Charles Anthony

To Big Guy - It is only a suggestion. I respect anybody's choice to reject it. Far be it for me to tell anybody what they should or should not get out of participating here in the forums. I pre-judge messengers too. However, I read them all and I am always surprised by the most unlikely messengers. I do not read the forums for the purposes of picking and chosing who to ignore. That is your prerogative. The decision to merge a thread is purely subjective. In some instances, multiple threads are left apart if there is reason to believe the reader would be confused following a merger. That is judged to not be the case here. This is a very good discussion and you all bring a lot of good testimony to the table. I do not see how the time lapse takes anything away from that. In this particular case, there is a clear break in all time-lines of the initial threads. That is the 1st thing I seek before all others. After that, I judge whether the topics are related enough. Nobody is "forced to read through" anything here. All posts are still displayed in chronological order and the page jumping links still work.

All of the threads have been merged.

You are wrong. I combined the threads. --- because they were all of the same topic. That is the policy and custom here. All posts are date-stamped. There is no barrier to continuing your recent addition to the discussion. I suggest focussing on the merit of a message rather than formulating prejudice towards the messenger.

-- because they do not want anybody to see them logged in. No more and no less.

Guys, Stop feeding thread drift. Ch. A.

Guys, Stop feeding the thread drift. Ch. A.

Guys, Stop the thread drift. Ch. A.

Folks, I am temporarily locking this thread so that you may stare at your own words a little longer to see how toxic this discussion has become. There is too much trolling with personal attacks destroying this discussion. Ch. A.

Let us call a spade a spade. You want it to be easier to take somebody's words out of context. I do not believe the lack of word-wrap in a plain-text editor represents anything is broken. That is how coding windows SHOULD work. I have no idea why the word wrapping no longer exists in the simple editor. [similarly, I have no idea why MicroSoft8.1 is more difficult to turn on and off than Dos3.1 ever was.] I have my unsupported suspicions that I can not prove but I am comfortable with them. I believe it has to do with exogenous internet "security" more than anything else. Send me a PM and I will be glad to tell you more privately. Frankly, I do not see it as a problem. Ctrl-C and Ctrl-P still work for me except on my MacBookPro which only has 1 Ctrl- button on the bottom left --- I prefer it on the right. I see text running off the side of my browser windows all of the time on the internet. The paralysis some of you folks are having with this is bizarre. This is nothing more than elementary algebra applied to words. Surely to goodness, this is not the only place on the net where you have had to deal with words running off the side of a page. I learned to type on an old-fashioned type-writer wherein I had to lift 5 fingers --- not any 5, mind you; they had to be on the same hand! --- to solve this problem. When I got frustrated with that challenge, the typewriter fell off the table! Exactly. Switch from this editor to that editor, copy and paste the coding,The need to copy-paste the opening and closing quotes has always been there from the start. That is not changed. Can we all at least agree to recognize that as fact?? That is a serious question because if we can not agree on that fact, the problem lies elsewhere. Funny how a decade ago when there was NEVER even the semblance of a WYSIWIG editor, nobody complained and more than enough people were able to master copy-pasting successfully to suggest the problem is with the user. You are not obligated to use the extra tools available to you if you can not handle them. The old tools still work --- minus the word wrap. Personally, I like the extra tools. They make it easier to change the font and insert hyperlinks. Before, I had to copy-paste to change the font. Now, I just have to click buttons. Word wrap makes no sense in a coding window anyway. It should not have been there from the start. If people intend to take somebody's words out of context, it should not be flippantly easy to execute. If you can not handle the logic of coding, then you have no business expecting the tools of coding to work for you in your quest to change the publication of somebody else's words. The automatic embedding of quotes within quotes was turned off because too many people were lazily abusing it. As such, it made it difficult for folks to learn the logic of coding --- i.e., opening and closing of quotes copy-pasta -- by seeing the example of those who understand it. The newer versions of the software try to make a best guess when people fail to open or close a quote properly in their code. The alternative is worse when people submitted illogical code.

That is correct but you are half-way there. Now, you have to fulfill the second half of my instruction: ------- The following code: [quote name="Charles Anthony" post="1040520" timestamp="1426973230"] I understand how the lack of word-wrapping can make that more difficult. I suggest you break up the quote in the [b]Full Editor[/b] window [/quote] yadda yadda yadda [quote name="Charles Anthony" post="1040520" timestamp="1426973230"] [size=6]and then click back to the good old-fashioned editor [color=#ff0000]to copy-paste the opening and closing quotes[/color] just like we had to do before.[/size] [/quote] blah blah blahwill appear thusly: yadda yadda yadda blah blah blahLine 3. is the closing quote. Line 13. is the opening quote copy-pasted manually into the code using the old-fashioned-same-as-it-has-always-been-for-at-least-a-decade-minus-the-word-wrap-issue editing window. Lines 5. to 12. inclusive represent 9 carriage returns. Lines 4. and 16. are my thoughtful contributions to the discussion.

Correct. That is how you do it. Correct. There is no automatic function that allows you to take somebody's writing out of context and there never was. In this regard, nothing has changed. Maybe that will be possible in the future but not yet.

Actually, I have trouble breaking up the quote in the full editor.Place your cursor where you want the line break to occur. Press the Enter/Return key. SIGH Now I am even more confused because you just did what you said you have trouble doing. You clearly are able to do it --- you just do not know it. Your line break follows my words "...and then" in what you quoted above.

I understand how the lack of word-wrapping can make that more difficult. I suggest you break up the quote in the Full Editor window and then click back to the good old-fashioned editor to copy-paste the opening and closing quotes just like we had to do before. I suggest that everybody changes their Options (top-right button; looks like a cloud with a red rocket) in the Full Editor window to select Paste as plain text by default and Clear my saved content. As far as the Multi-Quote feature is concerned, click on the Multi-Quote button associated with each post to which you want to reply.

I am unsure of what you want to do. I will take a guess but if I am wrong, please be more specific and provide a link to an example of what you want to achieve, if possible. Here is my guess. You want to do something like this: snarky comment drive-by retort clever rejoinder something or... ...other. personal attack thread derail BREAK UP CLOSE THAT QUOTE whatever Is the above the sort of display you want to create? I did 2 different things. I used the Multi-Quote feature to automatically string all of those quotes in 1 post and I manually BROKE UP 1 quote.

FACEPALM Clearly, some of you guys are confused. That is the Full Editor. If you see all of the codes then you are NOT in the Full Editor but rather, you are in the old-fashioned editor.

I see it happenning to me once in a while too. The solution is to use the Full Editor feature where the word-wrapping stays within the text box.

The 2 posts have been merged. If that was not your intention, please clarify. Au contraire. The forum software allows you to do it easier with the multi-quote feature. I still find it easier to copy-paste the old-fashioned way which the software still allows.

Forgive me but she was asked many times to offer explanations for her cluttered idea. Her idea is not very good and that much should be obvious on the face of it. She is asking for the forum to be a structural and aesthetic mess. Is this how you want it to appear? I think it looks cluttered and silly. I just do not see the point. My suggestion of tagging posts related to women would address your new concern over search engines. What is next? research sub-forums for the disabled, homosexuals and orphans? Cultural sensitivity sub-forums too for the above groups? The list of sub-forums could be endless. It is better to tag your own posts which you can already do.

-- because she is avoiding saying what she wants people to do. Understanding her point is actually irrelevent if only she would say what physical changes she wants made to the forum. Nobody needs to understand her point if she gave clear instructions that could be followed.

You can do it through the Full Editor feature. Click edit the Opening Post and that should open the Quick editor by default. Click on the Use Full Editor option under the text box. From there, you will be able to edit your topic title. No but it would help if you state explicitly what actions you need/want us guys to take. What changes do you want? You have yet to state exactly what you want us to do. I do not understand it anymore. If you want changes that optimize search engine recognition of "women in politics" here at MLW then perhaps every time there is a post that is related to "women in politics" you could report it to us and we could add a "women in politics" tag to it. It would be extra work but we could do it. Is that the sort of action you want us to take? If so, you can start doing that now and we will add those tags. If that's too specific to women than you guys are on your own.No, we are not. There already are women who participate in the forum and there always were. Until you state your request in the form of an actionable directive or a clear order, you are on our own. HINT: "Make fire!" and "Bring food!" and "Mow the lawn!" and "Take out the trash!" are clear orders. Whereas none of these are actionable directives: "I am cold..." and "Are you hungry?" and "Maybe we need to re-do the landscaping...hmmm..." and "Something is starting to stink in here!"

Guys, Stop the personal attacks. Ch. A.

Guys, Please avoid posting personal attacks. I deleted a handful of posts that were nothing more than detractions. Ch. A.

"If it quacks like a duck, barks like a dog and talks back to you, you choose: engage or run away!" Now what did I do?You are guilty of feeding trolls and thread drift!! You stepped 6 degrees of separation too close to the fray!!!! BRING ON THE BAN HAMMER!! Youre right, there is no debate on CBC, you lose,move on.It certainly sounds like there is a debate. Regardless, you guys are engaging in thread drift. Here is a challenge: Someone start a thread discussion or a poll debating this issue. Put up or shut up. Seriously, guys. Can you not all lighten up? It is a great topic of debate. As a spectator, I would enjoy reading you guys lock horns over this topic. How odd that none of you have stepped up to start a topic. No. That would be useless because a consensus is unnecessary. It is none of anybody's business to be labelling anybody other than oneself. For what it may be worth, I consider myself to be both a racist and a bigot too. The public expression of my thoughts along those themes is illegal. So what? There's posters here that would disagree about the sky being blue too.That seems to be the million dollar question. How much of your effort would you expend arguing the color of the sky? I will bet $2 that you would likely ignore, move on and forget somebody who argued the color of the sky. Neither do I but unfortunately, most people can not intelligently define most of the words they use, share and automatically presume to be in 100% agreement without hiding circularity behind rhetoric. Human nature is astoundingly bizarre in that way. I think it gives rise to a lot of modern humor. No. It does not matter. What matters is how to deal with trolling --- that is the true dispute but you knew that already. How Greg wants us to deal with trolling here at MLW renders the definiton of Trolling™ moot. TRANSLATION: You want the world to believe I am biased and playing favorites here to the detriment of the quality of the discussions. Is that it? If so, I acknowledge your perspective but I disagree. Like? Like who? LOL I "like" everybody here --- equally, that is. ... but how much are you willing to bet? If the price is right, I might take you up on it. Come on, everybody trolls each other a bit. I enjoy reading disagreements over core values and you all do a good job of making your stands heard. I see value in 99% of everybody's posts. I just wished you all were a little more cordial and clear. I do not believe so but I am willing to agree with you but on 2 conditions: 1) You follow what I already said up above: 2) You ignore whatever and whoever you believe to be trolling. What is it that is supposed to be seen as problematic? There are 2 different disputes here that are being conflated: 1) theee definition of Trolling™ --- like as if it matters; 2) the proper way of handling Trolling™ whenever it is suspected. For some strange reason, many of you seem fixated on defining Trolling™ --- like as if it matters. You guys do not get it: there is no need for any of us to pursue consensus on what constitutes trolling and what does not. We need only agree on HOW TO HANDLE presumed trolling: ignore it and do not respond in kind. At its core, this whole dispute is reduced to a disagreement upon this tenet: Ignore the troll and he will go away. For what it may be worth, if you ignore ANYBODY(troll or otherwise) he will likely go away too. Just a thought. I believe I know why this dispute exists. Some of you want a bit of trolling-leeway for yourselves. Obsession with defining Trolling™ is a diversion from reality: you all disagree on stuff quite vehemently and it terrifies you to have to handle such disputes in real life. A lot of your rhetoric would quickly lead to fisticuffs if spoken face to face. If I try to imagine the discussions being cartoon scripts, I would be disappointed if there were no slap-stick scenes --- like, all of the time. You all know it is impossible for everybody to agree on a universally-accepted ordained-by-God definition of Trolling™ and so, you foment a perpetual diversion. Subconsciously, you guys are your own controlled opposition.

No. I did not instruct anybody to ignore the issue. Please, please start an independent thread discussion and bring this dispute to the fore-front. Air it out some place else. The problem is thread drift.

Guys, Please avoid the thread drift. Ch. A.