ggh wrote:Doh! What mrob is seeing is pretty unreadable. I thought I was saying: […]
I think you should stick with what you have. I'm a very rare case, and if I want to read some proto-Beanish I can turn off my stylesheet (now that I know what's going on, that's an easy fix).
I was merely trying to point out that your serifed-dotless-i concern is moot because almost everyone is seeing a non-serif font, and therefore the dotless i, "ı" has no serifs anyway. I was led to think that you really do
care about browsers that override the forum's sans-serif font with some serifed alternative.
SBN wrote:Hey, here's a thought… Shouldn't there be a title for delurking? Revealer the Recent? (Of course, that's all of us, but I don't see the problem in that.)
Aha! So this is where that title came from. I'd figured it came from a span of my ketchup, and was impressed that it fit the OTTish culture so nicely.
In this case, as in many others, you could have consulted The OTTsford Molpish Dictionary
. For each distinct sense (meaning) of a word or phrase, I almost always cite the first instance of that usage.
OMD wrote:Revealer the Recent
: A title given to anyone who has been "lurking" for a while and "reveals" themselves by posting for the first time (see firstpost
). Shouldn't there be a title for delurking? Revealer the Recent? (Of course, that's all of us, but I don't see the problem in that.) (@SBN, OTT:1528:18)
@haircut74, Revealer the Recent! Awesomeful! Welcome (@Eternal Density, OTT:1727:22)
rmcurtis - Welcome! Name is vaguely familiar; are you a Revealer the Recent, or am I a Forgetter the Frequent? (@ucim, OTT:1841:31)
After the all-important first usage citation, I try to find additional examples that:
- clarify the meaning
- establish broader adoption (i.e. I quote different people when possible)
- expand the usage or meaning by being used in a different grammatical context
- document continued use by being 100NP or more after the previous example
I've noticed some oddness lately with the links we get from the little "document icon". One might check these links (all point to valid, non-deleted posts):
- @dreiarmumig, OTT:499:37, the antepengoat of 499
- @jjjdavidson, OTT:499:38, the pengoat of 499
- @StratPlayer, OTT:499:39, the goat of 499
- @jovialbard, OTT:500:0, the pope of 500
- @mlong, OTT:500:1, the cardinal of 500
All work as expected. But try these:
- @BlitzGirl, post 3612044, formerly pengoat but now antepengoat
- @HES, post 3612046, formerly goat but now pengoat
- @BlitzGirl, post 3612047, formerly mome but now goat
- @HES, post 3612048, formerly cardinal but now pope
- @mscha, post 3612049, formerly bishop but now cardinal
You'll find that most work as expected, except
the middle one (the second by @BlitzGirl
, i.e. the one that is now a goat, but formerly the mome of NP2000). It takes you to the top of NP2000 rather than (as it "should") the goat of 1999. The same sort of thing happens when clicking on that little tiny "document icon" on any goat.
For example, right now you can look at the end of the previous page
, and notice that the last post on the page is by @BlitzGirl
, starting with the text "Ketchup: Not as Tasty as Newpix / Newpage 1528 and 1529"
. It's the goat of the page. Click the little "document icon" on that post (i.e. the little tiny rectangle just to the left of "by BlitzGirl
" if your window is 701 pixels or wider, and otherwise is just to the left of "Wed Apr 13, 2016"), and it will take you to the top of the following page (i.e. the top of this page). But it shouldn't do that! It should just make it so that the window is scrolled down to a point such that the @BlitzGirl
post is right at the top of the window.
Due to this odd shenaniganism with goat links, I tend to believe that @Ebonite
's missing post OTT:1235:0
is still in the xkcd
botcastle somewhere, but is merely the victim of some internal server indexing m*stard.
Of course, it's also possible that @Ebonite
asked for it to be deleted… We are allowed to do that, after all.— mrob27