Tuesday, June 26, 2012


It seems Facebook (FB) has a talent for pissing off its own member every now and then, and they done it again with the e-mail address, which is your FB name "at" (symbol) facebook.com. This means you have to reset the publically viewable e-mail address to the non-FB one you have to change it in the user setting.

But I want you to consider something else with this change. If you use the FB e-mail address to route to your other e-mail account, they'll be seeing who contacts you outside of FB because it routes all e-mail sent from the person's FB page through their mail servers where they can log the information they want to keep about you.

It's called throughput, meaning any e-mail sent through FB goes through them on the way to the destination. If you want someone to really contact outside of FB tell them to cut and paste your other e-mail address to the mail application on their computer. Remember you can't delete any old e-mail address, only keep it from being used or displayed.

In short, FB is still using you as a product to market their Website to enrich their now investors and company people with stock while providing a service to you. You're simply a product while saving everything you do on their Website to sell the numbers to investors and stockholders as the company's market value.

So, if you use FB (and yes I have an account there too), be smart and use common sense. They're not your friend so don't treat them as if they are. They aren't, except for your information.

Monday, June 25, 2012

A Fork Please

I've been a Seattle Mariner fan for at least two decades since moving back to the area, and have enjoyed the team, especially when they were in the post-season and tied for the best record ever by a team (116 wins and 42 losses), but ever since that season, they've been terrible all but one year.

With the loss last night to Oakland (June 25th), they became the worst team in the American league with only three teams in the national league with worse records, tying one for the fourth worst team in the major leagues. Gee, what a team to cheer for. And every year the general manager has promised to field a better team, young players "with promise." The "We're building for the future mentality."

Except the young players never get better so the future never comes. then they keep trading the few good players for more young prospects and bring in former great who fail miserably in Seattle. Good money down the drain, and all the while they keep the same management while not improving the team. And then they blame the manager and coaches.

Get the clue here? It's not the players, they trying and playing their best. They're just not a good team. They don't have a player hitting near let alone over .300, including Ichiro this year. They don't have one pitcher with a winning record, not even Felix Hernandez. They are near or at the bottom in any number of offensive team statistics.

They have the old problem that the pitching is giving up more runs than their hitting. The only good point is the defense is one of the best in baseball but if you can't score runs, all the pitching in the world won't win games. Their defense keeps them in the game, but defense alone won't win game, it just won't lose them, which bad pitching and hitting will. That's the problem.

And just this last week and weekend they lost a 3 games series to the worst time in baseball after getting swept by the same team in Seattle earlier in June. Yes, one win and 5 losses against the worst team. That's how bad it's gotten with the Mariners and all the announcers, managers and team leadership can say is the same pseudo-positive talk, aka cow pasture material.

The theme seems to be if your team isn't doing well, play the Mariners. Your worst pitcher will have a good day against the Mariners. All the statistics doesn't change that reality, some of the worst pitchers have beaten the Mariners with average pitching because the Mariners just don't hit and score runs.

The announcers keep finding positive ways to say things. The manager and coaches keep finding ways to extoll the players. And the general manager keeps finding ways to talk about the youth and future of the team, but all that doesn't mean anything when the team still loses games they should win.

The truth is the Mariners were done by May 1st and by the All-Star break they'll be burnt, so you can stick a fork in them for the season. There aren't any miracle players on the team to make it better. They've already brought up players from their triple A team in Tacoma, and they're no better.

The experts predicted the team to finish last in the American League West when the season began and the Mariners are right on cue. It took them until June to get there but they succeeded in failing. Their own success to date, losing. The only thing missing now is when they say, "We're looking to build a better team for next season."

Yeah, the announcers and management can keep pitching the positive thoughts but they can't hide the truth of the failure of the team management to get and field a good team, at least one that contends than simply plays hard but still loses. The only real question is how close to losing 100 games can they come. Again.

Saturday, June 23, 2012

Dear Ad People

Dear political campaign ad people,

It doesn't matter what ads you run for your candidate or against the other one, I'm not lisening. I'm totally ignoring them. I'm only paying attention to the actual news and good media outlets. I'll make my decision based on the facts and reality and not any of the ads, so you're wasting your time with me.

Besides I've already made up my mind on who will get my vote, another reason the ads don't mean anything let alone that I'm not listening. It's your dime, or more than a few million dollars, but it's nothing to me.

Friday, June 22, 2012

Romney & Jobs

Dear Mitt,

It doesn't matter how you distinguish outsourcing or off-shoring jobs, jobs moved or created overseas, meaning out of this country, are still jobs, jobs lost here. When you lead Bain Capital, you could have just as easily created jobs here in the US as you moved them to foreign countries and could have just as easily made it a policy to help keep or create jobs for Americans.

But you didn't. You fired or laid off people here to move jobs overseas or create new one jobs overseas instead of here. No matter how you try to spin it, it's all very simple, a job is a job, and here in the US is better than there in a foreign country. That you can't lie, spin or hide.

Thursday, June 21, 2012

Ok, But

Ok, you don't like some to all of the Affordable Care Act, the 2009 healthcare reform act, and in some ways neither do I but not for what the act does but for what it doesn't do, but what do you suggest we replace it with so everyone has affordable health insurance?

Or would you rather go back to what we had that created the healthcare and health insurance mess when the US was the not even one of the top twenty (20) in the quality of healthcare but the highest in the cost of healthcare, much of that as profit to the whole range of individualts and companies in the healthcare industry.

Yes, it's an industry from doctors and health service providers, to clinics and hospitals, to the medical companies providing products and services to the others, and to the health insurance companies. It's measured in hundreds of billions, even trillions, of dollars spent every year by us in direct costs and premiums, to the rest of the industry.

It's why we're the most expensive healthcare system in the world, both total and per capita. And one of the worst for what we get for our money. It's what capitalism does to the healthcare industry. And it's why we have to do something, and whether you agree or like the Affordable Care Act or not, it's what we have now.

So, you can whine or bitch all you want, but before you do that, how about making suggestions for improvementa which helps all of us, not just you, because it's not about each of us anymore, but all of us now. Me, I'd like the public option or more so a universal healthcare system. Don't like those?

Well, think about it. Medicare is one. Medicaid is another. The military healthcare and federal employees health insurance system are others. We already have quasi-public option systems or universal healthcare system in this country and they work. I won't argue Medicare and Medicaid are expensive, but it's not the system's fault but the laws Congress passes which controls it that fails.

So, Congress created the mess, Congress created the partial fix - yes, parts of the Affordable Care Act works - and Congress can make it better. So why don't they? Really, you have to ask?

For one, over half the Affordable Care Act was written by and for the health insurance industry. Really. You don't see them bitching do you? They're making near record profits and they're still gouging customers. My monthly premium has increased nearly 50% in two years in advance of the 2013 triggers for premium controls.

For another, all the companies have made huge donations to everyone in Congress, the President and many state and local elected officials. They have also lobbied everyone in Congress, even written parts of bills and laws to the point, they hand it ready to go to members of Congress, "Here's the law or amendment we want, just add your name."

In short, they have the money to spend on their behalf, except it's really money from our premiums and federal and state payments. They're rich because of us and we're letting them get richer and control the whole system. And don't expect some organizations to be on your side, like the AARP.

Really? Yes, really. The AARP is a for profit company that markets and sells insurance. They represent the health insurance companies to the people who are members for supposed discounts which aren't because while you think you're paying less you're paying more somewhere else to compensate.

And no I'm not a member. I joined when I turned 55 and left two years later when I realized what they were and who they represented. No me or members, but companies to market insurance you don't need. And they don't want to hear from you except to use you to back their views.

And my health insurance company is a nonprofit one who is sitting on millions of dollars in cash, not declared as profit, but declared as a capital reserve fund. I can't imagine what the for profit health insurance companies are sitting on in reserves. And of the increase costs for the same healthcare coverage they've hit customer in the last two years.

So, that's my suggestion, if you want to whine or bitch, or worse demand the repeal of the Affordable Care Act, then let's hear what you plan to do to make the system better than what we had before. Otherwise, you're just another person whining and bitching for nothing.

Wednesday, June 20, 2012


Why are the Democrats afraid of the NRA and the Republicans on guns or about guns rights? When it's clear we need good gun laws for the safety and security of the people in public, why do we fear the minority? Aren't we, who want common sense solutions to the problems with guns in our country, the majority and don't we have the right to decide?

So why are the political leaders afraid? Of who? The extremists? When the NRA say they only believe their focus are legal guns owners and they blame the government, especially the Democrats, for illegal guns, why then can't we focus the laws on that and simply ignore the NRA?

And when they whine, we can just tell them we're doing what they ask and want, focusing on illegal gun owners, so what's their problem? When will the political leaders, our political leaders, do that? In our name, as we demand, and what's good for America and Americans?

Well, why aren't they doing that? They have our support. They have the majority behind them. They have the voice of Americans who want this solved with common sense laws. There are only less than 5 million members in the NRA and at most 50 million gun owners, while there over 5 times as many non-gun owners who want change.

So, why don't we have change? Or is it a rhetorical question?


After going on at length about some issues, using lies in place of facts and fantasy in place of reality and which causes everyone else to go, "Huh?", why do republicans, especially the extremists in the tea party and the conspiracy theorists, always, in the end, say, "I can't prove it but I believe it's true."

When they say, "I don't have the facts.", or "I don't know the facts.", why do we still listen to them, and why do we keep encouraging them to continue to believe and espouse their lies and false theories? We know they don't want to discuss let alone debate the issue to establish how wrong they are in the view on the issues, but still we keep trying.

Why? When we see a person can be more closed than a brick wall, and we know they've closed their ears to hear, their eyes to see and most of all, their minds to understand and their heart to be compassionate, why do we still try? Do we really expect they'll change?

Do we have a choice? Is leaving them to their lies and false views better than arguing with them in hope? Hope of and for what? We won't change and we expect them to change? Why?

Monday, June 18, 2012

Apple Maps

Sorry, Apple, I don't intend to use your map application and service when it's introduced with IOS 6 on my iPhone and iPad. I plan to find a way to keep or add Google's Map application. I'll do with your map application what I do with the rest of the crap you add to the iPhone users can't remove.

And that is park them in a "Lifesytle box" and shove the box to the last screen where I never look. The box currently has iTunes, App Store, Videos, YouTube, Stocks and Game Center apps. I don't use my iPhone for this stuff, and it's where your map application will go, unless of course you can do better than Google.

And that I don't expect. I use too many Google products, and while I have my complaints, they're still better than the other companies' apps, including Bing map application and Website and MapQuest. I also use Google Earth. Can Apple match that? Apple sucks with their iBooks application and service because they have no Mac reader similar to the other e-book vendors, only on the iPhone and iPad.

My only hope now is that Google makes a map application available through the Apple (iTunes) store for iPhones and iPads. Any bets if Apple will allow that? Or will other companies develop Google Map interfaces for the iPhone and iPad? And if so, will Apple allow them on the Apple (iTunes) store?

We'll see, but Apple is not just hurting themselves, they're hurting their customers and users more. Hate Google all you want for being the dominant player, Apple is showing they're equally, if not more so, the grinch too.

Saturday, June 16, 2012


In the election campaign, Mitt Romney made this statement this week in Ohio when criticizing President Obama's campaign statements versus the action, or inactions, Romney attributed to him, "Words are cheap."

Well, it seems the statement and the words also applies you Mr Romney. You can't call someone out for something you also have been doing this whole election, and are doing now, cheap words. Your words are equally cheap.

Thanks for reminding us of your character, also cheap.

Thursday, June 14, 2012

What We Know

If you think Mitt Romney and his ideas about the economy and getting out of the recession are the answer, let me ask you a question. We had low taxes, deregulation of the financial and home mortage industry, and less government under the eight years of George Bush, so how did that go?

Like we lost jobs every month of seven of the eight years of his presidency. Like we have people lose 40% of the value of their assests in 401K plans and home values from 2007 through 2009. And we got dropped into the worst recession in decades.

And that's what Romney thinks worked and would work again? Really?

The problem President Obama has is the economy is much like treating an illness, the cure is often worse, harder and longer than the illness or disease. A 2-3 year recession will take the better part of a decades, most of Obama's presidency, to get back to anywhere near where we were before the recession.

That's the reality.

And despite what you think about Obama and his "supposed" failures, which wouldn't be failures if Congress would pass the bills for his signature - remember he can't demand they act nor push bills through Congress, he can only get his party to do his bidding which they haven't, the President can't make the economy better by himself, and neither can Mitt Romney.

If the President could make the recsession go away and solve all the financial and home mortage problems, don't think he would have already?

Think about it and what Romney is saying about the role of the President, blaming Obama, but not saying what he would, let alone could do, as president. He can't say because he knows he woud be in the same position as the President. That's the truth about being president, something Romney doesn't knows but doesn't mention.

This election for President is about our future, so think about what we know about Mitt Romney's ideas. We've already been there and here isn't the place to use George Bush's policies again, unless of course you want a repeat of the recession. Do you really believe Romney will do anything different than Bush?

No one doubts the problems still persists. I'm still a victim of it like everyone. But at least we're moving in the right direction, even if the Republicans in Congress refuse to help or do anything beyond complaining, and at least President Obama has shown progress on the economy, jobs and all things financial, such as the Stock Market.

And that's our reality.

Do you think Romney would really be better?

Website and Browsers

When I started designing and developing Web pages in 1994 all we had were text editors and Mosaic, which later turned into Netscape Navigator when some of the people at the University of Illnois who developed Mosaic split to California to start Netscape, and we know the rest of that story with Microsoft (MS) and Internet Explorer (IE) pummelling Netscape into corporate oblivion.

Anyway, ever since then the battle has been between Website and Web page designers with the iterations of HTML and later CSS and browsers, mostly however, with MS and their idea to dominate the brower world by developing their own HTML standards exclusively for their browser and then their Web design software.

Both sucked royal as the rest of the world went on without them and developed HTML standards which Web designers and developers could expect any browser to use and display Web pages properly. Well, it's was an almost near success as browsers still vary between themselves depending on the browser's rendition of HTML code.

That said, the variation between the browsers means they vary in adherence with W3C standards for HTML and CSS in several factors but mostly two, compliance and robustness, meaning how strictly they follow the standards and how much they allow in variation from the standards.

Most Web developers I've spoken with over the years have said Apple's Safari browser, which comes with OS-X, is the most compliant and least robust, meaning if the Web page HTML code varys, the Safari will be the browser to show where and how it varys, and if wrong, usually very ugly.

On the other end MS IE is the least complaint and most robust, in part for MS unique HTML nonstandard code which other browsers don't recognize or not display. Microsoft has improved IE to where the last two versions are better but still not totally as they are still somewhat backward compatible for MS unique code.

The rest Chrome, Chromium, Firefox, OminWeb, Opera, SeaMonkey, etc., fall in between the two. Some, such as OmniWeb, is versatile to emulate a variety of browsers to show the differences between popular browsers. I use some of these for testing, all but Opera which I can't install or use due to conflicts with Adobe Creative Suite applications, but 95+% of my use is with Safari.

The rest is with Google's Chrome because I found Mozilla's Firefox (FF) doesn't work with some plugins and verion 2 of Google's map API for the maps with the Mt. Rainier photo guide. I don't know why but I run FF without any plugins or extension.

And this leads to my point here. Over the last few years with browser plugins and extensions, the user has the ability to do anything with Web pages to suit their interests or needs, which in turns overrides almost all the work of the Web designer to present their Web pages and expect the user to see what they designed.

This doesn't mean all the work is for naught as most users don't actively use the plugins or extension for changing Web pages beyond a few simple things like font size, disable javascript or popup windows, etc., but the newer plugins and extension can disable or ignore Google analytics, remove parts of Web pages, and more.

This means what I want and intend for the Web pages doesn't always happen for the user. I won't argue about the Google analytics, I use simply to see what pages are being visited and read every week or month, but little else. It's simply for me to see what is most important and what's just for my own interests.

This also means I have no plans to change my work. I develop my pages to be W3C HTML 5 and CSS 2 compliant. The Web pages aren't all 100% complaint but I'm working in that direction. It's why the Web page follow a simple design and code structure, it's easier to keep updated and add new content or pages.

What you won't see is MS IE backward compliant Web pages but should be compliant with recent versions, although they will look slightly different due to IE's rendition. I don't design for IE or accommodate it in the code, which you can see others try by viewing the source code. I don't and won't.

It's not my interest and if you use IE and it doesn't or display right, get FF or Chrome which does work and display right, but personally I still recommend Safari only because it's the one I use for normal Web usage and almost exclusively for Web page design and development.

As for all the user controls now available for users and their browsers, that's your choice but don't expect me to accommodate you anymore than you accommodate my intent and design. Otherwise you should see what I see and the Web pages should work for you the same as for me.

You can always get the latest information on this work here along with the history and plans for the Website and photo guide.

Tuesday, June 12, 2012

Sorry Adobe

Update (6/18/12).--A correction to the update for Dreamweaver CS5.5. The full screen mode was for a few openings after the update, and today it opened back to the user window size and position setting I had. I'm not sure what changed but I'm ok with it, so far anyway.

Well, today I updated my version of Dreamweaver (DW) CS5.5, which is the generation between DW CS5.1 and CS6, which I have those too along with DW CS3 and CS4 and GoLive 9, which is between DW CS2 (now defunct with Lion) and CS3. I'm a loyal software addict, especially Adobe software. But every now and then they do something small but stupid, and this update is one example.

Before this update, DW CS5.5 would remember the size and position of your windows, which DW CS6 doesn't and I bitched about it on this blog. Well, they've done the same with CS5.5 as CS6, every time you open the application all the window open to full screen, which with a 27" monitor is overkill, and there is no way to reduce the size with a user setting or preference.

In short, they think all people work in full screen mode. That is dumb and stupid, especially not providing a memory of the user settings or preferences or a way to reset the window size to a specific user one. I have walked through every option, tool and setting in DW CS6 and can't find a fix, and I've done the same with CS5.5 with the same result.

The option I have is to resort back to DW CS5.1 and hope Adobe fixes CS6, since I doubt they'll fix CS5.5 to be different with CS6. So, if anyone knows or has a fix, please post it here and I'll be smarter. Until then I'll bitch everytime I open DW CS5.5 and CS6 now.

If You Vote Republican

This November election day if you vote Republican, here's what you will learn.

Everything they told you was a lie.

Every promise they made will be empty.

Everything they said to help you will be forgotten.

Everything they said was broken won't be fixed.

Everything they said they'll fix won't be.

Everything they said they would give you will be lost.

Everything they said about President Obama will be wrong.

Everything they said contradicted what they said the day before.

Everything they disagree with President Obama they once proposed or supported

Everything they said was about Americans was only about themselves, not us.

If truth were clothes, they are the emperor with no clothes.

If you don't believe this, then vote for them, but then you can only blame yourself when it's true, because we didn't vote for them, you did.

Tuesday, June 5, 2012


Update.--Looking at the senate recall results, only one of the four democrats beat the incumbent Republican, the only man of the four democratic challengers. Makes you wonder if the men voted for men because they don't trust women, and the sole (democrat) man won because they took him seriously. Sure looks and seems that way. Covert sexism alive and well in politics.

Original Post.--What we're seeing in the election results in Wisconsin, the rural voters of the state are overpowering the suburban voters (Milwaukee and Madison) to keep their govenor, lieutenant governor and senators in power. Clearing they think lowering taxes helps them more than losing state services and benefits and other people's jobs.

And clearly they think the state government and unions are the problem, but then why do they think government under Scott Walker will do better by striping collective bargaining rights and cutting the budget an services to provide tax cuts for the wealthy? Well, here's what we learned this evening.

One, corporations, superpacs and big money won. The people lost.

Two, selling lies won and the truth was lost.

Three, reality wasn't the issue, it lost, some politically marketed fantasy won.

I suspect in a year, the voters will have a second buyers' remorse and the rural voters realize the fewer police, emergency and fire fighting services won't help them. The less state services won't help them. The fewer teachers in the schools won't help their children. And the less state taxes to their local government won't help them.

They'll realize they lost when they thought they won because the ads told them they'd win. Told them Wisconsin will win. Like the loss of tens of thousand of jobs under Scott Walker (Bureau of Labor Statistics). Like the more people with lower incomes.

Like the corporations given advantages to buy land and exploit the resources for profit and leave the wastes and cleanup to the people, except the state won't have the money because the people wanted lower taxes, less regulation and less government. They got that and then they'll get the bill.

They'll realize it's too late to undo the recall. And who will they blame then? And will they see what the other side was saying the truth after all? The voters didn't so much as vote for the Republicans as against their own interests, the democrats.

Tonight we saw what the buying of an election produces. In future months the voters who voted for the Republicans will see what it wrought on them. The appearance of victory and the reality of it, a sham.

Saturday, June 2, 2012

Consider The Following

Consider that while Obama has told the Eric Holder, Attorney General of the US, and the Department of Justice not to defend the appeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), he hasn't actively supported in repeal in Congress, and in fact hasn't even asked Congress to introduce the bill on his behalf.

Why is that?

President Obama recently announced he's changed his mind on marriage equality. He said his view had "evolved" where he sees the values of the equality. Really? Or did he just evolve politically because many of his supporters and some of his big money backers either support marriage equality or are gay themselves?

Is that personal change or a reality check of the people writing the checks?

I have no doubt President Obama has nothing against gay people, but I suspect his personal view on marriage equality is different, meaning he has nothing against it, but he also has nothing for it. It's just a guess, but he has given all the appearances of it, that fundamentally he supports "traditional" marriage and marriage equality isn't about people but the law and human rights.

In the end, it's the same, does the end justify the means, meaning a President who doesn't care except for your vote in return for his political power? Why isn't he stepping up to support the repeal of DOMA than letting the courts decide the issue?

Was it a change of his political mind than his heart?


Something we've always known but rarely spoke, a variation of the old adage, "All's fair in love, war and politics." This isn't new in American politics, only more obvious since the bad Citizens United decision by the Republican Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Roberts. We've known our government was bought and owned by corporations and with this decision we learned so is the Supreme Court.

Friday, June 1, 2012

Adobe Muse

Well, I bought into it. It being Adobe's Muse application you lease for a monthly fee (year minimum, optional after that). Yes, I'm aware there are some existing good wysiwyg Web design application, including one I already have with Dreamweaver. But Dreamweaver, while being a powerful Website management and Web page design package, it's a lot to master all the details.

Anyway, I wanted an easy application to design from scratch and Muse appears to be it, but I'm not sure the results their code will transfer to what I want in the end since I prefer simple code design and most wysiwyg applications produce really large, often bloated, html files.

The goal of Muse is to build from design mode and letting the application write the code and then you upload it to Adobe's creative cloud for public presentation. They have the option to export the code to your host if it's not Adobe's. Ok, I've only just started using it, and not being familar with this workflow for Web pages, it will take awhile to learn.

But I have some initial impressions. First, you have to have the content pretty much ready to go, at least all the images, graphics, and other files to fit into the layout you define. After that you have to put in the blocks of text and other things. All these I am just learning and will find and read some tutorials and references, apparently something Adobe doesn't have and relies on third parties.

I have the images and stuff, minus a new logo I'd like to develop and I have all the text from existing Web pages. If nothing else, Muse will help me see layouts, the computer version of storyboard traditionally taught for Web designers (yes, my original one was on large blank art notebooks).

I'm not sure how the javascript I use for navigation menus and other features will fit into the final Web page, but some initial stuff show it can generate some things, like slideshows. Just stuff to explore and learn and play.

Well, that's the initial impression. A lot to learn and for the $15 per month for a year, it's a cheap design tool, once I sort out the details and workflow.

Alas, It Doesn't Pay

Every now and then I wander through my Website quickly looking for the obvious errors or mistakes, and I learned with well over 400 individual Web pages, this is frought with inherent problems, because there will always be errors and mistakes and there will always be work to correct them.

Which leads to the obvious that sometimes it just doesn't pay to look. But that said, just taking a few samples this afternoon I discovered a bunch of really stupid errors to add to the list of things to do which are not hard, just tedious. So, that's also now on the list of things to do soon, the walk through the Website with the Web design softwar and ftp programs to do in order, review, edit, upload, and check.

Gee, something for a mindless day when little else is important, but definitely not all 400-plus Web pages at once. Groups of them work for me.

On top of that I got a new Web design package to look at the next generation of the Website, to play with new designs for the overall design including bringing some of my blog back from Blogger (now Google blogger). That's a whole order of work higher than the simple maintenance for the new and updated pages.

That means I have to actually design it and then reorganize the whole Website to accommodate all the stuff on it. I talked to some Web design consulting companies who do this work and in some ways they're right and some they're not. Some suggested Web Content Management Sysytem (CMS), such as Wordpress and Cold Fusion, but that's prohibitive for my small business in terms of time and money.

The other option is to design it parallel to the existing Website and simply replace it when I'm ready. That's practical and doable as I already have the software and the access to the host to run parallel suites of Web pages. Which leads back to the obvious one I haven't resolved.

And that's the design itself. I'm not all that creative or innovative in Website design. I'm a background person concerned more with presentability, navigation, content and so on down the list of criteria for the design. The actual design hasn't come to me yet, and I've seen a lot of them for examples, all which are nice but won't fit everything I have and will do in a look I like.

So, it's back to the obvious, "Alas, sometimes, it doesn't pay."