Posting

For those who haven't noticed to post on this forum you need to click on the "post new message" line and then on a seperat page the message box will appear. Also, when you write a post (on this forum) there is a spell checker now available. Just click on the button below the message box.

I like the fact that the post you're replying to is copied into the posting box. It is easy to delete it all if you don't want it there, but very hard to cut-and-paste it into your reply when you do want it there (under the old system).


I would change the ":" to ">", however. I probably just like it better because I'm used to it from the email and newsgroup software I've been using for years, all of which use the >.


Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)


: For those who haven't noticed to post on this forum you need

: to click on the "post new message" line and then

: on a seperat page the message box will appear. Also, when

: you write a post (on this forum) there is a spell checker

: now available. Just click on the button below the message

: box.

: I would change the ":" to ">", however.

: I probably just like it better because I'm used to it from

: the email and newsgroup software I've been using for years,

: all of which use the >.


I agree. I might be able to get used to this system if it were changed to ">" instead of ":"


Dave in Cali

> : I would change the ":" to ">",

> however.

> : I probably just like it better because I'm used to it

> from

> : the email and newsgroup software I've been using for

> years,

> : all of which use the >.


> I agree. I might be able to get used to this system if it

> were changed to ">" instead of ":"


> Dave in Cali


I don't think it is technologically feasible. [img]/images/smile.gif[/img]


(Actually I worry about interactions with the html ">", but

we'll see what happens.


Chuck

Also, I don't thik the spel checker is working right. [img]/images/frown.gif[/img]


Chuck

> I don't think it is technologically feasible. [img]/images/smile.gif[/img]


> (Actually I worry about interactions with the html

> ">", but

> we'll see what happens.


> Chuck


well chuck, it appears that it is technically feasible. So thanks cause I agree with the Fossilman.


vince

I figured out how to get the post box on the page with the

message being responded to. I have disabled the auto quote

because it is now relatively easy to cut and paste directly

from the message being replied and it reduces clutter not

to have the quote when it isn't needed.


Opinions? I am sure there will be some. [img]/images/biggrin.gif[/img]


Chuck

I really like the forum this way.


the only further consideration I might suggest is that you could put the "tree" below the "post response" box and see how that goes, but I am not certain whether that will be better or worse. It might help to make posting a response even easier.


Ironically, I know a couple people who don't read 2+2 because they can't stand the way the forums are set up, they only read RGP. Morons. I don't read RGP because I can't stand the way it is set up!!!! I think it's difficult to use and confusing. 2+2's way of doing things is much better.


Dave in Cali

Chuck, I prefer the quoting to be automatic. Probably because I often like to have the quote in my reply post, and probably more so than most others I would guess.


Mostly, it is much easier to delete than to cut-and-paste, and when you cut-and-paste, the ">" or other such markings aren't there, but must be laboriously added by hand. Of course, you can put the pasted part in quotations marks (""), but if it's a long post, and you wish to insert your remarks internally, it can easily becoming confusing to the next reader which remarks are yours, and which remarks are being quoted.


Thanks, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

> I would change the ":" to ">",

> however. I probably just like it better because I'm used to

> it from the email and newsgroup software I've been using

> for years, all of which use the >.


whoa, that was quick.