SOUND ON SOUND

[ConcertinaChap]

:o

Desmond? Facetious! Excuse me, that's not physically possible, is it?

CC

[Forum Admin]

Desmond, actually I didn’t pick up on that. I’m lousy at interpreting net ‘tone’. Didn’t mean to offend. It was a good opportunity to make the point about general topic naming and encourage more focused/meaningful titles.

[desmond]

Desmond, actually I didn’t pick up on that. I’m lousy at interpreting net ‘tone’. Didn’t mean to offend. It was a good opportunity to make the point about general topic naming and encourage more focused/meaningful titles.

No offence taken!
I thought it was fairly obvious given how *terrible* my "advice" was! :shock: :bouncy:

It's actually a pet peeve* of mine, it really annoys me. If people can't be bothered to make their questions/problems understandable by others, it makes people/me not want to bother to try to help... And it's just lazy...

*Along with people linking to stuff without indicating what it is first, "requiring" the user to visit it to find out...

Sorry if my humour was a bit more subtle than I thought, there..! :blush: :headbang:

[Martin Walker]

It's actually a pet peeve* of mine, it really annoys me. If people can't be bothered to make their questions/problems understandable by others, it makes people/me not want to bother to try to help... And it's just lazy...

*Along with people linking to stuff without indicating what it is first, "requiring" the user to visit it to find out...

Hear hear! :clap:

Coming up with a short, pithy, yet very explanatory title for your post that still reads clearly in the forum lists is an artform in itself.

You're supposed to gently coax the viewer into your post, by making it interesting and appealing. Personally I think 64 characters is MORE than enough ;)


Martin

[zenguitar]

Personally I think 64 characters is MORE than enough ;)
Martin

Yep, Waiting for Godot makes do with far less :)

Andy :beamup:

[ManFromGlass]

Morning chuckle award!