A tower-induced go-round

Jay,

Do you intentionally clip the name of the person you're replying to, or is
it my reader that's doing it?

Jon

Jay,

Do you intentionally clip the name of the person you're replying to, or is
it my reader that's doing it?

I haven't intentionally cut names, but have perhaps done it without
thought.

Doesn't your reader show the thread in a "tree" format? That usually
makes it easy to follow who is answering whom.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

In article .com,
"Jay Honeck" wrote:

Do you intentionally clip the name of the person you're replying to, or is
it my reader that's doing it?

I haven't intentionally cut names, but have perhaps done it without
thought.

Doesn't your reader show the thread in a "tree" format? That usually
makes it easy to follow who is answering whom.

No it doesn't. Don't assume people want to see all the previously read messages
when opening a group.

--
Bob Noel
(gave up looking for a particular sig the lawyer will hate)

Doesn't your reader show the thread in a "tree" format? That usually
makes it easy to follow who is answering whom.

No it doesn't. Don't assume people want to see all the previously read messages
when opening a group.

Sorry, Bob -- I had no idea.

I would find reading Usenet without the "tree" view to be VERY
confusing. I participate in many threads, and sometimes my
participation is spread over many different parts of my day (or week),
and I often must re-read a few posts to get back up to speed on what's
going on in the thread.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

I asked Jay if he intentionally clipped names and he said he didn't.

He asked,

Doesn't your reader show the thread in a "tree" format? That usually
makes it easy to follow who is answering whom.

Yes, it does (Outlook Express), but I had my View set to Hide Read Messages
so I don't see the full tree. I'll leave it on Show All Messages and see if
I like it.

Thanks,

Jon

On 29 Mar 2007 17:23:02 -0700, "Jay Honeck" wrote
in .com:


Doesn't your reader show the thread in a "tree" format? That usually
makes it easy to follow who is answering whom.

If you include the Message-ID of the article to which you are
following up in the attribution, it makes it easy for everyone to
find.

If you include the Message-ID of the article to which you are
following up in the attribution, it makes it easy for everyone to
find.

How does one use the message ID (other than on google)?

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 03:25:34 GMT, Jose
wrote in :

If you include the Message-ID of the article to which you are
following up in the attribution, it makes it easy for everyone to
find.

How does one use the message ID (other than on google)?


With my newsreader client, Forte Agent, you just right-click on the
message-id and select Launch, and it jumps to that message.

Recently, Larry Dighera posted:

On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 03:25:34 GMT, Jose
wrote in :

If you include the Message-ID of the article to which you are
following up in the attribution, it makes it easy for everyone to
find.

How does one use the message ID (other than on google)?


With my newsreader client, Forte Agent, you just right-click on the
message-id and select Launch, and it jumps to that message.

That technique does nothing useful in Outlook Express. I'd rather see
proper attributions in posts, as even using the "Show all Messages" option
is limited by the server mirroring the NG. If it only caches a relatively
small number of messages, the original source message may be clipped.

Neil

On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 10:14:58 GMT, "Neil Gould"
wrote in
:

That technique does nothing useful in Outlook Express.


I'll bet OE renders all the html messages just fine for you though,
even following all the hyperlinks they contain for you (whether you
want it to or not).