Allowed HTML in stories?

[Swilly]

As my grandpa always said, "To each his own."

As for the Dallas Cowgirls, Fuck em, I'm a Saints fan.

What? How did that happen? Isn't there some kind of law or something?

NYC here. Packers number 1, Dallas number 2. Go figure. (I started watching football during the ice bowl. Imprinted like a baby bird I guess.)

 

[BuckyDuckman]

Ah, the lovefest among AH'ers continues!

I chose the word "indent" in my OP because, in HTML, the tag that accomplishes what I want to do is called, um, INDENT, as demonstrated. (As a refresher, <indent>your text</indent> in HTML will give text the look I was hoping to achieve.

The initial confusion around my question confused me. PennLady was quick to understand my intent. (Thanks again!)

Initially, I wasn't going to say crap about the first respondent's interpretation of my original question. (We haven't been on the best of terms for a long while.) But, I wanted to set the record straighter about why I asked the question the way I did. I wasn't trying to be snarky. But, then again, I'm grown accustomed to how some people enjoy applying labels. And, I guess, sometimes those labels fit, too.

But that's okay, I work from the disadvantage of being a fan of all things Cleveland: Indians, Browns and Cavaliers. I'm accustomed to good intentions going south on me.

 

[sr71plt]

The relevant bottom line, swilly, is that you have repeatedly launched attacks on me on this forum and I have never initiated anything on one of your posts. (You initiated the attacks on this thread). This goes directly to your "minding your own business" point. Cite an instance if you don't agree that's true. I'm afraid that makes you the pissy backbiter here. In addition, each time you have attacked me on a thread, that's all you did. You added nothing of substance to the thread. You only posted to attack me. The borish behavior here is yours, not mine.

Thanks TxRad. I know that defending me any any way on the forum opens you for attacks because there are several here who are under the mistaken opinion that the equality of the Internet is one of knowledge rather than access to post. Swilly obviously is one of those. They know so little that their efforts to to bringing others they feel threatened by down to their level.

It remains quite possible that you are just one of LC's alts, swilly. You became active on the forum to participate in the FAWC contest about the time that LC was banned from them for cheating, and I always assumed he'd be back there under an alt. Because it's the way he is. You haven't shown to be any less rabid toward me out of the gate than he is. As TxRad pointed out, you choose to misinterpret anything I post (this thread being an instance--which was pointed out to you) as a reason to attack me.

Well, I'll tell you what I told LC. I was here before you got here and I'll be here after you leave. Any borish behavior you choose to indulge in in the meantime just bogs the forum down--I discount it and just move on. I only see your posts in quotes. You'll save your bloodpressure if you put me on ignore as well. I assure you I won't be swayed in participating here either way.

 

[patientlee]

Is football the one with the yellow balls that the old ladies put on the bottom of their walkers?

Go Rangers. (Yes, Swilly. I choke a little each time I say that.)

 

[Hypoxia]

If I write HITLER, can we close this thread? That's a rule, IIRC.

 

[TxRad]

If I write HITLER, can we close this thread? That's a rule, IIRC.

There are still rules?

There used to be unspoken rules on the internet but that was before ISP's. Back when you had to have a brain to even find the internet. Ah yes, the good old days.

 

[sr71plt]

If I write HITLER, can we close this thread? That's a rule, IIRC.

On other forums it would, but on this one there's a little group who will start posting the similarities they just know exist between me and Hitler.

 

[Swilly]

The relevant bottom line, swilly, is that you have repeatedly launched attacks on me on this forum and I have never initiated anything on one of your posts. (You initiated the attacks on this thread). This goes directly to your "minding your own business" point. Cite an instance if you don't agree that's true. I'm afraid that makes you the pissy backbiter here. In addition, each time you have attacked me on a thread, that's all you did. You added nothing of substance to the thread. You only posted to attack me. The borish behavior here is yours, not mine.

Thanks TxRad. I know that defending me any any way on the forum opens you for attacks because there are several here who are under the mistaken opinion that the equality of the Internet is one of knowledge rather than access to post. Swilly obviously is one of those. They know so little that their efforts to to bringing others they feel threatened by down to their level.

It remains quite possible that you are just one of LC's alts, swilly. You became active on the forum to participate in the FAWC contest about the time that LC was banned from them for cheating, and I always assumed he'd be back there under an alt. Because it's the way he is. You haven't shown to be any less rabid toward me out of the gate than he is. As TxRad pointed out, you choose to misinterpret anything I post (this thread being an instance--which was pointed out to you) as a reason to attack me.

Well, I'll tell you what I told LC. I was here before you got here and I'll be here after you leave. Any borish behavior you choose to indulge in in the meantime just bogs the forum down--I discount it and just move on. I only see your posts in quotes. You'll save your bloodpressure if you put me on ignore as well. I assure you I won't be swayed in participating here either way.

You really are a dumbass, Pilot.

Go back to the magazine post. As I wrote above, I am well aware that the magazine industry is contracting and has been for quite some time. I wasn't arguing that point. YOU were the one that kept bringing it up to justify why you posted a dickish response to the OP. You're a writer. You're an editor. You certainly could have written something like:

I'm not surprised that a major distributor went out. The business continues to contract every year. People are going to have a tougher time finding magazines if they want them.

Now, that would have acknowledged the OP and added something useful. But, it doesn't quite show the OP what a jackass he was for posting that. So instead, you give him this:

The world of the Internet and e-booking probably doesn't care all that much.

See the difference? Why the hell would you post anything if that's your response.

You know why you don't "launch attacks" at my posts? Because I don't sling shit at people asking legitimate questions or posting something that might be of interest to others. You do. And I call you on it.

I don't say a word about your writing or your editing. I know others do, but I don't pay attention to that. You are arrogant and condescending. That's what I find offensive. Others choose to ignore the slights, but I see them. Sometimes I ignore, and sometimes I say fuck that, and let you know you're being an ass. Do I get carried away occasionally? I reckon I do. Just look at your post here.

mistaken opinion that the equality of the Internet is one of knowledge rather than access to post. Swilly obviously is one of those. They know so little that their efforts to to bringing others they feel threatened by down to their level.

You know absolutely nothing about me. But I have no knowledge and know so little. There you are at your best, Pilot. You're better and smarter than everyone, right? Keep telling yourself that.

The alt thing? Whatever. I knew that one would show up sooner or later. Years ago, early in my career, I started a new job. I was working alongside someone that hated our boss. She'd tell me what an ass he was, and tried to alter my opinion of him. All I ever said to her was I'll make up my own mind about him. The day I came back to my desk angry and frustrated and wanting to kill him delighted her. This is that situation. LC obviously has his opinions about you. So does JBJ and others. Good for them. I make up my OWN mind. And I did. Over time, I saw what they had seen. We're not alone. Others see it too. They just choose to ignore you. Perhaps I should too. But sometimes, your crap is too much.

And you're wrong about another thing too. Txrad disagrees with me, so be it. I have no plan to go shitting on the guy. He isn't you, and he doesn't act like you. He's one of the normal cast of characters here.

Okay. Done now, Hypoxia.

 

[Aynmair]

tact

According to http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tact:

tact noun \ˈtakt\
: the ability to do or say things without offending or upsetting other people

Full Definition of TACT

1 sensitive mental or aesthetic perception <converted the novel into a play with remarkable skill and tact>

2 a keen sense of what to do or say in order to maintain good relations with others or avoid offense

Sometimes lacking on the internet; there's probably no such thing as too much tact ... is there?

 

[slyc_willie]

Sometimes lacking on the internet; there's probably no such thing as too much tact ... is there?

Maybe, but there are abundant examples of a complete lack of tact.

And common sense, acceptance, understanding, wisdom . . . .

 

[sr71plt]

There's no such thing as tact among folks who want to take what you post wrong so that they can harass you. That's a common function of the Internet.

 

[Aynmair]

one more (and last) try....

I know this will piss y'all off but... turning the other cheek is sometimes the right thing to do:

gra·cious (grshs) adj.
1. Characterized by kindness and warm courtesy.
2. Characterized by tact and propriety: responded to the insult with gracious humor.
3. Of a merciful or compassionate nature.
4. Condescendingly courteous; indulgent.
5. Characterized by charm or beauty; graceful.
6. Characterized by elegance and good taste: gracious living.
7. Archaic Enjoying favor or grace; acceptable or pleasing.
interj.
Used to express surprise or mild emotion.
[Middle English, from Old French gracieus, from Latin grtisus, from grtia, good will; see grace.]
gracious·ly adv.
gracious·ness n.
Synonyms: gracious, cordial, genial1, sociable
These adjectives mean marked by kindness, sympathy, and unaffected politeness: gracious to visitors; a cordial welcome; a genial guest; enjoyed a sociable chat.
Antonym: ungracious

Aiming for 1 - 3 & 5 - 7, NOT I repeat NOT 4 !

 

[sr71plt]

Naw, the Internet rule is to form little cabals and to try to run anyone away who actually knows what they are talking about on the topic given (do observe that there are loads of topics I don't weigh in on at all on this forum because I know little about them) and who constantly makes the mistake of trying to help people who ask for help and presumably wouldn't if they didn't want a best-practices answer. It's all just an Internet game of cliques here.

You either are prepared to operate in the real world or you want to remain in Pollyana's garden of "just pretend." I just don't happen to believe that I should have to beg someone to let me answer a question here when I have expertise in the topic in order to receive civility in return. I live in the real world.

This thread is a sterling example. The wrong question was asked and I tried to help figure out what the question was--as indents are not permitted on Literotica to my knowledge. I even asked if my impression that they weren't permitted was true--asking for whether anyone had been able to indent, since the real question--about extracting--wasn't what was asked. And then the little cabal's knives came out.

There's still the question, which maybe Darkniciad can answer, on whether there is an allowable code for extracts here, because that, indeed, would be a useful one. But we're not going to do that, are we? We are going to continue trying to carve on me for trying to help with the OP question just because there's a little cabal here trying to run me off the forum. (Which ain't gonna happen.)

"Pretty please may you be so kind as not to bite my head off when I try to give you information on the question you ask" is a waste of breath on this forum. It's also juvenile to expect or demand in order to be civil back.

The last I looked this claimed to be a site for adults. There's a flip side to that there "tact" and "gracious" interaction that you are conveniently ignoring, which is laughingly hypocritcal to do. Not only am I quite civil to those who are civil to me, this thread also shows that I try to help with writing/publishing questions even when I wouldn't normally give the time of day to the OP poster because he's been so ugly to me in the past.

 

[sr71plt]

Incidentally, if anyone is still interested in the actual question apparently meant on this thread, the real world of publishing uses a couple of methods to mark extracts, depending on whether they still code by hand or not. The publishers still coding by hand tend to use <ext> </ext> as the code for this, which Lit. easily could do--but I don't know if they do. Most now, though, just set .05 right and left margin settings for the extracted passage. If you are publishing e-books or print books with Amazon (or e-books with Smachwords), you can just use the margin setting form.

 

[slyc_willie]

Incidentally, if anyone is still interested in the actual question apparently meant on this thread, the real world of publishing uses a couple of methods to mark extracts, depending on whether they still code by hand or not. The publishers still coding by hand tend to use <ext> </ext> as the code for this, which Lit. easily could do--but I don't know if they do. Most now, though, just set .05 right and left margin settings for the extracted passage. If you are publishing e-books or print books with Amazon (or e-books with Smachwords), you can just use the margin setting form.

I wonder how much of this might be changing with the move to HTML5 and CSS. <indent> and <blockquote> are both still viable, but <ext> does nothing in HTML5 coding. If it's simply a publisher's way of differentiating a blockquoted section of text (as a sort of shorthand), it will probably phase out sooner or later.

 

[sr71plt]

I wonder how much of this might be changing with the move to HTML5 and CSS. <indent> and <blockquote> are both still viable, but <ext> does nothing in HTML5 coding. If it's simply a publisher's way of differentiating a blockquoted section of text (as a sort of shorthand), it will probably phase out sooner or later.

All coding is fading out at the publishers. The trend is to just reset the margins in the program system. The height of "insanity" shown in this at the last publisher I worked for in house was that we had to manually code in the initial manuscript edit and then half way through the process manually replace the codes with actual program settings (e.g., changing coded italics to real italics and changing coded extracts to changes margin settings). Procedures can get really crazy when they are in transition. The answer, when asked, was that the senior (read "around forever") editors between manuscript editing and the production line were used to seeing the codes and it didn't register in their minds what just jumping to the end product looked like before production. It's the same reason that there are residual typewriter requirements in some publishing houses (e.g., marking italics with underline, using nonproportional font, and putting two character spaces after terminal sentence punctuation.)

 

[slyc_willie]

All coding is fading out at the publishers. The trend is to just reset the margins in the program system. The height of "insanity" shown in this at the last publisher I worked for in house was that we had to manually code in the initial manuscript edit and then half way through the process manually replace the codes with actual program settings (e.g., changing coded italics to real italics and changing coded extracts to changes margin settings). Procedures can get really crazy when they are in transition. The answer, when asked, was that the senior (read "around forever") editors between manuscript editing and the production line were used to seeing the codes and it didn't register in their minds what just jumping to the end product looked like before production. It's the same reason that there are residual typewriter requirements in some publishing houses (e.g., marking italics with underline, using nonproportional font, and putting two character spaces after terminal sentence punctuation.)

As with any transition, there is always an abundance of confusion. Despite the fact that I am becoming increasingly savvy with the new coding standards, when it comes to writing I'm still using some of the "old school" elements in my writing, such as including two character spaces after a period.

Maybe, in another decade or so, everyone will see eye-to-eye.

. . . then again . . . .

 

[sr71plt]

As with any transition, there is always an abundance of confusion. Despite the fact that I am becoming increasingly savvy with the new coding standards, when it comes to writing I'm still using some of the "old school" elements in my writing, such as including two character spaces after a period.

Maybe, in another decade or so, everyone will see eye-to-eye.

. . . then again . . . .

New is relative. It's been over fifteen years since the first thing I've had to do when doing a mainstream edit on a manuscript is to delete all of those second character spaces after terminal punctuation. It's one of those things only required by typewriters. Printers have never done it. (Terminal sentence character space is actually one character space plus a sliver of leading--which both printers and the computer can do.)

 

[Swilly]

Typical pilot. Staying up half the night to bury the thread with posts about how you were right all along. Which doesn't make you right. It's similar to a straw man argument. You're trying to prove you have all of this knowledge about a topic, but no one is questioning that part. What is being questioned is your tact and demeanor. You lose that one, so you pretend as if that isn't the point. But it is.

So in the space of a couple of days, oh...let's see.

In this thread, we have Bucky Duckman who misunderstood you. So did PL. And how dare Aynmair point out that you lacked tact. Then there was R. Richard, the original poster in the magazine thread that you offended. Then loquere in the research thread.

That's five people in three threads over two days, not counting me. Five people that pretty much don't even associate with each other. So much for your evil cabal. How about this...it's possible that there is something in how you present things that rubs people the wrong way.

If I posted something that someone took the wrong way, I'd be likely to say...oh...sorry. I didn't mean it like that. Sorry if I came off wrong. That little bit of humility defuses the entire situation. But that just isn't in you. No. You need to reiterate that the person is wrong, and blame them for misunderstanding you. Because you're Pilot. You're so clear and concise, it HAS to be the other person that is wrong if they take you the wrong way. The old saying that you can't argue with a crazy mind applies. It's pointless.

No one is trying to run you off from anywhere. Just stop being an arrogant prick.

 

[slyc_willie]

And how dare Aynmair point out that you lacked tact.

You might want to rethink this part of your post, Swilly, and to whom you thought it applied.

 

[BuckyDuckman]

Aw crap guys, come on - HITLER was called. (I never spent a lot of time with IIRC, but I love that idea!)

. . .The wrong question was asked . . .

Sorry if you perceived my original question as misleading. Your reply was apparently based on your vast experience with book publishing which may or may not date back to a personal relationship with Gutenburg himself. Thankfully, more than one person was able to decipher my admittedly late 20th century question concerning the practices used by a site which exists on the Internet. (Or is that "internet" with a lower case "i?")

Incidentally, if anyone is still interested in the actual question apparently meant on this thread, the real world of publishing uses a couple of methods to mark extracts, depending on whether they still code by hand or not. . .

Fascinating history lesson about the ins and outs concerning book publishing. Perhaps a shorthand lesson is next? Oh, and I've always been rather curious about those little Stenotype machines court reporters used to use.

Incidentally, if anyone is still interested in the actual question ASKED by the OP of this thread, I was curious about HTML mark-up allowed within Literotica, not book publishing - y'know, since this happens to be a forum on a website and all . . . Again, sorry for misleading anyone with my original question.

 

[Swilly]

You might want to rethink this part of your post, Swilly, and to whom you thought it applied.

I had already considered that Aynmair may very well have been directing that to me as well as pilot and everyone else. (I think it was all of us). It doesn't change the point though. Several people, several different threads in a two day period felt that pilot was slighting them. People that are pretty much not connected to each other in any way. Of course, in his mind they are all part of the evil cabal that is out to get him. Because, you know, it's completely impossible for him to ever come across as arrogant. It is ALWAYS the reader of his comment that is wrong. A L W A Y S.

You seem to be a smart guy, willie. Do you really not see it, or is that you displaying tact? No need to answer. Just...it's just hard for me to believe that what is so transparent to me is missed by some others.

Pretty much the only two people I swipe at are JBJ and pilot, and with good reason. But I'll tell you this. At least JBJ doesn't pretend he isn't wacking people. And he's often funny, and even insightful. Everyone else, I treat with respect, even if I'm disagreeing with them on a point. I don't make it or take it personal. Pilot does.

Clearly, there are people here who have a personal relationship with him that allows them to ignore or see past his arrogance. I don't have that, so I see him in a different light.

I've pretty much learned what some more insightful people here innately knew. There's no point in arguing with him or raising these issues, because he is blind to his own behavior. He won't change, ever, so it's a waste of typing even pointing these things out. He won't even consider for a second whether there is a valid reason someone feels slighted by him. If you do, you're just part of the witch hunt. Crazy is as crazy does. I should have been smart enough to realize that from the start. That one is on me.

Okay. No worries, pilot. I will no longer acknowledge your existence. We'll both be happier that way (as I'm sure a lot of other people will too.)

 

[Aynmair]

all-inclusive

For clarity: Indeed, I aimed at everyone, including as a reminder to myself. But hey, it's tough to stop water hoses once they start gushing. Especially on the web.

Slinking out of the way now....

 

[sr71plt]

Incidentally, if anyone is still interested in the actual question ASKED by the OP of this thread, I was curious about HTML mark-up allowed within Literotica, not book publishing - y'know, since this happens to be a forum on a website and all . . . Again, sorry for misleading anyone with my original question.

And if you spent as much time actually reading my posts as you do in devising a snarky answer to them, you'll see that I returned to what you were actually asking as well once the actual question was clear--whether Lit. permits coding for extracting. I posted that that was a good question and wondered if Darkniciad knew the answer.

You might have seen that if you took your head out of your ass.

Thread post #38: There's still the question, which maybe Darkniciad can answer, on whether there is an allowable code for extracts here, because that, indeed, would be a useful one.

 

[BuckyDuckman]

And if you spent as much time actually reading my posts as you do in devising a snarky answer to them, you'll see that I returned to what you were actually asking as well once the actual question was clear--whether Lit. permits coding for extracting. I posted that that was a good question and wondered if Darkniciad knew the answer.

You might have seen that if you took your head out of your ass.

Pilot, what's funniest about this is that you misinterpreted my original question based on your experience in the world of book publishing. However, for whatever reason, you have in the inability to admit you might have misinterpreted the question. And, rather than let go of the idea that you could be guilty of misinterpreting the question, you want to attack me for somehow misleading someone as bright as you?

PL didn't seem to have a problem interpreting the question. Though you apparently had an issue with observing her very fine example without first making an ass of yourself by challenging her for an example. Hell, you even QUOTED her citation while asking for one.

That's okay, because you don't have a beef with her.

Slyc, walkerlong, and Zeb_Carter each understood the question and even guessed the reason beyond the inquiry. Hypoxia even weighed in with their opinion concerning the usefulness of formatting tricks.

Meanwhile, I thanked everyone, corrected your misleading interpretation based on a lifetime of book publishing terminology and got attacked for it.

I get it. You enjoy attaching names to me. I'm a cheater, snarky and now an ass.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a7/Graham%27s_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement1.svg/707px-Graham%27s_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement1.svg.png