[WillowTheWhisp]

In a word - No. That wasn't what i meant.

Without naming any names I'll try to explain.

A certain website existed but it didn't work properly.

When you looked at the source there were some anomalies.

If I saved what I saw and took out the anomalies and then viewed what I'd got it was fine (apart from pics which I wasn't hosting).

However, when I mentioned this fact I was told that basically I didn't know what I was talking about because what I saw in the "view source" wasn't what was really there.

Subsequently the anomalies have been removed from the original so anyone looking at it now cannot see what was once there.

I think that's about it in a nutshell. I was fairly sure that what I'd said on the subject made sense but was willing to stand corrected by anyone who knows more than I do - but not by silly childish people who only resort to petty name calling when they don't know what they are talking about.

From what has been said both here and in PM, I'm more than happy that I wasn't talking rubbish and that what I thought I'd understood I do actually understand.

Thanks to everyone for your input.