This is the Message Centre for Geoff Regan
frontiersman Started conversation Oct 23, 2005
Just a line to ask you what you want us to do with this Entry. Whilst you have had a large 'post-bag' on the Entry, giving you a number of extra uses for a fence-post, you do not appear to have updated your original version to include any of those items.
In the meantime, I have, as an Underguide Miner, put your Entry into a more formal GuideML mode and made some minor judicious alterations and additions to your current posting.
If you are at all unhappy with these changes you can always re-Edit what I have done and reinstate your own name as the author.
Please let me know how you wish to proceed so that our UG Editors can make some decisions about the Entry.
Geoff Regan Posted Oct 29, 2005
I like what you've done with the place. It's like 'Trading Up'.
I feel the extra suggestions are happiest as extras. Contrary to what is claimed in part 2, the original piece states clearly that it defines just some uses, not all. Anyway, is making it longer making it better? I think not.
I don't know what's to be done with it. What normally happens?
UnderGuide Editors Posted Jan 18, 2006
Hi there both. don't fall off your chair Petey-zee, I know we've taken a long time with this. Not for any reason to do with your entry. With apologies to frontiersman, who has pc/connection problems just now, I'm trying to polish this up quickly to send in for this weekend's front page (well that's the plan).
I picked up the formatting from frontiersman's but in standardising the list tags (your way was ingenious, I have to say f) it changed the look and over-emphasised the list aspect. One thing I love about the original was that it was an essay about fence-posts (which is ridiculous in the best of ways) with numbered paragraphs (which is a kind of cheeky way to present an essay).
I'm not that happy with the compromise, it still over-emphasises the list, but so did every other way I tried (bold text, subheaders, etc). It also loses your carefully '.'d No.x.s. On the other hand I thought it benefitted from polishing up a bit in terms of presentation and you did like f's 'trading up'.
See what you think, A8630651. If you prefer f's bullet points or simple paragraphs, just say.
As regards the additional post uses - I linked to your journal, calling it a suggestion box, inside the last paragraph. Again, if you'd prefer the original text to stand and the link to be separate, or indeed not there, just say.
Other than that I put one missing '-' into a fenceposts, and a capital on No. 5.'s '(see friendless orphan)'. Which I'm not sure about now.
And finally; cheers . It was fun re-reading it, even in the middle of server too busy messages and the frustrating limitations of GuimeML.
UnderGuide Editors Posted Jan 18, 2006
PS agree about longer not being better. You've got the comic-timing of this right as it stands.
frontiersman Posted Jan 24, 2006
Hello UG Editors and Petey_Zee,
I'm OK with anything Petey wants, after all is said and done it's his piece. There's no need to apologise to me dear Editors, because all suggestions on this site are merely tentative, and I can't see what you've done to offend me particularly anyway! But thanks for the gesture!
But I have to say that I think you will experience problems communicating with Petey, he seems such an elusive being at the best of times; talk about the Scarlet Pimpernel! They seek him here, they seek him there, that Scarlet's never anywhere! (To largely misquote!). That has been my major problem on this Entry.
Your Editorial amendments seem to fit the bill to a nicety.
By the way, I now have a temporary connection email-wise, so we can discuss any problems at the P&S. (I also 'lost' my password for the Yahoo! UG email for a while, which added to my problems; daft, I know, but there you go!
Key: Complain about this post