So I seem to have been able to do all that I wanted to know how to do. Now for some comments... I like knowing how to change the font, but I agree, I would use it rarely. What I find myself wishing I could do on a fairly regular basis, is putting something in italics, underlining a book title, putting a word in bold. As for the color, something else I would rarely go to the trouble of using, but again, I would like to know how to for that rare occasion when I might. Such as in a Christmas greetings thread or something like that. Most of the time I would not take the time to do that. As a matter of fact, I use the firefox browser and if you notice when I tried to use the color tags, I thought it didn't work. That is because firefox limits html commands when using their browser and I didn't see any red words. I realized that you did and I went and used Internet Explorer and sure enough, I saw the word red in red ink. Strangely, I didn't see the other effects. That was confusing and I have no idea why. BUT, in the browser that I use every day, the commands I wanted to use work fine with the directions you gave me. So I am all set. The thing I wanted most to do and will probably use more frequently than the others, is posting a photo inside the post. I used to use Tinypic, but at some point something changed and I was pasting the command they were providing and it still wasn't working. So these directions worked for me. I compared the command you were suggesting to the command Tinypic provided and they were different. But I think I would still use the Tinypic site to upload the photo and then just change the command where needed. Finally, on Nan's concern about resizing the photos. I assume that the concern is the time it takes to open a thread for someone on dial up when one of the photos is oversized. So the photo I posted above, is oversized? If that is a problem, I will go back and review the directions for resizing. Hope that helps. :-)

After cooking on and adjusting my CC for the past four months or so I think I have come to the conclusion, as others have, that you will never get a CC with its current burner configuration to get low enough for most of us regardless of how you adjust the "Simmer" screw or igniters. I am not going to get hung up on the "Book" definition of "Simmer". Why would I make such a bold statement? The CC burner has 92 ports or holes � 36 in the outer ring (39%), 36 in the middle ring (39%) and 20 (22%) in the inner ring. Let�s ASSUME for the sake of the discussion that all of the ports are the same and the output is equally divided between the 92 ports at all settings. Now look at the picture below: As posted at the start of this thread this is how one of my burners is adjusted � no flame in the outer ring and no "Clicking". If you follow my calculations above this means this burner is operating at 61% of the burners total capacity and much lower than most of the burners shown on this thread. This week end I cooked two pot roasts at the same time on the CC. One was in a 6 � qt Lodge enameled, cast iron pot and the other in a 13" aluminum oval roaster. Both had a 3 to 4 pound roast, broth, veggies, etc. On "Simmer" this burner produced a temperature of 205F with more bubbles that I would call a low simmer and the other burner was 207F with bubbles. I believe the 92 or 56 ports (the inner and middle rings) will never be able to be adjusted to produce a low enough Btu output to satisfy the average cook. This is why myself and several others believe that CC will ultimately have to redesign the burner to something like a single 20 port ring (like the inner ring on the current burner) with the appropriate office and air shutter to achieve a true "Low Simmer". I would to see Mr. Kalsi and Capital produce a burner that had a range of something like 100 Btu to 23,000 Btu, but I don�t think it can be done and I know the current burner is no that adjustable. Side Note: Has any manufacturer ever published the Btu output of its burners at its lowest setting? If they have I surly have not been able to find it. All they publish is the MAXIMUM output and I have no idea what the lowest setting is when expressed as a percentage of the maximum.

Pam: Ah, if only it were! *History* I get by clicking on the cat icon with the clock, and the history menu drops down on the *left* side of the screen. You can see where this one is, and I get this menu by clicking on the thing like double parentheses next to the star in the address window. Besides, as I said, I have had History turned off for a long time and that side bar is empty. The items in this menu happen to be mostly things I have only visited once or twice and are by no means representative of my browsing history. If they were, it might be of some use. Owbist: Thanks. I wasn't looking for speed or accessibility. I just don't like having something whose method of working and management I don't know. It bothers me! It even bothers me that I don't know its name, so I am hampered in looking for a solution. Linesman: Your message just came in. That seemed to do the trick, and I was thinking Yippee! But, alas, the sites didn't stay deleted. They disappeared when I highlighted them and clicked Delete, but the minute I clicked on the "parentheses" mark that brings up that menu, there they all were again. Closing and reopening FF didn't make a speck of difference. I have found that clicking on the star in the URL window adds a new site. So half of the mystery is solved, but the half that most interests me is the deleting part! LOL I think I'm going to have to uninstall and reinstall FF, but even that may not help.

I had posted a while back that the headings were properly changing colors when I was using my iPad. Alas, no longer. I noticed last night that headings now change from green (unread) to darker green when they've been read. Not enough of a distinction to make it easy to recognize. Edited to add that as of today, the darker green only stays the darker green until you click on something else -- even if you just click (or tap) on white space. Then it reverts back to light green. Epic fail.