(Dr Q)"small" (got to type it like that) doesn't seem to work with me. I tried it in a comment in the Limericks. If I just use "s" as a tag it gives a crossed out word. Any ideas?

[Rosie] It did work. If you are comparing the size of your comment type face with that of snorgle, don't. She used a specific font size command (on this occasion size 4 - that is, '<'font size=4'>' before the comment text and '<'/font'>' after the comment. (without the apostrophes - DrQ is more clever than I when it comes to HTML; I have no idea as to how to show code as text. I think it's a 'tt' and '/tt' command, but I'm not sure as to what else is required)

Whoops, sorry Rosie, that should have been -4. See the difference below. 4 is obviously the larger.

Hello

Hello

[Duj]
&lt; = < , &gt; = >

&lt; = < , &gt; = >

Let's try that again, then.

<font size=4> This is it
<font size=-4> This is it
<small>This is it

This is it
This is it
This is it

Sorry, I was experimenting and hit the wrong button. Turns red and disappears.

In the past I have used browser friendly colours on this site - but they came out oddly. They seem to be working now, according to the preview button. Let me know if you see anything different...
FONT COLOR="BLUE"
FONT COLOR="RED"
FONT COLOR="MAGENTA"
FONT COLOR="GREEN"
FONT COLOR="#63bdb5"
FONT COLOR="#006B84"
FONT COLOR="HAMPSTER"

[BtD] The first four and the last have come out as "named". The two variations of green [nos. 5 & 6] are very pretty and have codes within the "...". Was that intentional? I have attempted to post this in "hampster". It may end up as a dead hampster, ie. blue.

For lots of colours that can be used with most browsers put this in your favourites

Sadly, a blue "hampster". Yes, the hexadecimal codes were intentional because there are no names for these colours.
If I had to name them...
Hospital Corridor
Blue Pants In With Whites