|
|
Welcome to the Database Correction page. This page is for letting me or the other editors know of corrections that need to be made. Please read the posting instructions carefully.
|
|
| Sunday June 29 00:55:38 2003 Re: Something I noticed |
| Biff wrote:
> > >Brian R wrote: > > Did you mean to leave out this caveat in your revision? > I inserted it because it was unclear which scene it > referred to ... or if it applied to both. Yeah, it confused me. Add it back if you like. > Oh ... and the insertion of the quoted poster's name has > had the unintended effect of eliciting the "top > down" error message. It can be circumvented by > tossing in a ">" before the name. No, you must have put a carriage return in after the attribution (see above). The system ignores the first line if it has "wrote:" in it. |
| Brian R |
| Sunday June 29 01:38:38 2003 Re: Something I noticed |
| > >
> > Did you mean to leave out this caveat in your > revision? > > I inserted it because it was unclear which scene it > > > referred to ... or if it applied to both. > > Yeah, it confused me. Add it back if you like. > Roger that. > > Oh ... and the insertion of the quoted poster's name > has > > had the unintended effect of eliciting the "top > > > down" error message. It can be circumvented by > > > tossing in a ">" before the name. > > No, you must have put a carriage return in after the > attribution (see above). The system ignores the first > line if it has "wrote:" in it. > This is what popped at the top of the quotes above: Brian R wrote: > Biff wrote: > > > > > >Brian R wrote: I didn't touch it on the previous message until I got the "top down" warning ... then I added the ">" and it went through. Maybe it's another mystery of MSN TV. |
| Biff |
| Sunday June 29 06:49:05 2003 Re: Upcoming Balko Entry Ref-Post |
| Jay L wrote:
> Going to try to work out a rough episode ID. > Problem being, sent tapes out whilst DB down and now > can't find my list of credits. > Figure Peter de K will know and ID both, > but for now, give you this for your tape lists & notes: > Rough Description: > Be about half way in (35mins), two unknowns are > duct-taped to chairs, arms at sides, with the tape > wrapped around their bodies to the chairs. Gagged with > tape. > This the episode figure it is, if running in order? > ep: "Gefährliche Vaterschaft" Does not ring a bell, so I suppose I have not seen it. I will take a look into episode guides and wait for caps like anyone else. > In English, both titles are similar in mentioning > babies-kids, and the main plot revolved around a baby. Sounds like the right episode. Vaterschaft = fatherhood, so a storyline with a baby fits quite good. > Believe good chance actress ID'd either by Peter, or when caps go up? I'll do my best. |
| Peter de K |
| Sunday June 29 12:03:00 2003 Re: Upcoming Balko Entry Ref-Post |
| Peter de K wrote:
> Does not ring a bell, so I suppose I have not seen it. I > will take a look into episode guides and wait for caps > like anyone else. Fellas have started receiving it, and I've asked the favour of them posting the names in the credits here. Figure should help abit. > Sounds like the right episode. Vaterschaft = fatherhood, > so a storyline with a baby fits quite good. Thanx Peter Alot of the time the French titles & ep titles here are different from their original German ones. Do it with US ones as well. So I'll do best to make sure right one for a decent VCR alert for fellas on Rob's forum |
| Jay L |
| kdnpr@yahoo.com |
| Sunday June 29 12:20:54 2003 Re: Something I noticed |
| Biff wrote:
> I didn't touch it on the previous message until I got the > "top down" warning ... then I added the > ">" and it went through. Maybe it's another mystery of MSN TV. I can see an extra carriage return above the attribution, which is what caused the problem in that post. I'm not getting any other reports of this so far, so I can't really say what happened here. |
| Brian R |
| Sunday June 29 14:54:46 2003 Re: Something I noticed |
| Brian R wrote:
> > I can see an extra carriage return above the attribution, > which is what caused the problem in that post. I'm not > getting any other reports of this so far, so I can't > really say what happened here. > Okay ... I wasn't clear that you meant *above*. That's easily rectified by deleting it, as I've done here. |
| Sunday June 29 15:02:11 2003 Re: Something I noticed |
| Biff wrote:
> > Okay ... I wasn't clear that you meant *above*. That's > easily rectified by deleting it, as I've done here. > And looking back over the earlier message, I see you *didn't* mean *above*. Regardless, deleting's the ticket ... so Bob's your uncle. |
| Biff |
| Sunday June 29 16:23:55 2003 Re: Something I noticed |
| Biff wrote:
> And looking back over the earlier message, I see you > *didn't* mean *above*. I didn't say "above", sorry. I did mention that the SW ignored the first line. > Regardless, deleting's the ticket ... so Bob's your uncle. If you are consistently getting that, it's probably your browser in some way. I'm not seeing it, and haven't had any other reports. Obviously not something I can test. |
| Brian R |
| Sunday June 29 21:15:39 2003 Re: Something I noticed |
| Brian R wrote:
> Biff wrote: > > > And looking back over the earlier message, I see you > > > *didn't* mean *above*. > > I didn't say "above", sorry. I did mention that > the SW > ignored the first line. > Right ... I wrote my reply without checking your first response. I was just correcting myself. > > Regardless, deleting's the ticket ... so Bob's your > uncle. > > If you are consistently getting that, it's probably your > browser in some way. I'm not seeing it, and haven't had > any other reports. > > Obviously not something I can test. > It's a simple matter of my axing that space at the top each time ... no grand hardship. |
| Sunday June 29 23:22:53 2003 Re: Something I noticed |
| Brian R wrote:
> Biff wrote: > > > And looking back over the earlier message, I see you > > > *didn't* mean *above*. > > I didn't say "above", sorry. I did mention that > the SW > ignored the first line. > The penny's dropped now. After a careful rereading, I see your use of "after" didn't mean *below* the attribution ... but after I'd hit "Reply". Time rather than place. You were referring to the carriage return above the attribution, but didn't say so explicitly, and I wasn't on the same wavelength. Am now. No fear. On to pastures new. |
| Biff |
|
|