Page 1 of 1
Posted: 2004-05-12 10:32pm
by haas mark
Darth Utsanomiko wrote:Naturally, as I am the Living Sole Justification for the Male Form, this is the entry you have all been waiting for.
http://www.geocities.com/tonberimuyo/james26t.txt
As to how you're oging to be able to view it, since the board seems to have stopped accepting .txt links as images, I do not know. They have been working fine on my SWG's guild message board but not here, so perhaps you can test ito ut on a place like that or use a program to convert it.
I was originally bothered by the quality (didn't have a steady platform to shoot from), but I think I mamaged to get it to work in the benefit of the overall composition.
That would be because of Geoshitties no longer liking the *.txt trick, Utsan.
Posted: 2004-05-12 10:33pm
by Spanky The Dolphin
You might need to ask for someone to host your Divinity, Uts.
Posted: 2004-05-12 10:40pm
by Spanky The Dolphin
The link opens correctly with IE.
Mozilla is just botarded, it seems.
Posted: 2004-05-12 10:44pm
by Utsanomiko
verilon wrote:That would be because of Geoshitties no longer liking the *.txt trick, Utsan.
As I said, it has been working fine on other boards still, and I wouldn't be able to link to it at all, directly or indirectly, if they pulled the plug on that trick. The most evident problem is that the BBCode img tags no longer work with a .txt extension on this board. If Mozilla would automatically read .txt images as actualy images, I could stick with indirect links and we would not have this problem.
Edit: Hee-hee, I finally managed to teach Spanky to say 'botarded'.
Posted: 2004-05-12 10:58pm
by haas mark
Darth Utsanomiko wrote:verilon wrote:That would be because of Geoshitties no longer liking the *.txt trick, Utsan.
As I said, it has been working fine on other boards still, and I wouldn't be able to link to it at all, directly or indirectly, if they pulled the plug on that trick. The most evident problem is that the BBCode img tags no longer work with a .txt extension on this board. If Mozilla would automatically read .txt images as actualy images, I could stick with indirect links and we would not have this problem.
Same with Opera, I'm afraid.
And then again, it may be the phpBB upgrade that doesn't like .txt images. It doesn't like .php ones, either.
Posted: 2004-05-12 11:25pm
by Jason von Evil
Just use IE or Avant to view .txt files.
Posted: 2004-05-12 11:31pm
by Spanky The Dolphin
What I think is that maybe GeoCities might have put a block on the board for direct-linked .txt-ed pictures.
Posted: 2004-05-12 11:34pm
by Jason von Evil
Odd, I was able to view the pic in my avant browser.
Posted: 2004-05-12 11:35pm
by Spanky The Dolphin
That's because Uts didn't make it a direct link, so it still worked. I had to see it in IE because Mozilla for some reason doesn't know about the .txt trick.
Morons...
Posted: 2004-05-12 11:35pm
by Utsanomiko
Spanky The Dolphin wrote:What I think is that maybe GeoCities might have put a block on the board for direct-linked .txt-ed pictures.
I already told you over Messenger: if they did, it'd end up as a broken link, direct or indirect, instead of broken code for a direct link and unconverted text for an indirect link.
You're such a nub.
Posted: 2004-05-12 11:37pm
by Spanky The Dolphin
You don't know what the fuck I'm talking about, do you?
You do know the difference between a direct and an indirect link and what each of those are, right?
Posted: 2004-05-12 11:46pm
by Utsanomiko
Spanky The Dolphin wrote:You don't know what the fuck I'm talking about, do you?
You do know the difference between a direct and an indirect link and what each of those are, right?
Blah, I mixed up 'direct link' with 'inlined image'. My mistake.
So anydangway, if we were being blocked, a direct link wouldn't work; it'd just end up borken, inlined or not. A direct link to a .txt file works, it's just not viewable except on at least IE, but the BBCode won't even let it inline because it no longer seems to recognize it as valid.
Posted: 2004-05-12 11:56pm
by Connor MacLeod
Darth Utsanomiko wrote:Spanky The Dolphin wrote:You don't know what the fuck I'm talking about, do you?
You do know the difference between a direct and an indirect link and what each of those are, right?
Blah, I mixed up 'direct link' with 'inlined image'. My mistake.
So anydangway, if we were being blocked, a direct link wouldn't work; it'd just end up borken, inlined or not. A direct link to a .txt file works, it's just not viewable except on at least IE, but the BBCode won't even let it inline because it no longer seems to recognize it as valid.
MUAHAHAHAHA not so divinely perfect now are we
Posted: 2004-05-13 12:10am
by Utsanomiko
Connor MacLeod wrote:
MUAHAHAHAHA not so divinely perfect now are we
Yeah, when you have to take 10-12 minutes of your time to deal with lesser beings in order to diagnose a problem they couldn't figure out in 10-12 weeks, you tend to slip on terms you haven't used regularly for months. Serriously, what would you kids do without me?
Posted: 2004-05-13 12:11am
by haas mark
Darth Utsanomiko wrote:Connor MacLeod wrote:MUAHAHAHAHA not so divinely perfect now are we
Yeah, when you have to take 10-12 minutes of your time to deal with lesser beings in order to diagnose a problem they couldn't figure out in 10-12 weeks, you tend to slip on terms you haven't used regularly for months. Serriously, what would you kids do without me?
Go on with our miserable existences.
Posted: 2004-05-13 01:16am
by Mad
Darth Utsanomiko wrote:If Mozilla would automatically read .txt images as actualy images, I could stick with indirect links and we would not have this problem.
It won't. Mozilla likes to be standards-compliant and having the browser override the server's MIME header (like IE does) breaks Internet standards. What that means is that nearly everyone who doesn't use IE won't be able to see the remote-linking. The best solution is to use a free host that does allow remote linking. Like
www.photobucket.com (if everyone signed up for something like that, nobody would have to ask for somebody else to host their files
).
Posted: 2004-05-13 01:18am
by Connor MacLeod
Darth Utsanomiko wrote:Connor MacLeod wrote:
MUAHAHAHAHA not so divinely perfect now are we
Yeah, when you have to take 10-12 minutes of your time to deal with lesser beings in order to diagnose a problem they couldn't figure out in 10-12 weeks, you tend to slip on terms you haven't used regularly for months. Serriously, what would you kids do without me?
Get things done sooner
Posted: 2004-05-13 07:26am
by Spyder
I'm suprised more people that use geocities and tripod don't just upload a simple piece of HTML to go with it.
All you need is a file with <img src="filename"> in a file with a .html extension and away you go.
Posted: 2004-05-13 08:08am
by Shinova
I don't understand much of what's going on but,
http://www.photobucket.com is your friend.
Posted: 2004-05-13 10:36am
by Utsanomiko
Well, the thread's been split. Another fine mess you've gotten us into.
I took a paragraph to *clearly* outline the issue, and Spanky took 2 posts to point out it still converts with IE, but
ohhh noooo, that apparently wasn't long enough of a side track for the little baby Teddy Ruxpins.
Not to mention that my favorite image posting method has been borked on only this board...
...Can't we ever have nice things?
Posted: 2004-05-13 05:27pm
by Pu-239
Spanky The Dolphin wrote:The link opens correctly with IE.
Mozilla is just botarded, it seems.
You never miss an opportunity to bash Mozilla, don't you? Then again, IE will not support this too, after SP2 (according to Phong)
. It's a feature, not a bug, or depending on the way you see it, it's Geocity's fault for using file extensions to determine MIME types to send to the browser.
[EDITED to remove misunderstood quote- "morons" probably referring to board members, not developers]
Posted: 2004-05-13 05:36pm
by Dalton
Spanky The Dolphin wrote:That's because Uts didn't make it a direct link, so it still worked. I had to see it in IE because Mozilla for some reason doesn't know about the .txt trick.
Morons...
Well, this is pretty much because Mozilla adheres to web standards, ya know?
Posted: 2004-05-13 08:10pm
by Spanky The Dolphin
Yeah, found that out the first time someone said it in this thread.
Okay, so what I'd rather have it do violates web standards. Doesn't mean it leaves me any less bitter...
Posted: 2004-05-13 08:23pm
by Darth Wong
Spanky, in the computer world when someone develops a hack workaround for something, it's usually referred to as a "kludge", ie- inferior to a real solution for numerous reasons, not least of which is the fact that many kludges actually take advantage of programming bugs which might be closed someday.
This was an example of such a kludge; it is a security hazard for a web browser not to be strict on MIME types. Security weaknesses are not a good thing.
Posted: 2004-05-13 08:28pm
by Spanky The Dolphin
Yeah, I'm in the wiser now to know that's actually a good thing. It's just that it was something I was used to happening with IE for so long, that when I first switched over completely to Mozilla, it bugged me.
Meh, at least I can still bash Mozilla for being a Netscape bastard. A good working bastard, but a bastard still.