Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon.

Pages: 1-

part 1 [part 1]

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-29 22:28

part 1

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-29 22:36

JEWS

LAIN

LISP

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-30 5:29

PART 1

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-30 6:52

>>1
>implying there will be part 2

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-30 10:49

>>4
inb4 gb2b please LOLOLOL.

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-30 11:07

>>4
' >implying implications that were not implied

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-30 11:30

>>6
Implying that the implication of what was implied was not implied

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-30 11:35

>>7
implying 'greentext quotem meant to imply the implications that the implication of what was implied not being implied was in fact implied

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-30 11:53

>>4
Maybe not but there might be a part 2 of part 1 which is merely an extension of part 1.

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-30 12:55

>>6-8
Please stop it.

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-30 16:45

>>10
implying that drawing attention to the "implying" crap is going to stop it.

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-30 16:50

@_@ -> THIS THREAD

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-30 17:21

>>11
Implying that drawing attention to the "implying" crap is not going to stop it.

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-30 20:43

">implying"  is a real meme unlike the simulacrum of repeated "memetic mutation"

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-30 20:45

>>14
' >implying you're implying correctly

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-31 1:04

A Proposal To Modify the Pseudo-GreenText BBCode Implementation 2010 Specification

I’d like to propose a modification to the current /prog/ Pseudo-GreenText BBCode Implementation 2010 specification.

The current standard:

' >text

and its accepted (though discouraged) variants:

'>text
'> text
' > text

are prone to breakage during typical use. Often a poster will find the need to use an apostrophe, perhaps to create a contraction; unfortunately, that syntax has already been used earlier in the implementation. This (honest) mistake leads to a very nasty bug — non-GreenText — completely and utterly defeating the purpose of the standard in the first place.

Bearing this in mind, please consider my suggested modification:

" >text

with the expected variants:

">text
"> text
" > text

This implementation uses the less typical inch mark to invoke the GreenText effect. The inch mark is most often used for the purpose of demarcating quotations, given that it belongs to the ASCII character set (unlike true quotation marks) and that it only requires one keystroke to type (unlike so called ``faggot quotes''.) Thus, it can be argued that both the inch mark and the foot mark are commonly found in forum posts.  However, the inch mark has a clear advantage over the foot mark with regards to this implementation, due to the unique grammatical and syntactic structure of the PGT. Given that PGT themselves are a type of quote, quotation marks (and, therefore, inch marks) are often rendered unnecessary. In fact, in most cases, their use would be considered poor form, which would give this new implementation the added benefit of discouraging malformed PGTs. Overall, the inch mark enjoys a clear benefit over the foot mark in that it is not only less common, but also not expected, when compared to the foot mark.

I think there remains no question that our old and dear PGT standard could use a modern upgrade to handle today’s new, difficult, and exciting challenges. I hope you’ll find that my suggestion — being simple, powerful, and to-the-point — will help the future meet those challenges head on, using the technologies they already know and love.

Thank you.

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-31 1:09

I wanted to put back to /b/, please on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_implication but then I realised that I'm banned from Wikipedia after trying to write an article on FBS.

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-31 1:39

>>16
` >or do this instead...
/ >or this...
# >or use redtext instead...

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-31 2:24

>>18
`

PROPOSAL APPROVED

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-31 9:46

>>19
`> Does it "really work' with 'other "types of quotes?

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-31 10:20

>>17
>implying you promote FBS outside /frog/

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-31 10:43

>>21
I went to verify his claim.
This is what I found http://www.anwarkim.com/?s=4chan+BBS+-+BBCODE
This is art.

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-31 10:46

http://dis.4chan.org/read/prog/1186660795/46-61 Oh wow, that was history right there!

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-31 13:56

>>22
wtf?
>>23
indeed

Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List