|
Post by ilylo on May 26, 2008 20:16:30 GMT -5
May I suggest that when you quote your opponent merely by using green text that you also place that same text in bold so that it stands out a little easier?
Otherwise, I would suggest the actual quote feature.
</$0.02>
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on May 27, 2008 1:01:41 GMT -5
Is the green hard to read, ilylo? I could have used red, I guess! Sorry, thx for the hint.
I don't use the quote because I don't write them on-line. I write them in Word and cut-and-paste.
|
|
|
Post by Rob O on May 27, 2008 1:18:07 GMT -5
Dc,
If you like I will bold the quotes for you or change the colour. Just let me know.
|
|
|
Post by Star Welters on May 27, 2008 7:07:24 GMT -5
i write them out in word as well. i used the green because the bible cut-and-paste from bible.com was red. Rob O. thank you for changing that Matt 28 ref in my introduction. could i also get a hand with the spelling of "concordance" in my second?
|
|
|
Post by Rob O on May 27, 2008 7:25:10 GMT -5
SW, in what paragraph or under which heading can I find "concordance"? My eyes are tired and I just don't see it. Thx.
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on May 27, 2008 9:44:32 GMT -5
Rob, maybe it would be nice to change it. Is it a colorblindness issue? What colors are better than green? I'm not too smart about this stuff.
|
|
|
Post by Star Welters on May 27, 2008 11:16:20 GMT -5
[/u] and verify this yourself, noting that the ones I've left out obviously are reference to the Father)[/quote]
5th paragraph from the bottom.
|
|
|
Post by Star Welters on May 27, 2008 11:16:46 GMT -5
Rob, are you color blind?
|
|
|
Post by Rob O on May 27, 2008 17:54:48 GMT -5
Spelling has been corrected. Nope, I'm not colourblind but that's a good point. My understanding is that it commonly results in being unable to distinguish between red and green. As long as the colour is distinguishable from black it shouldn't matter though? However, that is my uninformed opinion. I might have a look into it a bit more.
|
|
|
Post by ilylo on May 27, 2008 22:09:11 GMT -5
When I read text, I go very quickly and it is helpful to have the visual cues, such as bold (or even the quote feature itself). Having to decipher the color slows me down. When I am digging through a large amount of text, which is common in the debate board, it would be helpful to have a greater visual difference between your text and that of your opponents so that meaning is not misconstrued.
Thanks for hearing out this suggestion.
|
|
|
Post by Rob O on May 27, 2008 23:04:44 GMT -5
Ok. As an experiment, I altered the formatting of DC's last response. If this is simple to read and if you guys agree I will alter all the posts accordingly. Secondly, it's easy to do in Word when you're doing your writing. Just add the quote tags either side so it copies-and-pastes straight over.
|
|
|
Post by Star Welters on May 28, 2008 17:59:47 GMT -5
I like the look of your alterations Robo. You are welcome to alter mine in the same manner if it suits your fancy.
|
|
|
Post by Rob O on May 30, 2008 23:08:51 GMT -5
It's been difficult to edit the formatting because in many cases quotes are single lines incorporated in a larger body of text, so to add the quote tags would break up the post too much. All I've done is bold several green comments in one of SW's posts.
|
|
|
Post by pianoman on Nov 28, 2008 1:28:14 GMT -5
Maybe I am not following the thread, but when we have discussion with another and we don't agree with them, do they really become "OPPONENTS?"
I would rather look at those I don't agree with, in most cases, as fellow humans that I respect, but don't necessarily agree with.
SO that I am with the thread, I shall not post in green LOL!!
Pianoman
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2008 10:25:22 GMT -5
Maybe I am not following the thread, but when we have discussion with another and we don't agree with them, do they really become "OPPONENTS?" I would rather look at those I don't agree with, in most cases, as fellow humans that I respect, but don't necessarily agree with. SO that I am with the thread, I shall not post in green LOL!! Pianoman Pianoman, this section was once the debate section of the TMB. That's why the terminology of "opponent" was used in those old posts. This section is being held open for workers who may wish to answer questions in a non-combative environment. Effectively, none have become engaged here. Some have been specifically invited and declined.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Dec 16, 2008 10:53:49 GMT -5
Hey pianoman! About: Pianoman, this section was once the debate section of the TMB. That's why the terminology of "opponent" was used in those old posts.I just bumped the 3 debates back to the top if you'd like to read through them. You will notice I soundly thrashed Gene in our very needed and extremely exciting debate..... Scott
|
|
|
Post by degem on Dec 16, 2008 11:48:46 GMT -5
I know people, I am guilty of sidetracking-I was wondering-what happened to Rob? I miss him.
|
|