|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 22, 2010 6:01 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 22, 2010 6:02 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 22, 2010 6:02 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 22, 2010 6:02 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 22, 2010 6:03 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 22, 2010 6:03 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 22, 2010 6:04 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 22, 2010 6:05 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 22, 2010 6:06 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 22, 2010 6:06 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 22, 2010 6:07 pm
|
|
|
|
Misujage Sugar Dhaku Misujage Your statement is invalid Haku.
As your example is the effect of using tags to directly show what is displayed through a URL. It does not bring into regards the action performed. Please try again. You do realize that it is meant to convey, not actually show? One cannot show worded action through such tags, thus the tags convey that which would go in between the tags. Regardless of whether or not your completely irrelevant statement is true. If you can see the image it is being shown. And beyond that, you attempted to change the original topic of whether or not "rubs hands greedily" Would be within tags with or without an "=" sign. Seems weak minded to me, I guess I'll leave you to rant then~ That was not my original argument. My original argument was that not all BBCode tags function using an "=" sign. I was operating under the viewpoint of what I said earlier, the image. I said that it could be considered true with an "=", but not from my viewpoint. Impasse, I believe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 22, 2010 6:07 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 22, 2010 6:08 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 22, 2010 6:08 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 22, 2010 6:09 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|