 | | Re: Pruning not good for the trees
|
|
I'm not sure where the best place to hang this in the tree is, but here it is. Many people have argued that now that the information about the 2001 sets is openly available, Lugnet should not bow down to TLC's request to remove the information. My (...) (26 years ago, 5-Sep-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Loading of Lugnet
|
|
(...) Using the "View raw message" link (just above the "Reply" icon) will show you the message in monospace. I'd rather not see FTX allowed in posts, because newsreaders won't know what to do with it. The web interface is very nice, but I still (...) (26 years ago, 5-Sep-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Pruning not good for the trees
|
|
(...) This may be a dead horse, but I'm just reading this thread now. I think part of the muddiness is that Larry is talking from the side of how the law will be applied. A word can have a very different meaning in court than in Webster's (or (...) (26 years ago, 5-Sep-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Loading of Lugnet
|
|
(...) shouldn't this be set on the posting side? either with a <mono></mono> tag, or with a checkbox ("This post should be displayed with a monospace font"). The tag is better, since email/news posters could still use it... but the checkbox is (...) (26 years ago, 5-Sep-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Loading of Lugnet
|
|
(...) unavailable" (...) Which is interesting! ...but fairly unreadable via the web interface unless i paste all the text into a monospaced editor. :-) I'm not sure there's a good solution to that short of extending FTX capability to all posts or (...) (26 years ago, 5-Sep-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
