Hm, Netscape may be a tad different. With Mozilla and Firefox, press control Control and click a link, it opens a new tab; press shift and click a link, it opens a whole new window.

--M
http://home.triad.rr.com/smrainey

I've been using Mozilla for at least a couple of years, and I've recently begun browsing with Firefox. There's little discernible difference between the two, though it looks like Firefox still needs a little tweaking (such as being able to alphabetize Bookmark folders, which doesn't seem to work quite right, and occasionally, pop-up ads get through, which I've never had happen with "regular" Mozilla). Both allow tabbed browsing and have a toolbar for links, which are particular favorites of mine. Firefox is supposed to be the "cutting edge of security," which is why I've been trying it out. It also has a built-in Google search window. For outward appearances (the "skins"), Mozilla is indistinguishable from Netscape; Firefox more closely resembles Internet Explorer. You can, however, download different skins to change the default appearances.

The Mozilla email window is easy to use and you don't have to worry about malware opening up on its own (not that you should be one iota less security conscious). Only major visible difference from Outlook Express is that if you use more than one email address, you have a separate set of folders for each one (inbox, sent, drafts, etc.), rather than a master set that each address loads into.

I have Norton Antivirus and The Cleaner Antitrojan, and they work fine with Mozilla and Firefox.

Some scripted special effects and music don't function on Mozilla, Firefox, and Netscape, but to me that means diddly squat. For example, on my own Web site, if you visit with Internet Explorer, you'll get a Dark Shadows music clip, and a fade-out between each page on the site. With these other browsers, you get blessed silence and a normal transition rather than a fade. (I figure if someone's brave enough to browse the Web with Internet Explorer, what the heck, I'll give 'em a little something harmless for their chutzpah.) 

--M
http://home.triad.rr.com/smrainey

It's perfectly fine to print the story out to read at your leisure, as long as you don't distribute it. Technicalities aside, any online publication that would expect readers to only use their computer screen to read fiction isn't going to have much of a readership.

--M
http://home.triad.rr.com/smrainey

The Leviathans story kind of fell apart, but I still enjoy it, especially in its early stages, as it was cranking into gear. The strange breathing in the closed room always gave me a good ole case of the creeps. I very much appreciate the fact that DS ventured into H. P. Lovecraft territory, even if they didn't quite nail it. It was great to see Barnabas as a menacing figure again, and there were moments of excellent acting, especially between Carolyn and her father.

Victoria's parentage.
The deaths of Angelique & Edith in 1840.
Where did Adam & Chris/Sabrina/Amy go?(and what happened to them?
How did the 1840 trip affect the 1897 chain of events, not to mention Cassandra coming in 1968?

The other Rainey hit the nail on the head. Other than perhaps the question of Victoria's parentage, none of these aspects of the original show stand a ghost of a chance of being addressed in any new adaptation. They're far too specific to the original to be meaningful in any way to a new audience. And any conceivable new Dark Shadows will be meant for a new audience; diehard fans are gravy. There are enough of us to keep the spark of the original burning steadily, and happily so, but it is beyond unrealistic to think that such issues will ever be resolved except by fandom. And I think that's where those particular questions, and their ilk, belong. Enthusiastic attempts to influence the powers that be are great, I'm all for them; but enthusiasm ought to always be tempered with a healthy respect for reality.

--M
http://home.triad.rr.com/smrainey

It's not so easy signing it with a mouse.

--M
http://home.triad.rr.com/smrainey

BOB, you are a wild man.

--M
http://home.triad.rr.com/smrainey

And perhaps how fuzzy their knowledge was since the Brontes' brother's name was actually Branwell, not Bramwell.

Interesting; I never knew that. I've generally thought the "Bramwell" name might have be based on Bram Stoker, as a nod to Frid's previous incarnation as a Dracula-esque character.

--M
http://home.triad.rr.com/smrainey