 | | 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 (...) (21 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 (...) (21 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 (...) (21 years ago, 2-Jun-03, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Even more Wow!! for your buck!!! was Re: Woo Hoo!!!!! (part deux...)
|
|
(...) (URL) (21 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... (21 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 (...) (21 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. (...) (21 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 (...) (22 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 (...) (22 years ago, 30-May-03, to lugnet.publish, lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: // and ** vs {} and [] (was: testing in rtl...)
|
|
(...) Since you don't think most of the above are problems because they are not on word boandaries, how do you reconcile that with FTX's support for bolding, italicizing, or underlining part of a word, such as in the example in the FTX quick start (...) (22 years ago, 30-May-03, to lugnet.publish, lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
