I've got an idea: POSTING ASSISTANCE

[eldritch cuckoo]

You don't have to write any code ec, just 'Copy' the image, and 'Paste' it into the whitespace of your post!

Yes, I've tried that out, it works. And it didn't so weeks earlier, and I don't know why - maybe I did something different (I won't remember the details now), or even an IE update made the difference. I suppose the mistake was mine. But I am trying to understand all this as well, and doing it all manually certainly helps.

Since I am writing most postings in the "source" mode, I need to know that if I do this copy&paste with the pic, it will only work in the "WYSIWYG" mode of the text field, because then new tags automatically are wrapped around it. In the source mode, only this is going to be inserted:

http: //www. forum.exscn.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=8422&d=1413984730

Maybe for some - not speaking of you - this kind of background information is nothing but confusing, but for me, understanding these details and trying it all out for myself, is important. Otherwise, we have that again what Phenomenon told me, that she tried witing "IMG" tags for URLs and it didn't work - and that was because this editor inserts new codes that stay invisible in the "WYSIWYG" mode.


Btw - if there has never been a problem with seeing the pictures as long as the original thumbnail remains - why then the apparent differences between the use of the browsers IE and Firefox which you described? That still riddles me.

 

[strativarius]

...

 

[phenomanon]

Yes, and I figured that out all by myself!

liberal snipping ( all by myself....no supervision required)

Phenomanon writing tags unsupervised? You've got to be kidding me!


.[/QUOTE]

Had I had any decent "supervision" do you s'pose I would've been writing in [img] tags? HAH!

 

[strativarius]

Had I had any decent "supervision" do you s'pose I would've been writing in tags? HAH![/QUOTE]

With computers there's always more than one way to skin a cat.

 

[eldritch cuckoo]

I was referring to this - I hope she won't mind, I can edit it away:

Essential message:

"If using a pic's address directly from the internet, don't copy an URL and then write the "IMG" tags around it, since the (formatted) window will mess it up. Write this in the "text" mode, then you can swap again to the formatted version."
and:
"... or use the "URL+IMG" thing you can copy from your album pages and insert it into the posting (in whichever mode)."

and - seemingly:

"There is no way to add an image in large size into the posting if it isn't "linked" but instead "embedded"."
THAT's what doesn't make sense to me... Why they always show as thumbnails. :confused2:

Great! Another poster had told me to do the "img" tags stuff, and I could never make it work.

 

[strativarius]

Well phenomanon, I suggest you take a very good look at this post. If you can't get what this 'other poster' told you to work, you must be doing something wrong. The programmer_guy seemed to think this was sound advice, and that's good enough for me!

Just my $0.02

 

[eldritch cuckoo]

If you can't get what this 'other poster' told you to work, you must be doing something wrong.

NO. This is complacent bullshit. I have explained very detailed what can go wrong even if these instructions, or the code list, are obeyed to the letter. Why, do you think, it didn't work for her, for me, and others, if doing it manually?!

Sometimes, because URL tags become invisibly inserted in that WYSIWYG mode, which is NOT OUR FAULT - only that we didn't know that this is happening is "our fault" and our "mistake". You insert a ready IMG+URL set into the field - and see the picture. You write the same letters - and see just the letters. Frankly, I needed over two hours to figure out why, but I did it the hard and stupid way, - with the (usual) result of learning a lot of other things on the way.

The other thing is that people often make some spacers or forget the "/" or accidentally delete a "[" or something like that. It just needs some time to gain a little practice.

 

[strativarius]

NO. This is complacent bullshit. I have explained very detailed what can go wrong even if these instructions, or the code list, are obeyed to the letter. Why, do you think, it didn't work for her, for me, and others, if doing it manually?!

Sometimes, because URL tags become invisibly inserted in that WYSIWYG mode, which is NOT OUR FAULT - only that we didn't know that this is happening is "our fault" and our "mistake". You insert a ready IMG+URL set into the field - and see the picture. You write the same letters - and see just the letters. Frankly, I needed over two hours to figure out why, but I did it the hard and stupid way, - with the (usual) result of learning a lot of other things on the way.

The other thing is that people often make some spacers or forget the "/" or accidentally delete a "[" or something like that. It just needs some time to gain a little practice.

Tell you what eldritch, you're beginning to get on my tits. Why don't you take a fucking hike?

 

[phenomanon]

Well phenomanon, I suggest you take a very good look at this post. If you can't get what this 'other poster' told you to work, you must be doing something wrong. The programmer_guy seemed to think this was sound advice, and that's good enough for me!

Just my $0.02

Well don't get testy. I feel almost certain that i did do it wrong. That should come as no surprise to any one. LOL.
Strativarius, your $0.02 is gold with me.

 

[strativarius]

Well don't get testy. I feel almost certain that i did do it wrong. That should come as no surprise to any one. LOL.
Strativarius, your $0.02 is gold with me.

Look phenomanon, all things being equal, if you open a web-page and no image appears where there should be one, it is nobody's fault but the person who coded the page, or the server, or any number of reasons. It is certainly not your fault, (unless somehow you have configured your browser to not display images, if that is possible - which I very much doubt these days).

 

[Dulloldfart]

(unless somehow you have configured your browser to not display images, if that is possible - which I very much doubt.

I usually configure Chrome to not display images when I visit someone with very limited bandwidth so as not to exceed their quota (or the ISP cuts off access for a while):

Settings > Advanced Settings > Privacy > Content settings > Images > Do not show any images

Usefully, when you've saved this setting and are browsing around the net, there's an icon in the right hand side of the address bar that you can click and adjust the (global) setting for any particular site so as to view images on that site.

Paul

 

[strativarius]

I usually configure Chrome to not display images when I visit someone with very limited bandwidth so as not to exceed their quota (or the ISP cuts off access for a while):

Settings > Advanced Settings > Privacy > Content settings > Images > Do not show any images

Usefully, when you've saved this setting and are browsing around the net, there's an icon in the right hand side of the address bar that you can click and adjust the (global) setting for any particular site so as to view images on that site.

Paul

That's very considerate of you Paul. I was assuming that phenomanon was able to view images most of the time (otherwise you'd have to know something was seriously amiss).

As a matter of fact I tried to install Chrome a couple of days ago while wrestling with images, in order to see what a Chrome user sees as well as MSIE and Firefox, and I was told my machine was too decrepit to handle it. Doh!

This is all degraded being's fault for castigating us for displaying thumbnails in our posts. Lol.

Images from remote websites are fine, they display full-size with no tweaking using the [noparse]

[/noparse] tags, it's just I've been trying to find a way of doing it from a local machine without showing the thumbnail along with the full-sized image. It doesn't help when you can plainly see the images yourself in your post and you are unaware that no one else can. Brain damage. Granted I've not much brain to damage, but I'm doing my best.

 

[phenomanon]

Maybe for some - not speaking of you - this kind of background information is nothing but confusing, but for me, understanding these details and trying it all out for myself, is important. Otherwise, we have that again what Phenomenon told me, that she tried witing "IMG" tags for URLs and it didn't work - and that was because this editor inserts new codes that stay invisible in the "WYSIWYG" mode.

.

I never told you any such thing. Up to this point, I have never told you any fooking thing. Where did you get this info? Tell me now. On this Board. Show me....

 

[phenomanon]

That's very considerate of you Paul. I was assuming that phenomanon was able to view images most of the time (otherwise you'd have to know something was seriously amiss).

As a matter of fact I tried to install Chrome a couple of days ago while wrestling with images, in order to see what a Chrome user sees as well as MSIE and Firefox, and I was told my machine was too decrepit to handle it. Doh!

This is all degraded being's fault for castigating us for displaying thumbnails in our posts. Lol.

Images from remote websites are fine, they display full-size with no tweaking using the [noparse]

[/noparse] tags, it's just I've been trying to find a way of doing it from a local machine without showing the thumbnail along with the full-sized image. It doesn't help when you can plainly see the images yourself in your post and you are unaware that no one else can. Brain damage. Granted I've not much brain to damage, but I'm doing my best.

I can see a lot of Images, just also a lot in the little box with a red X.

 

[eldritch cuckoo]

I never told you any such thing. Up to this point, I have never told you any fooking thing. Where did you get this info?

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...ING-ASSISTANCE&p=975299&viewfull=1#post975299
This, in the same thread, some postings earlier, is what I was referring to, it is the PN, and that is why I have quoted this one sentence later, along with my explanation why it (IMO) sometimes doesn't work. Possibly I misunderstood it...? Since this was what came as answer to my explanation, I interpreted it the way that you made "[IMG ]" tags, the one way or the other, and they didn't work, and that the explanation solved the problem. That's all.

 

[phenomanon]

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...ING-ASSISTANCE&p=975299&viewfull=1#post975299
This, in the same thread, some postings earlier, is what I was referring to, it is the PN, and that is why I have quoted this one sentence later, along with my explanation why it (IMO) sometimes doesn't work. Possibly I misunderstood it...? Since this was what came as answer to my explanation, I interpreted it the way that you made "[IMG ]" tags, the one way or the other, and they didn't work, and that the explanation solved the problem. That's all.

OK. It looked as tho I had told you sumpin in private, and I knew that I hadn't.

 

[ThetanExterior]

I was looking for a solution to a posting problem I had and this thread gave me the solution but it took me a while to find the thread.

So....................

 

[phenomanon]

I am told that I cannot post dox from my own machine to my own machine. Is there a way around that?

 

[Dulloldfart]

I am told that I cannot post dox from my own machine to my own machine. Is there a way around that?

Probably, but it depends what you are trying to do. I get a similar (Windows) message when I try to copy a document from one directory to somewhere else but I accidentally try to drop or paste it in the same directory.

What are you trying to do exactly? (I.e., what did you really do? )

Paul

 

[phenomanon]

Probably, but it depends what you are trying to do. I get a similar (Windows) message when I try to copy a document from one directory to somewhere else but I accidentally try to drop or paste it in the same directory.

What are you trying to do exactly? (I.e., what did you really do? )

Paul

Tried to copy/paste dox or pics from my files to ESMB or ESMB Private Messages. No dice.