| Richard Orchard 04.03.2004 04:57 |
Hi Guys, If you want to have a look at a beta version of the new board, you can at: link Notable new features are: 1. Persisten login, you don't have to keep on typing in your username and password 2. You can reply with quotes. Things left to do: 1. Remember time of last visit 2. Turn urls into HTML 3 Search functions There is a little issue with the page numbers feature. If you find any other glitches, let me know. Richard |
| Daburcor? 04.03.2004 05:08 |
Heeeeeeeeey... That looks snazzy! I REALLY like how you can quickly jump to anywhere else on Qz with the links at the top! :D |
| YourValentine 04.03.2004 05:29 |
I like the new board, it looks friendly and is quite easy to read:-) Here are my suggestions -On my browser the "light bulbs" are still missing on the forum pages -I think the signature could be in another style than the message, it's hard to tell them apart -I think it's not necessary to repeat the topic title in each post in bold print. Instead the name of the author (right now the "number of posts" is more prominent than the name) could be in bold print and maybe the topic titles on each forum page - I still think the usernames should all look the same and not use different colours |
| Daburcor? 04.03.2004 05:34 |
"- I still think the usernames should all look the same and not use different colours" Awwwww... C'mon! *sniffle* |
| siljeoen 04.03.2004 05:34 |
wow! this looks great!! |
| Penis - Vagina 04.03.2004 05:35 |
Richard Orchard wrote: Hi Guys, If you want to have a look at a beta version of the new board, you can at: linkLooks good! It's weird.. I've heard others mention the problems with staying logged in, but I've been logged in continuously since I registered. This new forum was the first time I've had to enter my password since December :) Note: This wouldn't post in the new forum so I just copied it over to the old one, hence the unquoted quote :-P |
| Mr. Scully 04.03.2004 05:48 |
I prefer the current board (in terms of design) so I will be sad to see it go... but I understand the new board should reflect the new design so it's necessary. |
| Richard Orchard 04.03.2004 05:57 |
Note: This wouldn't post in the new forum so I just copied it over to the old one, hence the unquoted quote :-Pi think i have fixed that now. |
| pma 04.03.2004 06:09 |
The menu overlaps in a nasty way and I can't enter the e-mail + password etc. |
| Daburcor? 04.03.2004 06:18 |
I must say, I quite like this! |
| Fenderek 04.03.2004 07:39 |
Don't really like it, have to say... the old one seemed clearer... |
| [StArMaN] 04.03.2004 08:16 |
I think the new board is loosing in legibility : color is the same between two different posts, in the actual board we got an alternance of white and grey which is really helpfull. |
| PieterMC 04.03.2004 08:24 |
I'm sorry my vote goes for the old board. I find that the new one is not as clear to read. |
| Pim Derks 04.03.2004 08:34 |
Sorry Richard, but I also prefer the old one.... |
| Lester Burnham 04.03.2004 09:47 |
I, too, like the new board, but am unable to use it properly in Safari (same problem with pma and Opera). If you could fix that...that would be great. |
| Mr. Scully 04.03.2004 10:05 |
Is there any particular reason to use Safari? I've never ever seen it. |
| Pim Derks 04.03.2004 10:18 |
Who gives a f*ck if it doesn't work in Safari ;-) There are like 2 people in the whole world who use that ;-) |
| Lester Burnham 04.03.2004 10:20 |
It's for the Mac, and it's far better than IE is (for the Mac). |
| Mr. Scully 04.03.2004 10:53 |
I thought Mozilla is available for Mac too. Safari is used by like 0.00001% of all my visitors so I don't give a damn about it either :-) Unfortunately, there are people who still use Netscape, the worst browser that has ever been invented so that has to be considered when doing wen design :-( |
| Pim Derks 04.03.2004 11:01 |
I used to be very secure about my websites being cross-browser. These days I just test it in Mozilla - I really can't be bothered for the 0.002 people around the world who use a non-IE/Mozilla browser..... |
| Richard Orchard 04.03.2004 11:16 |
Hi, I have sorted out the problems with Opera. Opera users don't get the drop down menu's. Hopefully, that has also been resolved for Safari users. I have also played around with the formatting a little, hopefully making things more readable. |
| deleted user 04.03.2004 11:32 |
Oooh....new colors! Not sure about the reply function - I always disliked that about QOL - just seems to make the pages look messy. But ah, well! I do like the thingie that says who posted last. Looks nice, Richard. :^) |
| KevMull 04.03.2004 11:44 |
PLEASE NO SMILEYS or allow insertions of pics! Also, do you get a auto email when reply to someonelses post like on QOL? |
| Guy 04.03.2004 11:55 |
Great layout, I love blue! The only wrong thing I see is that the text in posts is too close to the borders of the post table... If you know what I mean :) Edit: Another wrong thing I found is that when you try to edit posts it leads you to the "Post New Topic" form. And also the "Save Password" thing doesn't work (I have cookies enabled) :) |
| NoOneButYou1975 04.03.2004 12:51 |
test :) |
| Mr Mercury 04.03.2004 13:31 |
I went to reply to Kevo’s message (no smileys please) using the reply with a quote and after I signed in I got this – Server Error in '/' Application. The resource cannot be found. Description: HTTP 404. The resource you are looking for (or one of its dependencies) could have been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable. Please review the following URL and make sure that it is spelled correctly. Requested Url: /queenzone/forumnew/talk.aspx |
| wstüssyb 04.03.2004 13:40 |
for one...the forum and post only take up half a page ----> is a huge white spot <post/-------> The older one is cooler. but hell everything changes. |
| wstüssyb 04.03.2004 13:41 |
hmmm you cant edit...when u try it starts a new topic and you can do Arrows...cuz it messes up juts look at my above post |
| pma 04.03.2004 13:58 |
Alright, working smooth now on Opera, no more overlap. However ;-) The icons above my post do not show the "mouse-over", such as which button is for replying, which for editing etc, unlike on Internet Explorer. Also, the LAST POST by..feature isn't working (or is it just me?) since the last post of every thread is said to be the person who started the thread.... Nice to see the CHAT etc, sections gone. Or I'm imagining things :-) |
| MexQueenFM 04.03.2004 15:21 |
it looks good, but smilies should not be available :) |
| inu-liger 04.03.2004 15:26 |
I prefer the old look of the board |
| Mayboy 04.03.2004 15:30 |
Very nice Richard :D like the fact u can just click on the posters name to see there profile |
| Lester Burnham 04.03.2004 16:52 |
Still doesn't work in Safari. And please don't give me any grief about the 0.0002% people who use Safari, I happen to use it and love it. I'm not here to be ridiculed about my web browser. I'd find it ridiculous to have to use another browser just for this board alone. |
| [StArMaN] 04.03.2004 18:08 |
I think that the 2 kind of grey are to close, more contrast would be better, but thanks Richard for all your work :) |
| Penis - Vagina 04.03.2004 22:25 |
One minor thing I noticed. It seems to be showing the topic starter and date as being the 'last post'. I like that option of showing who and when posted last, but it's working backwards it seems :) |
| Lawyeris 05.03.2004 02:11 |
I like new version of board, really, esp that we dont need to write our emails and passwords every time we post, that's very good, new design is also kind, great blue color:) But why we cant see profiles of other queenzoners, who have posted? |
| Lawyeris 05.03.2004 02:15 |
forgot to ask yet more question - why registration date is elimitated?
Silent Assassin wrote: I like new version of board, really, esp that we dont need to write our emails and passwords every time we post, that's very good, new design is also kind, great blue color:) But why we cant see profiles of other queenzoners, who have posted? |
| Mr. Scully 05.03.2004 04:31 |
"I'd find it ridiculous to have to use another browser just for this board alone" Yes but I find it even more ridiculous to make the board compatible for browsers that are used by <1% of people. There are only two good browsers for PC's and that's Internet Explorer and Mozilla (and Mozilla is available for Macs as well - although, again, Macs are like 1% of the all computers). If web site works for both of them, it's sufficient. Netscape still has some portion of the market but it's such a bad browser that it doesn't make much sense to make the website compatible with it if it's too much work. A few stats from my site: MS Internet Explorer 96.3% Safari 1% Netscape 0.9% Mozilla 0.7% Opera 0.5% anything else <0.1% |
| Polar Bear 05.03.2004 07:33 |
Richard Orchard wrote: Hi Guys, If you want to have a look at a beta version of the new board, you can at: link Notable new features are: 1. Persisten login, you don't have to keep on typing in your username and password 2. You can reply with quotes. Things left to do: 1. Remember time of last visit 2. Turn urls into HTML 3 Search functions There is a little issue with the page numbers feature. If you find any other glitches, let me know. RichardLooking good! Smilies would be ace, but not a must! |
| Polar Bear 05.03.2004 07:35 |
Pim Derks wrote: Who gives a f*ck if it doesn't work in Safari ;-) There are like 2 people in the whole world who use that ;-)Sorry buddy but if you've never used Safari then you are one poor ignornat bugger, best browser comercially available. And the fact that you still ahve a PC in this day in age really makes me feel sorry for you. At least you have good taste in music. |
| Mr. Scully 05.03.2004 07:56 |
Nice try, Polar Bear :-) My favourite browser is Internet Explorer but I know Mozilla is much better than any other browser. I'd be curious to know why Safari is - according to you - so good. As for the difference between PC's and Macs - some people prefer to work with computers, some people like looking at them. I'm afraid I'm in the first group. |
| pma 05.03.2004 08:00 |
I only use Internet Explorer when I pay bills online.... It's far too sluggish compared to Opera for example and 99.9% of webpages DO work with Opera perfectly fine....which does make me wonder why certain people can't get their code right *COUGH COUGH* ;-) |
| Mr. Scully 05.03.2004 08:40 |
The menu on my site did not work in Opera and Mozilla properly and I'm pretty sure it was not my fault. I'm not a "XHTML Strict" master but I do know something about these things. On the other hand, this was an exception, usually Mozilla and Opera interpret the code correctly. Why do you think Opera (or any other browser) could be better than Mozilla? |
| YourValentine 05.03.2004 09:01 |
I think the discusssion which browser is the "best" is useless. I rather not use IE because I am strongly opposed to the monopoly policy of Microsoft. Of course I have IE on my PC because many web providers fall for the claim that IE is the only answer to all questions. Why Netscape is so bad and Mozilla is so good is beyond me - if I am not mistaken they are based on the same code and were written by the same people - Netscape people. As to your statistics, Martin - Netscape users don't visit your website because you made it impossible for them to view the page. If you visit a website only to find a message basically saying "get another browser or beat it", you can expect that many people won't come back. 20% of all Queenzone visitors use Netscape, that's quite a lot of people to care about. After all, not all users are computer wizzards and definitely not all people can choose their own browser. |
| Mr. Scully 05.03.2004 09:11 |
It's not a useless discussion. There are always better browsers and worse browsers. IE has advantage that it's easy-to-use and supports some additional functions (that are not compatible with the HTML/CSS standards but look cool). I'm not a Microsoft fan at all but I'm really sad that they stopped developing IE. Mozilla is absolutely great for internet application testing plus it's extremely customizable, you can set anything there. My site is available for Netscape versions 5.0+ (roughly). I refuse to believe that there are people who use Netscape 4.x which was developed many years ago and even at that time it was a bad browser. Of course the message "get another browser" is wrong, web sites should be accessible for all browsers but it can't go forever. Some kind of compromise is necessary - many many sites won't work in Explorer 3.0 these days and I don't think it's the fault of the web designers. |
| Lester Burnham 05.03.2004 09:31 |
I don't understand why this has turned into such a huge discussion, and I'm certainly shocked at the ignorance of these posts. I use Safari because I like tabbed browsing, the Google search bar, and the overall layout of the design - plus, it's faster. And talk about ignorant! There are those who like to use computers, and those who like to look at them. For your information, Macs are graphic designer's dreams - the programs for Photoshop, Illustrator, and whatever else used to, you know, design artwork and books and the like are astonishingly quick and amazing on Macs. I never came in here and started busting on PCs, though I personally don't like them. I didn't expect to be hassled for whatever program or computer I use, and I'm really not amused by all this. Whatever your intentions were with your "response" totally backfired, unless you did intend to annoy me - in which case, mission accomplished. I'd suggest you take the time to see that not everyone in the world uses a PC, and not everyone uses Internet Explorer - but once you see that, ACCEPT IT. There is one simple solution, of course. |
| Lester Burnham 05.03.2004 09:36 |
And, with that, I discover that Richard has fixed it. Much thanks, Richard. |
| Mr. Scully 05.03.2004 09:44 |
Lester, my controversial sentence about Macs came only after Polar Bear came with his "opinion". I know Macs are excellent for graphics applications but besides this usage I have seen a Mac only at my dentist and she didn't seem happy using it at all. Maybe Mac is a good computer but for me it's absolutely useless as I don't work with graphics and I suppose the choice of software for Mac is 20x smaller than for PC's - forgive my ignorance but if you download software from Internet and it's for PC/Windows, you won't be able to run it on Mac, right? It's like a difference between Linux and Windows - Unix systems may be perfect stable servers but for home use are useless. |
| Mr. Scully 05.03.2004 09:46 |
"tabbed browsing" - Mozilla or MyInternet Explorer have it. "Google search bar"? You can have it in both IE and Mozilla too. "Overall layout of the design"? I prefer IE. "Faster"? Maybe. Compared to other browsers on Mac probably yes. |
| Lester Burnham 05.03.2004 09:53 |
I happen to agree with Polar Bear's opinion, at least the first part (I don't care what type of computer anyone uses). I have tried Opera, Mozilla, and Firebird, and find them interesting, but I've always come back to Safari because it's just the quickest browser for me. I don't understand why you hate Macs so much - I do understand that you being a programmer are obviously drawn to using a PC - but I'm not trying to change your opinion. The fact is, that while some people may be using PCs to program things, a lot of people are using Macs to view the things you've programmed. You have to realize that, while the world may be significantly PC (and don't give me any statistics, 73% of statistics are made up anyway), there are still people who use Macs because that's what they like. I love my Mac and couldn't imagine working on a PC, even if it means having to compromise a few things - a game here, an application there, maybe even a messageboard. And for the record, I can play Windows Media Files. |
| Lester Burnham 05.03.2004 09:55 |
Mr. Scully, I've said it before and I'll say it again - I use Safari. Stop pointing out the features of other browsers, because I won't change. I'm used to Safari by now, and - like I said - if I have to compromise one messageboard, then so be it. |
| Mr. Scully 05.03.2004 10:02 |
Lester, I only replied to your "advantages" of Safari that many other browsers have too. I'm not persuading you to use anything else. I thought Safari has some special feature that is not available in other browsers. I have absolutely nothing against Macs. It's just that I see no reason at all why I should use it, especially when I'd have to say goodbye to all the software that I normally use. It's like the said Linux. I've had RedHat and SuSe for some time but now I'm "clear" and I don't want to see Linux for the next five years. Another comparison - maybe some Chinese mobile phones are much better than all other brands but I simply don't care. If they take over Nokia's 50% share of the market, maybe I will say "they could be good" and will buy one. |
| Lester Burnham 05.03.2004 10:12 |
I honestly don't see why you had to chime in with anything regarding my choice of browser or computer. I simply stated the problem, being that I couldn't view the site properly, and I'm bombarded with "oh, Safari? oh, you use a Mac?" I GET YOUR POINT. You won't use a Mac - fine by me!! Nowhere in any of my posts did I ever say to you, "You should use a Mac. PCs suck. Get a Mac." In fact, I didn't even ASK you what you thought, or hypothetically asked why you wouldn't use a Mac. I certainly don't care if you use a Mac, a PC, or whatever - you've stated your opinion, several times, in fact; you've virtually beat it into me. I don't care what you use or what you will not use and for what reason you will not use it. I was merely stating a problem to Richard. I'm over it now. Please stop replying about the "advantages" of a PC to a Mac. |
| Mr. Scully 05.03.2004 10:27 |
Well, my initial point was different. You complained that the site can't be viewed in Safari - next time somebody will complain that the site can't be viewed properly in SomebodysCustomBrowser version 1.4b. I didn't say a word against Macs until Polar Bear expressed his opinion that anybody who uses a PC probably lives in middle ages. |
| Lester Burnham 05.03.2004 10:30 |
Why didn't you give pma any guff about him not being able to view the page in Opera? I still didn't need you to tell me that you didn't agree with my preference of browser. |
| Mr. Scully 05.03.2004 10:46 |
Opera is a similar case but at least it's a well known browser. Maybe I need to widen my knowledge but although being a programmer, I haven't heard of Safari at all until a couple of months ago. Again - I have nothing against Safari, nothing against Macs, you can certainly use anything you want and I'm sure you're more than happy with what you use. But you just can't expect web sites to work correctly in all browsers the mankind has ever invented. Especially when there probably isn't any Safari for Windows so it's not possible to test web sites in it. |
| Pim Derks 05.03.2004 10:57 |
IMO a Mac isn't 'better' anymore in the graphics world than a PC these days. From august 2003-januari 2004 I worked with a Mac. In the past it was a lot better, but pc's these days are equally as good as macs IMO. The only reason why I have a pc is because it's easier to get illegal software for it. I'd have no idea where I could get a illegal copy of Illustrator 10, Macromedia Director or Dreamweaver for the Mac :-) Have to say for 'normal' people a PC is probably preferabble. The MAC interface is quite different and a bit harder to understand IMO. |
| Lester Burnham 05.03.2004 11:14 |
Thank you for your input, Pim - at least you see where I'm coming from. Mr. Scully, I was merely stating a fact that I couldn't view it, I wasn't expecting sympathy or Richard to say, "Oh, well, Lester can't view it, so I'll just give up." I was merely stating a fact. Maybe there's another Safari user out there who was unable to view it. We'll never know. Point is, you're blowing this entire thing out of proportion here - you've stated your piece, and you've made it perfectly clear your opinion of Macs and (apparently) Mac users. What's done is done. What anybody failed to realize is that I mentioned that the problem has been fixed. So, thank you, Richard, for accomodating 0.0002% of the Safari users out there. |
| Richard Orchard 05.03.2004 11:50 |
Hi, Just to confirm. It is now working OK for Safari and Opera? My policy is, that the site should "work" with all browsers (above a particular version number). However, it might look nicer in some browsers than others. The site looks a lot better with IE. Having said that, i should really be developing off Mozilla as it is stricter with code, standards, etc. |
| ~Silje~ 05.03.2004 12:35 |
Is it impossible to simply just reset and alter THIS forum? Or at least something more similar to it, as with the different shades of colour and easy layout? |
| Pim Derks 05.03.2004 12:38 |
"The site looks a lot better with IE" If it looks at it's best in IE, I wonder how it looks in other browsers... Sorry, but I don't like the new design at all - the old one wasn't brilliant either but it had 'something'. |
| Lester Burnham 05.03.2004 13:20 |
Richard Orchard wrote: Hi, Just to confirm. It is now working OK for Safari and Opera? My policy is, that the site should "work" with all browsers (above a particular version number). However, it might look nicer in some browsers than others. The site looks a lot better with IE. Having said that, i should really be developing off Mozilla as it is stricter with code, standards, etc.Looks great. Thanks for all the work! |
| Richard Orchard 05.03.2004 13:24 |
I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder. You could ask 10 people what they think, and they would each come up with something different. Here at Queenzone.com we have a benevolent dictatorship! I used to quite like the old page, but think it looks dated now. The new look etc is more reflective of my personal tastes now. Believe it or not, i much prefer it to the old page! |
| MexQueenFM 05.03.2004 13:49 |
"I used to quite like the old page, but think it looks dated now. The new look etc is more reflective of my personal tastes now. Believe it or not, i much prefer it to the old page!" We'll get used to it :) , but it certainly helps it has the Quote function, thanks Richard :) |
| Saint Jiub 07.03.2004 00:21 |
As opposed to QOL's Mallevolent dicators? |
| Richard Orchard 07.03.2004 18:36 |
nothing to do with queenonline. I just meant that people may like this bit or that bit about queenzone.com but at the end of the day it comes down to one person (me) in deciding what it looks like etc. Richard |
| Hank H. 08.03.2004 13:24 |
Is it me or does the forum only take half of the displayed space? Everything is quite narrow. I also prefered the old version. Don't care much about the design, but the old version was also easier to use. |
| Richard Orchard 08.03.2004 22:35 |
i am going to be decommissioning the old board on the weekend. i will be fixing: 1. Remembering last posts 2. Paging 3. Subscribing to a topic 4. Automatic creation of links in text. richard |
| Bohardy 09.03.2004 06:09 |
Well, please address the issue of width, as Hank raised. It's just stupid to have that unused space on the right of the screen, and the end result is a noticeboard that's harder to read than the current version. I appreciate your efforts in revamping and improving the board, I just think it silly to leave the layout of the new board as it currently is. |
| Richard Orchard 09.03.2004 08:40 |
to be dangerously honest... It is very unlikely i am going to change the width issue. A few reasons i have are: 1. I want the forum to fit in with the rest of the site, having the same look / top banner etc. 2. Whilst everyone will disagree, narrower reading areas are easier to read. That is why newspaper columns are narrow. 3. Mmmmm... Richard |
| Lawyeris 09.03.2004 08:48 |
|
| Lawyeris 09.03.2004 08:53 |
Richard, could you make something with new noticeboard, that nobody could do the same, as I did with my last post? (I'll edit it tommorow, sorry, just wanted to show you possible problem) |
| wstüssyb 09.03.2004 11:41 |
Well, please address the issue of width, as Hank raised. I raised that issue quite some time ago...a page or so behind =-) also I cant seem to log in at the new page, it wont take my email & password |
| deleted user 09.03.2004 12:25 |
Can you create an option that allows you to shoot someone with a water gun or throw rotten fruit at them when they make pages extra long with their posts, like Silent Assassin has, Richard? Oh, come on...you know you want to... ;^) |
| siljeoen 09.03.2004 13:15 |
that's a good idea Miss James!!... |
| Flashman 09.03.2004 15:40 |
I can't seem to find the 'We Love Flashman' section. |
| Daburcor? 09.03.2004 15:46 |
I'm with Amanda on this one, But I would like to add the option of putting razor blades in the rotten fruit, So that when the fruit splatters on them, The also get a nasty cut and have to spend hours cleaning their wounds to prevent infection.... Just a thought. ;) |
| Mayboy 09.03.2004 15:59 |
LOL Amanda ;) I like yours Dan ;D not sure whether that will be allowed though *sulks* ;) |
| deleted user 09.03.2004 18:51 |
I like mine better - I don't want to wound...just annoy, as they have done to us. ;^) |
| Daburcor? 09.03.2004 18:53 |
Pfffft... Fine. Have it YOUR way... *pouts* Oh! I got your e-mail by the way! :D |
| Daburcor? 09.03.2004 19:10 |
"I can't seem to find the 'We Love Flashman' section." And, With any luck, You won't. EVER. |
| Saffron Caribou 09.03.2004 22:23 |
Eh it looks all right. One problem though, I can't get used to seeing half of the page blank it bothers my eyes. It should be full page. It will be easier to read. |
| Kuku 14.04.2004 02:43 |
Search isn't working!!! Just to add to the ever-growing complaints ;) (I bet someone already mentioned this but I gave up reading through 84 replies after the second page or so.) |
| Mayboy 14.04.2004 08:49 |
Kuku wrote: Search isn't working!!! Just to add to the ever-growing complaints ;) (I bet someone already mentioned this but I gave up reading through 84 replies after the second page or so.)yeah ive noticed that I couldnt get the edit feature to work before, it appears to be working now :) |
| Flashman 24.04.2004 19:20 |
As Kuku wrote, the 'Search' function is a complete waste of my precious time. I miss not being able to quickly find my previous quality posts so I can have a good hoot, instead of having to read the shit everyone else writes. No offence. |
| Daburcor? 02.06.2004 04:04 |
Wooo Hooo!!! I can post on the new board! YAY! Thanks Richard! :D |
| LiveAidQueen 23.09.2004 18:32 |
Marvelous :) |
| mr feller 7777 26.09.2004 02:01 |
G'day! |
| Penis - Vagina 28.09.2004 03:29 |
I think the new board is working out nicely. Thanks again Richard. |
| mrjordy 04.10.2004 21:50 |
test test |
| Queen_Bee_16 24.10.2004 21:08 |
i like it...great job |
| Brian_Mays_Wig 01.11.2004 17:19 |
boo |
| frank39 08.11.2004 09:36 |
testing. thanx |
| Brian_Mays_Wig 23.11.2004 14:34 |
hello |
| KillerQueen840 26.11.2004 16:01 |
If you guys want to see an awesome dog, look at my profile. :-D |
| Brian_Mays_Wig 28.11.2004 14:12 |
<font color=darkred><b>HeM</b></font> wrote:byeBrian_Mays_Wig wrote: helloHi |
| holly123456 01.12.2004 12:35 |
i do please be nice to me im new and my name is holly what is yours? |
| Yogurt 03.12.2004 22:56 |
<font color="lime">KillerQueen840 wrote: If you guys want to see an awesome dog, look at my profile. :-DWhat a cute doggie! I have two kittens, I'll have to post them for the picture on my profile. It's time to change my profile picture to animals (something more attractive) |
| KittyCat 04.12.2004 15:32 |
<font color="lime">KillerQueen840 wrote: If you guys want to see an awesome dog, look at my profile. :-Dyours :o)) ? |
| KillerQueen840 04.12.2004 19:44 |
To KittyCat- No it's my grandparents'. To HeM-Thanks. To Yogurt-I'm sure Jinjer would say, "Thanks." :-) |
| Brian_Mays_Wig 09.12.2004 15:17 |
<font color=darkred><b>Sir Wise HeM wrote: :-)Fuck off. |
| *JAZZ* 01.01.2005 12:31 |
blub |