Could somebody please post the formatting tags that can be used in this variant of Shiichan. Better yet create a faq page about the textboards or link me to one if such exists.
In 1987, a young woman named Holly Ackerman was killed in a bizarre cult ritual. Now that you have read her name, she will come to you in the night and pay you a horrifying visit. You MUST do the following:
>>11
My statement was pretty straightforward. Although apparently disliking bbcode and being in favor of Textile/Markdown equates to a (stand out!) dumb tech religion. I really don't see where you're coming from.
Anyway dicks dicks dicks dicks dicks.
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-20 6:01 ID:stJ//o6/
Markdown fucking fails hard for using sequences that may appear in normal text.
Why couldn't Wakaba just use Textile itself. It uses something that's almost like it but not quite, so you might actually have to look at the wiki to know what's up.
Anyway, character's like * and _ look better when not parsed. Tell me which looks better:
_Emphasizing this sentence._ Emphasizing this sentence.
When bbcode isn't parsed you kind of look like an ass.
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-26 21:24 ID:Kl3+A1gw
Oh also you look like an ass when you're trying to show how bad bbcode looks when it doesn't parse and then it parses in that very post.
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-27 3:23 ID:YXl2f7s+
>>24
True, but his point is valid. Also, * and _ have been de facto standards in plain-text media such as e-mail and USENET practically since the dawn of time. Some *nix clients (e.g., tin) parse them there, but I've never seen a Windows client that does. I'd certainly rather see those while reading text than bbcode or html tags.
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-27 3:26 ID:YXl2f7s+
>>25
And now *I* look like an ass for not noticing that >>24
was replying to himself.
You, however, are a moron for not understanding the point of being able to emphasize text.
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-28 16:42 ID:tfhdEKWu
>>28 You, however, are a moron for not understanding the point of being able to emphasize text.
You're a moron for assuming that. And for what >>27 said.