Rule 1. Back your argument up
Rule 2. Respect other people’s work
Rule 3. Know thyself
Rule 4. Be open to other ideas
Rule 5. Stick to the point
Rule 6. Discuss
If the topic you want to address is under discussion below, please double click the message you want to respond to to insert your response, instead of using the Comment box.
New topic:
2009-08-18 11:13:01 Hi All, looking forward to getting back to the tennis! —NormanNitram
Colours
2009-09-01 21:47:48 Colours - you know, I quite like coconuts? —NormanNitram
Coconut... is this some kind of near-white or a dark brown (the inside or the outside)? To colour what? —Perig
Aah, I see, it was indicated in the revision history: FFFCCF, background of the pendulum. Well, yes, I like it too —P
2009-09-02 19:12:34
changing the logo's place and size
first try: 
Nice, isn't it?
I'll try a larger logo now. —PerigGouanvic 
berk! but this tells me that it could very well be somewhat larger, if the CSS could accomodate it—PerigGouanvic
Let's stick with the first attempt, - same size, lower. shall we? —PerigGouanvic
2009-09-02 21:29:01 I'm increasing the size for the upper bar in the CSS, Perig. Try the new logo again in a few minutes? —NormanNitram
- done!
Norm's back!
2010-05-02 13:48:24 Suggest PI-Lab is the place for this debate, actaully, P-A.
Problem there, I seem to recall, is that the font is different - a debate that kind of became a morsel, eh?
Basically, I think you really are not comfortable with the old page as a kind of mix of 'normal' - hence the small fonts, and graphic front page, like we had at wikidot.
My own feeling is that I'd rather keep this page with the more conventional fonts for that text. It might look better if put in one fo the new 'special text styles, though, or we could create a new one. I mean it cann be say brown text on yellow background. But not party text - it's sjust too much text for a party!
But I'd like to see a graphic front page, maybe indicating the recent changes?
My suggestion is to take the debate back to your 'lab' and get a whole new page ready, rather thna try to 'jiggle' this one too much.
Re margins - have you checked the page in differnt browsers?
2010-05-03 01:19:27 too much text for a party... okay. I liked it a lot, and thought it would create a consensus. No consensus: I revert. —PerigGouanvic
2010-05-03 02:40:15 re: the margin tested on google chrome, firefox and safari. Looks fine. —PerigGouanvic
2010-05-03 16:07:15 I'm looking for a consensus too! I think we should get the Doc involved - when he returns from his holiday!
My idea was to redo the front page over the PI Lab - rather than make incremental changes here. I think we need a 'bold' intro page and then something more what we have now as the 'welcome page'. The style you liked for the wording might be a good device on a new 'Front Page'.
I'll vist PI Lab to help work on this if you want. —NormanNitram
2010-05-18 02:55:49 Doc I love it: nice color, proper font size! —PerigGouanvic
Spam man
2010-08-28 19:24:15 Yes, thanks for the despamming, JabberWokky —NormanNitram
2010-10-25 00:49:32 better to remove the "all artices are questions", no?
2010-10-28 15:48:47 "All articles are questions"
It's a good 'philosophical' aspiration, and it maybe keeps us pontifcators in line!
Add to which , its kind of part ofthe founding principles of the site - as compared to CZ/ Wp. So let's stick with it. —docmartin
2010-10-28 19:11:16 "All articles are investigations" may be redundant, but it's closer to what we do and try to do. "Questions" is a little but too falsely neutral to may taste. But it's more catchy. —PerigGouanvic
2011-02-09 14:43:18 Thanks, Jaberwokky for removing the spam just. I think really this page does not need to be editable by everyone - the site is now quite settled in, and the new pages are'tempting enough'!
So I've restricted teh editing now to 'editors'. Okay, Perig, Norman? —docmartin
2011-02-09 14:47:17 As to wheher to say every page is a question or an invesitgation, I myself think there is a big difference between the two. The ida that they are questions implies open to debate, that the page presents an argument, not a supposedly final authoratitive view. Of couse we do may 'try' do that, but here at least we emphasise the 'unknowns'.
Saying they are investiagations does seem to me to imply the old ortjhodxy of facts piling up towards certainty... kind of not what we wanted. —docmartin
