View Full Version : new forum glitch

Paul Pless
03-09-2006, 04:28 PM
What's up with the evolution thread? Is it locked? How do you lock a thread? or is it just broken? Does this foretend the end of the forum again? Does Scot know?

[ 03-09-2006, 04:29 PM: Message edited by: Paul Pless ]

Uncle Duke
03-09-2006, 04:29 PM
See the thread titled "Regarding..."
Still no answer on how you close a thread though. I guess you email Scot?

Uncle Duke
03-09-2006, 04:38 PM
Dang. Apparently SamF's "break the close" method actually works.

just post a bunch of short posts until the next page pops up. It's just a nuisance - nothing more, but is indicative of how "free" speech is honored here. ... indicative of how people don't honor the person who started a thread, I would have suggested. They could have started their own thread, but prefered to hijack the existing one, I guess.

Uncle Duke
03-09-2006, 04:45 PM
"Anti free speech"?
If you put a soapbox in the park and allow other people to stand on it, you don't give up the right to take your soapbox home at night.
Those other people can always get their own soapbox and continue.

Oh, wait... that was a joke. I get it.

[ 03-09-2006, 04:47 PM: Message edited by: Uncle Duke ]

Keith Wilson
03-09-2006, 04:55 PM
Not an oversight at all; I was trying to close the thread with an HTML trick, since we can't close threads officially any more. I don't know much about HTML, but another member graciously told me about it. Of course, if anyone still wanted to discuss the subject, they could have opened another thread. Ah, well . . .

Uncle Duke
03-09-2006, 04:56 PM
WB owns the soapbox, not us. Interesting way to look at it, and certainly supportable. I would have said that WB owns the park, and people bring their own soapboxes.

[ 03-09-2006, 04:57 PM: Message edited by: Uncle Duke ]

03-09-2006, 05:01 PM
IIRC, Scot removed the self-delete feature cause someone was digging up old threads, trashing them, then removing themselves from the scene.

Memphis Mike
03-09-2006, 05:11 PM
Originally posted by Donn:
It wasn't a joke. WB stopped letting thread starters delete their threads because WB owns the soapbox, not us.It kinda stopped the shotgun threats too didn't it, Donn?

Paul Pless
03-09-2006, 08:09 PM
I'd be willing to bet that Scot will put a stop to the function that allows people to effectively lock up those threads. Either that or its use will become widespread in the bilge and people will start getting Scotted.

03-10-2006, 08:37 AM
Originally posted by Donn:
Keith closed the page by using an HTML iFrame tag, and not closing the tag. I assume it was an oversight, because I can't believe he'd purposely try to close the thread. That would be so anti-free speech.This from someone who went on to do the same thing himself, not being, however, the originator of the thread, and not having shown any interest whatsoever in the discussion...

P.I. Stazzer-Newt
03-10-2006, 08:41 AM
George, one small point.

Joe (CSOH) - said "Thank You" to Donn, for that.

Were you a newby here, you might not understand that, so I'll say it again.
Joe (CSOH) - said "Thank You" to Donn, for that.

So exactly how wrong was it?

Joe (SoCal)
03-10-2006, 08:49 AM
smile.gif Grinning and posting from my phone from the 84 dinner. Having some Belgian waffels yum :D

P.I. Stazzer-Newt
03-10-2006, 08:51 AM
Donn, I freely admit to knowing about the effects - discovered by accident some time ago, and that I would be happy enough to see that thread sink, vanish or return to serious discussion.

But the Bickering Troll, aided and abetted by a selection of fools, will neither leave it alone nor discuss things seriously.

**** happens.

Billy Bones
03-10-2006, 09:11 AM
If Scot disallows html tags on account of such nonsense, I'll be quite angry.

P.I. Stazzer-Newt
03-10-2006, 09:45 AM
Originally posted by Donn:
If you see it happen again, simply type /iframe enclosed in <>, in a post. That will reopen the page.Unless of course....