Enneagram Type 4 Board Archive

But how?

But how?

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Type 4 Message Board ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Ronnie on September 04, 1999 at 03:00:13:

In Reply to: Re: An example thread--my idea of using threads posted by Ronnie on September 04, 1999 at 02:21:48:

: : : Now it's a good time the look at the time/date of the postings. A newer white circled reply is always above an older one.

: True.

Now you might be thinking "it's great to answer just to the right person, but I don't know how?" Well, first you have to locate the original posting.
How? Look at the : markings here or > on the main board first. The amount of them shows how much you need to back up. What you are reading when you click the message will have either one : or > when you reply. So the one you click amounts to : when you're replying, the message above it has :: and above that ::: so the bit about white circles is my message posted at 01:56:18 9/04/99. What makes it difficult is that sometimes the message has the correct number or markings only in the beginning of, say, one line of ten or so. When you read the thread in full, you can find out who has said what...

I hope this all has helped to understand, not to confuse more... ;)

Note that this message, the one preceeding this and previous to that are all straight follow-ups of the message having ::: here. One posted "by Ron" is a follow-up to one posted 01:50:57 9/04/99 but is separate to these. The message with ::: is also follow-up to the 01:50:57 9/04/99 message, but it has resulted in a thread. Ron's message didn't. This fact means nothing Ron has said can be in this message without Copy & Paste, it's impossible that anything having any number of : signs could be from that message. In the same way nothing from white circled message "What an example!" could be here, because it isn't related the same way, it's parallel to this. However, there could be something from the very original message, but only if it was present in the 01:50:57 9/04/99 message.

I hope this all has helped to understand, not to confuse more... ;)

Ronnie

Follow Ups:

Re: oh, Ronnie, you post so well Cecil 04:02:38 9/04/99 (11)
- Re: oh my gosh, no, I forgot; need behavior limit check Cecil 20:17:02 9/04/99 (9)
  - Re: oh my gosh, no, I forgot; need behavior limit check DEECEE 21:06:46 9/04/99 (8)
    - Re:please forgive me Cecil 14:47:28 9/05/99 (1)
      - Re:please forgive me Ronnie 14:59:05 9/05/99 (0)
    - Re: oh,oh, I' m going to get 'slammed' now, (I think?) Cecil 14:13:45 9/05/99 (0)
    - Re: With whom are you speaking with? Cecil 13:13:40 9/05/99 (4)
      - Re: With whom are you speaking with? Tiggy Pom Pom 18:32:55 9/05/99 (3)
        
        Re: To Miss Piggy Sam 20:02:13 9/05/99 (2)
        
        Re: To Miss Piggy Miss Tiggy, (if you DON'T mind!) 19:16:00 9/06/99 (1)
        
        Re: To Miss Piggy Ev 21:17:03 9/06/99 (0)
- Re: oh, Ronnie, you post so well Ronnie 04:05:18 9/04/99 (0)

Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject:

Comments:
: : : : Now it's a good time the look at the time/date of the postings. A newer white circled reply is always above an older one. : : True. : : Now you might be thinking "it's great to answer just to the right person, but I don't know how?" Well, first you have to locate the original posting. : How? Look at the : markings here or > on the main board first. The amount of them shows how much you need to back up. What you are reading when you click the message will have either one : or > when you reply. So the one you click amounts to : when you're replying, the message above it has :: and above that ::: so the bit about white circles is my message posted at 01:56:18 9/04/99. What makes it difficult is that sometimes the message has the correct number or markings only in the beginning of, say, one line of ten or so. When you read the thread in full, you can find out who has said what... : : I hope this all has helped to understand, not to confuse more... ;) : Note that this message, the one preceeding this and previous to that are all straight follow-ups of the message having ::: here. One posted "by Ron" is a follow-up to one posted 01:50:57 9/04/99 but is separate to these. The message with ::: is also follow-up to the 01:50:57 9/04/99 message, but it has resulted in a thread. Ron's message didn't. This fact means nothing Ron has said can be in this message without Copy & Paste, it's impossible that anything having any number of : signs could be from that message. In the same way nothing from white circled message "What an example!" could be here, because it isn't related the same way, it's parallel to this. However, there could be something from the very original message, but only if it was present in the 01:50:57 9/04/99 message. : I hope this all has helped to understand, not to confuse more... ;) : Ronnie

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Type 4 Message Board ] [ FAQ ] type4board/messages/2169.html

Your Ad Here