Trial by newspaper

"Mark Hansen" wrote in message
...
On 12/14/2005 08:13, Dudley Henriques wrote:

I'm using Outlook Express 6.0 and every thread on every newsgroup I'm
using is showing normally, including your post which shows a pickup
reference properly.
Andrew's post shows up with a blank screen and a single sentence with no
pickup reference.
If you are seeing a pickup reference, the problem might be somewhere
other than my news reader.
There is one anomaly however. The OP has cross posted to "owning" as well
as "piloting". I'm answering to "piloting" only, and have defaulted
through "owning" as the other group won't rectify. Perhaps that is the
issue.
Dudley Henriques

Strange. I'm looking at the thread posted to both owning and piloting, and
in both cases, the entire thread is there. I'm using Mozilla 1.7.5 on a
Windows platform (Windows/2000 Professional).


--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Sacramento, CA

No biggie for sure :-), but when I hit reply on Andrew's message, the
reference shows normally as below;

"Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message
ups.com...

Try and explain that to the parents of the boy who got killed.

but when simply pulled up in the thread, just the sentence.

Interesting!! Just one of those unexplained mysteries that must drive Bill
Gates nuts from time to time :-)))
Dudley

"Dudley Henriques" writes:
No biggie for sure :-), but when I hit reply on Andrew's message, the
reference shows normally as below;

"Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message
ups.com...

Try and explain that to the parents of the boy who got killed.

but when simply pulled up in the thread, just the sentence.

Interesting!! Just one of those unexplained mysteries that must drive Bill
Gates nuts from time to time :-)))

Ahhh. I think the issue is that you have two different definitions of
"thread".

In my newsreader (and in most threaded newsreaders), you can see who
replied to each message by the layout of the messages in the summary
view. So in this thread, my summary view looks like this:

R [ 9: Paul kgyy ] Trial by newspaper
R [ 35: Dudley Henriques ]
R [ 3: Andrew Sarangan ]
R [ 14: Dudley Henriques ]
R [ 27: Mark Hansen ]
R [ 43: Dudley Henriques ]
R [ 22: Mark Hansen ]
R [ 42: Dudley Henriques ]
R [ 16: Montblack ]

See how you can tell from the indentation that Paul sent a message,
then Dudley and Andrew replied to it, then Dudley repsonded to
Andrew's message, etc. Your posting software will put a "references"
header in your posting so that other newsreaders can figure out this
threading.

In addition to seeing these "threads", some of the posters choose to
quote from earlier messages, as I have quoted from Dudley's message
above. I think this quoting is what Dudley is calling a "thread".

Dudley: from your description, it sounds like Outlook either does not
have threading, or you do not have that feature enabled.

In any case, on usenet it is often considered polite to quote from
previous messages to give some context. The main reason for this has
nothing to do with the fact that some of us use non-threaded
newsreaders---instead, it is because it takes time for messages to be
sent between computers. Depending on where you are reading from, the
messages in a newsgroup may arrive in a different order. Without a
little quote to put a message in context, this can cause confusion.

Chris
--
Chris Colohan Email: PGP: finger
Web: www.colohan.com Phone: (412)268-4751

"Chris Colohan" wrote

In any case, on usenet it is often considered polite to quote from
previous messages to give some context. The main reason for this has
nothing to do with the fact that some of us use non-threaded
newsreaders---instead, it is because it takes time for messages to be
sent between computers. Depending on where you are reading from, the
messages in a newsgroup may arrive in a different order. Without a
little quote to put a message in context, this can cause confusion.

I totally agree, about quoting some of the text, and when it makes sense,
the author- as I did in this reply. It really is not hard.

The only reason I do not sometimes quote the most recent author to which I
am replying, is when I want to quote two authors, or two posts back, then I
leave out both of the authors. I think it reduces the chances that someone
will think that you are attributing someone else's words to them.

In my case, (with OE) it is unsure for me to determine who someone is
responding to, because I keep a hefty kill-file. I just do not want to
waste my time reading some nutcases.

In that case, the kill-filed person does not show up in the thread headers
at all, and it almost looks like it is a response to someone earlier in the
thread.

So for many reason, it stands that it is polite to quote some of the person
that you are responding to. It is just as bad to quote all of the post,
along with several other's posts before that.
--
Jim in NC

Morgans wrote:

In that case, the kill-filed person does not show up in the thread headers
at all, and it almost looks like it is a response to someone earlier in the
thread.

Mozilla has the option of having the system mark the kill-filed posts as "read"
instead of deleting them. That way the headers will show up in the thread, but
the "next" button skips right past them. OE may have something similar.

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.

Morgans wrote:

In my case, (with OE) it is unsure for me to determine who someone is
responding to, because I keep a hefty kill-file. I just do not want to
waste my time reading some nutcases.

What time? All the posts are listed in pretty much a chronological
order and you can clearly see who wrote them. If you don't want to read
posts from a certain person then don't click on that post. The fact
that you have a killfile with my name on it means I won.

"Newps" wrote

What time? All the posts are listed in pretty much a chronological
order and you can clearly see who wrote them. If you don't want to read
posts from a certain person then don't click on that post. The fact
that you have a killfile with my name on it means I won.

If you feel the need to say "you won", then there is a pretty good clue that
you are not mature enough to carry on a conversation, or not worthwhile, at
least. You have been in my killfile before, by the way.

I read the groups by hitting the "next unread" box, and if you are on the
list as not being read, then your post will open. I use a slow machine, and
I don't want to waste the time opening the post.
--
Jim in NC

Morgans wrote:

"Newps" wrote

What time? All the posts are listed in pretty much a chronological
order and you can clearly see who wrote them. If you don't want to read
posts from a certain person then don't click on that post. The fact
that you have a killfile with my name on it means I won.


If you feel the need to say "you won", then there is a pretty good clue that
you are not mature enough to carry on a conversation, or not worthwhile, at
least. You have been in my killfile before, by the way.

Well put me back in there.



I read the groups by hitting the "next unread" box, and if you are on the
list as not being read, then your post will open. I use a slow machine, and
I don't want to waste the time opening the post.

I don't waste time either, although it is irrelavant to me with a cable
line. I only click on the posts I want to read and no killfile to maintain.

Newps wrote:
The fact
that you have a killfile with my name on it means I won.

Oooookay. You won, over me also. But you don't want to know what title
is put on the filter. Nothing so grandiose as your name.