Forum needs upgrade? (Topic moves into other areas)
Posted by: Ridzwan on 30 January 2007
It's about time for Naim to upgrade this forum to a better outlook like the Naim's main website. Almost all forums now the user can anytime put a signature (Naim only for selected member...biased?). Even most forums also the member can put their avatar and in DIY forum, the country flag will automatically reflected below your name.
Lots of improvement in Naim chains and this need to be changed too...
This would be my avatar if thing going to be implemented....
cheers
Lots of improvement in Naim chains and this need to be changed too...
This would be my avatar if thing going to be implemented....
cheers
Posted on: 11 February 2007 by Diccus62
It seems less and less heterosexual couples, for varying reasons are choosing not to procreate. The ones that do have less children, generally than they used to.
Malky, clearly no one would be interested in sex without it being for procreational values. I mean................
take Rachel here as an example, clearly she is a very beautiful woman. Clearly one may think she is good fodder for procreation, clearly after a lengthy virginal courtship. She is also probably a good conversationalist, a great actor and has some interesting chums. Clearly no one on this forum would think about sex with her, just for fun. Now that would be frightful.
What is the world coming to.
Diccus
Malky, clearly no one would be interested in sex without it being for procreational values. I mean................
take Rachel here as an example, clearly she is a very beautiful woman. Clearly one may think she is good fodder for procreation, clearly after a lengthy virginal courtship. She is also probably a good conversationalist, a great actor and has some interesting chums. Clearly no one on this forum would think about sex with her, just for fun. Now that would be frightful.
What is the world coming to.
Diccus
Posted on: 11 February 2007 by Diccus62
quote:Absolutely - each to his own - although I may maintain a certain distance should we meet.
I think their is enough folk on this thread rubbing each other up the wrong way.
Posted on: 11 February 2007 by Chillkram
Diccus
May I just add my thanks to you for posting the above pic?!!
Regards
Mark
May I just add my thanks to you for posting the above pic?!!
Regards
Mark
Posted on: 11 February 2007 by Diccus62
Mark
Any time, my pleasure.
Whoops, there she goes again
Any time, my pleasure.
Whoops, there she goes again
Posted on: 11 February 2007 by Don Atkinson
I notice the usual manipulative mis-interpretation of what is written and the introduction of irrelevant conditional responses in many counter-statements. Plus the inevitable, but totally unjustified, accusations of hate and tiny-mindedness etc etc etc in other words - personal insults.
Nevertheless.......One more time (for the avoidance of doubt)
My opinion (and not directed towards any specific individuals)
Sodomy is wrong. (The reference to Leviticus was to define the term, not to justify my point of view).
If homosexuals want to play with each other in private, fine. (Usual limitations regarding age limits etc).
Where adoption of children is required, this should be by opposite-sex couples.
The basis of my opinion is to ensure a stable, healthy, tolerant society, where the rights of individuals are sensibly balanced with the rights of society and, specifically in the case of adoption, in favour of the child who is not a consenting party (to the adoption!!). (yes, its my point of view, so therefore its my definition of sensibly balanced. Yours is different and we aren't going to kill each other over it)
I anticipate that all respondents to the points I made earlier in this discussion will wish to make their position clear.
Cheers
Don
Nice pictures.
Nevertheless.......One more time (for the avoidance of doubt)
My opinion (and not directed towards any specific individuals)
Sodomy is wrong. (The reference to Leviticus was to define the term, not to justify my point of view).
If homosexuals want to play with each other in private, fine. (Usual limitations regarding age limits etc).
Where adoption of children is required, this should be by opposite-sex couples.
The basis of my opinion is to ensure a stable, healthy, tolerant society, where the rights of individuals are sensibly balanced with the rights of society and, specifically in the case of adoption, in favour of the child who is not a consenting party (to the adoption!!). (yes, its my point of view, so therefore its my definition of sensibly balanced. Yours is different and we aren't going to kill each other over it)
I anticipate that all respondents to the points I made earlier in this discussion will wish to make their position clear.
Cheers
Don
Nice pictures.
Posted on: 11 February 2007 by Adam Meredith
quote:Sodomy is wrong
Why is that?
Posted on: 11 February 2007 by bornwina
acad
You've posted prolifically in a few months - I therefore assume this is your main forum and you're not new to internet forums.
Tell me, if I'm right, what brought you here and away from wherever you were before?
You've posted prolifically in a few months - I therefore assume this is your main forum and you're not new to internet forums.
Tell me, if I'm right, what brought you here and away from wherever you were before?
Posted on: 11 February 2007 by Don Atkinson
"You seem most particular in you disapproval. The main thrust of your antipathy seems to centre on anal (penile, penetrative?) sex. Since you castigate sodomy this includes male-female anal sex.
You also (as a consequence of their not be suitably equipped) cannot so strongly disapprove of female homosexuals. So – your disapproval is of male homosexuals who (have ever?) “indulged” in anal sex and heterosexuals (both partners) who have “indulged” in anal sex."
Your interpretation of my views is correct so far.
"plus a host of other deviant sexual acts"
This bit was simply me describing sodomy as depicted in Leviticus. I wasn't using the bible to justify my point of view.
"then spreads your disapproval a GREAT deal further. I have no particular desire to display an encyclopaedic know of “preversion” but I think you’re in great danger of running out of orphanages if you spread your edicts to those who indulge in oral sex, bondage, tickling, role play and ……"
I have no encyclopaedic knowledge of deviant sexual acts nor perversion, never mind any desire to display them. I personally don't see any harm in bondage, tickling or role-play and am somewhat surprised that you perceive this as sodomy. Evidence suggests we are not running out of suitable opposite-sex adoptive parents. I am not a great believer in orphanages, they never seemed to work in the past.
"Ultimately – you partly define your ‘self’ in that you do not approve of this act (and some others, so far not listed). "
Ultimately - we all partly define ourselves by what we do/do not approve. That's life. Fortunately, my "self" has been far more defined by what I have (and continue) to do
"Biblical arguments to back up your tastes have, thankfully, little weight"
The biblical quotation was merely to identify a definition of sodomy, as I described earlier. The origin of the word seems to be biblical, so that’s where I looked. I share your view about "little weight" so far as the old testament is concerned. However, I consider that we can learn a lot from the teachings ascribed to Jesus in the new testament.
"and the medical arguments might just as well apply to other behaviours (alcoholism, Jehovah’s Witness, ….) which don’t involve anal penetration and yet would carry a risk to the adopted child’s health and/or wellbeing."
Looks like we are completely agreed on this point. I understand that adoption agencies take great care to avoid all such adoptive parents.
"I feel it is better during a life to achieve some knowledge and liking of who we are – rather than bolster our position by being “not them” and waste disapproval on those who do little or no harm in the pursuit of their lives."
Again, I agree with your statement. Our difference appears to be centred on what causes harm to society and adopted children.
"But then, I’m rather lovely."
I think we are all agreed that "I'm" rather lovely.
Now, back to my opinion about same-sex adoptive couples. The important issue is the well-being of the adopted child. It is not the human rights of the adoptive parents.
The child isn't a consenting party. The child doesn't have a say in whether he (or she for the pc brigade) is adopted by straights or gays. They are "placed" where the adoption authorities think it best for the child.
The vast majority (I do mean vast) of children in Europe have a father and a mother. This is the norm.
A child, traumatised by adoption and the circumstances leading up to adoption, should be placed in as near normal conditions as possible.
Cheers
Don
You also (as a consequence of their not be suitably equipped) cannot so strongly disapprove of female homosexuals. So – your disapproval is of male homosexuals who (have ever?) “indulged” in anal sex and heterosexuals (both partners) who have “indulged” in anal sex."
Your interpretation of my views is correct so far.
"plus a host of other deviant sexual acts"
This bit was simply me describing sodomy as depicted in Leviticus. I wasn't using the bible to justify my point of view.
"then spreads your disapproval a GREAT deal further. I have no particular desire to display an encyclopaedic know of “preversion” but I think you’re in great danger of running out of orphanages if you spread your edicts to those who indulge in oral sex, bondage, tickling, role play and ……"
I have no encyclopaedic knowledge of deviant sexual acts nor perversion, never mind any desire to display them. I personally don't see any harm in bondage, tickling or role-play and am somewhat surprised that you perceive this as sodomy. Evidence suggests we are not running out of suitable opposite-sex adoptive parents. I am not a great believer in orphanages, they never seemed to work in the past.
"Ultimately – you partly define your ‘self’ in that you do not approve of this act (and some others, so far not listed). "
Ultimately - we all partly define ourselves by what we do/do not approve. That's life. Fortunately, my "self" has been far more defined by what I have (and continue) to do
"Biblical arguments to back up your tastes have, thankfully, little weight"
The biblical quotation was merely to identify a definition of sodomy, as I described earlier. The origin of the word seems to be biblical, so that’s where I looked. I share your view about "little weight" so far as the old testament is concerned. However, I consider that we can learn a lot from the teachings ascribed to Jesus in the new testament.
"and the medical arguments might just as well apply to other behaviours (alcoholism, Jehovah’s Witness, ….) which don’t involve anal penetration and yet would carry a risk to the adopted child’s health and/or wellbeing."
Looks like we are completely agreed on this point. I understand that adoption agencies take great care to avoid all such adoptive parents.
"I feel it is better during a life to achieve some knowledge and liking of who we are – rather than bolster our position by being “not them” and waste disapproval on those who do little or no harm in the pursuit of their lives."
Again, I agree with your statement. Our difference appears to be centred on what causes harm to society and adopted children.
"But then, I’m rather lovely."
I think we are all agreed that "I'm" rather lovely.
Now, back to my opinion about same-sex adoptive couples. The important issue is the well-being of the adopted child. It is not the human rights of the adoptive parents.
The child isn't a consenting party. The child doesn't have a say in whether he (or she for the pc brigade) is adopted by straights or gays. They are "placed" where the adoption authorities think it best for the child.
The vast majority (I do mean vast) of children in Europe have a father and a mother. This is the norm.
A child, traumatised by adoption and the circumstances leading up to adoption, should be placed in as near normal conditions as possible.
Cheers
Don
Posted on: 11 February 2007 by Diccus62
As someone who works in Children and Young People's services I see day after day children and young people who have been neglected, abused, had crap lives through poverty,drugs and alcohol, poor parenting/fostering and in occasional cases where adoption has gone wrong. Children who often stand very little chance of living a fulfilled life.
Children who are adopted have often had the worst of starts than most people on this Forum could even imagine. The people at the front line that deal with that devastation are Social Workers, Police, Doctors, Nurses, Psychologists and the list goes on. Later when the neglect and abuse has been removed physically and that child reaches puberty/adolescence/then adulthood they can have to deal with it on a hourly/daily basis in either their behaviour/emotional distress/criminality/mental health/Substance misuse. If indeed it ever went away.
Those staff that work in Children's homes and in Childrens's service's want the Children they work with to have a good and happy life. A lot of the time what we do is put a bandaid/sticking plaster on the damage, we can't fix it. That can be very demoralising at times.
When it comes to Fostering or adoption what I believe is right is that appropriately skilled/caring people who are very carefully assessed/vetted may go forward to take on incredibly important and challenging role.
Does it matter what consenting adults do under the sheets in the privacy of their own homes be it hetro or homosexual if they are skilled enough and good enough people to fulfil that role. Of course not. Does it matter if they are criminals, have significant substance misuse problems, hold bigoted, narrow minded views that would reduce that child's chances of developing into a happy balanced adult. Of course it does and the adoption wouldn't hopefully go through. What if an adopted child of a homophobic adopter got to the age of 15 and believed themselves to be gay. Is that carer going to be understanding and empathetic?
A Gay and caring and open minded couple vs homophobic narrow minded heterosexual couple as Adoptive parents. Only one choice.
A gay, rascist amd bigotted couple vs a Open minded, caring heterosexual couple. Only one choice.
Those that know my life well know how close I am to this subject.
As an adopter/Foster Carer or Guardian you may need to reverse the harms already done. that is a very skilled role that should only be taken on by those who can adapt and change to the needs of the child.
As for Sodomy............ Please, the world has moved on, fight against hunger, war, global warming, abuse whatever but move on from whose shagging who. Jeez.
No Emoticons this time, they are not needed.
Diccus
Children who are adopted have often had the worst of starts than most people on this Forum could even imagine. The people at the front line that deal with that devastation are Social Workers, Police, Doctors, Nurses, Psychologists and the list goes on. Later when the neglect and abuse has been removed physically and that child reaches puberty/adolescence/then adulthood they can have to deal with it on a hourly/daily basis in either their behaviour/emotional distress/criminality/mental health/Substance misuse. If indeed it ever went away.
Those staff that work in Children's homes and in Childrens's service's want the Children they work with to have a good and happy life. A lot of the time what we do is put a bandaid/sticking plaster on the damage, we can't fix it. That can be very demoralising at times.
When it comes to Fostering or adoption what I believe is right is that appropriately skilled/caring people who are very carefully assessed/vetted may go forward to take on incredibly important and challenging role.
Does it matter what consenting adults do under the sheets in the privacy of their own homes be it hetro or homosexual if they are skilled enough and good enough people to fulfil that role. Of course not. Does it matter if they are criminals, have significant substance misuse problems, hold bigoted, narrow minded views that would reduce that child's chances of developing into a happy balanced adult. Of course it does and the adoption wouldn't hopefully go through. What if an adopted child of a homophobic adopter got to the age of 15 and believed themselves to be gay. Is that carer going to be understanding and empathetic?
A Gay and caring and open minded couple vs homophobic narrow minded heterosexual couple as Adoptive parents. Only one choice.
A gay, rascist amd bigotted couple vs a Open minded, caring heterosexual couple. Only one choice.
Those that know my life well know how close I am to this subject.
As an adopter/Foster Carer or Guardian you may need to reverse the harms already done. that is a very skilled role that should only be taken on by those who can adapt and change to the needs of the child.
As for Sodomy............ Please, the world has moved on, fight against hunger, war, global warming, abuse whatever but move on from whose shagging who. Jeez.
No Emoticons this time, they are not needed.
Diccus
Posted on: 11 February 2007 by Don Atkinson
quote:A Gay and caring and open minded couple vs homophobic narrow minded heterosexual couple as Adoptive parents. Only one choice.
A gay, rascist amd bigotted couple vs a Open minded, caring heterosexual couple. Only one choice
I would modify the above post as follows:-
A Gay and caring and open minded couple vs homophobic narrow minded heterosexual couple v A gay, rascist and bigotted couple vs a Open minded, caring heterosexual couple as Adoptive parents. Only one choice.
Cheers
Don
Posted on: 11 February 2007 by Adam Meredith
quote:Originally posted by Don Atkinson:
[b]I have no encyclopaedic knowledge of deviant sexual acts nor perversion, never mind any desire to display them. I personally don't see any harm in bondage, tickling or role-play and am somewhat surprised that you perceive this as sodomy.
Don
New Shorter English Dictionary
Sodomy:
“Any form of sexual intercourse with a person of the same or opposite sex, except copulation; spec. anal intercourse. Also, bestiality.”
Which, I confess, opens things up to a degree that I hadn't ever suspected. Looks like only copulation is allowed - except:
Copulation:
“The physical union of male and female (esp. animals) by means of their genitals, as in the act of procreation; sexual intercourse.”
Clarity just seems to run away ... "by means of their genitals", as opposed to what? I'm lost.
Procreation:
"v.t. & i. Bring (offspring) into existence by the natural process of reproduction; beget."
Sounds like we better be making babies (does trying count?) or it's a bolt of lightning through the window.
Confusion aside - however great the divide between extremes of view here - there is a way of conducting this debate which, by teasing out views rather than throwing insults, may lead to some understanding of contrary opinions.
However those following this hijacked thread may feel - I thank those who have made an attempt to attend to the other side’s views and answer them. Otherwise, discussion is just a tsunami of abuse.
You answered many of my points or questions but missed out:
quote:Originally posted by Don Atkinson:
Sodomy is wrong
Why is that?
The answer to that one seems central to your view.
Posted on: 11 February 2007 by Adam Meredith
quote:Originally posted by Tarquin Maynard-Portly:
While there is the slightest whiff of homophobia in the world, the adoptive children of same-sex couples will be liable to ridicule.
I would not wish any child of mine to be homosexual for just this reason. If a child of mine were homosexual I wouldn't give a damn for such opinions - but I do acknowledge their negative effect on quality of life.
However, I'm not sure the existence of a prejudice is a good reason to pander to it. We wouldn't have come very far if we never pushed against prejudice.
Posted on: 11 February 2007 by BigH47
quote:Are you then saying, Big H, that sex should be purely for procreation?
No. Just that same sex sex is a doomed strategy.
Posted on: 11 February 2007 by Don Atkinson
Adam,
You asked why I answered many of your points but not the one about why is sodomy wrong.
I will first explain this, then I will explain why I consider sodomy is wrong.
I tend to work mainly at weekends and mainly when the weather is good. Today conforms to both criteria. This limits my time to the evenings, and I do have to eat, speak with my wife etc etc. I have tried to respond to all the reasonable responses in this thread, and I have tried to do this in a chronological order. If someone has posted twice, I have tried to respond twice. I know I am not entirely consistent in this. It also takes time to read and do a bit of digging. The results aren't always predictable, as you have discovered yourself. Unfortunately it takes me a bit of time to get my responses in order so that there is a fighting chance of them being understood.
Your sodomy question was next on the list.
A couple of dictionary entries (from the internet and hopefully more to many peoples' liking than the bible) provides a reasonable definition of sodomy :-
First:Any of various forms of sexual intercourse held to be unnatural or abnormal, especially anal intercourse or bestiality.
Second:
1. Anal copulation of one male with another.
2. Anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex.
3. Copulation with an animal.
However, I see that you have also been investingating and have already realised the meaning of sodomy.
Why is it wrong ?
I understand there are medical concerns to society, both with anal copulation and animal-human copulation. The reference to "unatural or abnormal" (which crops up in several references) suggests that a large proportion of mankind finds sodomy, as defined here, (and as refered to in the bible) distateful. When large chunks of society find something distateful, and the are medical concerns, I think it is wrong.
Cheers
Don
You asked why I answered many of your points but not the one about why is sodomy wrong.
I will first explain this, then I will explain why I consider sodomy is wrong.
I tend to work mainly at weekends and mainly when the weather is good. Today conforms to both criteria. This limits my time to the evenings, and I do have to eat, speak with my wife etc etc. I have tried to respond to all the reasonable responses in this thread, and I have tried to do this in a chronological order. If someone has posted twice, I have tried to respond twice. I know I am not entirely consistent in this. It also takes time to read and do a bit of digging. The results aren't always predictable, as you have discovered yourself. Unfortunately it takes me a bit of time to get my responses in order so that there is a fighting chance of them being understood.
Your sodomy question was next on the list.
A couple of dictionary entries (from the internet and hopefully more to many peoples' liking than the bible) provides a reasonable definition of sodomy :-
First:Any of various forms of sexual intercourse held to be unnatural or abnormal, especially anal intercourse or bestiality.
Second:
1. Anal copulation of one male with another.
2. Anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex.
3. Copulation with an animal.
However, I see that you have also been investingating and have already realised the meaning of sodomy.
Why is it wrong ?
I understand there are medical concerns to society, both with anal copulation and animal-human copulation. The reference to "unatural or abnormal" (which crops up in several references) suggests that a large proportion of mankind finds sodomy, as defined here, (and as refered to in the bible) distateful. When large chunks of society find something distateful, and the are medical concerns, I think it is wrong.
Cheers
Don
Posted on: 11 February 2007 by Basil
quote:Originally posted by Malky:quote:Originally posted by Basil:
the Ignorant Tight-Ass Club
Are some of the contributors to this thread already members? I think we should be told. All I can say is I would hate to have as horrible, tiny, hateful, little brain as some of the contributers (one an obvious troll whose best ignored). As I said before, makes you wonder when some people last got laid.
Kindly address any comments to Mr Sorkin, I merely cut and pasted an extract from the script of his fine TV show "The West Wing" which I felt appropriate.
Posted on: 11 February 2007 by Adam Meredith
quote:Originally posted by Don Atkinson:
When large chunks of society find something distateful, and the are medical concerns, I think it is wrong.
Cheers
Don
I hope we may sensibly leave the animals out of this one.
Medical concerns - mainly AIDS and that can be transmitted by heterosexual intercourse.
No - I don't think "distasteful" is cognate with "wrong" - especially when "wrong" has consequences for an individual’s treatment by society and the law.
It does seem to come down to a matter of taste and, more specifically in this case, your taste – and that is no basis for a morality that is to be applied in the general.
Also - it is you who labels the homosexual (male only?) as a sodomite. By your quoted definition I discover that, although not of homosexual orientation, I am a sodomite. I thank you for such enlightenment. Not even "Posing as a sodomite" but a card-carrying sodomite.
No - not definition 3, honest.
Posted on: 11 February 2007 by count.d
I listened to the NAP300 at my dealer on Friday and consequently put an order in. I was comparing it to my chrome 250 oh Jesus sorry I've posted this on the wrong thread, trust me to get involved in an anal sex discussion. I wasn't reading this stuff, it must be a forum upgrade glitch.
P.S. Not that I'm interested, but what picture did I miss?
P.S. Not that I'm interested, but what picture did I miss?
Posted on: 12 February 2007 by Malky
quote:Originally posted by Don Atkinson:
However, I consider that we can learn a lot from the teachings ascribed to Jesus in the new testament
"Judge not, that you be not judged. For with what judgement you judge, you will be judged: and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you". Matthew 7; 1-2.
The Enlightenment project, in which mankind attempted to gain dominance over nature, soon discovered the inherent problem. As mankind is, itself, part of nature (unless you are a creationist fundamentalist) the urge to dominate and control becomes problematic. Therefore, if mankind itself is part of nature, then nothing is, by definition, 'unnatural'.
There are obvious 'wrongs' in society, any reasonable person is able to identify what these are and act accordingly. Because something is 'deviant' in relation to mainstream behaviour cannot imply that it is 'wrong'. Human sexuality and sexual relations have taken many different forms in different cultures and at different historical epochs. To have confidence in labelling a sexual act between two consenting adults as 'wrong' suggests you have succesfully located a human 'morality' If this is the case, then you are destined for great reknown, as philosophy from Plato till the present day has, unsuccessfully, wrestled with this problem. Well done yourself.
Posted on: 12 February 2007 by sancho p
*
THE THREAD SO FAR...
Well, it all started when Ridzwan decided to post an avatar of a sexy girl whom Kuma found Velveeta, then Parry said he didn't like smileys, then some posters lit into him, then someone complained the forum was the same then Meredith said not quite. Then there was some business about PM's, then someone quoted the Hobbitt , then Scorpio suggested Catholics shuold be exemted form certain adoption laws, then there was debate concerning homosexuality and definitions of sodomy, then Meredith said he was lovely then Atkinson said "no, I'm Lovely". Then Acad and Parry went at it, then more debate about homophobia then someone tried to get the thread back on smileys then Malky quoted Jesus then some idiot names Sancho thought he'd sum eveything up then a 16 ton weight dropped on top of him then....wait a minute.....
AAAAAARRRRRRRRRR........CCCRAAASH!!!
THE THREAD SO FAR...
Well, it all started when Ridzwan decided to post an avatar of a sexy girl whom Kuma found Velveeta, then Parry said he didn't like smileys, then some posters lit into him, then someone complained the forum was the same then Meredith said not quite. Then there was some business about PM's, then someone quoted the Hobbitt , then Scorpio suggested Catholics shuold be exemted form certain adoption laws, then there was debate concerning homosexuality and definitions of sodomy, then Meredith said he was lovely then Atkinson said "no, I'm Lovely". Then Acad and Parry went at it, then more debate about homophobia then someone tried to get the thread back on smileys then Malky quoted Jesus then some idiot names Sancho thought he'd sum eveything up then a 16 ton weight dropped on top of him then....wait a minute.....
AAAAAARRRRRRRRRR........CCCRAAASH!!!
Posted on: 12 February 2007 by Rasher
quote:While there is the slightest whiff of homophobia in the world, the adoptive children of same-sex couples will be liable to ridicule. Its not fair on them.
I had a school friend whose mother had a really bad facial hair problem, and another whose mother was 25 stone. "Your mums got a mustache". "Your mum's a fat old pig".
Yeah, kids do that. Empathy comes later to most people. It's just the way it is.
Roller skates can be dangerous to kids. Shall we ban them? Where do you want this to go?
Posted on: 12 February 2007 by Rasher
I think we should keep this on every forum page.
Hey, does this mean I'm not gay after all?
Posted on: 12 February 2007 by Adam Meredith
quote:Originally posted by Rasher:
I think we should keep this on every forum page.
Hey, does this mean I'm not gay after all?
Not if it's Kylie.
Posted on: 12 February 2007 by Adam Meredith
quote:Originally posted by sancho p:
*
THE THREAD SO FAR...
Well, it all started when Ridzwan decided to post an avatar then....wait a minute.....
......
AAAAAARRRRRRRRRR........CCCRAAASH!!!
It's a Bizarro World "Just a Minute".
Hesitation, Repetition and lots of "deviation".
Posted on: 12 February 2007 by Reginald Halliday
Forgive me for going 'off-topic' by referring to the original post, but I would find it useful to be able to preview my posts/replies before posting, as although I try to be careful, like most people I occasionally make typos or formatting errors. This facility is available on many other forums, why not here? Or is this a facility only available after one has reached a certain post count?
Posted on: 12 February 2007 by Adam Meredith
quote:Originally posted by Reginald Halliday:
Forgive me for going 'off-topic' by referring to the original post, but I would find it useful to be able to preview my posts/replies before posting, as although I try to be careful, like most people I occasionally make typos or formatting errors. This facility is available on many other forums, why not here? Or is this a facility only available after one has reached a certain post count?
No - it isn't a feature of this software. You could try writing in Word, spell checking and then cut & paste into the contribute window. I know I often do.