Friends, I wouldn't spend much time discussing changes to the "Who's Online" feature. I suspect that getting people's hopes up about a change is a waste of energy.

What we are using here is a software package, and not everything about it can be customized. Custom programming may not be the best use of Alex's time.

I personally like the feature the way it has always worked, and I'll be glad when it's up again. But my main point is that the suggested changes may be impossible or impractical.

What Maryann said -- it's a custom software package. Sure, I can roll my sleeves and go under the hood to hack out interesting suggestions, but I'd like to reserve that for when it's not a case of too much effort for little reward.

But, don't let me intrude ... continue on with this lively discussion!

Cheers,
...Alex

Hi Alex,

Heaven forfend! (as my old Mum used to say), none of us would wish to see your workload increase unnecessarily.

It's not a big deal, one way or t'other! It's generally only when things change that people even give a thought to the alternative, which has happened here.
In an ideal world we'd all get what we want, it would be possible to please all of the people all of the time, it wouldn't cost around $100 to fill my petrol tank... and nothing would ever need ironing :D

We have a brilliant site to thank you for... that's all that really matters.

Well, then; back to our irregularly scheduled programming --


Oz

Around the covenantal ark,
a curtain keeps us in the dark,

and those of little faith can't look
behind the curtain or the Book

is thrown at them, weighed down with laws
because because because because –

the translated justification
the Pope gives in pontification

when in perfect Latin he hands us
the plot of a movie from Kansas,

except there's no dog that can bark
at whatever goes on in the dark,

and harped and haloed flunkies
have replaced the flying monkeys.

Guests know all the best threads.

Ooh, Ed Shacklee, nawsty...

« Traiter le peuple avec équité, honorer les esprits, mais s'en tenir à distance, cela peut s'appeler intelligence. »

Analects of Kong Fu, 6;22.

So Maryann and Alex, you're saying...

Monkeys and opinions fly,
but tweaks to "Who's Online"
will not get off the ground--nice try!--
till wings are found on swine.

Thank you, Allen. I had no idea the Chinese were French. Inscrutable.

Ed



PS -- Julie: I think we should all switch to pigs.

It's truly unworthy of me to suggest this! :D but then, why should hypocrites have all the fun? Ahem, I wonder if (mind you it's only an inkling of a wisp of a hugely small probability) that maybe part of Lantry's impressive poem was a reworked serenade to AGNI, the literary orifice of Boston University, whose logo was and is, oops :eek: ... you guessed it : a flying monkey. Just guessing, no harm intended.

Actually, maybe it was just seething in his unconscious for weeks and months as he thought (perhaps) about Boston's AGNI, and then it roared out when it's button was pushed. :rolleyes:

Anyway, 36 minutes of scribbling isn't out of the question either.

Maybe it's a case of parallel evolution? ;)

Allen, you have a point. After all, Bill is the one who brought up the flying monkeys in the first place. I suppose Ed may have then been enlisted to issue the challenge that Bill so conveniently stood prepared to meet in such an impressive fashion. Or perhaps Bill had no knowledge, and the scheme was orchestrated behind the scenes by Kate, who wisely shields her husband from the particulars to allow him to concentrate on his writing. I don't want to pre-judge. Let there be a full investigation.