|
61. ScottLoar - 9/11/1999 9:34:31 AM No, I just figured it out. Not too difficult, really. I only hope this tricks don't subject us to tortured pages and pages. 62. ScottLoar - 9/11/1999 9:35:38 AM Corrigendum: these 63. CalGal - 9/11/1999 9:36:18 AM I never questioned the " < " restriction.
What tricks--the HTML stuff? That is an ongoing debate. In general, I like the HTML capability, but the problems of inexperienced users can be icky. This last problem showed how a small error can cause real problems in the HTML producing the page.
But that's what this thread is for--testing. 64. robertjayb - 9/11/1999 9:37:41 AM Okay
Much obliged, Y'all! 65. ScottLoar - 9/11/1999 9:39:18 AM Tricks such as THIS for ten pages. 66. CalGal - 9/11/1999 9:40:19 AM Oh, I think it will all settle down after a while.
And on the plus side, you can post nice pretty tables in International and Language. 67. JudithAtHome - 9/11/1999 11:25:41 AM Hey Y'all
Howzit? 68. CalGal - 9/11/1999 11:27:16 AM Judith! Howzya? 69. JudithAtHome - 9/11/1999 11:32:22 AM CalGal:
We just got in from a great party for my husbands birthday...14 of our closest friends at a restaurant with terrific food and "molto" vino.
Decided to check and see if the new computer is still working. :-) 70. wabbit - 9/11/1999 11:34:36 AM Hey folks, as is no doubt evident by now, this is the test thread, the place for our html trials and tribulations, and I'm open to suggestions for a new name. I didn't want to use "The Test Thread" since, well, it sounds like someone will be administering exams. I'm not sure that "Try the Mote" is clear enough without a thread description to accompany it. Ideas anyone? 71. JudithAtHome - 9/11/1999 11:35:08 AM CalGal:
Where can I read about Niners expulsion from the White House? 72. vonKreedon - 9/11/1999 11:36:01 AM Include thread descriptions at the top of thread pages? 73. JudithAtHome - 9/11/1999 11:38:45 AM wabbit:
What about Test Run... 74. CalGal - 9/11/1999 11:39:27 AM Wabbit,
Toybox?
75. CalGal - 9/11/1999 11:43:44 AM Judith,
Basically, Foont bitched to MaryBeth that it wasn't about White House politics. MB deleted the thread. It was pretty much that simple.
vK,
I mentioned before--I think the short descriptions are too much of the Fray. More importantly, they are not enough info for a newbie, and unnecessary for anyone else.
I'd like to see the thread hosts have a description field on the butterscotch bar, or in the header somewhere, where they can explain how the thread works. The general rules for behavior, the type of subjects that might be welcome, and so on. 76. JudithAtHome - 9/11/1999 11:44:16 AM Cal:
That almost sounds like an adults sex shop....as opposed to a youthful one, I guess. 77. msgreer - 9/11/1999 11:50:12 AM JudithatHome Excuse the spam. Did you receive my latest info re health insurance? I have more info to give if you want it. 78. vonKreedon - 9/11/1999 1:07:11 PM Cal - Exactly, a header within the thread. 79. CalGal - 9/11/1999 1:09:01 PM I wonder, thought--might it not be enough just to have a link to an "article" that explained the threads purpose? And we should probably move this to suggestions. 80. JJBiener - 9/11/1999 1:13:38 PM Wabbit - Why don't you name the thread "Testing. . . One. . . Two. . ."
|
