News Groups

Discussion in 'Firefox' started by Pastor Dave, Jun 28, 2005.

  1. Pastor Dave

    Pastor Dave Guest

    Hi,

    I was just checking out Thunderbird with news groups
    and I'm seeing a serious lack of settings. I'm not
    trying to slam it, mind you. I know it's free and all
    and maybe I'm missing something, but it seems to be
    lacking a number of things. I normally use Agent, so
    you can get an idea of what I'm used to. But I though
    it might be nice to try Thunderbird for news groups.

    I can't even delete messages. I hit the delete key
    while a message is highlighted and it says I can't
    cancel messages that are not my own. All I want
    to do is make it go away in my reader. I don't want a
    pile of messages that I know I am not going to read.
    The very first thing I do in Agent, is delete the
    threads that I know I'm not going to read. Is that
    possible in TBird?

    I don't see any way to tell it to automatically expand
    the threads when it gets the messages. I don't like
    having to click on each thread.

    Also, it doesn't seem to download the bodies of
    the messages, if they're still in a collapsed folder.
    I did set it to get them for offline use. I didn't
    know that was an option. :)

    It seems the difference between "Reply" and "Reply All"
    is not how many news groups it responds to (which is
    what I thought it would be), but rather, whether or not
    it also sends an email to the poster, in addition to
    the news groups.

    I started my investigation with just these questions.
    Am I missing something, or are these things just
    missing? I like the look and feel of TBird and if I
    can use it, I will. But there are some important
    functions (to me) that I need and Agent has them.
    But I am not really nuts about the look of Agent.

    You guys have been helpful with my other messages
    and I appreciate it and thanks in advance.

    --

    Pastor Dave

    Silence in the Face of Doctrinal Criticism is Suicide

    http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html

    http://tinyurl.com/ce97m
     
    Pastor Dave, Jun 28, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Pastor Dave

    Scott Nelson Guest

    Pastor Dave wrote:

    > I can't even delete messages. I hit the delete key
    > while a message is highlighted and it says I can't
    > cancel messages that are not my own. All I want
    > to do is make it go away in my reader. I don't want a
    > pile of messages that I know I am not going to read.
    > The very first thing I do in Agent, is delete the
    > threads that I know I'm not going to read. Is that
    > possible in TBird?


    Simply set your View setting to Unread. Any messages that you have read
    will be invisible. If you want to see it again, change the View setting
    to All.

    --
    http://www.treasuredude.net.tc
    http://pie.midco.net/treasuredude/
     
    Scott Nelson, Jun 28, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Pastor Dave

    Moz Champion Guest

    Pastor Dave wrote:
    > Hi,
    >
    > I was just checking out Thunderbird with news groups
    > and I'm seeing a serious lack of settings. I'm not
    > trying to slam it, mind you. I know it's free and all
    > and maybe I'm missing something, but it seems to be
    > lacking a number of things. I normally use Agent, so
    > you can get an idea of what I'm used to. But I though
    > it might be nice to try Thunderbird for news groups.
    >
    > I can't even delete messages. I hit the delete key
    > while a message is highlighted and it says I can't
    > cancel messages that are not my own. All I want
    > to do is make it go away in my reader. I don't want a
    > pile of messages that I know I am not going to read.
    > The very first thing I do in Agent, is delete the
    > threads that I know I'm not going to read. Is that
    > possible in TBird?
    >
    > I don't see any way to tell it to automatically expand
    > the threads when it gets the messages. I don't like
    > having to click on each thread.
    >
    > Also, it doesn't seem to download the bodies of
    > the messages, if they're still in a collapsed folder.
    > I did set it to get them for offline use. I didn't
    > know that was an option. :)
    >
    > It seems the difference between "Reply" and "Reply All"
    > is not how many news groups it responds to (which is
    > what I thought it would be), but rather, whether or not
    > it also sends an email to the poster, in addition to
    > the news groups.
    >
    > I started my investigation with just these questions.
    > Am I missing something, or are these things just
    > missing? I like the look and feel of TBird and if I
    > can use it, I will. But there are some important
    > functions (to me) that I need and Agent has them.
    > But I am not really nuts about the look of Agent.
    >
    > You guys have been helpful with my other messages
    > and I appreciate it and thanks in advance.
    >


    It would be better if you asked one question at a time, but here goes

    TB doesnt 'keep' the messages you see unless you are downloading for
    offline use.
    You cant 'delete' messages in news groups not your own because the
    purpose of a news reader is to show you what exists on the server, and
    you cant delete other peoples messages on the server.

    As someone else mentions you can use the View menu to show only those
    messages you want

    TB doesnt download messages unless you set it to download them for
    offline use.

    Reply All is to the newsgroup and the poster. Its NOT intended for
    crossposting between various groups, that depends on the message you are
    replying to, and how it is set. I suggest that you DONT reply to
    messages that are cross-posted.
     
    Moz Champion, Jun 28, 2005
    #3
  4. Pastor Dave

    Pastor Dave Guest

    On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 09:19:48 GMT, Moz Champion
    <> spake thusly:


    <Responses moved to appropriate sections
    of message for ease of following>

    >> I was just checking out Thunderbird with news groups
    >> and I'm seeing a serious lack of settings. I'm not
    >> trying to slam it, mind you. I know it's free and all
    >> and maybe I'm missing something, but it seems to be
    >> lacking a number of things. I normally use Agent, so
    >> you can get an idea of what I'm used to. But I thought
    >> it might be nice to try Thunderbird for news groups.
    >>
    >> I can't even delete messages. I hit the delete key
    >> while a message is highlighted and it says I can't
    >> cancel messages that are not my own. All I want
    >> to do is make it go away in my reader. I don't want a
    >> pile of messages that I know I am not going to read.
    >> The very first thing I do in Agent, is delete the
    >> threads that I know I'm not going to read. Is that
    >> possible in TBird?

    >
    >You cant 'delete' messages in news groups not your
    >own because the purpose of a news reader is to show
    >you what exists on the server, and you cant delete
    >other peoples messages on the server.


    I am not trying to delete them off of the server.
    I simply don't want them on my screen. I do
    this in Agent every day. I just finished doing it. :)


    >As someone else mentions you can use the View
    >menu to show only those messages you want


    I don't know what I want, until I see them. :) At that
    point, it sounds like a lot of tagging work to use the
    View feature. :) I work quickly with my fingers and
    mostly by keyboard. I only use the mouse when
    I'm clicking on "Send", or "Retrieve messages"
    or something. :) I just start on one message, hold
    down shift and hit the down arrow until I'm at the last
    message I want to delete and then I hit the delete key.
    Takes me about 2 or 3 seconds. :)


    >> I don't see any way to tell it to automatically expand
    >> the threads when it gets the messages. I don't like
    >> having to click on each thread.
    >>
    >> Also, it doesn't seem to download the bodies of
    >> the messages, if they're still in a collapsed folder.
    >> I did set it to get them for offline use. I didn't
    >> know that was an option. :)

    >
    >TB doesnt 'keep' the messages you see unless
    >you are downloading for offline use.
    >
    >TB doesnt download messages unless you set
    >it to download them for offline use.


    I do have it set for offline use (see above). My
    statement was that it isn't getting the ones that
    are below the initial message in a collapsed thread.


    >> It seems the difference between "Reply" and "Reply All"
    >> is not how many news groups it responds to (which is
    >> what I thought it would be), but rather, whether or not
    >> it also sends an email to the poster, in addition to
    >> the news groups.

    >
    >Reply All is to the newsgroup and the poster. Its NOT
    >intended for crossposting between various groups,
    >that depends on the message you are replying to,
    >and how it is set.


    It would seem to me that this is exactly what
    "Reply All" would be for. Replying to "all" news
    groups. That's what it does in Agent. Otherwise,
    shouldn't it be, "Reply Both" as in both news
    groups and email? :)


    >I suggest that you DONT reply to messages that
    >are cross-posted.


    Almost all news group messages are cross posted
    and you don't always know which group someone is
    posting from, so in order to make sure they see it,
    you need to include all groups and then try to trim
    it back once you know where they are.

    --

    Pastor Dave

    Silence in the Face of Doctrinal Criticism is Suicide

    http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html

    http://tinyurl.com/ce97m
     
    Pastor Dave, Jun 28, 2005
    #4
  5. Pastor Dave

    Scott Nelson Guest

    Pastor Dave wrote:

    > I don't know what I want, until I see them. :) At that
    > point, it sounds like a lot of tagging work to use the
    > View feature. :) I work quickly with my fingers and
    > mostly by keyboard. I only use the mouse when
    > I'm clicking on "Send", or "Retrieve messages"
    > or something. :) I just start on one message, hold
    > down shift and hit the down arrow until I'm at the last
    > message I want to delete and then I hit the delete key.
    > Takes me about 2 or 3 seconds. :)


    When View is set to Unread, the next time you go into a newsgroup, all
    messages that you have already looked at will be hidden. Only the ones
    you haven't read will be visible. After I look at all the messages I
    want, I simply mark the whole group as Read (right click on newsgroup
    and select Mark Newsgroup Read). The next time I get into the
    newsgroup, only the messages that are new since I was there last are
    visible. This method also only takes about 2 or 3 seconds.

    Scott
    --
    http://www.treasuredude.net.tc
    http://pie.midco.net/treasuredude/
     
    Scott Nelson, Jun 28, 2005
    #5
  6. Pastor Dave

    Doug G Guest

    Pastor Dave wrote:
    > On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 09:19:48 GMT, Moz Champion
    > <> spake thusly:
    >
    >
    > <Responses moved to appropriate sections
    > of message for ease of following>
    >
    >>> I was just checking out Thunderbird with news groups
    >>> and I'm seeing a serious lack of settings. I'm not
    >>> trying to slam it, mind you. I know it's free and all
    >>> and maybe I'm missing something, but it seems to be
    >>> lacking a number of things. I normally use Agent, so
    >>> you can get an idea of what I'm used to. But I thought
    >>> it might be nice to try Thunderbird for news groups.
    >>>
    >>> I can't even delete messages. I hit the delete key
    >>> while a message is highlighted and it says I can't
    >>> cancel messages that are not my own. All I want
    >>> to do is make it go away in my reader. I don't want a
    >>> pile of messages that I know I am not going to read.
    >>> The very first thing I do in Agent, is delete the
    >>> threads that I know I'm not going to read. Is that
    >>> possible in TBird?

    >>
    >>You cant 'delete' messages in news groups not your
    >>own because the purpose of a news reader is to show
    >>you what exists on the server, and you cant delete
    >>other peoples messages on the server.

    >
    > I am not trying to delete them off of the server.
    > I simply don't want them on my screen. I do
    > this in Agent every day. I just finished doing it. :)
    >
    >
    >>As someone else mentions you can use the View
    >>menu to show only those messages you want

    >
    > I don't know what I want, until I see them. :) At that
    > point, it sounds like a lot of tagging work to use the
    > View feature. :) I work quickly with my fingers and
    > mostly by keyboard. I only use the mouse when
    > I'm clicking on "Send", or "Retrieve messages"
    > or something. :) I just start on one message, hold
    > down shift and hit the down arrow until I'm at the last
    > message I want to delete and then I hit the delete key.
    > Takes me about 2 or 3 seconds. :)
    >
    >
    >>> I don't see any way to tell it to automatically expand
    >>> the threads when it gets the messages. I don't like
    >>> having to click on each thread.
    >>>
    >>> Also, it doesn't seem to download the bodies of
    >>> the messages, if they're still in a collapsed folder.
    >>> I did set it to get them for offline use. I didn't
    >>> know that was an option. :)

    >>
    >>TB doesnt 'keep' the messages you see unless
    >>you are downloading for offline use.
    >>
    >>TB doesnt download messages unless you set
    >>it to download them for offline use.

    >
    > I do have it set for offline use (see above). My
    > statement was that it isn't getting the ones that
    > are below the initial message in a collapsed thread.
    >
    >
    >>> It seems the difference between "Reply" and "Reply All"
    >>> is not how many news groups it responds to (which is
    >>> what I thought it would be), but rather, whether or not
    >>> it also sends an email to the poster, in addition to
    >>> the news groups.

    >>
    >>Reply All is to the newsgroup and the poster. Its NOT
    >>intended for crossposting between various groups,
    >>that depends on the message you are replying to,
    >>and how it is set.

    >
    > It would seem to me that this is exactly what
    > "Reply All" would be for. Replying to "all" news
    > groups. That's what it does in Agent. Otherwise,
    > shouldn't it be, "Reply Both" as in both news
    > groups and email? :)
    >
    >
    >>I suggest that you DONT reply to messages that
    >>are cross-posted.

    >
    > Almost all news group messages are cross posted
    > and you don't always know which group someone is
    > posting from, so in order to make sure they see it,
    > you need to include all groups and then try to trim
    > it back once you know where they are.
    >


    If you select View > Threads > Threads with Unread, the next time you
    open the group that's all you'll see. Each newsgroup has its own View
    setting.

    Thunderbird's "Reply" sends the reply to all newsgroups listed in the
    post's "Newsgroups" header. "Reply All" sends the reply to all
    newsgroups in the "Newsgroups" header plus the poster's e-mail address.

    I've never used Agent, so I don't know how it works.
     
    Doug G, Jun 28, 2005
    #6
  7. Pastor Dave

    Moz Champion Guest

    Pastor Dave wrote:
    > On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 09:19:48 GMT, Moz Champion
    > <> spake thusly:
    >
    >
    > <Responses moved to appropriate sections
    > of message for ease of following>
    >
    >>>I was just checking out Thunderbird with news groups
    >>>and I'm seeing a serious lack of settings. I'm not
    >>>trying to slam it, mind you. I know it's free and all
    >>>and maybe I'm missing something, but it seems to be
    >>>lacking a number of things. I normally use Agent, so
    >>>you can get an idea of what I'm used to. But I thought
    >>>it might be nice to try Thunderbird for news groups.
    >>>
    >>>I can't even delete messages. I hit the delete key
    >>>while a message is highlighted and it says I can't
    >>>cancel messages that are not my own. All I want
    >>>to do is make it go away in my reader. I don't want a
    >>>pile of messages that I know I am not going to read.
    >>>The very first thing I do in Agent, is delete the
    >>>threads that I know I'm not going to read. Is that
    >>>possible in TBird?

    >>
    >>You cant 'delete' messages in news groups not your
    >>own because the purpose of a news reader is to show
    >>you what exists on the server, and you cant delete
    >>other peoples messages on the server.

    >
    >
    > I am not trying to delete them off of the server.
    > I simply don't want them on my screen. I do
    > this in Agent every day. I just finished doing it. :)
    >
    >
    >
    >>As someone else mentions you can use the View
    >>menu to show only those messages you want

    >
    >
    > I don't know what I want, until I see them. :) At that
    > point, it sounds like a lot of tagging work to use the
    > View feature. :) I work quickly with my fingers and
    > mostly by keyboard. I only use the mouse when
    > I'm clicking on "Send", or "Retrieve messages"
    > or something. :) I just start on one message, hold
    > down shift and hit the down arrow until I'm at the last
    > message I want to delete and then I hit the delete key.
    > Takes me about 2 or 3 seconds. :)
    >
    >
    >
    >>>I don't see any way to tell it to automatically expand
    >>>the threads when it gets the messages. I don't like
    >>>having to click on each thread.
    >>>
    >>>Also, it doesn't seem to download the bodies of
    >>>the messages, if they're still in a collapsed folder.
    >>>I did set it to get them for offline use. I didn't
    >>>know that was an option. :)

    >>
    >>TB doesnt 'keep' the messages you see unless
    >>you are downloading for offline use.
    >>
    >>TB doesnt download messages unless you set
    >>it to download them for offline use.

    >
    >
    > I do have it set for offline use (see above). My
    > statement was that it isn't getting the ones that
    > are below the initial message in a collapsed thread.
    >
    >
    >
    >>>It seems the difference between "Reply" and "Reply All"
    >>>is not how many news groups it responds to (which is
    >>>what I thought it would be), but rather, whether or not
    >>>it also sends an email to the poster, in addition to
    >>>the news groups.

    >>
    >>Reply All is to the newsgroup and the poster. Its NOT
    >>intended for crossposting between various groups,
    >>that depends on the message you are replying to,
    >>and how it is set.

    >
    >
    > It would seem to me that this is exactly what
    > "Reply All" would be for. Replying to "all" news
    > groups. That's what it does in Agent. Otherwise,
    > shouldn't it be, "Reply Both" as in both news
    > groups and email? :)
    >
    >
    >
    >>I suggest that you DONT reply to messages that
    >>are cross-posted.

    >
    >
    > Almost all news group messages are cross posted
    > and you don't always know which group someone is
    > posting from, so in order to make sure they see it,
    > you need to include all groups and then try to trim
    > it back once you know where they are.
    >


    I find bottom posting more conversant to ease of following. since you
    deem otherwise I hope you get the assistance you require from others.
     
    Moz Champion, Jun 29, 2005
    #7
  8. Pastor Dave

    Pastor Dave Guest

    On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 12:05:15 GMT, Moz Champion
    <> spake thusly:


    >I find bottom posting more conversant to ease
    >of following. since you deem otherwise I hope
    >you get the assistance you require from others.


    The proper netiquette is to post your response to
    each point, below each point. That way, a person
    is not scrolling up and down, to see which sentence
    in their post you are responding to, with each of your
    sentences. With all due respect, what you're doing
    is no different than top posting.

    http://www.dickalba.demon.co.uk/usenet/guide/faq_topp.html


    --

    Pastor Dave

    Silence in the Face of Doctrinal Criticism is Suicide

    http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html

    http://tinyurl.com/ce97m
     
    Pastor Dave, Jun 29, 2005
    #8
  9. Pastor Dave

    Moz Champion Guest

    Pastor Dave wrote:
    > On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 12:05:15 GMT, Moz Champion
    > <> spake thusly:
    >
    >
    >
    >>I find bottom posting more conversant to ease
    >>of following. since you deem otherwise I hope
    >>you get the assistance you require from others.

    >
    >
    > The proper netiquette is to post your response to
    > each point, below each point. That way, a person
    > is not scrolling up and down, to see which sentence
    > in their post you are responding to, with each of your
    > sentences. With all due respect, what you're doing
    > is no different than top posting.
    >
    > http://www.dickalba.demon.co.uk/usenet/guide/faq_topp.html
    >
    >



    There is no such thing as 'proper' netiquette.
    Each group decides what it will accept or not accept, that goes for
    top-posting/bottom-posting, html/no-html and editing.

    In the tech support groups I attend, no-snipping makes it MUCH easier
    for one to reply.

    Fine and dandy, you do it YOUR way. I dont care. I told you exactly how
    much assistance you would get from me by doing so, none. I dont have the
    time to re-read each and every message in a thread. You dont want to
    bottom-post, fine, then you can seek others assistance, as you wont get
    mine. Bottom-posting (not interspersed) and no-snipping would make it
    rather easier for you to get the assistance you wish, if you'd rather do
    it your way, then go right ahead.
     
    Moz Champion, Jun 30, 2005
    #9
  10. Pastor Dave

    Pastor Dave Guest

    On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 09:25:18 GMT, Moz Champion
    <> spake thusly:


    >Pastor Dave wrote:
    >> On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 12:05:15 GMT, Moz Champion
    >> <> spake thusly:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>>I find bottom posting more conversant to ease
    >>>of following. since you deem otherwise I hope
    >>>you get the assistance you require from others.

    >>
    >>
    >> The proper netiquette is to post your response to
    >> each point, below each point. That way, a person
    >> is not scrolling up and down, to see which sentence
    >> in their post you are responding to, with each of your
    >> sentences. With all due respect, what you're doing
    >> is no different than top posting.
    >>
    >> http://www.dickalba.demon.co.uk/usenet/guide/faq_topp.html

    >
    >
    >There is no such thing as 'proper' netiquette.


    Okay, if you say so. The link still exists though and
    there are many more. I guess they're all wrong.


    >Each group decides what it will accept or not accept, that goes for
    >top-posting/bottom-posting, html/no-html and editing.


    Personally, I have never seen a group that has desired
    to add more clutter to the traffic and more download
    time for others as a rule.


    >In the tech support groups I attend, no-snipping makes it MUCH easier
    >for one to reply.


    It also makes it a burden for those who are using
    dialup, to download the same text over and over
    again, if it is not relevant to what you are responding
    to. But who cares about anyone else, as long as it's
    easy for you, right?


    >Fine and dandy, you do it YOUR way. I dont care. I told you exactly how
    >much assistance you would get from me by doing so, none.


    Gee, I'm hurt.

    Maybe you consider the fact that you're not the only
    one in the universe who reads this stuff and that you
    should consider others in your posting style.


    >I dont have the time to re-read each and every message in a thread.


    No one said you had to. But it seems that your goal
    is to make everyone else keep scrolling up and down,
    to figure out which line in your response, goes with
    which line in the original message and make them
    read through the entire message over and over again.

    But hey, as long as it's convenient for YOU, who cares
    if you're causing other people to do more work. After
    all YOUR time is worth more than everyone else's. :)

    And with that, I'm done. I'm not going to get involved
    in a flame war. I said what I had to say.

    Have a nice life.

    --

    Pastor Dave

    Silence in the Face of Doctrinal Criticism is Suicide

    http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html

    http://tinyurl.com/ce97m
     
    Pastor Dave, Jun 30, 2005
    #10
  11. Pastor Dave

    Moz Champion Guest

    Pastor Dave wrote:
    > On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 09:25:18 GMT, Moz Champion
    > <> spake thusly:
    >
    >
    >
    >>Pastor Dave wrote:
    >>
    >>>On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 12:05:15 GMT, Moz Champion
    >>><> spake thusly:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>I find bottom posting more conversant to ease
    >>>>of following. since you deem otherwise I hope
    >>>>you get the assistance you require from others.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>The proper netiquette is to post your response to
    >>>each point, below each point. That way, a person
    >>>is not scrolling up and down, to see which sentence
    >>>in their post you are responding to, with each of your
    >>>sentences. With all due respect, what you're doing
    >>>is no different than top posting.
    >>>
    >>>http://www.dickalba.demon.co.uk/usenet/guide/faq_topp.html

    >>
    >>
    >>There is no such thing as 'proper' netiquette.

    >
    >
    > Okay, if you say so. The link still exists though and
    > there are many more. I guess they're all wrong.
    >
    >
    >
    >>Each group decides what it will accept or not accept, that goes for
    >>top-posting/bottom-posting, html/no-html and editing.

    >
    >
    > Personally, I have never seen a group that has desired
    > to add more clutter to the traffic and more download
    > time for others as a rule.
    >
    >
    >
    >>In the tech support groups I attend, no-snipping makes it MUCH easier
    >>for one to reply.

    >
    >
    > It also makes it a burden for those who are using
    > dialup, to download the same text over and over
    > again, if it is not relevant to what you are responding
    > to. But who cares about anyone else, as long as it's
    > easy for you, right?
    >
    >
    >
    >>Fine and dandy, you do it YOUR way. I dont care. I told you exactly how
    >>much assistance you would get from me by doing so, none.

    >
    >
    > Gee, I'm hurt.
    >
    > Maybe you consider the fact that you're not the only
    > one in the universe who reads this stuff and that you
    > should consider others in your posting style.
    >
    >
    >
    >>I dont have the time to re-read each and every message in a thread.

    >
    >
    > No one said you had to. But it seems that your goal
    > is to make everyone else keep scrolling up and down,
    > to figure out which line in your response, goes with
    > which line in the original message and make them
    > read through the entire message over and over again.
    >
    > But hey, as long as it's convenient for YOU, who cares
    > if you're causing other people to do more work. After
    > all YOUR time is worth more than everyone else's. :)
    >
    > And with that, I'm done. I'm not going to get involved
    > in a flame war. I said what I had to say.
    >
    > Have a nice life.
    >


    And I wasnt starting a flame war either, I simply explained why I
    wouldnt be participating in your threads any longer. I didnt say you
    had to conform, I even said do what you want, I simply explained that I
    wouldnt be providing you any answers. A simple statement of fact.

    I dont CARE how you post, thats your decision, I simply stated you
    wouldnt be getting answers from me, with regards to your questions, as
    long as you do it YOUR way.

    If others want to jump in, thats their business, not mine, but, hmmm,
    that doesnt seem to be happening does it now. Ah well, since you know
    how to do everything, then resolving your own problem should be a piece
    of cake, shouldnt it?

    There is only one rule of newsgroups... When in Rome, do as the Romans
    do. For example, most newsgroups dislike or outright ban HTML, yet I
    know of several groups where HTML is not only preferred but almost a
    requirement. You wouldnt be liked very much there if you went in and
    demanded they all post in plain text only, because 'its the rules' or
    some such.

    Simple. You do it your way. Refuse to condescend to assist those who may
    be able to help you, no one HAS to answer you at all really. Since you
    know better than everyone else, you should be able to solve your problem
    , its not that hard or difficult. <g>
     
    Moz Champion, Jun 30, 2005
    #11
  12. Pastor Dave

    Guest

    Moz Champion wrote:
    > Pastor Dave wrote:
    > > On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 09:25:18 GMT, Moz Champion
    > > <> spake thusly:
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >>Pastor Dave wrote:
    > >>
    > >>>On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 12:05:15 GMT, Moz Champion
    > >>><> spake thusly:
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>>>I find bottom posting more conversant to ease
    > >>>>of following. since you deem otherwise I hope
    > >>>>you get the assistance you require from others.
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>>The proper netiquette is to post your response to
    > >>>each point, below each point. That way, a person
    > >>>is not scrolling up and down, to see which sentence
    > >>>in their post you are responding to, with each of your
    > >>>sentences. With all due respect, what you're doing
    > >>>is no different than top posting.
    > >>>
    > >>>http://www.dickalba.demon.co.uk/usenet/guide/faq_topp.html
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>There is no such thing as 'proper' netiquette.

    > >
    > >
    > > Okay, if you say so. The link still exists though and
    > > there are many more. I guess they're all wrong.
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >>Each group decides what it will accept or not accept, that goes for
    > >>top-posting/bottom-posting, html/no-html and editing.

    > >
    > >
    > > Personally, I have never seen a group that has desired
    > > to add more clutter to the traffic and more download
    > > time for others as a rule.
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >>In the tech support groups I attend, no-snipping makes it MUCH easier
    > >>for one to reply.

    > >
    > >
    > > It also makes it a burden for those who are using
    > > dialup, to download the same text over and over
    > > again, if it is not relevant to what you are responding
    > > to. But who cares about anyone else, as long as it's
    > > easy for you, right?
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >>Fine and dandy, you do it YOUR way. I dont care. I told you exactly how
    > >>much assistance you would get from me by doing so, none.

    > >
    > >
    > > Gee, I'm hurt.
    > >
    > > Maybe you consider the fact that you're not the only
    > > one in the universe who reads this stuff and that you
    > > should consider others in your posting style.
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >>I dont have the time to re-read each and every message in a thread.

    > >
    > >
    > > No one said you had to. But it seems that your goal
    > > is to make everyone else keep scrolling up and down,
    > > to figure out which line in your response, goes with
    > > which line in the original message and make them
    > > read through the entire message over and over again.
    > >
    > > But hey, as long as it's convenient for YOU, who cares
    > > if you're causing other people to do more work. After
    > > all YOUR time is worth more than everyone else's. :)
    > >
    > > And with that, I'm done. I'm not going to get involved
    > > in a flame war. I said what I had to say.
    > >
    > > Have a nice life.
    > >

    >
    > And I wasnt starting a flame war either, I simply explained why I
    > wouldnt be participating in your threads any longer. I didnt say you
    > had to conform, I even said do what you want, I simply explained that I
    > wouldnt be providing you any answers. A simple statement of fact.
    >
    > I dont CARE how you post, thats your decision, I simply stated you
    > wouldnt be getting answers from me, with regards to your questions, as
    > long as you do it YOUR way.
    >
    > If others want to jump in, thats their business, not mine, but, hmmm,
    > that doesnt seem to be happening does it now.



    You're being trolled. Dave starts a lot of arguments by fooling with
    the text on our group, also. I think You should killfile the mother
    fucker.

    HTH



    > Ah well, since you know
    > how to do everything, then resolving your own problem should be a piece
    > of cake, shouldnt it?
    >
    > There is only one rule of newsgroups... When in Rome, do as the Romans
    > do. For example, most newsgroups dislike or outright ban HTML, yet I
    > know of several groups where HTML is not only preferred but almost a
    > requirement. You wouldnt be liked very much there if you went in and
    > demanded they all post in plain text only, because 'its the rules' or
    > some such.
    >
    > Simple. You do it your way. Refuse to condescend to assist those who may
    > be able to help you, no one HAS to answer you at all really. Since you
    > know better than everyone else, you should be able to solve your problem
    > , its not that hard or difficult. <g>
     
    , Jun 30, 2005
    #12
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. John Toliver

    sync Mail and News Groups with Palm

    John Toliver, Jan 13, 2004, in forum: Firefox
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    403
    John Toliver
    Jan 13, 2004
  2. John Sasso
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    561
    John Sasso
    Oct 2, 2004
  3. AM
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    463
  4. Dr Nova
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    314
    SagaBoi17
    Jun 11, 2005
  5. floffy
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    634
    floffy
    Sep 20, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page