[ a b s Ü r d _ _ ]
 [ b r o w _ s e r ]
 [ I n _ _ _ _ _ _ ]
 [ q u i s i t i o ]
 [ n _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ]
 
 [ w i t h _ o b s e r v a t i o n s ] 

[ T o ]	conduct our monstrous experiments with tables we had obliged ourselves to satisfy the following premises: A) presence of a table RFC and a number of perverted table examples; B) presence of a Web browser; C) absense of any presense of mutual relationship between items A) and B);
[ U n ]	suprisingly, our choice for browser felt upon Netscape Navigator (refernced elsewhere in this document as N or NN). Rare jewel of software engineering, application which unforgettable features will be faithfully passed from generation to generation, program, which beautiful code lines will be adored by the net surfers throughout the globe, the choice of the Net Masters, this browser was in use by more than half of the browsing population. As we well know, public choices are one of the most random events in the universe, thus warranting us perfect randomness of our choice. Also, this wonderful browser was made with public standards in mind, which obviously excluded all RFCs, like ones for HTML and tables, since RFCs are not a standard, thus satisfying our requirements in all respects.
[ After ]	we were totally perplexed by the non-linear logic (obviously dictated by the ordinarily complex heuristics) exhibited by the amazing Netscape Navigator in displaying our hybrid tables, we had turned our attention to the runner-up in the browser popularity category, Microsoft Internet Explorer (referenced as IE), very solid piece of software, in parts even surpassing unsurpassable Navigator, delivering impeccable browsing capabilities and industrial strength interface, backed by hundreds of thousands man-hours of software development expertise, environmentally-friendly made out of 100% recyclable codes.
[ Both ]	text hyperifizers were 16-bit units, for security reasons running on Windows NT 3.51. We have chosen new Navigator model 3.01, currently in beta, and production-quality model 3.0 of the Internet Explorer. For unobvoius reason, we also tried Netscape Navigator models 2.01 for Windows NT and 3.0 for SGI IRIX.
[ I n ]	our quest for the ultimate knowledge we had tried the leader in text-only browsing, Lynx running on UNIX. Unfortunately, we were unable to detect any logic or algorithm in Lynx's table displaying behaviour, so we dropped it from our competition. Just for the sake of justice, Lynx was the only browser capable of displaying table rows as columns, thus having distinctive edge in HTML scrambling. Unfortunately, our deductive capabilities we were not developed enough to penetrate through narrow Lynx window and reveal information contained therein.

 [ g e n e r a l   o b ]
 [ s e r v a t i o n s ]

[ W e ]	found that in most cases our goals can be achieved in Internet Explorer with much less of a effort, but since our reference browser was Navigator, the only thing we were able to do is to admit this sad fact by spilling rare kerosine tear.
[ I n ]	general, we have found that IE seems to feel much more predictable with tables than Navigator, whose "complex heuristics" bring too much randomness into final rendering. We suspecting that IE uses algorithms rather than heuristics, so we were able to forecast results in the most cases.
[ Also ]	IE had definitive edge on redrawing tables, redrawing only parts of the window when being resized, while NN all shuddered and reformatted whole document (even off-the-screen parts) once we were careless enough to resize browser window.
[ None ]	of the examined browsers was capable of progressive table display.
[ Note ]	despite of obvious cruelty of our experiments, we had nothing personal against one or another browser. We even may like them, furry and cute utensils, but in the name of science... We need to hurry until People for Ethical Treatment of Browsers didn't come.