GooberMcNutly wrote:

Useless without pictures.

{DhallyLlama}Useless . . .  Some might be . . . {/DhallyLlama}

Post-Script:  By-Dog, why in the hell did my tags show in preview, but not after posting?
Post-Post-Script:  Okay, somebody clue me in here.  How in the hell do you force tags in BBCode?

Decadence wrote:

How in the hell do you force tags in BBCode?

What kind of donut are you trying to punch, D? "doHTML" might work if it's not stripped, which it prolley should be.

Decadence wrote:

Is "doHTML' some kind of command to allow HTML?

Post-Script:  Fine, make a liar out of me.  I swear that they displayed as & gt ; & lt ; last time.

Yes, it is, and I don't think you were lying. The carets (lg/gt, though ampersands will only invoke the character, not recognition of the tag) are usually ignored automatically by boardware like this. [ doHTML ] is sometimes possible, but should be avoided, even by user groups (presumably, your own) permitted to activate it (also requires a closing tag, [ /doHTML ]). It can royally screw up the whole page for PHP-based forums, like if a tag isn't closed properly. I think something similar happened toward the end on Cruel, where all successive posts in a particular thread were italicized. It often jacks up the page formatting, as well. The ability to use it is almost always off, by default, because it can result in unintended driver errors, not just to prevent kiddie scripts, SQL injections, and other nasties.

On the type of boardware I use personally, groups that have access to HTML still have a tick box or radio button to enable it within a post (usually somewhere below the posting field), making the 'doHTML' BBcode unnecessary.