 | | Re: posting oddities (was: <dcx is cool!>
|
|
(...) How does it work now? Based on what the previous post was set to? That usually makes sense I guess, I just got bit by it. (...) in 7487... ((URL) the new content there is "in the below example..." so it belongs on top. That's where I put it. (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jun-03, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Even more Wow!! for your buck!!! was Re: Woo Hoo!!!!! (part deux...)
|
|
(...) Actually it makes perfect sense--and could be definitly rigged up with a polarity switch/train sensor/RCX. I like it. I like it alot. The only thing is that it's yet another RCX and I only own 4, 2 with the AC adapter. The gaps work remarkably (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jun-03, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: posting oddities (was: <dcx is cool!>
|
|
(...) Unless there were a way to default it or make it more obvious...less surprises. (...) In 7486? You wanted to top-post 28 lines of new content atop 3 lines of original content? Not sure which article you're referring to. (...) There are ways (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jun-03, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | posting oddities (was: <dcx is cool!>
|
|
(...) Gotta remember to check the format box every time, I guess, I didn't want FTX for that post. While I have your ear, what's up with putting my text at the bottom? I know Steve B asked about it, but you can see that in this case, I clearly (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jun-03, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Even more Wow!! for your buck!!! was Re: Woo Hoo!!!!! (part deux...)
|
|
(...) (URL) (23 years ago, 2-Jun-03, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Even more Wow!! for your buck!!! was Re: Woo Hoo!!!!! (part deux...)
|
|
(...) Urp, in the below, when i posted it before, none of the urls are clickable! Sorry about that. And "snip" inside angle brackets IS clickable.... I'm confused. XFUT admin.nntp... (23 years ago, 2-Jun-03, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, lugnet.trains, lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: // and ** vs {} and [] (was: testing in rtl...)
|
|
(...) Can't speak for Mozilla, but OEQuotefix doesn't react on the above line (or any other of Brian's suggestions), it seems to only process special characters at the beginning, and ending, of a word, and does nothing if special chars overlap, like (...) (23 years ago, 1-Jun-03, to lugnet.publish, lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: // and ** vs {} and [] (was: testing in rtl...)
|
|
(...) Oh I agree that // and ** are potentially more troublesome than {} and [] in normal text -- and that's why {} and [] were chosen instead. But I think the "troublesome" part may be entirely solveable from a coding standpoint. (...) It depends. (...) (23 years ago, 31-May-03, to lugnet.publish, lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: // and ** vs {} and [] (was: testing in rtl...)
|
|
(...) I'm not sure what your above comment has to do with FTX supporting non-word aligned positions for the formatting characters, no matter which character set is used. I was attempting to point out that // and ** would seem to be more troublesome (...) (23 years ago, 31-May-03, to lugnet.publish, lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: // and ** vs {} and [] (was: testing in rtl...)
|
|
(...) If // and ** proved superior to {} and [], then going back and removing {} and [] (and of course automatically converting existing pages to // and **) would certainly be an option. (...) But it's only an issue under one obscure set of (...) (23 years ago, 30-May-03, to lugnet.publish, lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
