comment on

I only really understood that ppl were angry at me, never a happy or worm feeling. Till just now I was thinking that if there was something massively wrong with editing ports or that if historical changes to the nodes were important that this was an issue for the Gods. They could either not have an edit feature or have a past history archival feature.

It never accrued to me that the new content I was posting was the issue. Am I wrong in thinking these are two unrelated actions? One has to do with writing content and the other has nothing to do with putting pen to pepper. Ppl didn't like my posts, but instead what was brought to my attention as the issue was that I had changed my ports.

Am I making sense? It doesn't seem like I'm able to get what I'm trying to communicate across. "He used the edit feature." VS "He typed something I didn't think he should have."

Edit:
My dyslexia is more in control of what I'm writing today than I am.

In reply to Re^2: PM Guide to editing nodes. by cheako
in thread PM Guide to editing nodes. by cheako

Are you posting in the right place? Check out Where do I post X? to know for sure.
Posts may use any of the Perl Monks Approved HTML tags. Currently these include the following:
<code> <a> <b> <big> <blockquote> <br /> <dd> <dl> <dt> <em> <font> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <hr /> <i> <li> <nbsp> <ol> <p> <small> <strike> <strong> <sub> <sup> <table> <td> <th> <tr> <tt> <u> <ul>
Snippets of code should be wrapped in <code> tags not <pre> tags. In fact, <pre> tags should generally be avoided. If they must be used, extreme care should be taken to ensure that their contents do not have long lines (<70 chars), in order to prevent horizontal scrolling (and possible janitor intervention).
Want more info? How to link or How to display code and escape characters are good places to start.


"be consistent"
	PerlMonks