Very nice website. A lot of work went into that. Agree with Iris Gal, would have loved to hear your comments, if any, on gallery daylilies - whats special about them, why you like them (or not)...... Loved the snake picture. WOW! Glad for your sake it wasn't poisonous. At first I thought it was one of those fake snakes they have to scare critters away....Congratulations on a good job. I enjoyed the visit....Maryl

To your question first: you might consider the size of the fireplace opening (36" x 24") relative to the width of the wall (48"). When it's all said and done, you'll only have about 6" of trim on each side, which may not be a pleasing proportion. Unless you're going to be enjoying the fireplace from quite far away (more than 12' or so, I'd guess), you may not need the "Superhearth" sized opening. I don't think it's a bad look to have the fireplace extend into the room, especially if you can put furniture, bookshelves, etc. on each side to take up some of the space. But you can easily see for yourself: use cardboard boxes to "build" the fireplace, and use tape to mark the fireplace opening onto the front. (I find that planning in 3 dimensioins is always easier for me than in 2 -- I do this before buying new furniture, even.) As to the other issues people raise, it's absolutely true that the Napolean, BIS, etc. will provide a cleaner, hotter fire because they're built more like wood stoves with a closed glass front (you look at the fire through the glass). There's better safety and less emmissions into the room. If you plan on using your fireplace even in part for heating -- so you'll build a roaring fire that burns for hours and hours -- then you should look more closely at these issues. The Majestic will eventually fail if you try to use it like a wood stove. If, however, the fireplace is mostly for ambience, and you imagine building a normal fire in the evening for a few hours, these issues are less important. I for one prefer an open fire, even though I know I'm losing heat up the chimney and getting some amount of soot into the room....

Okay, I know that it's easy to get around the disable-right-click code, because I've done it myself. However, I'd still like to know if this code I'm using is correct, because I put it into my sites, logged off, emptied all cookies and temporary files and history, and so far it doesn't work. This is the code that was given to me from a friend, and I used copy/paste so I know I didn't forget any part of the code (of course this is all enclosed by and >, with "" instead of "[" or "]". Is this the right code to use? I put it after the "body" code.): script language=java-scriptgt; [!-- /* Disable right mouse click Script (By Crash @ http://walk.to/crash) Submitted to and permission granted to Dynamicdrive.com to feature script in it's archive For full source code to this script and 100's more, visit http://dynamicdrive.com */ var message="Amy L. Howe"; function click(e) " if (document.all) " if (event.button == 2) " alert(message); return false; ] ] if (document.layers) " if (e.which == 3) " alert(message); return false; ] ] ] if (document.layers) " document.captureEvents(Event.MOUSEDOWN); ] document.onmousedown=click; // --] [/script

Trudi - To repeat, Windows 95 (which dates from August 1996, and is therefore an 7.5-year old OS) is NOT a browser and it does not affect web page display at all. It is a 32-bit operating system, and exists merely to enable my software to use my hardware. My hardware is fully capable of running WinXP, it's that I choose not to waste my money on it. Aside from a few changes to the DLLs and AIPs, sufficient to destroy compatibility and enhance Bill's profits, WinXP is still just a 32-bit operating system like Win95/98/ME/2000. I've been writing customizations to apps for WinXP systems for the past couple of month, and it works just like Win95 under the hood, although XP has newer, fuzzier dice hanging from the mirror and a lot more security problems. To take care of the "maybe it's an obsolete OS" theory, I downloaded Mozilla 1.6b (released December 9th, 2003) for my Win95 system and looked at the page. I also checked the page while running SuSE Professional 9.0, Mandrake 9.2, and Knoppix 3.3 (Linux operating systems all released within the last 9 months or so) and the most recent browsers (FireBird, Mozilla, Galeon, etc.) ... and that page still has the same problem with text running off to the right. In short, the problems, which are DESIGN problems in your web page HTML code, remain no matter which OS and browser I try. A good web designer (or web creating program) can produce pages which are browser independent, and look good for all visitors. I prefer larger font sizes for ease of reading, which means the "NOWRAP", forced table cell sizes, forced font sizes, and other "WYSIWYG" features that WebStudio inserts as you drag and drop things into the page do not display for me the way you think they will. So what's the problem if one person can't see the page? Well, when you take into consideration all the aging boomers like me who use the web, with our developing presbyopia and increasing fondness for big print ... it makes sense to make sure that font size changes don't screw up the page. It's not just one person. Presented with a hard-to-read page, most people will not bothre to tell you about it - they hit the back button and try a different site. And your complaint (via email) that I am "the only truly rude person I've had to deal with here, you come off like a ton of bricks. I suggest you learn some manners." ... I'm being blunt, not rude. Your page has design problems. If you don't want to hear about design problems, don't ask for help making pages work better.