>Hi, Peter.
>
>>>>About the 'obscure reason'. I assume it is a case for Michel Fournier, but I don't feel a need to ask him about it.
>>>
>>>I can't understand that, but I can't understand you jumping in this thread also. If you don't like Fabio using "m." they way it does, then just ignore it. How can you question the way he writes his code (being it a perfect answer for the question)?
>>
>>The 'obscure reason' refers to the fact that two replies to me never have popped up in my Reply section in the Dashboard, for some to me obscure reason. That's all. But again, I don't feel a need to ask him (or you) to investigate it. Now I wonder... why did you react? Why did you jump in? Do you want to join the discussion, or what?
>
>Ok. Now I understand the first part. Is it possible that the replies were not to you, but to someone else in the thread? In this case, they wouldn't go to the Dashboard. AFAIK, the Dashboard doesn't usually miss any reply.

They really were replies to me:
Re: Text box tooltip Thread #977082 Message #977304
Re: Text box tooltip Thread #977082 Message #977327

>About the second part (the discussion), I'm just expressing my opinion as any other UT member, nothing else. I don't act as a moderator here, and I don't even think there is any need for moderation in this case.

Ok then, why I jumped in. See Re: Text box tooltip Thread #977082 Message #977141. My reaction was first and for all directed to Reza Meamar. I wanted to make sure that he doesn't get the idea that m.this is the standard. IMO, ignoring things is not always appropriate behavior.