I made the same mistake in book club. At some point (threadsuck this thread to see when) all the threads ate some funny code which caused one new post per thread to contain the same number as the previous post. So if there had been no posts in FF spoilers in awhile that would be what caused it to move to the top with no apparent new post. Or something like that.

There actually was a new (and unread) post, and thus the jump to the top of the thread list was correct, but the usual "# new" part of the description was missing.

eta: Aha! Now I see it. The new post did indeed get the same post number as the previous post, so it was new by date but not by number.

I'm having a weird thing happen in Bitches. When I first got to the thread, everything after Daniel posted to Wind Sparrow Daniel C. Jensen "Spike's Bitches 21 Gunn Salute" Jan 22, 2005 6:35:57 am PST in red text was also in red. When I wrote up a post saying everything was red text and hit post, so that only my post and the one right before it were on screen, there was no red text. I did some playing around, and when Daniel's post is on the screen, everything on the screen after it is in red. At first, that was a portion of the 30 posts that is my default, because Daniel's was in the middle, but when I marked his post, so that his was on the top of the page, all of the following 29 posts were in red text. Same thing happened when I thread sucked.

Lee, the reason that's happening is that the red text is coming from the red tag in Daniel's post. If that's not on the screen, no red.

However, when I'm looking at it, Daniel's post is the only one in red.

Lee, is it fixed now? I wasn't getting bleedthrough on my machine, and I'm too lazy to check on the Mac.

and when Daniel's post is on the screen, everything on the screen after it is in red.

Lee, the reason that's happening is that the red text is coming from the red tag in Daniel's post. If that's not on the screen, no red.

Yep. I just stated it in reverse.

Plei, it is fixed now.

Funny thing is, I intentionally double checked that I had two t /font tags, and paired the closes with the opens *before* typing in the "Happy Birthday Windsparrow" because of all the problems with that sort of thing. Plus someone else posted after I did and his post wasn't red for me following my post, so I went off to shovel the driveway and didn't check back. I'm using NS 7.02 in OS9

Huh. Weird.

Funny thing is, I intentionally double checked that I had two tags, and paired the closes with the opens *before* typing in the "Happy Birthday Windsparrow" because of all the problems with that sort of thing. Plus someone else posted after I did and his post wasn't red for me following my post, so I went off to shovel the driveway and didn't check back. I'm using NS 7.02 in OS9

I think it was wigging because of the way some of the autoformatting works, just based on when I looked at the source of the message (thank you, Firefox!). I changed it so that it went "c font font bold happy br birthday br windsparrow /bold /font /font" (ETA: all on one line)

(BTW, you only need the one font tag with size="#" color="color"--it can save a body typing!)

Yeah I've had closed tags unclosed by autoformatting. I will post when I can recreate.

One example I did three bigs and the close change to close bold so:

t big t big t big text to make large t /big t /big t /big

ended up as t big t /b t big t /b t big text to make large t /big t /big t /big t /b

to make sure I'm doing it right I will try this example, then delete

Text to make large

So this following should be small again.

Well everything is closed that should be closed. I could swear this once opened a tag I had closed properly, but maybe that was typo boy error. At any rate the /bs are not neccesary; but it does not seem to be a critical error.

Gus is currently working on completely new tag-closing, DCJ, so this should be a thing of the past once it's tested and implemented.