Is the proper term, Blackfoot tribe? or blackfeet tribe?

the proper term would be Native American.

both are used:

http://www.geocities.com/bigorrin/blac.htm
http://www.blackfeetnation.com/

Here is a site that gives origin of the name. Scroll down about one third:
http://www.umt.edu/globalfirenet/chiefmtn.htm

The origin semms to indicate that only "Blackfeet" makes any sense.

A Google search for "Blackfeet Indians" yielded nada.
However there is a page of links for "Blackfoot Indians"

Years ago I found pens made by the Blackfoot Indians" that were super...tons of ink and no gloppy tips. Pen said Blackfoot Indians right on barrell . Didn't we do this once before...looooong ago? No offense to newcomers...sometimes I cannot recall my name, other times ...well it's just luck! I guess!

P.S. Ah Hah! Thread begun by Of Troy re pens :
http://wordsmith.org/board/showthreaded.pl?Cat=&Board=wordplay&Number=39727
Reading old entry there seems there is confusion over Blackfoot/Blackfeet. And the Bureau of indian Affair page is unavailable. If you *really want to know try google of "U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Indian Affairs."
Good luck!

More than you want probably.
http://www.roadtripusa.com/us_2/montana.html
The tribal reservation is in Montana near Canadian border. Scroll about half way thru and near ochre-tinted insert for Glacier NAtional Park you'll find info on the Blackfeet.
WHEW!

"However there is a page of links for "Blackfoot Indians" "
The Blackfoot Indians were the ones who went through the charcoal of the forest fire
hopping on one foot only. To prove how rugged they were. The history books
however have forgotten to mention that there right footed ones and left footed ones.

When I was young I was a member of a street gang of intellectual hoodlums who, after a hard night of breaking into parking meters, would sit in cars with our intellectual chicks, around our secluded garbage dump, drinking nickels and nickels worth of cheap beer, and asking each other weighty questions in order to determine the order that we were to be pecked.

One pseudo-intellectual puzzle that I thought cool was one that some of you might remember, it goes something like this...

There are two tribes of Indians, the Blackfeet and the Whitefeet. The Whitefooted indians never lied, and the Blackfooted indians never told the truth. Both tribes, however, always kept their feet covered, and the conundrum was to determine which one of these interesting savages was which. But, and here's the catch, only by asking them questions about their feet.

I think you got as many questions as you needed to make a determination. Anyone remember the game and want to play?

I think the method was rather simple.
I will now try to remember what it was.
I hope I got the instructions right.

Milum the Hun.

interesting savages

good grief, what century are we living in?

only by asking them questions about their feet

Did you know there's a creeping rot on your feet?
Then you look at their feet when they remove their quaint savage moccasins.

re:interesting savages

red]good grief, what century are we living in?


Oh, come on.. Milo was having us on, and first used a series of diparaging terms about himself and his companions.. and signed off as "the Hun"...

he managed to dis a large number of groups (many of which he claimed to belong to!) His post was good natured.. given how he defined his puzzle as pseudo-intelectual, i hardly think we need to react to his post as if he were some sort of rude, politically incorrect brute.
which he might be.. but that's fodder for an other thread!

I agree. Milum is having a good time. Like in the book thread over in Miscellany, he's looking for reactions. Without emoticons (cross-threading yet again) it doesn't come across as such.

I ain't saying, I'm just saying...

he's looking for reactions.

I gave him one.

interesting savages !

good grief, what century are we living in? ! ~ etaoin

Apparently one without humor.


Mmmm? Now wait just a minute. These are hypothetical Indians! These are MY hypothetical indians and I want them to plunder, ravage and rape. If you want nice indians, etaoin, go get your own, and then maybe some sharp honkys like faldage can trick them out of their moccasins and Manhattan, and then this brave new century can put faldage in jail along with the rest of the CEO's, and then make restitution for Manhattan, and then buy wing-tip shoes for all of the Indians, no matter what race, creed, or color.

And now I want everybody to stand up and hug yourself, because you, and I mean that we-ly, are sensitive and kind and will fight to the bitter end until we, together, cleanse this world of ugly name-calling.

And as for you of troy,( by the way thanks for kinda coming to my defense awhala go. I owe you one. I think. ) what's wrong with Huns? All Huns weren't bad. There were little baby Huns, sweet grandmother type Huns, and thoughtful Huns that forgoed meat for organically grown veggies without the need of man-made salt.

Are we to believe that these sweet people sacked Central Europe? I think not!

Hey, Milo! I'll bet you and your intellectual entourage could have had some dandy
games of truth or consequences.

Huh? re:without the need of man-made salt?

Can you s'plain that? do you mean salt created by evaporation vs. naturaly occuring rock salt (ie, rock salt that was created by evaporation thousand of years ago)?

is is this some sort of new salt i don't know about? or are you just tempting me to continue with the salt thread i started (and that fell flat!) --Potash to you!

Man made salt? Nothing to it. Just add some hydrochloric acid to some sodium hydroxide
and if you don't get and explosion from adding it too rapidly, you'll get a solution of salt,
which you could evaporate.

Man made salt?

Can't you just burn sodium in a chlorine atmosphere?

sharp honkys like faldage can trick them out of their moccasin

I wan't tryin to steal no moccasins. Cain' ask em, what color are your feet? They'll just all say, "White". Cain' ask em if I was to ask you what color are your feet, what would you say? They'll just think that's some stupid anglo way a askin what color are your feet and they'll all say, "White". Cain' ask em did you know they're giving a way free beer in town. That's from a whole nother logic problem an all it'll do is tell you which is the road to town.

They kin keep they dang moccasins far as I care. I jus wanna know what color is their feet.

Geesh, solve a stupid problem and all over sudden everbody starts callin ya some kind CEO.

it's been fun.

Dear Faldage: as result of age, I no longer enjoy breathing in a chlorine atmosphere.

interesting savages

good grief, what century are we living in?

The 2Oth Century, evidently!...if you read Vachel Lindsay's classic performance poem The Congo :

http://www.library.utoronto.ca/utel/rp/poems/lindsay10.html

The question about how you can tell which one has what colo(u)r feet is very interesting. But it can be solved with just one question. (It assumes, BTW, that each one knows the colour of the other's feet - only you don't know.)

What is the one question about the colo(u)r of their feet that will inevitably reveal which is the truthful and which the lying man? (IOW, you may not question them about their own or the other persons truthfulness.)

PM the answers to me, so that premature publication on the board doesn't spoil other peoples fun.
I'll publish the answer and the winners on Thursday, 10 am BST.
Special prize if anyone comes up with a non-standard answer that works!

Can't you just burn sodium in a chlorine atmosphere?

Oh, is that what happened to Lot's wife?

What is the one question about the colo(u)r of their feet that will inevitably reveal which is the truthful and which the lying man?

If you're going to go around making assumptions about conditions not stated in the problem, why not just assume they're wearing transparent moccasins?

Nothing was said about there being two Indians, one from each tribe, in the statement of the problem.

Ok, just so's you all know: the winning answer has just been submitted.

The original problme states:-
There are two tribes of Indians, the Blackfeet and the Whitefeet. The Whitefooted indians never lied, and the Blackfooted indians never told the truth. Both tribes, however, always kept their feet covered, and the conundrum was to determine which one of these interesting savages was which.But, and here's the catch, only by asking them questions about their feet. (My emphasis)

The statement of the problem is imprecise - presumably because milum was struggling to recall the thing from a few years ago when he was a youngster. However, the use of "which one" provided me with a reasonable excuse to infer just two subjects in the experiment. It also concurs with my own memories of a similar problem.

If they did not know each other, then the question would be very simple - you would ask each "What colour is the other one's feet?"
- The truthful one would say "I don't know;"
- The liar would have to state a colour, rather than say that he didn't know.

This makes the problem hardly worth the thought; I have, therefore, added a logical ppiece of vital information.


Next nit, please . . .



Edit Sorry - I managed to cut, rather than copy, and paste the emphasised bit.

Two attempts, so far, neither correct!

Remember, folks, the only questions permitted are about the colour of feet, not questions like "Are you a liar?"

Next nit, please . . .


If y'all'd stop being so funny, I might could be able to stop losing my coffee on the keyboard hi TEd! and post something reasonable.

Thanks a whole bleep of a lot, Rhuby. Here me n milum are havin us a good ole mud rassle and you waltz in with the far hose of logic...

Well - sorry, an'all that, old chap, to get in your bad book - a mal folio indeed. In my defence, I do have to say that the yellow hose of my logic is very often worn cross-gartered!

Whoops - I managed to send that one twice - it really isn't that good!

>>yellow hose of my logic is very often worn cross-gartered

What???? [confused e]

>yellow hose of my logic is very often worn cross-gartered

What???? [confused e]

I'm lost, too. Maybe Rhuby's making a Faldaggian attempt at emulating the yellow hose of Texas?

>>>yellow hose of my logic is very often worn cross-gartered

>>What???? [confused e]

>I'm lost, too. Maybe Rhuby's making a Faldaggian attempt at emulating the yellow hose of Texas?

If I'm not mistaken, that's a reference to Twelfth Night. Mal folio, Malvolio... I got it, Rhuby!

I searched our local garden centres high and low. Nowhere could I find yellow hose, only green; and you have to buy at least 20 metres of it. Wrap that around your legs!

If I'm not mistaken, that's a reference to Twelfth Night. Mal folio, Malvolio... I got it, Rhuby!

Attagirl, FB!!

(The rest of you can LIU !)

He's not content to limit his wet blanket approach to logic or classical references; he's got to insult the Women of the Great State of Texas, too.

Are you harking back to the pre-historical period when the great Meteorite landed in the state, causing it to shake from border to border? The occasion when the yell "OW !!! rose from texas?

Hey, Rhuby, you're just a garter snake! Been hangin' around Faldage and his boa too long, I take it?

Now, do these Native American/American Aborigine/Amerindian/Indians have hair on their feet? Hobbitlike, maybe..hmm? Is that what you added to increase the logic?

Now, do these Native American/American Aborigine/Amerindian/Indians have hair on their feet?

How else would they be able to move so silently when they absquaulate, if they did not walk on hair?

Re:Now, do these Native American/American Aborigine/Amerindian/Indians have hair on their feet? I can only quote the master on this..These are hypothetical Indians! (see way above, himself reminded me!)
as to what these hypothetical indians have or don't have.. i think you'll have to make up your own hypothetical indians..., hypothetically speaking!

These are hypothetical Indians!

If they're so hypothetical why can't I hypothesize them with transparent moccasins?

What sort of cosmetics would you use to apply make up to these hypothetical Indians, of troy?
Rouge, I suppose, wouldn't be much good, although scarlet nail varnish might look good on the Blackfeet.
It'd be no good giving them powder unless you gave them shot as well.

Mind you, back in the 50s, my sister-in-law used to refer to their cosmetics as "War Paint," so I s'pose the whole thing ain't so silly.

Maybe you can for your hypothetical indians.. i don't know Milo's hypothetical indians would go for the idea..

i have no idea what your hypothetical indians wear, or for that matter, what Milo's or Faldages indians wear, but my indians for sure would wear natural earth tones, from 'indian paint pots' -- naturally occuring balls of red and ocher clay, that can be found at clay outcroppings..

my hypothetical indians would be excellent at finding them.. they would supplement their cosmetics with natural carbon (lamp black), and dyes made from berries..

Something heretofore thoguht to be impossible.

thoguht to be impossible.

Just like you damyankees to think that callin decent Southron Women ho's wasn't an insult!

I hope your question has been answered to your satisfaction.

thoguht to be impossible.

Just like you damyankees to think that callin decent Southron Women ho's wasn't an insult!


Hold on, Faldage - surely TEd was just trying to imitate someone with a lisp putting on a German accent? And any one (who is anyone!) can make a typo by missing a space!

What sort of cosmetics would you use to apply make up to these hypothetical Indians, of troy?


Uhhh...Coppertone lotion, praps? (That is, of course, if these are Hollywood Indians)

We weren't talking about decent Southron women, were we? Thought this was limited to Texans.

[running for cover-emoticon]

We weren't talking about decent Southron women

I guess not ifn you calling them ho's. BTW, this unconsidered insult *could be racist since the original Yellow Rose was maybe an octoroon, or high yaller.

Just in the spirit of Google Research, here's a reference to the Indian riddle in an old movie, not that I'm cheating or anything, but I'm probably cheating (but the answer's not here, so don't worry! Not that I'm lying!):

"Eugenia Lampert/Regina (Audrey Hepburn) about to try out her own lie-detector test (kissing) on Peter Joshua, alias Carson Dyle, alias Alexander Dyle, alias Adam Caulfield, alias Brian Crookshank (Cary Grant) in CHARADE (1963):
- Eugenia: 'Alex, how can you tell if someone is lying?'
- Alexander: 'You can't.'
- Eugenia: 'There must be a way.'
- Alexander: 'No. There's an old riddle about two tribes of Indians. The Whitefeet always tell the truth and the Blackfeet always lie. So one day you meet an Indian. You say: Hey, Indian, what are you? A truthful Whitefoot or a lying Blackfoot? He says: I'm a truthful Whitefoot. So, which is he?'
- Eugenia: 'Why couldn't you just look at his feet?'
- Alexander: 'Because he's wearing moccasins.'
- Eugenia: 'Well, then, he's a truthful Whitefoot of course.'
- Alexander: 'Why not a lying Blackfoot?'
- Eugenia: 'Which one are you.'
- Alexander: 'A truthful Whitefoot.'
- Eugenia: 'Come in. Sit down.'
- Alexander: 'Why? You want to look at my feet?'
- Eugenia: 'Yes.'"

http://www.movies-quotes.com/FUNNY QUOTES/COMEDY 1960.html

I have received five correct answers.
A number of people came up with an answer which works, but which was specifically excluded by the rubrick (without a capital, not the one in the Capital of Ireland!) To ask Indian W what Indian B would say is the colo(u)r of Indian W’s feet is, strictly and nit-pickingly, a question about what he would *say not about the *colo(u)r of their feet.

THE ANSWER
However, if you ask either Indian,
“Are your feet the same colo(u)r as his”,
Indian W would truthfullly answer “No;”
Indian B would lyingly answer “Yes.”

SUCCESSFUL ANSWERS (in order of receipt)
Jackie was the first to come up with the “correct “ answer, although it was a second attempt.

She was closely followed by Faldage, also at a second attempt and after the usual gathering of the ova of head-lice.

tsuwm then got the answer correct first time off

Milum came next, with the question, “Hey noble redman are your feet green?” which works just as well and on the same principle

TEd , then came up, on a second attempt, with the “correct” answer. (but see the judge’s comments, below)

THE PRIZE WINNERS

The top prize, a picture of a golden moccasin, must go, therefore, to tsuwm for being the only one to get it straight off.

Jackie wins the coconut for being the first in,

and Milum wins a “Highly Recommended” rosette, to place in the saucer of his cup of tea laced with George Dickel Tennessee sipping whiskey. This is for the most ingenious answer.

Faldage receives a mention in the judges report, with recommendation that a special award of a Golden Nit be introduced for next year’s competition.

TEd deserves credit for coming up with a beautifully reasoned response based on not knowing whether there were representatives of both the tribes present. (A wrong assumption, but it led to a fine display of logic.)


Many thanks to the large numbers of friends who sent in “incorrect” answers – I’ve have replied to you all by PM. (No wonder education costs are soaring in the UK!)

And thanks to you all for taking part – I’ve enjoyed my brief burst of power

Jackie wins the coconut
Will you hand it to me in Hawaii, please?

I'm stealing F.'s nit for a moment. MY answer was to ask each Indian, "Are both of your feet the same color?", whereupon the liar would have to say no.

Yep - there's several variations on the theme, but they all rest on a comparison - either with each other, or with another colour altogether.

The coconut will be painted green and presented in an appropriate country.

Not a Nit!!!

The original statement of the problem:
the conundrum was to determine which one of these interesting savages was which.

Note that there is nothing in this statement to eliminate the possibility that there are more than two Indians here!

It is therefore, I submit, quite possible that there are so many Indians that they are not all known to each other. Therefore, there is the possiblity that they are all known to a liar who could then be lying by answering the question, "Are your feet the same color as..." with the answer, "I don't know" and a truth teller could answer the same question with the same answer if he didn't know everybody.

What's all this in aid of? TEd's answer, which covers the possibility that both tribes are not represented, which, by the way, I do not see as excluded from the possibilities in the original statement of the problem, could not possibly be wrong and he deserves more credit than he was given.

Not a Nit Rebuttal!

There are two tribes of Indians, the Blackfeet and the Whitefeet. The Whitefooted indians never lied, and the Blackfooted indians never told the truth. Both tribes, however, always kept their feet covered, and the conundrum was to determine which one of these interesting savages was which. But, and here's the catch, only by asking them questions about their feet....I hope I got the instructions right.[EA]

I think milum is probably laughing in his cheap, green beer at all of this.

which one of these interesting savages was which.

Whilst I agree that the question was not presented very crisply (and. let us remember, milum was not actually setting us the problem at the time) I contend that the most reasonable assumption is that, as you are to find which one is which, that the choice is narrowed to two individuals, one of each tribe.
Had it been to find out which of the congregation of x Indians was which, the conundrum would have been, which of these interesting savages was which.
(with the "one" removed from the sentence.)

The task would not have been simple, and certainly not possible with just one question, I think. (The identical question, many times, is not the same thing at all!)

However, I do agree that it would have been better had I re-stated the question in totally unambiguous terms, (although that would have deprived Faldage and I a longish and very interesting conversation!)

I ought to add my especial thanks to Iris, for starting this thread in the first place.

STOP PRESS

dxb came in with the correct answer (also on his second attempt), about ½ hour after the deadline.
Hono(u)rable mention in despatches!

Harrumph®!

If I were to present you with seven real ales from various venues in Britain and asked you which one you would like to try first, would you respond that there were too many there for me to ask that question and that you would therefore refuse to participate in my test? I think not. I see no reason to assume that two individuals from two diferent groups is the only interpretation or even the most reasonable.

That proves my point - when there is only one representative of each sort (be it from a collection of two or two thousand) it is reasonable to ask which one.

If you had shown me seven glasses made up of four pints of Thwaites Best Bitter, and three of Greene King's Abbot Ale Everard's Beacon Ale, and asked me, "here are 7 pints of ale, which one would you like to try first," I would still think you were asking which glass, not which ale. (And I would select the furthest away, on the grounds that by the time I got to the seventh, I would need it to be near at hand!)

Quite the otherwise, my good Rhuby. I would be asking you which one of the two choices you would like to try first. Although I might (I don't know if they are distinguishable by color) be attempting to see if you can distinguish between them by taste. In fact I would probably have you blindfolded, which is really a good analog to the Blackfeet/Whitefeet situation.

Perhaps we are arguing Pondial differences here, in which case, forget it.

Hmmm. The analogy falls down (as usual) if you try to push it too far - both ales are models of probity and the best way to tell which is which is to taste them (and, Yes, I could tell which was which from the taste! - not from the colour, which is very similar, but possibly from the head. [the froth on top])

Why don't you pop across, and we can put it to the test?

I would love to hear TEd's question, if indeed it is, as I interpret your comment on it to imply, valid in general but not in the specific.

Cannot be done with one question if there are two who may be from the same tribe:

Assume two Indians, A and B. There are four possibilities:

Both are whitefeet, so they both tell the truth
Both are blackfeet, so they both lie.
A is a whitefeet, who always tells the truth. B is a blackfeet, who always lies.
A is a blackfeet, who always lies, and B is a whitefeet, who always tells the truth.


First question, asked of A:

What will B say when I ask him to predict your answer if I ask you what color your feet are.

If both are whitefeet, A would answer the underlying question by saying “I have white feet.”
B would predict that A would say that.
A truthfully says that B would predict that A would answer by saying that A has white feet..

If both are blackfeet, A would answer the underlying question by lying: “I have white feet.”
B would predict that A would answer the question by saying, “I have black feet”, which is a lie because a blackfeet would say that he had white feet, so a liar would predict that he would say just the opposite.
This means that A would say that B would predict, “A would say that he has white feet.” Which is the truth, but we didn’t ask A what color feet he had.

If A is a whitefeet and B is a blackfeet, A would have answered the basic question by telling the truth: “I have white feet.
B would have to say that A would say he has black feet, because he has to lie.
A, knowing that B would lie, would have to predict that B would say that A has black feet.

If A is a blackfeet and B is a whitefeet, A would have answered the basic question by saying that he has white feet (a lie).
B would say when asked that A would say he has white feet, because that’s the truth about the lie A would tell.
A would then say that B would say that A has black feet.

If the answer to the first question is white feet, then you know that both of them are from the same tribe, since that’s the only combination that elicits that answer. Ask A: What will B say if I ask him what color his feet are? If B is a blackfeet, he will answer the question by lying: I have white feet. A would then predict that B would answer black feet, since he has to lie. If both of them are white feet, B would say I have white feet and A would agree with him. Thus, if A answers black feet, you know they both have black feet. If A answers white feet then you know that they both have white feet.

If the answer to the original question was black feet, you know that one of them has black feet and the other has white feet.

Ask A: what will B say when I ask him what color feet he has.

IF A is a whitefeet, he knows that B will answer that he has white feet, and will tell the truth: B will say that he has white feet.

If A is a blackfeet, he knows that B will truthfully say, “I have white feet”, so he will say, “B will say he has black feet.

What will B say when I ask him to predict your answer if I ask you what color your feet are.

a beautifully reasoned response based on not knowing whether there were representatives of both the tribes present.

A beautifully reasoned response, indeed, but disallowed since it is a question about what he would *say not about the *colo(u)r of their feet.

I hereby withdraw my defense of TEd's claim to anything in particular.

Only one way to settle this, Rhuby. When the ASp and I come over there to visit y'all we'll head on over to your favorite local and you will set me down, blindfolded, and lay in front of me, three pints. One of Thwaites Best Bitter, one of Greene King's Abbot Ale Everard's Beacon Ale and one of either of those to be decided at a later date by a disinterested third party. You will then ask me which one I want to try first. I will try them all and attempt to determine which two pints are of the same variety.

Assume two Indians, A and B. There are four possibilities...

Now hold on a minute.

Did I miss something? I don't recall the question indicating that Indian A and Indian B knew each other, or more specifically which tribe the other was. (Maybe the tribes are very small, and everybody knows all the members of both tribes? But that isn't stipulated, either, or excluded. And if the tribes were visually identifiable, the questioner would be able to tell, too.) So neither one necessarily knows what the other will say, and the argument fails.

All of which is quibbling, of course, because we all know very well exactly what was meant, and all we're doing is pointing out the lack of perfection in phrasing the question initially, which [imperfection] is permitted. Or ought to be.

You have to assume that the Indians know one another's tribal affiliation, otherwise the problem has no solution.

And since the questions I set out can be answered with only "black feet" or "white feet" I think my solution's technically correct for the most general of cases.

You have to assume that the Indians know one another's tribal affiliation, otherwise the problem has no solution.

This problem is a specific instance of a generic truth teller/liar problem. I alluded to one of the others in my comment above about free beer in the city. In that case you only had one person to ask the question of and had to determine, not the status of the person you asked the question of but which road was the road to the city. In milum's problem, milum's solution, asking if the person's feet were green, satifies any possible interpretation of the problem from the original, poorly stated (and done so because it was being dredged up from the memory of what appears to have been a night when it was rather drunk out) statement of the problem. It also meets the criterion normally used in these problems, but not stated in this case, that the questions be yes/no questions.

Gentlemen, gentlemen! I am forced to point out that all of the above convolutions were utterly unnecessary. It matters not how many Indians there are, or whether any of them know each other...if you use my question. . MY answer was to ask each Indian, "Are both of your feet the same color?", whereupon the liar would have to say no.[taking a bow, having scored one for the ladies]

And yes, tsuwm, I feel sure that milum is laughing in his whatever. And milum, you called ME a devil!

Are both of your feet the same color?

I still like milum's answer better. It will get the desired result even if the Indian questioned thinks that his feet are slightly different colors.

Ah, but what if the Indian had recently been walking barefoot in the grass, hmmmm?

Ah, Consuelo, you've just got MONKEY PUKE GREEN on your mind.

We are colorful speakers in my family.

"We are colorful speakers in my family"
So's Alex, when he gets too wild with those markers... That was great.

(Golly, I wish colors would copy, here; sorry, C, but I'm not about to go to all the trouble you did.)

...<font color=blue>W</font color=blue><font color=green>e</font color=green> <font color=red>a</font color=red><font color=purple>r</font color=purple><font color=orange>e</font color=orange> <font color=blue>c</font color=blue><font color=green>o</font color=green><font color=red>l</font color=red><font color=purple>o</font color=purple><font color=orange>r</font color=orange><font color=blue>f</font color=blue><font color=green>u</font color=green><font color=red>l</font color=red> <font color=purple>s</font color=purple><font color=orange>p</font color=orange><font color=blue>e</font color=blue><font color=green>a</font color=green><font color=red>k</font color=red><font color=purple>e</font color=purple><font color=orange>r</font color=orange><font color=blue>s</font color=blue> <font color=green>i</font color=green><font color=red>n</font color=red> <font color=purple>m</font color=purple><font color=orange>y</font color=orange> <font color=blue>f</font color=blue><font color=green>a</font color=green><font color=purple>m</font color=purple><font color=orange>i</font color=orange><font color=blue>l</font color=blue><font color=green>y</font color=green>

I thought for a moment that if you view the post as "source" and then copy-and-paste, it would reproduce the multicolored text. Alas, as you can see above, it didn't give the desired result...

edit: Is there perhaps a prefix I should have used that would make it work?

Take the soure text(above, or from where ever) copy it, dump it into a word processor (word, word perfect, what ever) and then from edit use find and replace..
find <font color= and replace with [
find > and replace with ]
finc </font color= and replace with [
(wierd, it won't bold the < or > signs!)

It should be pretty quick...

for fast colors, type out (in word pad or some simple text editor)
{red} {/red} (with square brackets, i forget the code.)
and repeat for all the colors...save the file, and open it when ever you want to use a lot of color.

then you can copy and paste the code and just drop the letters into the space..

(i do it line by line, and then edit out the spaces..)
{red}C{/red}
{blue}o{/blue}
{green}l{/green}
{orange}o{/orange}
{purple}r{/purple}

is how i enter the text, and
then I use delete to delete the unseen, but still there "enter" at the end of each line,, press End, to get to the end of the string, , delete, and so on...
{red}C{/red}{blue}o{/blue}green}l{/green}{orange}o{/orange}{purple}r{/purple}
to get Color

I wish there were a special code: You know: simple: Like: "Random Rainbow Effect/Code Z"

Then the computer would just randomly put a lot of cool colors in so I wouldn't have to worry about memorizing a lot of directions that I know I will never memorize. I mean, typing in bracket, red, other-bracket is one thing--that you almost don't have to remember...

But the process of Troy just generously described for us I will never go to the trouble of learning unless some very weird situation developed...

Thanks, anyway, of Troy!

Basic regards,
WordLaze That's the computer program I wish someone would write: Word Laze!