On 26 Feb 2002 19:19:03 -0600, X wrote:

>>BTW, if you do not like the site, just don't go to it...;-)
>
>I wasn't trying to be mean... as far as going to your site I think
>it's quite informative. However if you don't understand that it isn't
>"designed" professionally then you make my point.
>
>
>>Also, BTW, those who cannot argue substance tend then
>>to argue style...;-)
>
>I have no idea what you're talking about here. I had no argument with
>the substance of your site, but if you want to say that your "style"
>is professional you're crazy.

And, I said this when....? This is a silly OT discussion...

>Here's a list of just a few professional sites for you to go to so
>you can perhaps see what I mean
>
>http://www.ibm.com
>http://www.secondstory.com/
>http://www.modemmedia.com/home/home.jsp
>http://www.eyespydesigns.com/contact.htm
>http://www.sonheavy.com/index.asp
>
>And it wouldn't hurt you to pick up a book on color and design before
>you start arguing that you know what your doing.

??????????????????????????????
You are arguing that a personal/small-business web page,
designed many years ago, is "poor" by current standards,
perhaps? Or what? This is pointless. As I have pointed
out earlier in this thread, I have fun with "creative ugliness".
I also use this page to try ideas I may not use again, but
I leave them as reminders. Some of the examples you site
are to me boring/bland/conventional and/or poor-loaders, using
"gimmick" Flash and other fads... As for "learning" about
color and design, I have been a photographer for many years,
with about 45 museum shows to my credit, I have taught it,
and people seem to like my work enough to pay good money
for it - if you think the ordinary is "good", well, OK,
it is...;-)