Too much code, too much code............too many bugs....not enough sleep........
A big thank you to Michelle Pfeiffer, Angelina Jolie, Isabella Rosselini, Isabelle Huppert, Karen Allen and Isabelle Adjani for the Valentine's Day cards ........................................................... that you didn't send :(
It's Rossellini and you do have a thing for Isabellas!!
ReplyDeleteJust saw Adjani in Bon Voyage (a fun movie.) I think she is by far the most gorgeous of your selection, but all of them are just real women who are made up in one way or another.
ReplyDeleteMy faerie friend, Mel, looks quite a bit like Pfieffer- only more faerie-like, with a tad more innocence.
I am far too serious to be photogenic, though pictures do paint me prettier than I am. Some day I will post a picture for you to see what I mean. Even excellent photos portray a countenace that is analytical in the extreme.
It is interesting to note what person thinks of as beautiful, and why. As far as Adjani goes, One cannot help despise her character in Bon Voyage, but she can afford it, because of her looks. I could not help thinking it was not far from the real her.
Personally, I've never wanted to be beautiful (well, not never) but I did want to know what I think and why I think it. I would hate to have people stare at me because of the way I looked, whether lovely or unlovely. What I say means so much more to me than how I appear.
{yes, yes, it was to be a perfectly simple post, nothing to analyze, but then, there's not many people who have as much to say as I do.}
I know!
ReplyDeletePfeiffer and Jolie, for social stake, Adjani, truly the most gorgeous. Huppert, for the 'Lacemaker', surely 'la pianiste' is too traumatic but Isabella R, assuredly the reincarnation of her mother....sigh.....and Karen Young, aaaahh................I hope you notice that with the exception of Jolie, they're all of a certain age :)
You have nice eyes...I've seen little else!
I 'forgot' Lilian Gish. But she's dead these long years and the cards I get are mostly 'ghostly' ones. Still knocks the rest into a cocked hat tho'
ReplyDeleteTrust me, not much to see. I'm known for my spice, inability to get along with others and a knack for noticing the unspoken truth straight off. I can dish it out, but can't take it, have an insatiable curiosity (in the style of the elephant's child) and have been known to use household chemicals in disastrous combinations, though only to remove stubborn stains, never to produce illegal substances.
ReplyDeleteAll of that, and I've never been high, unless you count the times I run away to the park to swing on the swings, been intoxicated to a noticeable state only once (but it was worth it) and rarely cuss in person to anyone but my husband (the only person who cares and whom it is effective on.)
I can't speak for any of those women as wives, or as lovers, but I've known some hotties in my life and part of what made them that way is the fact that they are not so easy to detect. They have to be learnt.
Those women are beautiful to you because you have been told to see them that way. They were sold to you. You bought them, and, in my opinion, that makes you the sucker.
But, as they say, there's one born every minute, and I'm sure I've been a sucker for something- usually the latest greatest cleaning product or new undergarbs. Most often, though, its expensive coffee and books. Lots and lots of books.
Sucker? I think that deserves a full post, so...........
ReplyDeletePlease explaine: "Never wanting to catch up to them! :)"
ReplyDeleteWomen never wanting to catch up to men? or Men never wanting to catch up to women? I'm confused.
And? Post away.
Who says men don't have pms? I personally know of at least two right now who are very moody. The jury is still out on you. Prove me wrong. :)
I NEVER want to catch up to women. It would destroy all of my illusions! :) Besides, how do you catch someone who is fuelled by oestrogen?
ReplyDeleteNeverthoughtto trybefore. The comments take html mark up too! They just don't like 'Color'!
ReplyDeleteI finished posting the charts to my lab. Take a look and make some critical remarks. :) I mean it!!
ReplyDeleteoh, and how did you do that, in the comments? Teach me.
ReplyDeleteBugger, have to do it all over again, last one didn't 'take'.
ReplyDeleteHTML in its orginal form uses 'tags' to format everything you see on the page, from layout to fonts, lines, colour etc. To format something you put an 'open' tag in front of it and a 'close' tag after it which is just the 'open' tag with a slash in it (Well except for break/line feed which is never 'closed' but that's the exception)
So to italicise (the brackets '(' & ')' should be replaced with '<' and '>' - brackets are used to stop the browser treating them like tags :)
(i)Italic (/i) gets you Italic
To get bold:
(b)Bold (/b) gives you Bold
To get italic bold:
(b)(i)Italic Bold (/i)(/b) and you get this Italic Bold
A lot of this basic 'raw' code has been replaced by 'cascading style sheets' (CSS) which are text files which define what each style is, eg what font is being used, weight, color etc and the browser goes and looks it up it every time you call a particular style.
So, in the old days, you coloured text by using the (Font Color = "Colour")(/Font) tags. However using CSS you call the style and, eg in blogger, tell it which colour eg (span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);"):)(/span)'. Here each colour is defined by the amount of red, green and blue it contains on a sliding scale of 0-255, hence the three numbers in brackets. Blogger won't accept the CSS definitions in 'comments' so no illustration in red.
Tagged HTML (ie no CSS) is surprisingly easy to learn. We do a fairly comprehensive tutorial in two days of 6 hours each. CSS takes longer because of all the thought you have to put into how you define styles etc but it's almost as easy.
Of course 'flash' stuff like image changes or colour changes when you 'mouse over' are generally javascript not HTML but with XML (Extended HTML) you get to define you own tags so the range of possibilities are almost endless :)
Here endeth today's lesson. Tomorrow we will look at why you must declare to start with both your variables and their type in a cursor.
Comments on the Lab will be where they should be - with the Lab :)
Other than the fact that you told me what I already knew (but you can't teach someone how to read what is below the box) thanks.
ReplyDeleteI took a class on it but don't remember a thing.