>I don't more often than I do, Jim. > >But I'm trying hard to learn.
mitch........we all are trying.
I thought that you kinda got brushed off with that last responce, so.......here's what I know about it.
With your cursor on the page where tpikdave had his post... right click and go down the menu to 'view source'. Then the fun begins, scroll down the page untill you see what seems to be pertinant to the post you want. There is a LOT of garbage that pertains to the format of the page and all....but if you are carefull you will find the source of his post. LOL I tried three times before I found it.
#6. "RE: sig test" In response to russe1 (Reply # 5) Mon Oct-07-02 11:25 PM
My post was intended to be light hearted and accurate. The only reason I saw the code was that it was initially displayed in tpikdave's post. His subsequent profile editing removed it. The edited sig did not require a repost to be displayed in it's new form hence the lack of editing evidence in tpikdave's post.
At the time of both my posts I had actually misinterpreted what tpkdave was attempting (and succeeding) in doing. It did not occur to me to look at the source. If it had I would have most certainly would have indicated how to do so in my reply to Mitch.
I am sorry if anyone felt I was being offhand or brusque, but it certainly wasnt my intent,
OK Jim ......don't worry about it. I didn't mean to tromp on your toes,very nice of you to come back and explain what happened. Thats just the attitude that makes us keep coming back here, isn't it?
)
