| Author |
 Topic  |
|
lemmycaution 
"Long mired in film"
|
 Posted - 11/26/2008 : 20:52:02
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
Um, those are superscripts, lemmy.
Um, yes but they are better than nothing.
It's just that I prefer it on top.
|
Edited by - lemmycaution on 11/26/2008 20:55:41 |
 |
|
|
BaftaBaby
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 11/26/2008 : 21:39:40
|
vv
|
|
|
|
demonic 
"Cinemaniac"
|
Posted - 11/26/2008 : 22:50:34
|
VV.
[Matt] got 4/5, Airbolt 3/3.  |
|
|
|
Whippersnapper. 
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 11/27/2008 : 00:02:46
|
Voted, badly and spitefully. 
 |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
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. |
|
|
|
lemmycaution
"Long mired in film"
|
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. |
|
|
|
[matt] 
"Cinemattic."
|
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
|
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
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. |
Edited by - Demisemicenturian on 11/27/2008 01:08:21 |
|
|
|
Airbolt
"teil mann, teil maschine"
|
Posted - 11/27/2008 : 01:06:47
|
| vv |
|
|
|
demonic
"Cinemaniac"
|
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. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
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
"Cinemaniac"
|
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. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
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. |
|
|
|
[matt]
"Cinemattic."
|
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!
|
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
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. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Sean's FYCTH #460
