The option to submit written comments was closed as of August 14, 2006 (as you doubtless clearly saw in the proposal as presented in the Federal Register, Vol. 71, No. 135). Perhaps there is a standard point in time by which amendments are either approved or disapproved (in this case, five months after comments are closed)?
That's the post BEFORE the one I'm linking, where they're commenting on something funny from The Onion.
Kinda like how if you go to my main page, you'll find pictures of kittens and landscapes and comics and great writing AS WELL AS news that pisses me off.
Read the links. Do a little googling. I linked the blog because I liked their summary and they have the links all prepared for me.
Maybe I'm not seeing the page correctly? The top line of the page you linked to seems to have 3 article titles all running together; to me it looked like one long title. Now that you pointed it out, I see the first segment/title links to a different article than the 2nd and 3rd segments do.
Although I'm sure you're right, I'm just an idiot.
You're seeing it correctly. It's a pretty standard blog layout - you've got "back" and "forward" links with the titles of the previous and next entries.
The thing is, the previous and next entries in this case are so long that they run together.
I can see where you made the mistake. It's just that it's a mistake.
ETA: The page shows up fine in IE, which I rarely use. It doesn't look so great in Firefox (the arrows didn't show up, for one) but I am using an old version of Firefox which might be causing some problems. Yeah, it was a mistake.
I actually am using the previous Firefox release, because the newest one (not the beta) wasn't connecting to sites for some reason. I really should have known the page wasn't showing up correctly, so I take full responsibility for looking like a doffy hosebeast. I may kick Mozilla around a little bit to help my ego, though.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2006-11-06 07:03 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-11-06 07:03 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-11-06 08:20 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-11-06 09:52 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-11-06 11:20 pm (UTC)That's the post BEFORE the one I'm linking, where they're commenting on something funny from The Onion.
Kinda like how if you go to my main page, you'll find pictures of kittens and landscapes and comics and great writing AS WELL AS news that pisses me off.
Read the links. Do a little googling. I linked the blog because I liked their summary and they have the links all prepared for me.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-11-06 11:36 pm (UTC)Although I'm sure you're right, I'm just an idiot.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-11-06 11:42 pm (UTC)The thing is, the previous and next entries in this case are so long that they run together.
I can see where you made the mistake. It's just that it's a mistake.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-11-06 11:49 pm (UTC)ETA: The page shows up fine in IE, which I rarely use. It doesn't look so great in Firefox (the arrows didn't show up, for one) but I am using an old version of Firefox which might be causing some problems. Yeah, it was a mistake.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-11-06 11:55 pm (UTC)With Firefox 1.5.0.7 it looks like this, to me:
And I can see how that can be confusing.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-11-07 01:06 am (UTC)