Layout-setup oddity

I'm not sure if this is a site-bug or Mozilla bug, but here it is:

This bug is merely cosmetic and affects Mozilla only (I haven't checked other browsers than IE though). It has two minor consequences, one a bit more irritating than the other:

If you follow a link to a thread that is supposed to bring you to any other place in that page than the absolute top (when you follow the 'last reply' link, for example) you end up lower than your destination.
Whitespace is added between the "Forum Jump" dropbox on the bottom of the page and the (white) table bottom border (see attached screenshot).

Another characteristic: whenever you resize the browser (ie maximize or minimize it), abovementioned whitespace disappears, and the page looks normal.

I think this is what causing it:

While starting to load the page, Mozilla displays icons for each image it hasn't loaded yet (you know them, they're similar to the 'file not found' icon which appears on pages with faulty links to images). This icon however, is bigger than the antipoints images and most images representing banners and stuff used on the left site of each post.

Next, Mozilla starts calculating the height of the tables used, and draws them. Then, the images are loaded, and the icons that represented them are replaced. This causes each post to shrink. Finally, for some reason, the tables, (unlike the individual posts, which I think is weird) aren't adjusted, and you end up way off. Whenever you change the browsers size, Mozilla recalculates the <tr>, <td> and <table> height and width according to the percentage ratio given in CSS and redraws the page. This time, the images are already there, and the first time the tables are drawn everything goes ok.

At first, I thought this had to do with my cache settings. I played a little with them, but nothing changed. Can anyone reproduce this problem? Any Mozilla browser should be doing this - I'm using 1.0, but I've seen it in previous versions as well.

I think the problem can be patched by setting a pixel height for the smaller pictures, but that has the drawback of having to change that value when you choose to use another picture with another height. Anyways, this isn't life threatening...