend my days banging my head against the desk because of my fellow techies doing things "because they can". Just like your frames and JavaScript and all the other unnecessariness. It ain't no kinda reason.
Having said that, I do like having two forums. Thank you :-)
>Rob, I spend my days banging my head against the desk because of my fellow techies doing things "because they can". Just like your frames and JavaScript and all the other unnecessariness. It ain't no kinda reason.
The frames and javascript are used on here for a reason - it's just that people don't always like those reasons because they prevent them doing things we don't want them to do. :)
Boh!
But I NAVIGATE with the right-click context-menu! How else am I supposed to open stuff in a new bleeding window?
No right click Javascript has to be THE most pointless invention EVER, and if I have to go and pay $40 for a proper version of Opera so I can disable javascript JUST to view SOTCAA, you are going to have one VERY miffed subbes on your hands.
And yes, I'm over-using capitals. Because I'm really jolly annoyed that you're not letting me use my browser the way I want to!
(mutter, grumble, 'webmaster', grumble, functionality, LYNX, grumble, bitch, whine.)
To be honest, Rob, it's not that necessary at the minute, since a lot of the downloads went away. Could it possibly be removed, just for now?
>To be honest, Rob, it's not that necessary at the minute, since a lot of the downloads went away. Could it possibly be removed, just for now?
Or forever?
A Flash front-end (sorry if this isn't what you're talking about) is one of the most utterly pointless and annoying things a "webmaster" can inflict on people.
There's absolutely *nothing* on this site that couldn't be done without proper links and HTML, with the possible exception of that "bounce" when the left-hand navigation frame loads.
Please, get rid of this Flash crap! It just makes the site harder to navigate, and to anyone with even a remotely techie view of things it just makes the site seem amateurish.
While we're banging on about things technical, why can't the site "detect" that I've got Flash 5.0?
>To be honest, Rob, it's not that necessary at the minute, since a lot of the downloads went away. Could it possibly be removed, just for now?
I would do it if I had the time, but it's slightly more involved than it might appear...Sorry!
>>To be honest, Rob, it's not that necessary at the minute, since a lot of the downloads went away. Could it possibly be removed, just for now?
>Or forever?
>A Flash front-end (sorry if this isn't what you're talking about)
It isn't, but still :)
> is one of the most utterly pointless and annoying things a "webmaster" can inflict on people.
>There's absolutely *nothing* on this site that couldn't be done without proper links and HTML, with the possible exception of that "bounce" when the left-hand navigation frame loads.
>Please, get rid of this Flash crap! It just makes the site harder to navigate, and to anyone with even a remotely techie view of things it just makes the site seem amateurish.
Except for the fact that the Flash menu is a smaller download than a gfx version. It also helps to build a more secure site for when we do have streaming media (ie to help prevent offline bots downloading and taking bandwidth).
>>A Flash front-end (sorry if this isn't what you're talking about)
>
>It isn't, but still :)
So what is this "right-click" problem people are complaining of? No trouble with it here.
>>Please, get rid of this Flash crap! It just makes the site harder to navigate, and to anyone with even a remotely techie view of things it just makes the site seem amateurish.
>
>Except for the fact that the Flash menu is a smaller download than a gfx version.
Probably true, but we're talking a trivial difference of a few K here, especially if you do the gfx properly (ie. appropriate file formats & colour depths).
>It also helps to build a more secure site for when we do have streaming media (ie to help prevent offline bots downloading and taking bandwidth).
Not necessarily true... the real locations of linked files are stored unencrypted in the SWF files, it's dead easy to find out what they are and I'd be surprised if some of these bots didn't attempt to scan them.