Do you think nested quotes should be automatically removed?

[q_q_]

I am leaving my signature as it is until election day here in America and at that point I will leave only the lighthouse and my original tag line that I had since the original JTF Forum. I will try to shrink the lighthouse to the mandated pixel size then. I didn't realize it was causing such a distraction. Now days I read more than I post anyhow so its only one or two posts a day until then.

sounds good

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

I like the new smileys.   

I don't. but I accept that the majority of people like it.

I prefer the old puritane smiley-schemas.

I agree with you pheasant.

[Shlomo]

They are easy to change.

Click on "USER CP" on the top

Go to "Look & Layout Options"

Change "Current Smiley Set" to whatever you like the most.

[muman613]

My 2 cents worth...

I think that Shlomo made a good decision. I noticed that people were quoting and sub-quoting the same thing over and over. It makes no sense to include the whole post in every post which just concerns one or two paragraphs in the original posting. I have tried, in the past, to edit out the parts which are not essential to make my point.

I know you try to avoid confrontation so there's little point in me telling you this..

but if when it happens, you too can help correct people regarding this.  Tell them they have quoted a load of unnecessary things and to snip appropriately, then that would be good.

I like smileys and I am not a youngster by any means.

I said it was about kid-like minds.  You are quite mature-minded but I guess it's possible that maybe you have bad episodes sometimes.  I haven't seen you using smileys very often though.

The smiley thing is not terrible though.

You do have a rather large sig.  About 13 lines.

Shlomo mentioned a sig of about 5 lines max. 

I don't understand why people read this thread and continue posting in it with LONG signatures after it was already been mentioned.

It's not that long.. But it is significantly long, and unnecessarily long.
you can easily get your message across - that your nick is muman613, with regular sized letters and not ascii art.

<snip>

q_q_,

I avoid confrontation when no confrontation is required. Of course there is a time to stand up for what is right. But I am surprised you are so concerned with signatures. I do not know the internals of the forum code but I would be willing to bet that a signature does not take up space in the database like quoting did. I suspect this because when I change my signature in the control panel, it changes in all posts I make. This leads me to suspect that the signatures are output by the PHP code which sends the HTML to the browser. I have written some PHP code of my own and know how this works.

So if it is not that it takes up space in the posting database why should we be so worried about how big our signature is? And I will agree with you that sometimes peoples signatures are too big. My sig at 13 lines is not so bad. I think the ASCII art sends a message of its own. In this day and age when everything is all graphics I want to say that ASCII art is still alive

I will certainly take your suggestion to moderate when people over-use the quoting feature and suggest that the poster modify their post to reduce the verbiage.

Thank you,
muman613

[Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks]

I have to disagree with you, q_q. This new feature saves a ton of time and effort and makes it harder to accidentally mistype a quoting posts.

[Shlomo]

Perhaps we should set up a poll and vote.

[Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks]

Shlomo, I urge you not to change it. The previous way was extremely messy and led to countless messed-up quote posts.

[q_q_]

<snip>

I avoid confrontation when no confrontation is required. Of course there is a time to stand up for what is right. But I am surprised you are so concerned with signatures. I do not know the internals of the forum code but I would be willing to bet that a signature does not take up space in the database like quoting did. I suspect this because when I change my signature in the control panel, it changes in all posts I make. This leads me to suspect that the signatures are output by the PHP code which sends the HTML to the browser. I have written some PHP code of my own and know how this works.

So if it is not that it takes up space in the posting database why should we be so worried about how big our signature is? And I will agree with you that sometimes peoples signatures are too big. My sig at 13 lines is not so bad. I think the ASCII art sends a message of its own. In this day and age when everything is all graphics I want to say that ASCII art is still alive

I will certainly take your suggestion to moderate when people over-use the quoting feature and suggest that the poster modify their post to reduce the verbiage.

Thank you,
muman613

a) You overquoted yourself.  You even quoted things about smilies that you didn't refer to

b) The thing about signature size is not because of Megabytes.  Or the posting database. It's because it means the threads get longer than they need to be. A thread that should be 3 pages can become 6 in an extreme case.

I also like the message of ascii art over modern images, and modenr images over animated gifs. Technical Minimalism when that is all that is required.  

But not at the expense of an elongated sig.

Shlomo himself mentioned a sig length of max 5 lines.

[Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks]

But nobody has made an issue of Muman's sig but you.

[q_q_]

Shlomo, I urge you not to change it. The previous way was extremely messy and led to countless messed-up quote posts.

CF, you never had much need for good quoting because you never really got into any deep discussions.

ps: note your signature.  This is the point of this thread.

[Ulli]

They are easy to change.

Click on "USER CP" on the top

Go to "Look & Layout Options"

Change "Current Smiley Set" to whatever you like the most.

Yes this is true.

But if I use the old type of smilies, the others see the new one (if they choose so).

  is not =

and

  is not =

I think the new ones express extreme feelings.

[q_q_]

But nobody has made an issue of Muman's sig but you.

See page1,  Shlomo said, not in reference to any one specifically, but a general point that applies to everybody.  Including you and Muman of course.

"There can be no more than 1 image, 1000 words (I thought this was PLENTY) and no more than 5 lines in signatures. Obviously, it will not effect current signatures but once a person tries to change them, it will then enforce the new rules."

And he mentioned about big pictures in signatures too.

[Rubystars]

I think if you want to be sure what others see, you could use the img tag to attach them, that way people will see what you intend.



I think this one's funny.

mysmiley.net has a lot of good ones

[q_q_]

if I use the old type of smilies, the others see the new one (if they choose so).

  is not =

and

  is not =

I think the new ones express extreme feelings.

yes well if you're imbuing your posts with that much meaning coming from smilies then it suggests that the message you are projecting isn't very serious anyway. Or that you aren't able to put it into words, which is not reality. You're extremely intelligent.

Nevertheless, if you insist on relying on smilies like that, you could do textual smilies with spaces so they don't convert. Like ; - )   or  whatever. And look for ways to cover a range of emotions .   But expecting to rely on flexibility with the latest smilies to convey your message is just ridiculous.

[Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks]

CF, you never had much need for good quoting because you never really got into any deep discussions.

HaRav Meir David Kahane (zt"l): Those who do not debate, defame.

ps: note your signature.  This is the point of this thread.

Funny, you'd think that if it was a problem, an admin would have told me...

[Rubystars]

yes well if you're imbuing your posts with that much meaning coming from smilies then it suggests that the message you are projecting isn't very serious anyway. Or that you aren't able to put it into words, which is not reality. You're extremely intelligent.

Sometimes it's hard to convey something like tone of voice in written form. That's why smileys help a lot. Also they help to emphasize things, like if you're angry you could post 

[q_q_]

CF, As I said. See Page1, Shlomo told everybody softly without pointing fingers.

It's very explicit.  You may need somebody to hit you over the head with a bat before you get the point.  

You are intentionally behaving more stupid than you are, by misquoting layers of quotes. (I refer to your post 2 above this one) 

This is NOT a deep discussion.

You are not able to get into deep discussions anyway.

There is no need here for you to even attempt using layers of quotes. Which you intentionally mangled here. 

You yourself say it's easy to get it wrong. So don't do it.

Quote the person you are replying to, and write your response below it.

Don't mangle it intentionally , especially not so mischievously as you have here, in an argument where you are saying you are against the layers of quotes even being an option.

There are many here, like KahaneBT and myself,  that do get into deep logical discussions, and do use layers of quotes. 

You have no use for them. So don't use them

[Dr. Dan]

CF, As I said. See Page1, Shlomo told everybody softly without pointing fingers.

It's very explicit.  You may need somebody to hit you over the head with a bat before you get the point.  

You are intentionally behaving more stupid than you are, by misquoting layers of quotes. (I refer to your post 2 above this one) 

This is NOT a deep discussion.

You are not able to get into deep discussions anyway.

There is no need here for you to even attempt using layers of quotes. Which you intentionally mangled here. 

You yourself say it's easy to get it wrong. So don't do it.

Quote the person you are replying to, and write your response below it.

Don't mangle it intentionally , especially not so mischievously as you have here, in an argument where you are saying you are against the layers of quotes even being an option.

There are many here, like KahaneBT and myself,  that do get into deep logical discussions, and do use layers of quotes. 

You have no use for them. So don't use them

ok ok break it up...break it up!

[Shlomo]

For the record, I really want people to be able to show their creativity and give their account the image and feel that they want. It adds a lot of color and life to the forum and makes things more exciting. And most signatures are actually alright. The reason I placed any restrictions at all on signatures was only because some of our members (who have much smaller screens, slow internet connections, mobile devices, etc) had problems with some of the larger pictures and I want everyone to be able to participate. I think this is fair to those members and I want them to be able to post too.

It's always a very tough challenge to decide where the boundaries should be. And I know the forum is undergoing a lot of changes and upgrades but I'm only trying my very best to help us become a mass movement. I know it's not always easy but I think things are starting to look a lot more professional and will attract many new members.

[q_q_]

CF, As I said. See Page1, Shlomo told everybody softly without pointing fingers.
<snip>

You have no use for them. So don't use them

ok ok break it up...break it up!

Dan. This is quite a serious discussion..  Not something for you to run in and try to divert the subject, it could just cause more repetition, and that would be worse.

This is clearly an important thing that deserves attention.  layers of quotes are important to many users.

And those that have no use for them can avoid using them.

[Rubystars]

Shlomo I think when the chat is ready and you're able to officially release it that it will encourage more visitors to actually participate which will help us a lot. Some people don't like message boards but will enjoy the chat feature. You're doing so much in such a short period of time. I think it will make a big difference.

[Ulli]

I think if you want to be sure what others see, you could use the img tag to attach them, that way people will see what you intend.



I think this one's funny.

mysmiley.net has a lot of good ones

Thank you ruby

[Rubystars]

you're welcome!

[Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks]

CF, As I said. See Page1, Shlomo told everybody softly without pointing fingers.

It's very explicit.  You may need somebody to hit you over the head with a bat before you get the point.  

You are intentionally behaving more stupid than you are, by misquoting layers of quotes. (I refer to your post 2 above this one) 

This is NOT a deep discussion.

You are not able to get into deep discussions anyway.

There is no need here for you to even attempt using layers of quotes. Which you intentionally mangled here. 

You yourself say it's easy to get it wrong. So don't do it.

Quote the person you are replying to, and write your response below it.

Don't mangle it intentionally , especially not so mischievously as you have here, in an argument where you are saying you are against the layers of quotes even being an option.

There are many here, like KahaneBT and myself,  that do get into deep logical discussions, and do use layers of quotes. 

You have no use for them. So don't use them

While I would personally contest whether pages of NK-apology (stating that they aren't really Israel-hating Holocaust-deniers, that they only met with Ahmadinejad and David Duke to make their "voice heard", etc.) really qualifies as "deep logical discussion"), or whether Shlomo intended hidden meanings that nobody else seems to be able to find, those things are besides the point. Believe it or not, I didn't mangle that quote-post (now edited) intentionally. It was a complete mistake on my part--I accidentally omitted the backslash for the first quote that you made. In fact, I only proved my case by making this typing error: I demonstrated how insanely easy it is to mess up a quotation--even a very simple one--with one omission. Therefore, anything that makes it easier for people to cite quotes from other posters on this forum is a good thing, and anything that doesn't makes it more difficult to quickly and correctly cite other posts in a "logical debate". Wouldn't you say?

[q_q_]

yes well if you're imbuing your posts with that much meaning coming from smilies then it suggests that the message you are projecting isn't very serious anyway. Or that you aren't able to put it into words, which is not reality. You're extremely intelligent.

Sometimes it's hard to convey something like tone of voice in written form. That's why smileys help a lot. Also they help to emphasize things, like if you're angry you could post 

if women just kept to one tone of voice(a normal pleasant one, not too high), men would be much happier!

Robocop managed fine with one tone of voice. You could see when he was sad or confident..

Fact is, you can write in that you're angry or sad.  In my post about Amona I think it was quote obvious I was sad. One just has to use choose the words that represent what they are trying to convey.