Scots Taffer on 28/5/2004 at 14:48
Well how did you do it? Make the post then edit it? I tried that but it doesn't work.
edit: ah, I see... you put the full /img stuff in.
Shevers on 28/5/2004 at 15:54
Quote Posted by David
It is a default and we will probably change it, but I am currently enjoying the lack of "LOL" ":thumb:" and ":laff:" replies from some people.
lol! :thumb: :laff:
jer on 28/5/2004 at 17:14
<a href="this does not exist"></a>
Crion on 28/5/2004 at 17:25
Quote Posted by doctorfrog
Smiley-posts add nothing to anything.
Perhaps but what about the shifty eyes?! They add EVERYTIHNG.
Quote Posted by Gingerbread Man
Word.
The lack of LOL :thumb: is very pleasing to me, as well.
You should block lol as you did goat<small></small>se.
<small>Not that people couldn't get around either but still...</small>
ignatios on 29/5/2004 at 13:50
�����
edit: I guess that answers the null character (&#00;) question.
zombe on 29/5/2004 at 15:01
!<kufjhgfjhgfjhg>
zombe on 29/5/2004 at 15:05
The limit is pointless imho.
henke on 29/5/2004 at 18:07
Quote Posted by doctorfrog
What a great, curmudgeony addition! I say keep it, or make it even higher. Smiley-posts add nothing to anything. It'll do until someone invents a "say something meaningful, dammit!" filter for new posts.
You're just bitter coz you never get any smiley posts directed at you. :cheeky:
Oh wait, I dont either. :(
BOO FOR SMILEY AND LOL POSTS! BOO!
zombe on 30/5/2004 at 15:47
Hm... 5 char limit still present :(
Am i the only one who doesn't like it?
And how is it supposed to help against :), LOL posts?
Instead of postin a LOL as a new post - we will see now whole quote ... which is even more annioning. Besides, this limitation looks like a pseudo solution to a questionally present problem.
Limitations are generally a bad thing - especially when they don't do any good.
[hm, it's prety hard to make a below 5 leter reply ... but - i WANT that freedom !]
zombe on 30/5/2004 at 15:50
:)<grrrrr>
