Top left of the quote box. Between the “guided mode” radio button and the “font” drop down box.
Or in the “Quick Reply” box it is immediately above the top left corner of the reply box.
Are you putting me on? I’m in the quote box right now, above it is the Title box, and above that is a blue line saying “Reply to Thread” and the thread title, and above that are the menus. No radio buttons or drop down boxes.
Go to your User Control Panel, select “Options”, and under “Message Editor Interface”, select “Standard Editor - Extra Formatting Controls.”
You should now have various formatting buttons like bold, italic, etc.
Huh. I must have disabled that long ago and forgotten it ever existed.
I would bold only the username itself. Consider, for example, the possibility that some SDMB member has a username which already ends in apostrophe-s (I don’t think I’ve ever seen this, but it’s a possibility). Given that such a possibility exists, the convention to bold the username but not the possessive suffix is necessary to eliminate ambiguity.
If there was such a person (e.g., if there was a handle such as John’s), then you would run into the rule about adding possessives to words that already end in an “s”. Usually, if the “s” is pronounced like “z”, you don’t add another “s” – so “Chronos’s name” but “Giles’ name”. So the possessive form of John’s would be: John’s’
– but that’s just awful in its ambiguity, and you would really want to rewrite to avoid it.
My. lord, is this what it’s come to?
A possessive noun, apostrophe and all, is a noun in the possessive case – a unit, regardless of spaces, symbols, and other irrelevancies. Yes, the entire thing should be in boldface.
But a proper noun (heh) does not invite apostrophes and stray consonants into its den for wild parties. Boldface (in this case) is for marking posters’ usernames; yours doesn’t become “Nametag’s” when you possess something.
A nugget of golden sense amidst the dross. Nametag’s post is a thing of beauty.
CoMe
again ?
Cartooniverse
Some linguists argue that the possessive “'s” in Modern English is an enclitic rather than a declined ending; i.e., not a unit.
coffeecat’s $.02
I’m not one of them. The possessive 's behaves very differently from other examples of enclitics, and doesn’t follow most definitions of the term.
Besides enclitic is a term ripped off of Greek grammar and the general rule in English is to ignore what parts of speech do in originating grammars to emphasize what actually happens in English. Just as in splitting an infinititive was considered wrong because infinites can’t be split in Latin. That’s the worst possible rule.
http://www.classicalmyth.com/greek/enclitics.html
This is not applicable to English.
Speaking from a typographer’s point of view, bold, italics and underlining are normally carried thru to the bitter end of a word, including following punctuation. The reasoning behind it is that if a word were italicized and some punctuation marks following were not, it could cause a physical clash of character space that is so easily avoided.
Example: word! word! word? <-- works OK
word! word? <-- clashes in some fonts and spacings
And while boldface and underlining doesn’t have the slant problem of italics, it seems logical to apply the same rules for consistency to all as well as superscripts, subscripts, commas and periods.
Sorry to inject such non-levity to this thread. Carry on.
OK, but speaking from a computer user’s point of view, including punctuation inside “markers” like quotation marks, bold, underline, etc. can cause confusion. For example, the UNIX manual pages often use bold and underline to make note of programs and commands. Take this example: in the minimalist text editor “vi”, the command dd deletes a line, while the addition of a . after any command repeats that command a second time. The difference between the line “To delete a single line of text, go to the command prompt and type dd.” and “To delete a single line of text, go to the command prompt and type dd.” is enough for users to lose data due to the confusion.
That’s where I’m coming from.
Fetus, I’m speaking from an English point of view, not as technical manual. I think the requirements of your special cases are distinctive enough to override other conventions. However, if you are writing a novel, I think my rules would be best.
Now, which is the SDMB more like: a novel or a technical manual? You decide.
It was an inseparable case ending in Old English and Middle English. Its status was changed from case ending to separable enclitic in, I think, the 16th century. I think some Tudor-era grammarians got a little too drunk one night.
As the OP, I just wanted to state with all of the “OP Authority” that. . . WOW! I never thought I’d generate this kind of debate with a simple dopey question. I think I’ve found my personal answer to the question, but please, let the Council of Dopers continue. I see good arguments on both sides. . .
Tripler
And I hereby coin the term, “OP Authority”: based on the rule of mod’s reservation to close a thread “at the OP’s request”. 
:mad: “OP Authority” makes no fucking sense in Latin, you prick.
Neither does “copulatus yourselfum”, but it basically conveys the idea.
Trip
—From the unpublished manuscripts of J.K. Rowling.