does anyone know a tool (website or standalone software) where i can put my url and see how it looks on different (most popular) browsers ? Preferably a free tool please I got one at http://browsershots.org but it is not showing for Internet Explorer (which is the most likely candidate for weird behavior) thanks
Yes it does, the options are just not called Internet Explorer. The options are called MSIE (Microsoft Internet Explorer).
Do you mean its not showing as in its not working, or you can't FIND the IE option? As GMF said, its called MSIE, but I do know browsershots is very finicky.
Honestly, I find such tools USELESS because 1) they take too long to give you a report, 2) they don't let you interact with the page so you can't ACTUALLY test behaviors (be it CSS hovers or actual scripted stuff), 3) I often find they do NOT behave like the actual browsers no matter how much they claim that's what's being used! My advice, grab a copy of VirtualBox, find yourself a XP CD (like that's hard) and a valid serial (dead desktops are a good source for working codes), and set up multiple VM's to test the actual browsers in an actual environment. I've got a 2k install for testing IE 5.5, and XP for IE6... For 7 through 9 I use 9's developer tools compatibility modes which 99% of the time is 'close enough'. I also have managed to get Lion running under VirtualBox for testing how not just Safari, but also FF behave way, WAY differently; same for chrome on linux... Also helps to have access to all three platforms so you can see the differences between cleartype, apple and freetype; since fonts that look good in cleartype might look like arse on freetype, fonts that look good on Apple might look like arse on cleartype, and fonts that look good on freetype... don't exist. (the glyph shapes are fine, but mein gott the kerning...) Much less said platforms having different default font-sets so you can't rely on even the Microsoft core fonts being available. Testing with the real operating systems in a VM is really the best way to go.
Since all the "popular" browser are also free, why not install them all, then test your page/site in each. deathshadow's suggestion (hey, cool name!) to go the VM route is valid, a more hardcore is to partition your HD and install the main 3 OSes (Windoze, Apple, Linux, am I missing any?), then the various browsers over each. If it sounds like a lot of headaches ahead, I kinda agree... good luck!
browsershots is one of the best. free option takes bit of time, doesnt seem to work that well. used to be quite fast, when they werent that popular. paid option i am sure got faster service.
EXACTLY. The only place that's a real issue is having real IE6 and 7 in the equation... or if you're a nut like me IE 5.5. (remember, only forest fires prevent bears) ... and less useful -- since you have to reboot just to test them... instead of just alt-tabbing to the VM you want and then alt-tabbing back to where you're editing/working. Though it's also why I run multiple displays -- right now a pair of 24" 1920x1200 as wingmen to a 27" 2560x1440 in the center. One 1920 is a cheap Envision, one is a decent samsung, and the 27 is a IPS -- this too is important for testing since you can't trust the color-repro across them for certain shades -- what might look like a light tan on a IPS can for example appear purple on my cheapo... Which is just part of why a LOT of apple dev's designs end up all sorts of funky colors on the machines owned by people who do not have more money than brains. It also gives me the space to have my HTML or PHP in one window, with the CSS next to it in another window, with browsers on half the center display, VM's on the other half, and then research, IM discussions with clients, and the taskbar (portrait mode naturally) on the far-far right.
nice layout deathshadow, my problem w. that is that it requires a LOT of memory, and probably a humongous CPU also ... I currently like to work on tiny Acer Aspire One with 2GB RAM, which is great for me, nothing bulky, I can travel easily with that, and I have Ubuntu and Windoze in there. It's an old machine, still, the only think I would change is a better battery (can't add more RAM since this baby is already maxed out at 2GB). Ok, not the best, but these babies are so cheap, that I actually got another one which I boot when I need Windoze. I guess I could buy a 3d one and put Apple's current i386-based OS (or whatever runs on intel-based boxes). So there you have another alternative: instead of humongous machine who can power the space shuttle to Mars and back (ok, that probably won't happen in this lifetime now), 3 small boxes running 3 different OSes. Nice things about this layout: having 3 of the same allows to interchange things like power-supplies and RAM chips, and if one baby goes kaput, it won't affect the others in any way...
Thing is, when it comes to desktops the only part that's "expensive" is the displays -- and a triplet or quartet of 24" 1920x1080's (for example) is around the price of one and a half netbooks... a Propus or Llano based desktop with 8 gigs of RAM, 2tb HDD and a couple cheap 1 gig video cards shouldn't even run more than the price of a netbook to build either -- so for the price of two or three netbooks one could build a far, far more capable development workstation. I mean in desktop memory 8 gigs won't even break the $45 mark anymore. Total system could be even cheaper if you were to grab something like nVidia GTS 250's off the used market... which run around $50 a pop and can quite easily drive multiple 27" IPS at full resolution. ... and it's not like 27" IPS are the thousand dollar monsters they used to be; I suspect it's the real reason why Apple is upping the resolution with retinadisplays, that way they can justify their noodle-doodle pricings. Mine is a Potalion, and only ran me $340 (again, the price of a decent netbook) with a no dead OR stuck pixel guarantee... you drop the no dead pixies requirement and they run $300 or so... if you're doing web development seriously for work, such an outlay is far, far better an investment than any of the overpriced trash Adobe-tards seem to think is actually useful. Also, you only need to give XP around 256 megs if all your testing in it is legacy IE... likewise linux is reasonable to run in about the same; OSX is the only one that's a RAM hungry pig and needs at least a gig, which is why on anything less than 4 gigs of RAM I'd shut down the other two first. I can't imagine doing dev work on a netbook -- the prohibitively small screen size means you couldn't test jack **** -- particularly if we start talking responsive design. I supposed if one only crapped out tiny little stripes of fixed width layouts it could be done, but much like doing dev work in linsux or OSX, it's tying one hand behind your back while taking it up the ... Though admittedly my MSI Wind U123 is stuck with a 1024x600 display -- I can't even write a game for DOS in so little space anymore without feeling 'cramped'... Again though, if I wanted to do dev work on an anemic processor and small low-res display, I'd slide my backside over to the next seat and use my Tandy 1000 SX... Kind of like dicking around on the command line in *nix for desktop tasks (still makes sense for server stuff) -- it's such a ridiculous trip with Mr. Peabody that if I wanted to still be doing that crap, I'd slide down even further to my Trash-80 Model 16 running Xenix. Much like HTML 5, if this is the "future" of computing, I want nothing to do with it... Probably why I'm not wild about Windows 8 either, which seems to just be Microsoft giving people who bothered to go out and buy/build nice desktop setups the finger; nothing like destroying the place you have market dominance (desktops) just to break into a new market already dominated by two gorillas (tablets).
On internet you will get bunch of tools but best way to check manually and you will get 100% result for your website.
Few days ago (or last week?) I recall hearing a news brief on my tube stating that MS declared losses for 1st time in its history... I wonder when they are going to give steve baldmer the proverbial boot ... though admittedly the guy owns the place, or a good part of it. His "last to cool, first to profit" strategy seems to be getting a beating by the current gorillas in many of its markets ... Apple, Google. Yeah, I was a Mac guy few years ago (ok, a decade or so ago), but got sick of always paying premium price for my toys ... so moved to the other extreme (linux) and am pretty happy camper since ... Don't really care about the next Windoze either, especially the ugly new tablet-based UI. I use Ubuntu, and every time I boot in Windoze, I always have the impression of going back in time for some reason... but probably just my impression I guess it depends what type of dev work you do on a netbook. When I "attempt" to do HQ video editing, that's a bit over its limits, that's very true. Same with any very-high resolution graphics. But doing any web work which only runs at 72dpi, that's quite perfect. Besides, coding is always text-based, so works OK for me: I run 16 desktops on my little toy (4x4 grid), so I can deploy all my code there, then switch between desktops easily with CTRL+arrow keys - that's incredibly practical. Then I could pack up my entire dev environment, and tomorrow continue where I left yesterday ... but somewhere in Europe (somewhere with a beach, preferably So having big visual real-estate is definitely great, but being compact also has its own distinct advantages ...
Most browsers call it 96 dpi, though it is in reality closer to the 72-75 on most older displays... my 1920x1200 24" are physical 96dpi, and the 27" is a phyiscal 120dpi... I actually run my system's OS dpi at 120 to test for large fonts behavior, then let the VM's run at native (though FF has it hard-coded and ignores the system metric, so I don't need the VM's to see both)... unless you've bought into that lie that all computers start out at the same default font-size, I just can't see it unless you've thrown accessibility out the window. How on a netbook do you handle dynamic fonts and the auto-scaling that comes from the %/em we're supposed to be using for accessibility? How do you test making sure your layout adjust it's size so that users of 1680 and wider displays aren't given a crappy little stripe? How do you test min-height code when you don't have enough height to handle the average header? How do you test color repro across displays so as to avoid bad color choices (like say... E89B6B, which renders as tan on good displays and purple on many cheapo's) -- Had a client once insisting on a horrific green, actually had to send them to an Apple store to show them what their choice was doing on a decent display. Though as I said, if all you're making are what I've called "crappy little stripes" for over a decade, probably with px metric fonts on everything or a layout that breaks for anyone who dares to change the default browser font size... then you could probably work in such little space... Basically throwing the concept of accessibility out the window. Otherwise, I just don't see it. Also, don't get me started about linsux as a desktop OS -- where it's literally crippleware for me. For all it's idiotic "tablets only, to blazes with making the desktop useful" crap, I'd still sooner use Windows 8. Call me when I can get a decent portrait mode taskbar, multiple-display that's REALLY aware it's multi-display and has a concept like "primary display", a file manager that's actually more capable than the one that came with Windows 3.1, and user feedback good enough to tell me it's actually doing something instead of clicking on a link, having it do nothing (no disk activity, no change in cursor) for long enough you click again, until a minute later you have ten copies of a program open at once. The moment X11 implementations and the various idiotically bloated and ultimately useless WM's are involved, every *nix I've ever used goes from a lean mean useful server OS to a steaming pile of manure. Which I think is why the real *nix successes as user OS don't even use X11 (Android) or put X11 emulation atop their own interface should you want to use legacy apps (OSX) Hell, I was just bitching about Windows drivers since I did a re-install on my lappy (which was still on XP x64) -- compared to linux that's a dream on the same hardware; what with on the *nix side the complete lack of drivers for the in-built card reader, failing to turn off the internal audio when you plug in headphones (whoever thought that belongs in software instead of hardware needs a good swift kick in the junk BTW), inability to get SATA2 speeds on the drivers without spending 3 hours dicking around on the command line, half the USB ports (I have 8) failing to recognize because it doesn't like the hub, no fingerprint scanner support, eSATA hot plugging locking up the system, having to drag out legacy garbage of playing with sync rates just to get the 1680x1050 display to actually run native resolution, half-assed lack of text-enlarge for applications that don't happen to want to use the same WM, complete lack of support for the extra keyboard buttons, totally going bonkers just because I happen to want to use an external mouse instead of the trackpoint or trackpad without disabling them, and horrific video tearing just moving windows around thanks to linus changing the driver format every time a stiff breeze wafts by and the open sores community with their dirty hippy rhetoric about binaries being 'evil' meaning nobody WANTS to make drivers for it. Hell, when I had Debian on this same lappy (HP/Compaq 8710p, upped to a Core 2 9300 from the stock 7100) half the time I had to reboot just because I wanted to mount or unmount a external USB drive or even plug/unplug a printer. Not a fan.
hey, on the OS-whatever, that's just like plumbing to me, so use whatever suits you best. I'm personally more comfortable on linux as I have more control over my box and it suits me better, but that's just me. I'm over all the OS flame wars, that's so 1990's... so sorry if I'm not following you on that path. But I respect your opinion, regardless... here's an example of a project I'm working on which is being developed on a netbook... It's called Squizmore, and you can check it out ... hopefully without any problem Honestly, I did not check it at various resolutions, so I have no idea what it will do on the big screens ... probably drown in so much real-estate - haha. Small warning: MS's IE chokes on Squizmore code, so you'll probably see a warning about it... For some reason they like to "be different" and make-up their own standards, and I don't have much time to accommodate IE right now, so any Squizmore-ian out there should simply just use any of the plethora of other free browsers... I have no idea how this looks on Apple-ware, as I don't have any, and did not test it yet on that OS. Since it's based on *nix, hopefully all will work just fine... PS. I think jquery is the best thing that happened to my web-devel tool-set since ... ever. I guess I disagree w. Dan Shultz: I don't want to learn javascript - as I don't like the JS language period - but I do want to make my web pages do whatever I want ... FAST!!, and jquery is the best tool I got for doing just that.
Looks stupid justified top-left like that, the colors are far below accessibility norms (grey on grey? REALLY? You do know that menu is invisible to >30% of the population, right?), layout is busted at large fonts/120dpi, crappy little fixed width, auto-playing music/video making me want to navigate away from the page before it even finishes loading (isn't that on EVERY 'how not to build a website list?).. even more broken on my 144dpi media center... inaccessible form that's not even a form and instead of js asshattery without even a label much less fieldset or legend -- and to be frank, everything looks just kind-of thrown in there any old way... good luck EVER turning that into a responsive layout or having people on screen readers do anything with it -- much less search engines probably thinking it's a blank page... Let's look under the hood... Bgcolor, what is this 1998? Oh hey, tranny doctype, it's bragging about being 1997 code with 1998 methods thrown on top... Zero scripting off content on a page that shouldn't even NEED scripting in the first blasted place, some sort of anti-IE idiocy... from what I'm seeing, just another laundry list of how NOT to build a website. No offense, but learn HTML and CSS... Seriously! ... and don't dive for the javascript when you aren't doing ANYTHING that should need it!!! That is one of the WORST sites I've ever seen from an accessibility, usability or even maintainability point of view. Progressive enhancement, graceful degradation, semantic markup -- any of those ring a bell?!? Seems like you're blowing 33k of javascript on 3k of markup's job! Can't say I'm surprised you like jquery after seeing that train wreck of broken useless nonsense. Everything WRONG with web development of the past 15 years rolled up into one page. The complete lack of anything resembling content and annoying video means I can't even figure out what the blazes that page is even supposed to be about.
Now, first thank you for your honest feedback, deathshadow. Second, there's no need to be overly harsh in your comment. I wonder if words such as "stupid" or similar in your post have a place in an adult conversation. Seriously, how old are you? No offense, but the tone of your comments make you appear as an insecure/immature 15 year old. I believe a little diplomacy and less aggressiveness would bring much more weight to your comments, which I am sure are totally valid. Third, perhaps because all CSS and JS code on that site is obfuscated, you could not make much sense of it (which actually is a good thing). Just for your info, that small 1 page site was actually inspired by a top model's page, so I deserve no real merit. I simply liked their design (which I'm sure her agency must have paid thousands for, because it's really a good design), and got "inspiration" from it for my site. The grey tone is 100% intentional. I'm not expecting everyone to like it, hopefully some of my prospects will ... I "do" know HTML and CSS, despite appearances. You can't read it easily from your side because it's all obfuscated. Also, I put jquery on all my web-pages because it's so damn useful (even if sometimes I could do without) but mostly because I tend to heavily AJAX all my pages. I like the entire site to run on a single page, and to dynamically change parts through Ajax+Jquery. Sorry if that is not up to your standards, but I am not trying to win any code-writing beauty-contest here, just want to make the site work as I want it to. That site works just fine ... except on IE, so too bad for IE users (I know, there's 30% of them, or something like that - sorry guys!). So IE definitely chokes on my jquery-ed code, and I haven't had much time to focus on a solution, so my imperfect but simple workaround is to invite viewers to use any browser except IE. In conclusion, I thank you deathshadow for taking the time to examine my site, and for posting your honest comment, which is much appreciated. Unfortunately I must conclude that perhaps you did not understand the design's goals - which is understandable (not everyone "gets it", though I'm not calling anyone "stupid" because of it), and I find it strange that you could not deduce that my CSS and JS were simply obfuscated, which makes them look like perhaps written by a 15 y.o. (no offense to 15 y.o.'s) So most of the actual code of that site is hidden from your view ... therefore the html you see (when you tell your browser to "show source" - which amounts to 31 lines of html code) is in fact just a placeholder where the actual "obfuscated" code is deployed. You are certainly right, because of the obfuscation, the google-bot has probably no idea what's going on in that site, which is ok as long as bots are not part of my target audience. This being said, the content is certainly subject to review, as that was a "first try". Will definitely keep the obfuscation and the design, but need to update the content as there's been some important developments since that site was written a few months ago. Anyway, your comments are much appreciated, and I wish you a good day.
Manual process is best, in that you can find exact problem and solution of the problem, tool don't provide 100% accurate results.
Would you prefer I slap the rose coloured glasses on your head and led you down the garden path to the drum circle? Oh noes, someone said "stupid"... The only way to make anything better is to rip it apart so it can be built back up again... anything else is a soft wishy-washy limp copout. ... and it's ok to call something stupid or a choice idiotic; so long as it's not referring to the person; attack the work, not the person. Otherwise you're just loading yourself down with a bunch of pointless PC nonsense instead of addressing legitimate points. That's called an adult business attitude -- but of course rather than defend the points made you immediately have to go to the "how old are you" nonsense; and I'm the one being immature. RIGHT. Lemme guess, you consider Gordon Ramsey, Simon Cowell and Charlie Frattini to behave like children too, right? Oh noes, I said something looks stupid -- I didn't say you were stupid, I said it looks stupid -- GOD FORBID!!! Have you seen it at 1440x900? 1680x1050? for a real laugh 2560x1440? Large fonts? Your footer's bottom right edge is in the middle of the page, the menu is overlapping the video, the stupid (and yes, stupid is the right word) "supported browser" thing wraps oddball as well, AND it's also useless at resolutions SMALLER than it was designed for. ... and what legitimate reason do you have for that obfuscation? Like there's ANYTHING there worth hiding, or worth blowing 33k of javascript on... Does it have the same complete accessibility /FAIL/? If it was good, I doubt it. If it does, someone took them for that magical ride down the garden path. It's not a matter of like, it's a matter of accessibility -- there's nothing wrong with grey; there's something wrong with #A0A0A0 atop #D8D8D8 -- that's less than 22% contrast difference, when accessibility guidelines suggest at least 50%. To make that accessible the menu should be darkened to at LEAST #606060. (though I'd round both to #DDD and #666) - Sorry I should have been more specific as it wasn't grey on grey that was the issue, it was light grey on light grey instead of dark grey on light grey. ... and I did see the ENTIRE markup, thanks to taking a good hard look with Firebug, Dragonfly, and 'view generated source' in the web developer toolbar for FF. .. and screen readers, and search engines, and large font/120dpi users, and win7 large font/144dpi users... and the millions of people who run the noscript plugin for FF and it's equivalents on Chrome and Opera (per site script enable/disable is built into Opera)... "Jquery so damned useful"? -- if you're using it to AJAX normal flat content, you're just preventing people from being able to link to your content --- you might as well go back to using framesets at that point. Which is even funnier since one of the alleged points of jquery is to eliminate cross-browser compatibility; Though that's always been 100% bull given it's real point seems to be a bunch of animated nonsense and stupid browser tricks that have ZERO business on a website in the first place. Actually, it looks more like what I'd expect from someone in their mid 20's half-way through or fresh out of college... No offense to twenty-something college kids. But again, rather than try to defend the tranny doctype, elements and attributes like bgcolor and target that have zero business on any website written after 1998... and I mean, I didn't even mention the good stuff like the endless pointless classes for nothing on pretty much every element, the PNG for a favicon (instead of an actual ICO), Not hidden from Firebug, NOT hidden from Dragonfly, NOT hidden from the web developer toolbar's "view generated source". Unless I'm mistaken... <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> <html><head> <title>www.SquizMore.com</title> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"> <link rel="shortcut icon" href="pix/favicon.png"> <link href="js/squizwww_pak.css" media="screen" rel="Stylesheet" type="text/css"> <script src="js/squizwww_pak.js" type="text/javascript"></script> </head><body bgcolor="#999999"> <div id="browser_support"></div> <div id="stage" class="stage"> <div id="scenes" class="scenes"><div id="home" class="bg_common home"> <div style="color: black;"><h2>Make Sure Your Sound Is UP!</h2>Squizmore Teaser: 2min 20sec</div> <div id="video_box_content" class="video_box_inner"> <iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/X9yZ0gcQtHA?title=0&byline=0&portrait=0&autoplay=1" allowfullscreen="" width="640" frameborder="0" height="360"></iframe> </div> </div></div> <div id="header" class="header "> <img src="pix/favicon.png" alt="SquizMore"> <span><strong>SquizMore.com</strong> </span> <span id="header_msg" class="header_msg header_icon"> Supported browsers: <a href="https://www.google.com/chrome" target="_blank" title="Chrome"><img src="pix/icon_chrome.png">Ch</a> <a href="http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/new/" target="_blank" title="Firefox"><img src="pix/icon_firefox.png">FF</a> <a href="http://www.opera.com" target="_blank" title="Opera"><img src="pix/icon_opera.png">Op</a> </span> </div><div id="silhouette" class="silhouette "> </div><div id="notifier" class="notifier "> Become a Friend-of-Squizmore <br> <input name="email_notify" id="email_notify" value="your email here" size="20" type="text"> <input value="submit" id="email_notify_btn" type="submit"> <div id="notifier_box"></div> </div><div id="about" class="about "> </div><div id="footer" class="footer "> <span> contact: <b><a class="silver" href="mailto:info@squizmore.com?Subject=More%20Infos"> info@squizmore.com </a></b> </span> <span> <a href="http://www.facebook.com/pages/squizmorecom/125216407605686" title="Fan us: Facebook" target="_blank"><img src="pix/btn_facebook.png"></a> </span> <span> <a href="http://twitter.com/#%21/squizmore_com" title="Follow Us: Twitter" target="_blank"><img src="pix/btn_twitter.png"></a> </span> <span style="padding-left: 300px;"> official website</span> <span style="padding-left: 200px;"> copyright 2012 corporalis inc. all rights reserved</span> </div><div id="button_bar" class="button_bar "> <div id="btn_product" class="button_frame">Product</div> <div id="btn_gallery" class="button_frame">Gallery</div> <div id="btn_demo" class="button_frame">Demo</div> <div id="btn_buy" class="button_frame">Buy</div> <div id="btn_forum" class="button_frame">Forum</div> </div></div> <noscript> <div style="color:#f33;text-align:center;position:absolute;top:200px" > <br><br><h1>ERROR: JavaScript seems to be disabled!! <br>Please enable JavaScript in your browser Preferences for this page to work properly.</h1> <br><br><br><br> </div> </noscript> </body></html> Code (markup): ... that's what your script is generating, correct? static inlined style, nothing resembling semantics, endless pointless classes doing inheritances job, (big tip on that one, if every tag inside a parent container has the same class on it, none of them should have classes), identical classes and Id's for no good reason, entire layout built with APo (a hefty contributor to why the layout falls apart), etc, etc... That's the part I'm not understanding -- WHY?!? what possible reason do you have for basically taking accessibility, render time AND bandwidth use and not just burning them to the ground, but pissing on the ashes while you're at it? You've taken something simple -- a five page site of maybe 3-5k of markup per page and around 10-15k of CSS total, and turned it into a needlessly convoluted, complex and inaccessible mess! Even more pointless when as I just showed, most anyone who has any business in the source or at least the where-with-all to go into it probably has the tools to sweep your 'obfuscation' aside like it wasn't even there... same for your css, which was easily enough reformatted into something able to be followed as well. You really should look at it on some larger screens, some smaller screens, and some different font metrics before saying that. A good read of the WCAG (both 1 and 2) while at it wouldn't hurt. Which is dragging this threadjack back on topic -- cross browser checking, something that said page... well... seems to have lacked Which must be really hard to do with all of it javascript script generated... Rather than continue away from the OP's topic, I'd like to show you exactly what I mean so I'll be taking this to PM -- to ask you if you mind before I go an make a new thread about it. (and possibly ask for a mod-split of this one). Oh, and I really do hope you're not taking my comments personally -- Between a period of military service, working a decade in the Boston area white-collar criminal rat-race, and being a New England Yankee, I often seem to offend people from... other backgrounds... just by being in the room. Yah cahn't geht theyyah fum heeyah isn't just a catch-phrase, it's a way of life. Said mannerisms often being the difference between the employee and the leader mentality... See people like Gordon Ramsey. Like Charlie Frattini... Like Steve Ballmer... Like George S. Patton. "When I want my men to remember something important, to really make it stick, I give it to them double dirty. It may not sound nice to some bunch of little old ladies at an afternoon tea party, but it helps my soldiers to remember. You can't run an army without profanity; but it has to be eloquent profanity. An army without profanity couldn't fight its way out of a piss-soaked paper bag. ... As for the types of comments I make, sometimes I just, by God, get carried away with my own eloquence."