 sj |
||
|
||
Thread Proliferation Control
|
|
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: GUEST,.gargoyle Date: 13 Mar 03 - 12:20 AM Interesting - how all some BS'ers are desperatly attempting to make shit smell like music - no matter how contrived.
With just a little more time - and the correct pre-fix - the Bottom of the Cat will soon provide ballast to balance the top of the craft.
Cranky Yankee replies to slander |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Blackcatter Date: 11 Mar 03 - 07:21 PM Well, there's one thing that the music / BS split has proven - for the past few weeks of its existance, it's easy to see that BS threads are a good deal less numerous than Music threads. pax yall |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Bill D Date: 11 Mar 03 - 05:44 PM okey-dokey |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: The Shambles Date: 11 Mar 03 - 01:58 PM I think we are in danger of forgetting the number we first thought of. Joe's responds to us complaining about noise from others, by using his personal judgement and placing us where he decides and this encourages yet more complaints from both sides. And this is supported by some but not by others. In the meantime Jeff has segregated the noisy from the not so noisy, with no fuss and little pain, making Joe's contentious judgement unnecessary and one would think, making us all happy? But no, we still MUST have it, even though the 'non wranglers' are seated together and out of sight of the original complainers? Why? Because we just have gotten used to complaining and having the management jump to, with a heavy-hand? Perhaps those who still must constantly complain about what other users are doing can find somewhere else to eat? Or the next thing is that they will be demanding to have to have 'bouncers' on the door, preventing the noisy from even entering. Jeff has made all this unnecesaary, let's please just calm down give this light management touch, a chance to work, before we resort to the 'bouncers'? |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Bill D Date: 11 Mar 03 - 01:13 PM "You will be told to mind your own business and they would be right, as it would be the management's business to deal with this. " well, whether the analogy is right or not, when there is a dispute among patrons/members, at some point it DOES fall to the management to deal with it, and no doubt someone will disagree with the decision. Management could ignore it and let the parties wrangle, or they could attempt to DO something. In this case, management chose to have a "no wrangling" section of the café, and those who choose BS 'noise' are now asked to take it down there ¬, with occasional sanctions for those who don't. (It is a pure judgement call whether those loud folks are making TOO much noise...how else can it be done?) As I read the various threads where this issue is raised, it seems to me that management's decision is supported by something like 10-15 to 1. As in restaurants where "no smoking" is now common, there are those who will NEVER be pleased, and will always feel they are being unfairly treated. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: The Shambles Date: 11 Mar 03 - 12:40 PM Tell the people at the neighbouring table in a Cafe that they are too noisy they often jump on you at first (verbally) but, in the long run, most of them will make the Cafe more agreeable for others by calming down a bit. Wolfgang, I have a lot of respect for your views but we must go to different watering holes. The table you refer to may will calm down on its own in time, but the course of action you advise, is more likely to make things worse. You will be told to mind your own business and they would be right, as it would be the management's business to deal with this. And you could always just leave them to it. The anology is also faulty, as in order to hear the Mudcat 'noise', you have to open the offending thread, unless it is just the 'noise' of other people's thread titles that offend. If it is this or the fact the the threads are on subjects that have been well-covered before, then perhaps is showing tolerence a better and fairer option than expecting other peoples' 'Pet' threads to be controlled? Fairness and tolerence used to be things you would always find on this forum, sadly it appears to have been replaced by something else..........Can we possibly give this BS split a chance to bring these qualities back, before we just carry on minding everyone else's business and fighting shadows? |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: katlaughing Date: 11 Mar 03 - 10:34 AM Ah, garg, you're being disingeuous with me, again, but the love still shines through. I've got it straight from Max-the Founder, himself, that all you have to do is reset your cookie. If you forgot how, which I doubt, you know you can ask him, Jeff, or Joe. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: greg stephens Date: 11 Mar 03 - 10:04 AM Well, like I say, it may be a purely subjective impression, but I think the current division is distracting some old friends and acquaintances into lurking too long in the BS swamp, and not visiting the sunlit uplands of the music threads as often as I would like. I can get 80 posts in no time about the verbal use of nouns down in BS, and a miserable 5 or 10 when I've tried to discuss Iraqi or Zimbabwe musicians making folk music in Britain. So I guess I'm just having a whinge, but I feel it would have been different in the Good Old Days of a couple of weeks ago. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: artbrooks Date: 11 Mar 03 - 09:38 AM In theory, newcomers should/can/ought to take a look at the FAQ sometime shortly after joining. Yes, I know that this is probably wishful thinking, but all of the instructions can't be at the top of the first page. I suggest, and I will put this on the HELP forum as well, that something be added to the FAQ that explains the thread breakdown and gives explicit directions for the "mixed" and "split" options. I looked, but I didn't see anything about this already there. OK? |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: JennyO Date: 11 Mar 03 - 09:16 AM Maybe I should rephrase that and say "a different way". My point is that without something to indicate it, such as the clicky I suggested, a new person, not having followed all the threads, might not know there was an alternative, and they might prefer it that way. At least they could try it out and decide which they like. Jenny |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Nigel Parsons Date: 11 Mar 03 - 09:00 AM JennyO: Presumably someone coming into Mudcat for the first time would not know there was an 'old way' to have it. At least this way newcomers to the 'Cat will get a first impression of mainly Music threads. Greg: I don't think there was a lot of discussion prior to the split being made. Joe saw it as an option which was worth doing, and which did not deprive the 'Cat of anything, merely re-organised. The general consensus on the move seems to be supportive, and I fully agree. Nigel |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: JennyO Date: 11 Mar 03 - 08:53 AM I like the separation of threads, but, as Greg says, how would a person coming into Mudcat for the first time know they can have it the old way if they want? I would suggest a clicky for that, somewhere near the top so that people can see it. Jenny |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: greg stephens Date: 11 Mar 03 - 08:40 AM Thnks, Nigel, I didnt realise that was an option. But it's a pity there's no little thing to click on explaining that at the top of the list. How is someone coming into Mudcat expected to find that out? Maybe I'm missing something, but what would be wrong with Mudcat as it was, but with a button to click on if you want to separate the threads into two groups? I appreciate I may be going over old ground, but I've been away, and I can't help thinking that what I am saying is blindingly obvious. What am I missing? |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Nigel Parsons Date: 11 Mar 03 - 08:17 AM Greg: Joe's got that one sorted. Here's the quote from another thread: Subject: RE: Tech: As Above So Below From: Joe Offer - PM Date: 04 Mar 03 - 12:23 AM Aw, Lepus, we may disregard your opinion - but we think you're cute. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For you who like things the way they used to be, bookmark this link: http://www.mudcat.org/threads.cfm?mixbs=yes -Joe Offer- Nigel |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: greg stephens Date: 11 Mar 03 - 08:02 AM I shared Wolfgang's experience, coming to Mudcat a while back and thinking "where have all the Iraq threads gone?". I just assumed, with a sigh of relief, that people got bored. Then I discovered after a couple of days in newly separated BS section. Well, obviously this must have been well-trhrashed out before the decision was made, and I havent got time to read all the posts in this thread. But as I wasnt around for the discussions, I'll put my opinion here, too late, but there you go. I preferred it when all the threads were mixed together. I believe there was always a facility to filter out BS threads if you wanted to. I think this division is separating peopel into two categories. I have been posting to discussions on music threads and kind of missing familiar names who I would have expected to be adding stuff. Only to find the people are still around, but gabbinbg away down in BS land. Sure all those Iraq and PEL threads were a pain, but who was made to read them? Nobody. I think a Mudcat divided into separate piles is like spearate heaps of ingredients: not at all the same as a square meal. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Wolfgang Date: 11 Mar 03 - 06:48 AM What a pleasant surprise when I came back after a ten day break to Mudcat and there was no BS-thread among the first ten threads. I had a closer look and there was no BS even among the first twenty threads. I nearly started a thread about this rare occurence. But when I failed to spot a BS-thread even among the first thirty threads I got suspicious. I looked at the whole page and I saw that what I had presumed at first to be a change of minds was merely a change of format. Nevertheless, it is a good change and I support it together with the thread consolidation policy. The thread consolidation policy may lead to questionable decisions in single cases, but on the whole it is a great help. Thanks for that effort. I have learned here that stepping on peoples' toes sometimes by telling them that their PET-theme could do with less threads is worth the initial bad feelings in the long run. They go through the stages of indignation ("this is a free forum", "censorship") and misstating the intentions of the critcs ("why shouldn't we talk about this theme, it is relevant for musicians") until all (well, nearly all) of them realise that it is not the theme as such that bothers the other posters but their way of presentation. And then they change their ways. Tell the people at the neighbouring table in a Cafe that they are too noisy they often jump on you at first (verbally) but, in the long run, most of them will make the Cafe more agreeable for others by calming down a bit. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Nigel Parsons Date: 11 Mar 03 - 03:48 AM Shambles post above: Following Joe's example given in his original post in this thread - the following is also copied from the Help Forum. may be a little misleading. Whilst the message is truly copied from the Help Forum it is also the first post in a thread initiated by Shambles. Someone in that thread pointed out that "Could folk be encouraged to encourage each other to just get on with the discussion in the thread, and not to dicuss and pass judgement on everyone else's right to say what they wish? " is excellent advice which should be taken on board by all (Shambles included) Nigel |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: catspaw49 Date: 11 Mar 03 - 01:00 AM I am paying you the homage Garg ol' chum......Ya' see Sinsull only wanted a couple of offensive posts deleted but you claim to have had the real effect with just one message about feminine libido or some such nonsense AND you say "WELL DONE" to the thread deletions as well in your previous post. So I feel that all of my "homage" is due you for having such great power! And like I said, try reposting it here on this thread and maybe it will do away with this one also!!! Then you'd be 3 for 3!!! What a day you could have.......get yourself pissdrunk and see if you can find any woman who might consider having sex with you...........uh, well, that's a little too much to ask, but go ahead and repost your ad here and if it erases THIS thread then you can at least get pissdrunk! Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: GUEST,.gargoyle Date: 11 Mar 03 - 12:36 AM Spaw - you got it wrong - I am not the one who wants threads deleated.
You on the other-hand should surely pay homage to anyone with high enought connections to deleat two threads with one request.
Sincerely,
Cripes LaughKat ... I've tried over and over and over to reclaim my identity - but it is forever lost - tossed out by the cruel-hearted Joe. Will YOU help me find it again? Who am I and where is my cookie? |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: SINSULL Date: 10 Mar 03 - 05:18 PM gargoyle, SIGH... SINS |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: catspaw49 Date: 10 Mar 03 - 04:46 PM I'm waiting for him to keep sucking up to his newest and latest "Main Man"....Sinsull!!! Any other fine words for Sinsull Garg??? You're going to need a few............. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: katlaughing Date: 10 Mar 03 - 04:42 PM You know GoyleGarg, if you'd use your membership which has been available to you for quite some time, you could profess your unrequited love for me by PM and not subject all these kind people to such undying declarations of affection. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: GUEST, herc Date: 10 Mar 03 - 04:31 PM Please, Joe. I chose a consistent name. Please don't make me ever write "ROFLMAO 'spaw!" . . . Dan All is forgiven, Dan, but PLEASE don't ever say ROFLMAO. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: GUEST,.gargoyle Date: 10 Mar 03 - 09:46 AM There is your man Catspaw - Sinsull has caught the sight and ears of the angels - One word from him and entire threads can be deleated.
|
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: The Shambles Date: 10 Mar 03 - 08:46 AM Following Joe's example given in his original post in this thread - the following is also copied from the Help Forum. Could folk be encouraged to encourage each other to ingore subjects they do not care for, rather than the idea that these should be banned? Could folk be encouraged to encourage others to just 'mind their own business' and not be encouraged to introduce others as candidates for censorship? Could folk be encouraged to encourage each other to confine their requests for any later editorial changes to their own postings? Could folk be encouraged to encourage each other to just get on with the discussion in the thread, and not to dicuss and pass judgement on everyone else's right to say what they wish? Could folk be encouraged to encourage each other to use tolerance and self-control, rather than expecting control to be imposed? Could folk who have the power to control, present the example and encourage each other to exert self-control and a light, preferably invisible, touch and try not to give the impression of Big Brother elite grouping of chosen ones, eager to pass their final judgements? |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: SINSULL Date: 10 Mar 03 - 07:20 AM I requested that the threads or at the least the offending posts be removed. Nothing to do with kat. PM me if you object. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: catspaw49 Date: 10 Mar 03 - 07:13 AM Well hell Garg, since your one post was so offensive as to delete an entire thread, then maybe you could repost it here and let's see if it works on this one? Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: GUEST,.gargoyle Date: 09 Mar 03 - 09:26 PM It is nice to see some housekeeping.
Well Done!
For example, there were those two messy threads spawned through KatLaughing regarding Cranky Yankee and the Rockability Hall of Frame. They were here in the afternoon and tonight they are gone - no trace -all cleaned up - no embarasing kitty-litter scattered around - not even a lingering trace of scent.
Sincerely,
Perhaps, that embarassing advertisment for improving feline libido helped give the thread its ax. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Big Mick Date: 09 Mar 03 - 02:08 PM Roger (Shambles), will you ever stop? Jayzus, my friend, but you just keep flogging it. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: The Shambles Date: 09 Mar 03 - 04:58 AM So, that's mostly the facts, plus a small dose of my personal opinion. It's unfair to condemn me for my opinion if you fail to state my opinion correctly I AM fair, but I AM human. And I'm here to enjoy myself, not to be put on trial. Joe expects to be treated fairly and not to be placed on trial, but is that realistic as he is also keen (far too keen, I think) to judge others – He claims that he is fair- but who is to be the final judge of that? Well Joe is. So what of those who feel that Joe has or will treat them unfairly? They may expect to want pass judgement too – and they will. On and on it will go, just like this thread, which remember Joe himself started, before Jeff's technical changes made all this overt CONTROL unnecessary. Joe claims to want to make people happy. People may well BE happy if their post appears where and how they intended, they may not be so happy with Joe's judgement of their intentions after they find he has already taken action. They may well be happier if they are consulted first, so why can they not be consulted? Kat said; Joe hasn't done anything like what you are characterising over the past few days and like I said, you certainly remember how to beat something into the ground. And Roger, you've done a LOT of presuming about Joe, stating things that just are not true. Amos said Roger, you're being patently unfair. Joe has not been hunting for witches, and his TPC guidelines seem to be workable enough. You are welcome to your opinions but the FACTS are in this thread and they tell a quite different story. Did I demand the thread be re-linked? Or did I ask politely and was that politely-made request granted? The list of subjects, threads and manner of post that Joe has expressed his strong reservations about are many and the contributors to these may not think any future judgements made on them, by Joe to be fair. But of course although Joe expects to be treated fairly on not to be placed on trial, WE should have no such expectations, but just have to accept a management decision? I just do not think that the many hats Joe wants to wear, can work and fear the attempt will result in even more problems, without a re-think. Jack the Sailor I don't expect it but I do not see any contrition, oblique or otherwise. The error referred to, is what Joe's refers to as his original 'mistake' - in linking the thread and following my wishes? Subsequently deciding that my wishes were to be ignored and Jeri overruled, because as Joe explains, his opinion is unquestionably superior to mine (and everyone else it would appear), is justified and supported as a necessary management decision. I seriously question not Joe's worth or indeed his fallibility, he is not alone it that, but I do question his suitability and ability to operate this function, without creating even more argument and conflict. The lightest of light touches are required and what has been demonstrated is not that vital quality. Or recognise that folk will see his views/commentslikes and dislikes as editorial policy, even when they are not in brown text. Perhaps the brown text can be limited and confined only to matters of fact? Amos sad: In the business world this sort of thing happens quite often, and everyone decides to either suck it up, walk, or work to improve it over time. If this were the business would or a Government Dept, it may indeed make more sense (however many businesses do fold because of these things). But that is one of the reasons we go online. This isn't the business world and it doesn't make sense here. Order is not so important here as the friendly free exchange of views and mutual respect. Imposing order at the expense of this, with a heavy touch, whilst maintaining it is the opposite, and at the risk of yet more hostility, certainly makes no sense. Don't see why it shouldn't make virtually everyone happy. There is bound to be a gray area as to what belongs where, but that is just one of those things to live with, not whine about. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Amos Date: 06 Mar 03 - 09:16 PM Well, Sham-me-bye, I think it's a case where an administrative or management action is taken that some members of the group disagree with, while others do not. You've communicated your position well, and Joe's is also understandable, but he's the guy who gets to make the call. The reason is that he is taking the responsibility, and has been doing so for many years. Hope you can live with it. In the business world this sort of thing happens quite often, and everyone decides to either suck it up, walk, or work to improve it over time. A |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Jack the Sailor Date: 06 Mar 03 - 06:01 PM Shambles, I think I know how you feel. I certainly know your position, You've made it clear several times in this thread. You are entitled to feel this way, even somewhat justified. Joe is not entirely impartial, he does express his own opinions, and there were errors made in the handling of the PEL threads. Joe has obliquely said all of these things in his answers to you on this thread. The problem will be largely alleviated by the segregation of the "BS" threads and, since Joe has admitted that errors were made, it is less likely to happen again. If you are looking for a direct and formal apology, it is my guess that your frustration will continue. I believe that Joe feels he has been sufficiently contrite and wants to move to the next topic. Rick's point, "If not Joe, then Who?" is very salient. There are a lot of fora out there, very few have that combination of warmth and spirit that this one does. I am sure that the MudCat would not be what it is without Joe's hand. I have met Joe in person and will tell you that he is a very warm and likeable man. He is a man and sometimes men make mistakes. Why don't we forgive him and move on. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Bill D Date: 06 Mar 03 - 03:50 PM I had a teacher in high school once, who, after a LONG discussion about how much freedom kids should have in class, walked in the next day and wrote on the blackboard: "This class is run democratically!!" ...........signed, King Harmon I we got the point, and he was a rather benevolent despot as it it turned out. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Ed. Date: 06 Mar 03 - 03:49 PM Well said, Kat This might be deleted as a 'personal attack' but I'll say it anyway: Shambles, you're acting like an idiot. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: katlaughing Date: 06 Mar 03 - 03:19 PM Roger, you've done a LOT of presuming about Joe, stating things that just are not true. Also, have you noticed you are the only one still going on and on about this? Everyone else is moving on with the wonderful elegant solution which Jeff implemented. It is also disingeuous for you to claim it is not a personal attack on Joe, when you use such declarative statements as you've done. Don't you remember the many, many times when Joe and I locked heads on some issue? Several others have done so, too. No one is walking in lockstep with him or anyone else on this website. Get a grip and let it go. kat |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: The Shambles Date: 06 Mar 03 - 02:56 PM Amos I would hope that a good re-read of this thread will demonstrate where the unfairness lies. It is the 'heavy touch', it is unnessary and simply not proportionate to the problem. Which Jeff with a light touch and without upetting anyone, has largely now solved anyway. Joe's over-reaction seems to come from the idea that there are 'Mudcat people'like Joe, who are under constant 'attack' from people, presumably not 'Mudcat people' like Joe. Which appears to be just about anyone who does not totally agree with him or produce a post or thread that is not exactly to Joe's taste, or up to Joe's test of worthyness. Not agreeing with Joe or anyone else is not 'slamming' them. However, it surely is not necessary for Joe to provide propaganda (biased information), to demonstrate the wisdom and justice of his editing powers? Amos did I really make a demand? as Joe claims? The actual words are all here. I am not asking anyone to take sides, there is far too much of that already, but my concern was moderately expressed, but quite clearly not moderately dealt with. As demonstated, Joe sees everything as a challenge to his authority or an attempt and has a knee-jerk reaction to this. When you happily place yourself in this position, you must surely expect a few bullets to fired at you. If you insist on just firing them back, or verbal jousting', with the contributors, even the identified and more civil ones, I feel it risks making a bad situation into an impossible one. What is engendered by this paranoia, is a climate where folk feel they should be commenting on the suitablity, validity, category, length grammar, spelling etc, and bringing the abberant behaviour of others to the attention of 'Miss. Rather than just joining the discussion in the thread or just ignoring it. Our many-named shadows, whatever their motivations and short-commings, are clearly not stupid and have and will exploit this weakness to the full. You asked me to specify - I have asked more than once, if the originator of a thread, or poster concerned can be asked for their view before any major judgements are imposed and actioned on their posts. Not an unreasonable request, I would have thought to achieve the aims you refer to..... But where is the answer? Despite all the references to Joe, this is NOT a personal attack on him, as I recognise his sincerity and many qualities. However it is strong criticism of what he has done here, appears to be blind to and has every intention of continuing to do, despite the views expressed here of a number of people who do not support it. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: katlaughing Date: 06 Mar 03 - 01:09 PM Way to go, Jenny O! Roger, how about you take your own advice: will you please exert a little self-control and leave things well alone? Joe hasn't done anything like what you are characterising over the past few days and like I said, you certainly remember how to beat something into the ground. Here's a little diversion for you: Oh, Spawdarlin'...how about you and I run away to the back garden with the faeries, kick up some litter, and carry on some lovestruck caterwaulin'? C'mon, Peaches, baby...it'll be entertaining and fun! cynicalol'kat |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: JennyO Date: 06 Mar 03 - 12:31 PM Hey I never knew about this before! Jenny |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Amos Date: 06 Mar 03 - 10:57 AM ill-starred Thread Proliferation Control and witch hunts Roger, you're being patently unfair. Joe has not been hunting for witches, and his TPC guidelines seem to be workable enough. Consolidating like threads as an administrative action is an intelligent thing to do. Removing slanderous ad hominem attacks is a decent thing to do. Slamming the volunteers who are working to keep this place alive is not either. So what is the problem in specific, really? A |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: The Shambles Date: 06 Mar 03 - 10:46 AM Don't see why it shouldn't make virtually everyone happy. There is bound to be a gray area as to what belongs where, but that is just one of those things to live with, not whine about. Amen to that.............. How about it Joe? With Jeff's changes, are you now going to trust the posters to exert self-control or just carry on with your personal whines to justify your ill-starred Thread Proliferation Control and witch hunts? As far as policy on specific types of humor, the only rule is "no personal attacks." As for starting threads, the rule-of-thumb is that only one thread on any given topic should be active at any given time. If there are 15 Iraq threads on the Forum Menu today, some are going to be consolidated. Five is tolerable. Fifteen is ridiculous. Yes, you're encouraged to add to existing threads. But refreshing sixteen Shatner threads or twenty Iraq threads is not going to make people happy. We want people to be happy here... -Joe Offer- The key to the above being 'rule-of-thumb'. Not enforced with an 'iron rule'. If you really want this person to be happy, and it is not all that difficult, will you please exert a little self-control and leave things well alone? |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Bill D Date: 06 Mar 03 - 10:24 AM the deal is, to show the angle brackets without actually making them work, you have to enter all those ampersands and semicolons and such... and I am too lazy to memorize it all, so the program does it for me..(IF I have the right stuff on my clipboard..*grin*) |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Bill D Date: 06 Mar 03 - 10:19 AM well...almost...lets see if I did it this time <i>this part will be leaning over</i> I don't 'do' anything except use this little program....read and be amazed....sHTML-from a guy in Denmark |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Bill D Date: 06 Mar 03 - 10:11 AM I can do it big and red, too! <font color=Black> <i>this part will be leaning over</i><br> </font> |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Bill D Date: 06 Mar 03 - 10:09 AM <i>this part will be leaning over</i> like this this part will be leaning over |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control (Tech Sidetrack) From: GUEST,Dale Date: 06 Mar 03 - 02:29 AM Tell you what. Every thing I know about HTML, I learned years ago from George Seto ~~ Right here. Simple, concise, and to the point. I would recommend that you don't use the BLINK command though. Gets rather tiresome in short order. Check out the rest of George's site while you are there. WORTHWHILE. Darn, don't think he's got a link back to the front door on that page. So here it is. And now, back to the top section. Oh, before I go, I think the thread arrangement was an extraordinary way to solve something that has been a problem for years. Don't see why it shouldn't make virtually everyone happy. There is bound to be a gray area as to what belongs where, but that is just one of those things to live with, not whine about. (See? letters falling over even as they get bolder than the rest.) |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: NicoleC Date: 06 Mar 03 - 01:07 AM Hmm. Looks like the Mudcat window doesn't support a preformatted tag. Try here instead: Basic HTML Commands |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: katlaughing Date: 05 Mar 03 - 11:44 PM John, Blackcatter, check this first posting out. It's got all kinds of fun things to try: html thread. And, don't forget, it's okay to find an old html practice thread to try things out, or start a new one.:-) Have fun! |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Blackcatter Date: 05 Mar 03 - 11:38 PM screw it |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Blackcatter Date: 05 Mar 03 - 11:36 PM oops practicing HTML under the influence of Isle of Jura single malt - yeesh. once more unto the breech sure it does John This is what I wrote to get the above (without the " ") ""sure it does John"" If you want it bold you do this: ""If you want it bold you do this:"" |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Blackcatter Date: 05 Mar 03 - 11:30 PM sure it does John This is what I wrote to get the above (without the " ") "sure it does John" If you want it bold you do this: "If you want it bold you do this:" HTML instructions are placed between brackets < > you put an i in it for italics, a b for bold, etc. to stop the italics, you put a / in front of the i to tell it to stop. Now let's hope all of that worked . . . . |
| Share Thread: |