Stop the stupid software interfering with what I write.

[Martian Visitor]

I am infuriated by the brainless way this site is run.

Scott: people continually complain to you about the way your clunky software interferes with what we want to write.

If I nest a quote it's because that's how I want to express my point. I think carefully about what I write, and I find it outrageous that my words should be altered by a dumb machine for no good reason.

Your poorly-thought-out software doesn't know how to write good philosophy, and I'm not convinced you do either.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

I gather two points from this post..

1. You think I'm brainless, poor at philosophy, overall bad at forum administration and a terrible computer coder. To that, I guess I have to say thank you for your criticism and I will try to take it constructively.

2. You do not want nested quotes to be removed. You think my software shall not remove nested quotes from posts like this because in posts like that is a style choice having to do with writing philosophy, not an automatically correctable formatting issue that has little to nothing to do with philosophy. I will take your request into consideration, but at this time it conflicts with this previous request by another member. If I find the time to write the code needed to deal with these heavily nested quotes and determine that it wouldn't be a waste of resources (since it will be run on every result on the search page just to display the first couple sentences of the post), then I may re-enable nested quotes to a certain depth, but certainly not as much as before.

***

In the meantime, while carefully thinking about what you write you can write quotes linearly rather than nested such as:

Hi, I'm Mary.

Hi Mary! I'm Joe.

How are you today, Joe?

I'm good. Thanks for asking, Mary.

I'm not sure how the quotes displaying like that as opposed to in a nested fashion has anything to do with expressing philosophy, especially since it has more to do with how the bbCode is structured than how it displays since the display is handled via a conversion of the bbcode into html using a template and CSS which can be overridden by different devices stylesheets. For instance, someone's personal browser/stylesheet could hide nested HTML quotes all-together anyway regardless of how carefully you determine that is how you want to display them. An important principle in good web coding is understanding the difference between structure and display style, no?

[TeenPhilosopher]

...... Wow. Honestly, I enjoy the fact that nested quotes are removed. Otherwise, you would have, well, that link that Scott posted. I think it is a cleaner display style that is easier to understand...... Wow. I honestly never thought anyone would post a forum like that. Wow. Hey Scott, is there any way that you could make it so that I can Ctrl-I a word in quick reply to make it italicized? That would probably make it easier to bold, italicize and center things. Thanks, TeenPhilosopher.

[Martian Visitor]

1. You think I'm brainless,

I think you run the site in a brainless way: by which I mean you allow the software (brainless) to dictate to me (big brain, MENSA-level IQ, professional writer, etc etc).

poor at philosophy,

Poor at instructing others how to write philosophy.

overall bad at forum administration

Yes. You persist in reinventing the wheel, but your wheels come out square. You persist in trying to use software to correct linguistic usage, something it can't manage.

and a terrible computer coder.

You might be a good coder for all I know, the problem isn't the code, it's the way it's used.

2. You do not want nested quotes to be removed. You think my software shall not remove nested quotes from posts like this because in posts like that is a style choice having to do with writing philosophy, not an automatically correctable formatting issue that has little to nothing to do with philosophy. I will take your request into consideration, but at this time it conflicts with this previous request by another member. If I find the time to write the code needed to deal with these heavily nested quotes and determine that it wouldn't be a waste of resources (since it will be run on every result on the search page just to display the first couple sentences of the post), then I may re-enable nested quotes to a certain depth, but certainly not as much as before.

Just get off your lame hobby-horse and do it the way all the other philosophy and similar forums do it.

[TeenPhilosopher]

... Wow. Honestly I love this site, especially its aesthetic aspects. Perhaps, in order to please everyone "critiquing" your awesome site, you should make the visual aspect client side.

[Belinda]

Martian Visitor wrote:

.

You persist in trying to use software to correct linguistic usage, something it can't manage.

While I endorse the quote nesting rule and Scott's suggested improvement for a quoting format, I object to the Bowdlerisation of Anglo Saxon words which have to do with excretion of bodily waste. True, many people are offended by Anglo Saxon words for sex as well as for excretions and body parts. However this serious but democratic philosophy forum would have more social weight if the software catered more for aspiring academics and less for little old ladies.

[TeenPhilosopher]

Martian Visitor wrote:

.
(Nested quote removed.)

While I endorse the quote nesting rule and Scott's suggested improvement for a quoting format, I object to the Bowdlerisation of Anglo Saxon words which have to do with excretion of bodily waste. True, many people are offended by Anglo Saxon words for sex as well as for excretions and body parts. However this serious but democratic philosophy forum would have more social weight if the software catered more for aspiring academics and less for little old ladies.

While that is true, Belinda, if you are going to do serious philosophy... Why do you need to use those words? I might say that b u l l s h * t would be appropriate at very specific times, but even then it would most likely be used in an offensive matter. I don't mind swear words, but I see no need for them on a philosophy forum.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

You can turn off the word censors in the Board Preferences tab of User Control Panel, right?

[TeenPhilosopher]

Scott,

1) 3000 posts... Wow, where do you find the time?

2) Still new to the site, thanks for telling me.

[Belinda]

While that is true, Belinda, if you are going to do serious philosophy... Why do you need to use those words? I might say that b u l l s h * t would be appropriate at very specific times, but even then it would most likely be used in an offensive matter. I don't mind swear words, but I see no need for them on a philosophy forum.

Teen Philosopher, I have a lifelong love of language, and I feel strongly that philosophy deserves the largest vocabulary available. My sensitivities are probably more Rabelaisian than yours, perhaps because I have experienced quite a lot and therefore have a more forthright writing style in academic surroundings.

-- Updated Fri Sep 14, 2012 4:45 pm to add the following --

You can turn off the word censors in the Board Preferences tab of User Control Panel, right?

Thanks Scott. I understand now that sensorship rests with the sender.

[Martian Visitor]

Thanks Scott. I understand now that censorship rests with the sender.

The **** software is still preventing me nesting quotes when I want to though.