Ellmeister Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 I'm on Firefox but its not spell checking for me :'( Noob Alert! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raining_again Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 I'm on Firefox but its not spell checking for me :'( Noob Alert! need to get the addon for it. Tools > addons > get addons > search for british english dictionary and install eet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashley Posted July 28, 2009 Author Share Posted July 28, 2009 I believe a spellcheck button can be added. Personally I find in-browser spellcheckers to be a pain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellmeister Posted July 29, 2009 Share Posted July 29, 2009 I believe a spellcheck button can be added. Personally I find in-browser spellcheckers to be a pain Personally I find you a pain Owned! Pwned! Biatchslapped! Erm... sorry about that. Couldn't resist. I have a spellchecker add-on now. It just came to mind more when reading stuwii's post and then seeing an error in one of my posts :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashley Posted July 29, 2009 Author Share Posted July 29, 2009 I told you to use the KY.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happenstance Posted July 29, 2009 Share Posted July 29, 2009 Is the forum running slowly today for anyone else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoogleViper Posted July 29, 2009 Share Posted July 29, 2009 I'll tell you who isn't running slowly, Usain Bolt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dannyboy-the-Dane Posted July 29, 2009 Share Posted July 29, 2009 Is the forum running slowly today for anyone else? Well, I did experience some long loading times a few times today. There are no problems right now, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoogleViper Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 1. I don't seem to be able to change the forum scheme. 2. The buttons in the reply box (like image and quote) don't work, in both quick reply and advanced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirkatronics Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 1. I don't seem to be able to change the forum scheme. 2. The buttons in the reply box (like image and quote) don't work, in both quick reply and advanced. Which scheme are you on, and what are you viewing the site on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoogleViper Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 I'm on stretchable and I'm using firefox. (I assume that's what you mean) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirkatronics Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 I'm on stretchable and I'm using firefox. (I assume that's what you mean) Yea. Try clearing your cookies, then select the theme again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoogleViper Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 But it doesn't change the theme on my PDA. (that's how I noticed it.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashley Posted July 31, 2009 Author Share Posted July 31, 2009 Try clicking on something like this on your PDA: http://www.n-europe.com/forum/index.php?styleid=42 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pantsu Man! Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 Opera also has a spell check, so unless you're using IE... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gizmo Posted August 6, 2009 Share Posted August 6, 2009 Is it just me or is the search function broken a little? Whenever I find a post with search and click to go to it, it takes me to entirely the wrong page, usually 2-3 pages later than the post I clicked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoogleViper Posted August 6, 2009 Share Posted August 6, 2009 Is it just me or is the search function broken a little? Whenever I find a post with search and click to go to it, it takes me to entirely the wrong page, usually 2-3 pages later than the post I clicked. That happens with the phantom page issue. Usually it sends you however many phantom pages there are away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gizmo Posted August 8, 2009 Share Posted August 8, 2009 It's not that, because I'm not getting the phantom pages at the moment but it's still happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daft Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 Why is there a 500 pixel width limit with the sigs? There is loads of space. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raining_again Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 Why is there a 500 pixel width limit with the sigs? There is loads of space. not when you have a netbook or other small device... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daft Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 (edited) not when you have a netbook or other small device... I'm on a netbook. There is plenty, and I mean plenty, of room left. I even compromised on the height so the extra width wouldn't be a problem. Also, HD embedded YouTube videos are at the very least 600 pixels across, maybe more, we still have those. This limit makes no sense. Edit: Until I get an explanation other than 'those are the rules' I'm putting it back. It's easily within the pre-set width of the comment box and like I've said I'm on a tiny netbook and it has caused no problems. Edited August 10, 2009 by Daft Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashley Posted August 10, 2009 Author Share Posted August 10, 2009 They've been in need of a review for a while but I believe the limit was set primarily for cosmetic reasons. To stop rediculous and often repulsive large signatures that can be found on others. And you could quite easily ask why the hell do you need 600 pixels when over half of that is empty space? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dyson Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 It'd be nice if avatar and signature file sizes were upped a bit, but I think the dimension limitations are fine personally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daft Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 They've been in need of a review for a while but I believe the limit was set primarily for cosmetic reasons. To stop rediculous and often repulsive large signatures that can be found on others. Well, yeah, that's fair enough. And you could quite easily ask why the hell do you need 600 pixels when over half of that is empty space? The absence of something can be just as effective as something being there. What is the sea without land? In this case it's meant to off set the Joker to the side, it's meant to be unsettling. Anyways, can I keep it?! *puppy dog eyes* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dyson Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 On the subject of signatures, Choze's needs fixing too. Two tall images. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts