The Four Word Film Review Fourum
Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Members | Search | FAQ
Return to my fwfr
Frequently Asked Questions Click for advanced search
 All Forums
 FWFR Related
 Reviews
 Sean's FYCTH #460

Note: You must be registered in order to post a reply.
To register, click here. Registration is FREE!

Screensize:
UserName:
Password:
Format Mode:
Format: BoldItalicizedUnderlineStrikethrough Align LeftCenteredAlign Right Horizontal Rule Insert HyperlinkInsert Email Insert CodeInsert QuoteInsert List
   
Message:

Smilies
Angry [:(!] Approve [^] Big Smile [:D] Black Eye [B)]
Blush [:I] Clown [:o)] Cool [8D] Dead [xx(]
Disapprove [V] Duh [7] Eight Ball [8] Evil [}:)]
Gulp [12] Hog [13] Kisses [:X] LOL [15]
Moon [1] Nerd [18] Question [?] Sad [:(]
Shock [:O] Shy [8)] Skull [20] Sleepy [|)]
Smile [:)] Tongue [:P] Wink [;)] Yawn [29]

   -  HTML is OFF | Forum Code is ON
 
   

T O P I C    R E V I E W
ChocolateLady Posted - 11/24/2008 : 07:26:26
Four Your Consideration - Treasure Hunt

Sean Says: Teach your children well!
Put any five reviews you like in your F.Y.C. list.
Do not use reviews from the previous round - you must change them every round.
Post here to declare that you've done it. Sooner is better than later.
Provide a spoiler warning in your post when appropriate.
You must read the F.Y.C.s of all participants.
The next round starts on Monday or Thursday at 6:00 a.m. FWFR time, whichever comes next.

15   L A T E S T    R E P L I E S    (Newest First)
[matt] Posted - 11/29/2008 : 10:48:17

Yeah, maybe I'll message benj and ask him.

Salopian Posted - 11/28/2008 : 15:37:03


I would think subscripts would be possible too though. It seems likely that there would be special characters for subscript 2 and 3, just that they would be less widely used than the supercript ones.
[matt] Posted - 11/27/2008 : 10:10:43

On second thoughts, maybe I'll just leave it the way it is so everyone stays happy

I guess if we start throwing superscripts around willy-nilly where we actually mean subscripts, it will look like we're 'squaring' everything and that would just be preposterous!

Salopian Posted - 11/27/2008 : 03:23:13
I'd certainly have voted for it were it the way he intended originally. However, the squared way is not that, and I definitely wouldn't have voted for it. Never, never, never. It looks idiotic. A plain 2 is well established as a stand-in for the subscript, especially because of the company, but in numerous different contexts.
demonic Posted - 11/27/2008 : 02:48:27
He can do what he wants with it, it's his review.

I think altering for improvements is perfectly valid as long as the essence of the review is the same; in other words what would have inspired the vote in the first place. In this instance it's hardly worth mentioning. It'll look better, whether it's grammatically or symbolically correct or not. Would you really not have voted for it if you'd seen the review as [matt] intended it in the first place? I think you would have - it's just the pedant in you squirming.
Salopian Posted - 11/27/2008 : 02:19:48
quote:
Originally posted by dem9nic

quote:
Originally posted by Salopian

quote:
Originally posted by [matt]

I might well change it to that, just because it looks a bit better.

Benj, please could you then remove my vote from this review? I wouldn't have voted for something that looks as ridiculous as a superscript in a chemical formula.

Wow, is that possible? We can have votes removed? That would open a whole can of worms.

Well, I'm sure Benj is capable of doing it, but I am not expecting him to. I was just making the point that the review shouldn't be changed in that way, and also touching on the issue raised recently -- that reviews can be edited to forms that their existing voters wouldn't vote for.
demonic Posted - 11/27/2008 : 01:58:32
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian

quote:
Originally posted by [matt]

I might well change it to that, just because it looks a bit better.

Benj, please could you then remove my vote from this review? I wouldn't have voted for something that looks as ridiculous as a superscript in a chemical formula.


Wow, is that possible? We can have votes removed? That would open a whole can of worms.
Airbolt Posted - 11/27/2008 : 01:06:47
vv
Salopian Posted - 11/27/2008 : 00:40:00
quote:
Originally posted by [matt]

I might well change it to that, just because it looks a bit better.

Benj, please could you then remove my vote from this review? I wouldn't have voted for something that looks as ridiculous as a superscript in a chemical formula.
[matt] Posted - 11/27/2008 : 00:32:44
quote:
Originally posted by lemmycaution


Guitar HerO�



Thanks, I didn't know superscripts work actually. I might well change it to that, just because it looks a bit better.

quote:
Originally posted by dem9nic

VV.

[Matt] got 4/5, Airbolt 3/3.



Cheers, you got 4/5 from me too

lemmycaution Posted - 11/27/2008 : 00:31:55
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian

quote:
Originally posted by lemmycaution

Um, yes but they are better than nothing.

True, but normal digits are also better than nothing, and better than superscripts too.



I have to admit, you are on top of things.
Salopian Posted - 11/27/2008 : 00:08:45
quote:
Originally posted by lemmycaution

Um, yes but they are better than nothing.

True, but normal digits are also better than nothing, and better than superscripts too.
Whippersnapper. Posted - 11/27/2008 : 00:02:46

Voted, badly and spitefully.


demonic Posted - 11/26/2008 : 22:50:34
VV.

[Matt] got 4/5, Airbolt 3/3.
BaftaBaby Posted - 11/26/2008 : 21:39:40
vv


The Four Word Film Review Fourum © 1999-2024 benj clews Go To Top Of Page
Snitz Forums 2000