CSS style for

I haven't complimented our fantastic documentation lately. It is truely amazing!! Is it true for anyone else that the effective font for all the HTML enclosed in tags is somewhat smaller which in not a problem except for symbols like "^", etc.? If so would anyone consider adding a style fo

Re: CSS style for

Hi Paul, On Fri, Feb 06, 2009 at 12:14:27PM -0700, Paul Scott wrote: > I haven't complimented our fantastic documentation lately. It is truely > amazing!! Thanks! > Is it true for anyone else that the effective font for all the HTML > enclosed in tags is somewhat smaller which in not a pro

Re: CSS style for

Patrick McCarty wrote: Hi Paul, On Fri, Feb 06, 2009 at 12:14:27PM -0700, Paul Scott wrote: I haven't complimented our fantastic documentation lately. It is truely amazing!! Thanks! Is it true for anyone else that the effective font for all the HTML enclosed in tags is somewh

Re: CSS style for

Resent from subscribed address. Patrick McCarty wrote: Hi Paul, On Fri, Feb 06, 2009 at 12:14:27PM -0700, Paul Scott wrote: I haven't complimented our fantastic documentation lately. It is truely amazing!! Thanks! Is it true for anyone else that the effective font for all the H

Re: [frogs] Discourse on the Consumption of Dog Food

In message <20090204160623.ga2...@nagi>, Graham Percival writes As a cat person, I agree entirely. This is pretty much the only time in my life that I'll express agreement with the English language... being surrounded by nothing but ESL people now (and trying to teach them better English), I ha