Report software quirks here

[ERD50]

SWR

 

[ERD50]

Pasfjpqkj aplkj aewwefj wepjwepjwe vdsnweojqerorvqe oej vqr

 

[W2R]

Thanks, ERD50.

It looks like the problem has been resolved. (edited to add: well, THAT one! )

 

[ERD50]

Hah! It converted the one with LOTS OF CAPS. (BTW, I put LOTS OF CAPS in CAPS on this post).

So, it seems like it only converts if it sees a LOT OF SHOUTING.

I hate it when SW tries to 'help' with no indication of what it is or isn't going to do .

edit/add - just to be clear - my post #202 was ALL CAPS

-ERD50

 

[ziggy29]

Hah! It converted the one with LOTS OF CAPS. (BTW, I put LOTS OF CAPS in CAPS on this post).

Well, it sounds like I was on the right track, anyway...

 

[W2R]

You mean that if you just shout in all caps like this, the post is then converted to all small letters? I really wonder if that is happening, so i am typing on and on and on just to check it out.

Edited to add: Yes! It did convert my post to all small letters. The previous was originally written all in caps.

Posts that are all in caps are pretty tedious, and I am not sure this is a bad thing at all!

 

[Coach]

SWR

 

[Coach]

Not shouting, just testing

Note: Interesting, that was all caps.

 

[Bestwifeever]

now if we could just get all lower case. to convert. to sentence case. we would be in case heaven.

 

[harley]

I have a question. I was just looking at my Thanks messages, and I have a couple from 5/6 that are showing up with N/A in the thread name. Does this mean the thread got deleted? Or the post? Or is it something else? Not a big deal, just curious. Thanks.

 

[REWahoo]

Does this mean the thread got deleted? Or the post?

Yep.

 

[Moemg]

I am not seeing avatars or edit or quote buttons in Firefox when I switch to Internet explorer they show up ?? Help !

 

[REWahoo]

I'm seeing all of them in Firefox. Are you using Adblock Plus? If so, check your settings as that can cause the situation you describe.

 

[Moemg]

Thanks , I'll check that out !

 

[LoftyNotions]

I'm getting the message "The message you have entered is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 1 characters." when I try to post. Any idea how to get around it?

Thanks,

Larry

 

[Janet H]

That's odd. Is it happening often? Do you have text in the reply editor when this happens?

 

[W2R]

If you quote a previous message, and then type your response inside that quotation, it will result in that message. For example,

If this is the previous poster's message, that you have quoted in order to put it in your post,

and, if this bolded response is your response and is typed inside the quote,

then if you don't add anything before or after the quote you will get that message.

Don't ask me how I know... The software assumes that you have added nothing original since there is nothing before or after the quote.

 

[LoftyNotions]

That's odd. Is it happening often? Do you have text in the reply editor when this happens?

Hi Janet,

I've had it happen in 2 different posts just using quick reply. The latest one was the SS gap poll and I did have text in the box.

It failed several times before I shut down the forum session and then opened it back up and posted here.

After I posted here I went back to the SS gap thread and was able to post a reply. I was just wondering if anyone else had that problem.

Must be a new feature of Internet Explorer 8.

Larry

 

[Janet H]

Must be a new feature of Internet Explorer 8.

Larry

A good supposition.

We haven't had any other reports like this although there is always a chance that you are a trend setter. In general I would suggest deleting your temp files and cookies, restarting and seeing if that fixes the trouble. If it continues or we have more reports we'll try to develop a plan b. In the meantime I'm sorry that you are having trouble.

 

[ERD50]

If you quote a previous message, and then type your response inside that quotation, it will result in that message. For example,



Don't ask me how I know... The software assumes that you have added nothing original since there is nothing before or after the quote.

Hi Janet,

I've had it happen in 2 different posts just using quick reply. The latest one was the SS gap poll and I did have text in the box.

It failed several times before I shut down the forum session and then opened it back up and posted here.

After I posted here I went back to the SS gap thread and was able to post a reply. I was just wondering if anyone else had that problem.

Must be a new feature of Internet Explorer 8.

Larry

I'm pretty sure it is as W2R described. I have had it happen to me a time or two, thought I was going nuts, but yes, it was operator (me) error (of course, I may still be going nuts, but for other reasons).

Make sure you have actually added a line of text outside the quotes.


-ERD50

 

[JOHNNIE36]

Sometime back I requested to NOT have posts show up in my email messages. I still get the email messages but only from the thread "what did you do today". I've searched but cannot understand why I get those emails. I prefer NOT to receive these emails. Can you stop them? Thanks.

 

[Janet H]

You can change this in your account settings. Click on user cp on the upper nav bar to find menu options

Select 'edit options' and scroll down to see various settings for subscriptions and notifications. Once you have made your changes scroll all the way down and click 'save'.

 

[kumquat]

In this thread I read post 103. It was

Originally Posted by FIREdreamer
I do believe that atheists perform an act of faith by rejecting the existence of God because, objectively, the non-existence of God is as unproven as His existence (unless I missed something). The agnostic decides to remain open to both possibilities. To the question "Does God Exist?", theists will answer "yes", atheists "no" and agnostics "maybe". That's how I see things but I am no philosopher...

Ah, but most Christians are atheists--concerning the Hindu gods, the Homeric gods, and the hundreds of other gods of human theology. So, except for a few deists, Unitarians, and a few others with nonspecific and unexclusive views of what this supernatural entity might be, almost everyone is an atheist (with regard to most of tyhe proposed gods). As the atheist allegedly said to his Chrstian friend: "We're both atheists regarding hundreds of gods. I just reject one more than you do." __________________

I then pressed quote and the quoted text was longer

Ah, but most Christians are atheists--concerning the Hindu gods, the Homeric gods, and the hundreds of other gods of human theology. So, except for a few deists, Unitarians, and a few others with nonspecific and unexclusive views of what this supernatural entity might be, almost everyone is an atheist (with regard to most of the proposed gods). As the atheist allegedly said to his Chrstian friend: "We're both atheists regarding hundreds of gods. I just reject one more than you do."

I agree with FUEGO's approach. Many rationalists use the shorthand label "atheist" in common discussion, but would choose "agnostic" if engaged in a rigorous discussion that dealt with degree of observable evidence. For what it is worth, I think most atheists have given this subject (the existence of god) at least as much careful, critical thought as the average religious person has given it.

BTW, there's a good deal of debate among nonbelievers in how best to "come out of the closet" in a Christian/religious-dominated culture. Some favor a confrontational "we're not going to be quiet anymore, get your theology out of government, religion is killing hundreds of throusands of people every year" stance. Another faction sees this as counterproductive and instead want to emphasize that fact that lack of religious faith does not result in amorality and that atheists have made/continue to make many positive contributions to society. I'm in the second camp, but there are times (e.g. religiously-motivated mass killings) that should make everyone consider the impact of various beliefs--and the impact to society of giving people a pass for disregarding reason in favor of texts they believe to be the revealed word of a diety. Once we accept supernatural communication as a valid means of choosing an action, I don't know how we get to rule on which supernatural communications are valid and which are invalid.

Why didn't I see the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs in the original post?

 

[REWahoo]

In this thread I read post 103. It was
I then pressed quote and the quoted text was longer

Why didn't I see the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs in the original post?

Looks like Samclem edited the post to add the other paragraphs. You probably hit the quote button while he was doing this.

 

[kumquat]

Seems reasonable. If I look now I get it all.

Thanks