Wong & Owens Posted May 24, 2004 Share Posted May 24, 2004 There is no such feature. Highlight the text. Press reply. Paste the text. Erase the stuff you don't want to reply to. Highlight the sentences you do want to reply to and press the 'quote' button once. Type a response underneath the quote. Rinse and repeat. Don't forget to 'preview' post to make sure you didn't f*** up, though. See, this doesn't work. I highlighted(and copied) the text I pressed "reply" I pasted the text I erased the superfluous copy And here's where it doesn't work. I have no 'quote' button to press here. I get either 'Add Reply' or "Preview Post" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted May 24, 2004 Share Posted May 24, 2004 THe quote button is in the area of buttons on the top of the post. Where you can change the color of the writing or what not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wong & Owens Posted May 24, 2004 Share Posted May 24, 2004 THe quote button is in the area of buttons on the top of the post. Where you can change the color of the writing or what not. Right, but once you hit the "reply" button, the quote option disappears Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wong & Owens Posted May 24, 2004 Share Posted May 24, 2004 Oh wait here it is!!!! I figured it out. I am half Polish, have mercy on me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandoFan Posted May 24, 2004 Share Posted May 24, 2004 Right, but once you hit the "reply" button, the quote option disappears There are TWO 'quote' buttons. One automatically replies to the entire post (creating the superfluous copy) The other one is available once you press "reply" and it's located under the 'size' options. To use it, you have to highlight a sentence/parahrph you want quoted individually and then press 'quote' once and tyoe your reply underneath. If you want to quite the next excerpt, then you do the same again. It's very simple, sounds harder than it really is - certainly takes less time than what you do now with the color and capitals letters thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted May 24, 2004 Share Posted May 24, 2004 Brando, you should be glad to hear that it will be a lot easier to multi quote in a few weeks. The new version of the board has been delayed, but I think the final will be out relatively soon and then multi quoting will be possible without all that manual labor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandoFan Posted May 24, 2004 Share Posted May 24, 2004 Oh wait here it is!!!! I figured it out. I am half Polish, have mercy on me. Maybe you won't be yelling at Juggernaut as much now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queen Prawn Posted May 24, 2004 Share Posted May 24, 2004 I am half Polish, have mercy on me. You too?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandoFan Posted May 25, 2004 Share Posted May 25, 2004 I still dont know how to use the "multi-quote" feature. Funny, but Bob Gibson and Sandy Koufax could throw a mean breaking ball.....How come there was no rotator cuff/labrum tear 10 starts into their (and many, many other pitchers') careers? **I dunno, maybe because they weren't throwing cutters/splitters in addition to the curves and sliders? Maybe they developed their whole arm as young 'uns which gave their joints the stability to withstand the strain of all those pitches? A combination of both? Penis Beauty Creme? If that were true, then Boston would have asked him way back when they had an awful bullpen. When was the last time he threw 170 pitches a game? **Baseball is a specialist's game now. Boston management would have been reamed daily if they used Wakefield every game. Especially when that would keep millions of dollars worth of other pitchers sitting around collecting dust. And he is a knuckleballer - give me one fastball-change-up pitcher who can throw 140-150 pitches a game on consistent basis like the old timers could on a 2-3 day rest. **Randy Johnson would be my best guess, although probably not at 41 years old. 3-4 years ago he may have been able to pull it off. Are there really any other starters out there that rely on fastballs and changeups almost exclusively? Today's pitchers are getting babied. Fragilitos. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilMonkey Posted May 25, 2004 Share Posted May 25, 2004 Secondly, even if it were true, then how come you don't see knuckleballers or good ol' fastball-curve pitchers throw 300 innings a season? . In 1971 thru 1974, Wilbur Wood averaged over 340 innings pitched. I believe he even started both games of a double header for the Sox. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwerty Posted May 25, 2004 Share Posted May 25, 2004 There is no reason at all why a pitcher cannot go out and pitch 300 innings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted May 25, 2004 Share Posted May 25, 2004 There is no reason at all why a pitcher cannot go out and pitch 300 innings. Well $ is the big reason. The teams want to protect their investments so they arne't going to put a pitcher who makes a ton of money on the mound and risk having them injured. In the olden days if a pitcher was injured it wasn't a big deal. You'd cut your losses and the contract wasnt' even guaranteed. This also probably meant a lot more pitchers pitched through their injuries. The other thing is the league was smaller and less dilluted for talent ed which meant there were a lot more guys that could play so if a player went down it wasn't as hard to find a replacement. Now with all the teams and every team already so thin, when one player goes down its very hard to find a serviceable replacement. That and a player isn't going to risk his butt of injuring an arm that could make him a lot of money in his lifetime. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandoFan Posted May 25, 2004 Share Posted May 25, 2004 In 1971 thru 1974, Wilbur Wood averaged over 340 innings pitched. I believe he even started both games of a double header for the Sox. That was 30 years ago! I am talking about last 5-10 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted May 25, 2004 Share Posted May 25, 2004 Well $ is the big reason. The teams want to protect their investments so they arne't going to put a pitcher who makes a ton of money on the mound and risk having them injured. In the olden days if a pitcher was injured it wasn't a big deal. You'd cut your losses and the contract wasnt' even guaranteed. This also probably meant a lot more pitchers pitched through their injuries. The other thing is the league was smaller and less dilluted for talent ed which meant there were a lot more guys that could play so if a player went down it wasn't as hard to find a replacement. Now with all the teams and every team already so thin, when one player goes down its very hard to find a serviceable replacement. That and a player isn't going to risk his butt of injuring an arm that could make him a lot of money in his lifetime. I agree. There is a completely different equation when considering how much a pitcher should pitch. You develope or trade fora good pitcher, sign him to keep him, then you don't want to blow his arm out in two years and pay for 4 more. Dusty Baker, please note above. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wong & Owens Posted May 25, 2004 Share Posted May 25, 2004 Maybe you won't be yelling at Juggernaut as much now. I, like many other posters, have chosen to ignore the blowhard and his silly polls. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.