Gary, you're not mistaken and neither is Casper. Don't you realize that when you say

You're saying the same thing that Casper said with


Besides that you both have used personal tones that i don't really like (to question one another's "private life fun" trying to diminsih it for argumentations sake is not cool), you are agreeing on this: There is no argument at all.

The simple fact is that for someone who does not want (for motives that are only private)to spend time in understanding html or fiddle with codebut still wants to make a site, stuff as Piczo is *a* way to go, and not a bad one. You know the disvantages of using an automatic web builder, so it's your choice.

On the other side, knowing and understanding programming gives you a great handling on the content, looks and speed of your site. Nice results, but it requires time , patience and first of all a innate liking to the subject at hand (programming).


Oh, one last thing:
You might be right, but this kind of argumentations wont make your opinion more strong, even because you know very well that it could be reversed easily and with the same results. It just make you look un-nice to the readers So, to everyone, please refrain to low jabs as this. It's not needed in this board, we're all smart enough to know better. 

Yeah, nice edit on your first post, Gary

And if pagebuilders suck, the Simpsons community must be quite horrifying for you. More than 50% of the sites are made using Photoshop Slices and Cutenews. There isn't much that produces more horrible HTML than that combination.

I agree with you that learning HTML is nice if you want to build a site, but it isn't necessary. The exisiting webpagebuilders do what they have to do and it is possible to create a nice site with them. And even it doesn't work out too well, people will still come back to your site if you have nice content. The lay-out isn't everything! Look at Google. It has the most simplistic, easy to make lay-out and yet it's the most popular search engine on the internet. People visit sites for the content, not for the lay-out. If you have a clean looking lay-out with navigation that's easy to use, there shouldn't be a problem at all.

<sub>And Dreamweaver is for noobs, just like Microsoft Frontpage and Photoshop Slices! Real coders use Notepad.

By the way, the most horrible sites I've ever seen were made with Dreamweaver, not with website builders like Geocities or Piczo.</sub>

I havent been around for a while, and I dont have much time so I'll be concise.

You cant compare 'Multi-talk' to a free hosted website builder. For the sake of opinion, I think Multi-talk sucks. It looks good, but content is poor, half of which seems like re-worded stuff from other information sites, regularly interupted by a ':P'.
Anyway, back to the topic eh?..

Dagdamor has half of my point, but theres more to it than that.
JUST because you've seen a lot of Simpson sites using free website builders, you think that NONE of them can be good. But its the minds behind the text your regarding as inferior. Personaly, its just ****ing ignorance. Some of those sites have great artists, writers, and generaly dedicated Simpson fans, who are less fortunate to be able to do things on a more proffesional scale. Bear in mind that most are probably newcomers to this, who are unfamiliar with the way the web works.

Who knows... maybe I'm just a **** wit looking at everything sideways. But if not, open your eyes... because not everyone has come that far.