What would you like to see at Ye Olde Inn?

[mako-heart]

What's the matter about modernity with you guys ?
Do you still send telegrams instead of sms ?
Perhaps you should consider giving up internet as it is too *modern* to you.

Did you look at the inn's website ? Common seriously ? almost as old as heroquest. I challenge you to find anything coded like that today.
The website needs a deep re-lifting, that's a fact.

Now go on and troll again.

Are you in charge here now?
You are the only one who has a problem full metal pip sqweek.
I already gave up on technology. I agree there could be some updates to the website but it's not my call. I'd like to see a members chatroom function.

[knightkrawler]

The website needs a deep re-lifting, that's a fact.

I disagree so much it's not even funny.
Apart from this being your opinion - and up to this point only yours among those posted - it's a very blatant use of the word fact.
Explain the word "fact" to me and then explain to me how your statement is a fact.

Also, nobody was trolling up until you came and wiggled with your disrespectful rhetorical questions laden with trolldom.

[chaoticprime]

What's the matter about modernity with you guys ?
Do you still send telegrams instead of sms ?
Perhaps you should consider giving up internet as it is too *modern* to you.

Did you look at the inn's website ? Common seriously ? almost as old as heroquest. I challenge you to find anything coded like that today.
The website needs a deep re-lifting, that's a fact.

Now go on and troll again.

In order:

Logical fallacy. Our unwillingness to change from something that works, to something else that works, is not any indication that we reject the present.

Logical fallacy. Telegrams are archaic technology that cannot perform the functions required, so are thus incomparable.

Logical fallacy. There is no mutual exclusion with use of the Internet and use of the most up-to-date technology on it. Your own pc likely contains instances. There is again no fear of modernization. Google is not so modern that it displays text with any greater clarity or purpose.

Hyperbole. Its not nearly as old as Heroquest. Logical fallacy. You are claiming that visual aesthetics are the result of the code used. These exact same graphics could be implemented into your waxing pipe dream version. Challenge accepted. What kind of code is this again? Explain how it doesn't work.

Hearsay. It is not a fact. Can you produce a control to prove that your model is perfect?

To support your argument, explain how modern code is better than the code that is currently in use. Explain how the appearance affects the information. Explain how each commonly-used function can be performed better. Explain the actual benefits. Everything that needs to work, currently works.

The thing about the internet, is that wherever you go, its somebody's. Nobody here cares about what this page doesn't do.

[knightkrawler]

Exactly.

[chaoticprime]

Uh, oh, HTMl got on my PC, and now all my speakers play nothing but Green Day and The Proclaimers.

[Sjeng]

It sure is! Viel Glück!!

[wolfie907]

Nobody here cares about what this page doesn't do.

is this not also a fallacy when the person being argued with has already stated their belief that a change is needed making it obvious that at least one person cares disproving your statement, even disregarding this your statement is a blanket statement and id like to know how it is you would decide for everyone what they care about without even asking their opinion on the matter first, I am one of the people here and my care or lack thereof has never been established so I conclude your statement is false[and that I am now a necromancer]

[Big Bene]

Thanks, Sjeng.
I'd so like to revive the Chrismas exchenge threat with new information. Have got all the photos ready, both of the Mini I received and of the making of the mini I sent. But it would take just too much time I don't have now (And I still have to make the furniture mini for the Juni exchange ).

Well, back to topic. The last two pages of this thread we are mainly discussing Maike's post regarding Google (or, more generally speaking, "modern" Web services). I think it is of no point to get personally. For the topic at hand, it's not important to find faults in the dialectics of the discussion opponent. It's about what good can this "modern code" do to a website.

I challenge you to find anything coded like that today.

Yeah, code "like this" more and more falls by the wayside, pitily.
The internet is one of the last reservations non-professional IT fans can get creative with real programming, but professionals and companies quickly conquer this field. All the online editors just serve the purpose to make HTML and PHP (wich are really not hard to learn) an elite knowledge (and the output of such editors is still nothing but HTML and PHP).
I am conservative in some aspects. There are things worth of keeping (conservare). I'm also fascinated by new technologies and when I like them, I'm the first to try them. But the "modern" websites with their boring, generic look and their bulky machine-generated code wich needlessly stresses the capacity of the network are neither an improevement nor a new technology. They use the old technology (they are of course themselfes programmed in HTML and PHP) in a way it was never meant to.

[chaoticprime]

Nobody here cares about what this page doesn't do.

is this not also a fallacy when the person being argued with has already stated their belief that a change is needed making it obvious that at least one person cares disproving your statement, even disregarding this your statement is a blanket statement and id like to know how it is you would decide for everyone what they care about without even asking their opinion on the matter first, I am one of the people here and my care or lack thereof has never been established so I conclude your statement is false[and that I am now a necromancer]

That is incorrect. Your fallacy, is that my statement directly related to the opposed idea, rather than calling into reference a single unified concept among parties. Maike's argument was that the site is outdated, and would operate better. My argument was that it operates fine, and that the only reason to change would have been to implement features. You ignored grammar in favor of context. You miss context again, with this comment. You include yourself under a blanket before you've actively crawled beneath one. You cannot juxtapose yourself after an argument has been made and then include yourself retro-actively. Your own words "my care or lack thereof has never been established."

[chaoticprime]

...Chrismas exchenge threat...

We should do this...