Abuse of my powers.

Well, no, actually, I’m just testing them.

Okay; edit the first post, and you have to re-type the subject. Interesting.

Hmmm. No, if you enter a subject in the first post on an edit, it’s just entered as the small-bold subject line.

And why don’t I see a “Edited by” message for that edit?

Alright, there it is. Good to know.

And during edit, it defaults to “no sig”. Note to self- if I need to edit a message, always see whether the sig is present before the edit.

[Edited by John Corrado on 10-12-2000 at 09:43 AM]

Oh, John! Abuse me next!
(What? He asked for it, didn’t he?- JMCJ)

(Huh. It’s still not necessarily giving me the “Edited by tag.” Why not?- JMCJ)

(Nope. Still not. Try it without “show signature” checked off.- JMCJ)

(Okay, get the tag, but now andros’ sig file is gone. Freaky weird.- JMCJ)

(And now they’re both there. Right. So Edit once, don’t sign; edit twice, sign. Boy, I’m glad there’s no flood control on the edit function.- JMCJ)

[Edited by John Corrado on 10-12-2000 at 10:28 AM]

I love the way John Corrado edits things.
He never changes much, just bleeps the naughty bits. :smiley:
[Edited by John Corrado on 10-14-2000 at 12:24 AM] **

Well done, John.

Now if you’ll just change my “Member” designation to “Mod Guinea Pig” I’ll be happy. :smiley:

Nice try, Fonz, but you forgot to delete the “end quote” tag :smiley:

And andros, John can’t do that… Only administrators have the power to do things affecting specific members, like banning and status changes.

Really? You mean if there’s a troll attack at 3:30 in the morning Chicago time, you’ve got to roust Little Ed out of the sack to do the banning?

This makes me nervous. What if ALL the administrators came down with Spanish Influenza at once?

Speaking of trolls, I was just posting at this thread


and now Outlaw2000 is banned and his sig is modified into an unlikely “confession”, presumably by the mods.
(“I am really Concrete. I lied to all of you.”)

How does this work? He wouldn’t really confess, would he? What would be the point? And all the posts under that name are too banal to offend a nun’s Aunt Bessy.

“Outlaw” is about the 20th screen name from this person. When we throw someone out for violation of our policies that’s not an invitation to get another screen name and come back and do it some more. In fact, that’s guaranteed not to endear that person to us further.

your humble TubaDiva

I’m not doubting you, but I can’t see how you connect one name to another. They seem so different. Is he like the last guy in the world with a fixed IP number? And what if someone else has the same fixed number? We had an explanation of that here recently, I recall.

He’s made no secret of it, here and elsewhere. Apparently bad attention is better than no attention at all and isn’t that sad?

Why do you think it’s okay for people to be a disruption on this board?

your humble TubaDiva

Don’t put words into my mouth OK? I never said or implied that!

I meerly asked how you knew, is all. Is that a crime now, too?

There seems to be some missing threads. Is that it? Did he say something outragous that we never saw?

TubaDiva- Same thing I told Eutychus55 -

um, ** Shake and bake **? I responded in a different thread. To quote it here, may make it appear that I have a different opinion than I expressed in the other thread.

This board belongs to the Chicago Reader, the Mods are here to enforce some very simple basic rules. I had no problem with that, a comment that was made in that other thread. they made the right call.

Sorry, I was answering questions on two forums.
I didn’t mean to quote out of context.

the other thread is here:


I guess they were both started at the same time.

Since this issue has been resolved in the other thread, this one will be closed as well.