Sunday, March 05, 2006
Nem se compara | Aqui quem fala sou eu: "isto, 'Sem d�vida, se as verdades acerca do Isl�o forem ensinadas correctamente, a maior parte das pessoas aceitariam o Isl�o' lembrei-me daqueloutro presidente que defende "
Thursday, February 10, 2005
After trying unsuccessfully this process at the Chubloga - found via the blogger help - and this simpler one at mentoliptus - that does not work with Internet Explorer browser - , I took a bit of both and came up with this a smart-ass solution.
First always make a backup of your template... just in case you want to go back.
NOTE: I had to add a space in front of each < , delete these spaces in order to work.
ALSO NOTE: you can edit the bold parts as you please
Add this at the styles:.fullpost {
< MainOrArchivePage>
{display:none;}
< /MainOrArchivePage>
{display:block;}
< /ItemPage>
}
.more {
< MainOrArchivePage> {display:block;font-size:85%;text-indent:0px;padding-top:3px}
< /MainOrArchivePage>
< ItemPage>
{display:none;}
< /ItemPage>
}
Between < $BlogItemBody$> and before the next < /div> add this:< span class="more">< a href="< $BlogItemPermalinkURL$>" target="_blank" title="permanent link">< $BlogItemTitle$>< /a> < /span>
Finally, add this to your Post Template (in Settings -> publishing):< span class="fullpost">< /span>
< span class="more">< strong>Read complete text:< /strong>< /span>
Write the part you do not want to show on the main page between < span class="fullpost"> and < /span>; and the rest either before or after.
Leave an empty line between the text and the the second span that should always be at the end of the message.
If you want to write a normal post just delete it.
The downside of this system is that you will have your post title also at the end of the posts (that's why I made the font a bit smaller than the post itself), but at least the "Read the complete text:" only appears on posts that have more to read. The Blogger solution has "Read more" in every post regardless.
To have a look on how it works visit my Portuguese blog aqui quem fala sou eu
Read complete text:
< MainOrArchivePage>
{display:none;}
< /MainOrArchivePage>
{display:block;}
< /ItemPage>
}
.more {
< MainOrArchivePage> {display:block;font-size:85%;text-indent:0px;padding-top:3px}
< /MainOrArchivePage>
< ItemPage>
{display:none;}
< /ItemPage>
}
< span class="more">< strong>Read complete text:< /strong>< /span>
Sunday, November 07, 2004
As Gore, Kerry lost the election because he could not stand against the Bush profile. Bush (or groups in his name) could stain with lies what would be a critical and contrasting quality favourable to Kerry – their military service.
Besides failing in imposing his military curriculum, Kerry strangely tried to hide, or at least did not brought to the campaign front, his own leadership abilities: MSNBC - Kerry by the Book: "It's one of John Kerry's biggest achievements in the Senate: a groundbreaking investigation into money laundering, drug dealers, terrorists and secret nukes. Yet voters have rarely heard of the senator's dogged inquiries into the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI). Why? Because some of Kerry's leading campaign strategists believed it was too difficult for voters to digest. 'You can't talk about that because people think you're talking about the BBC,' Bob Shrum, Kerry's top adviser, told one senior staffer. 'Why were you investigating British TV?'"
I am not one of those that think that Americans are stupid but apparently Mr. Shrum was not that positive.
Kerry also kept his distance to the human rights abuses of Guantanamo Bay. He did not underline the Bush’s disastrous economical management, the outrageuous tax cuts for the richer or the financial scandals involving personalities active in his administration.
But mainly, Kerry avoided the "moral values" The Washington Monthly – SLOW DOWN THERE: "(Did you hear once during this election season that abortion rates have risen under W. after they fell dramatically during Clinton's eight years in office?)";
giving Bush the advantage of explaining his positions without opposition and defining Kerry’s position by default.
This apathy from Kerry can even have further consequences than his own loss of the presidential election. .MSNBC - Culture Wars: Winning the 'Values' Vote: "In eight states, including Ohio, Michigan and Utah, the measures went even further. They curtailed rights granted under civil unions and domestic partnerships, which could affect unmarried straight couples, too - a position to the right of President Bush and other Republicans. Ohio's Republican governor opposed his state's initiative. It still passed with 62 percent of the vote."
So in one of the key states of this election, a regressive law that could cancel acquired rights for unmarried couples (hetero or homosexuals) was being voted, with the republican governor campaigning against it, and Kerry was unable to use this to his own advantage.
These two articles explain a bit the reasons behind this turn to the right and the way the discussion around the gay marriages mobilised the religious right, inverting the tendency generally accepted that a high turn-out would benefit the left.The Washington Monthly - MOST IMPORTANT EVENT...RECONSIDERED...: "the Massachusett's Supreme Court's decision to legalize gay marriage. The result was nearly a dozen initiatives across the country to ban gay marriage and a perfect wedge issue for Republicans."
The Washington Monthly – SLOW DOWN THERE:
The Washington Monthly – SLOW DOWN THERE:
