Douglas Troy wrote:

All that said, I'd just like to say:
 
HA HA.

LOL! ROFL! :laugh: :laugh:

Damn! I don't have enough toes to count.

You mean this isn't 31 BC?

That's because, in 31 years, everyone is going to start saying it's 1000 years old.

Actually, the Indians do drive carefully. It's the foreigners with slow reflexes who like to sleep at the wheel, and can't manage to drive on Indian roads. ;P

Well, they pay attention to the road and the traffic, it seems. ;-)

Shameel wrote:

BJP (aka RSS)

BJP is not RSS. They are two different organisations, with different goals (one political, another ideological).

Shameel wrote:

aka extremism

I disagree that it's extremism in any way. If that is the case, what do you have to say about the hundreds of Muslim organisations? They are somehow "secular" but BJP/RSS are communal/extremist? Why?

Shameel wrote:

Being Hindus, they have every right to say no to cow' meat; but have no right to force people of other religions not to eat cow's meat.

How Hindus feel about cow slaughter is different from say, what a Muslim feels about eating pork. Muslims don't eat pork, but don't consider pigs sacred. On the other hand, Hindus don't eat cow meat because they consider cows sacred animals. Naturally, they would protect something that is sacred to them. So what they are doing is not anything against Muslim, Christians, or those Hindus who do eat beef, but it's something to protect the cows from getting slaughtered. So you see, it's not fanatism. Just like if you pass laws that prohibit you from killing another human being, it's not fanatism.

Shameel wrote:

religious fanatics

How are they religious fanatics (in the context of this law, at least)?

1600x900.

Wow!

They lower a witch's tit into water at room temperature. The water around the tit freezes, and they use the newly formed ice to shape wine glasses.

Shameel wrote:

Here in India, we don't go that low even during winters.

You mean in your state. Just wait till you experience the north Indian winter.

Yesh. Thish ish a reposht.

The lady doth whine too much, methinks.

LOL! :laugh: I don't think many others remember that joke or get the connection.

I have always been a proponent of fixed layouts. That way, you, the designer, have a lot more control over the design and presentation of the website, and can offer the user a better experience. This in turn will lead to better results for the site owner (you or your client/employer) - more signups, more sales, whatever. This means fixed font sizes, fixed widths, fixed image and box sizes, and so on. Let the browser handle the rest. I don't agree with the view that the user should be in complete control of how the site looks. You don't control the way your paper books are designed, do you? Nor do you change the font size in them. Or the colors. Of course, do be sure to create your design with the needs of your audience in mind, but that doesn't necessarily mean letting them play with every damn thing in your design.

Chris Maunder wrote:

You're going to get opinions both ways, some saying you must use varying font sizes to those who say you must use fixed font sizes. Typically the former arguments are older arguments based on older browsers, and the latter argument based on modern browsers and their excellent zoom functionality.

Exactly! IMHO, most people who argue against fixed font sizes are just parroting what they read in old books or design related blogs or websites. In addition, I would suggest reading up on "Progressive Enhancement."

Yummy! Cheese sandwich, cheese burger, or cheese paratha[^]. All good!

See, you should have watched that TV show[^] instead!

Or you could tell him to read the last line of your sig.