Discussion Group Posting Protocol

G

Guest

Gee willikers mister "Pop," sir...is that right? Golly! What's it like to
be so smart?

While I'm new to discussion groups (I can usually find all the answers I
need in KB articles or elsewhere online) since I've been a
programmer/analyst, hardware technician and helpline specialist for over
thirty years I've got more advice to offer than I do questions, and here's
some for you: GET SOME MANNERS!

Out of a dozen replies to some half-dozen posts I've made in the last couple
of days THREE of them have been rude and disrespectful, like yours--one of
them calling me "stupid"...and ONLY because he couldn't wrap his tiny brain
around what I was saying.

IF YA CAN'T SAY SUMTHIN' NICE, DON'T SAY NUTHIN' AT ALL!

Since you make no apologies for your sarcasm I'm not going to apologize for
my inadvertent breach of discussion group protocol, and after reading "How
can I post a message to more than one Usenet newsgroup?" what I'm "getting"
is that such breaches primarily inconvenience the poster himself rather than
the reader--so how difficult is it to JUST NOT READ the same post twice in
two different groups?

I realize that since they took Star Trek and "Zena, Warrior Princess" off TV
prima donna computer geeks haven't had much besides PDAs and Bluetooth
technology to keep them company, but really: GET A LIFE! A great deal of
the acerbic sniping that goes on in these "professional" discussion groups is
tantamount to the prattle exchanged by adolescents in teen chat rooms. GROW
UP!
 
A

Antioch

hkeycurrentuser said:
Gee willikers mister "Pop," sir...is that right? Golly! What's it like
to
be so smart?

While I'm new to discussion groups (I can usually find all the answers I
need in KB articles or elsewhere online) since I've been a
programmer/analyst, hardware technician and helpline specialist for over
thirty years I've got more advice to offer than I do questions, and here's
some for you: GET SOME MANNERS!

Out of a dozen replies to some half-dozen posts I've made in the last
couple
of days THREE of them have been rude and disrespectful, like yours--one of
them calling me "stupid"...and ONLY because he couldn't wrap his tiny
brain
around what I was saying.

IF YA CAN'T SAY SUMTHIN' NICE, DON'T SAY NUTHIN' AT ALL!

Since you make no apologies for your sarcasm I'm not going to apologize
for
my inadvertent breach of discussion group protocol, and after reading "How
can I post a message to more than one Usenet newsgroup?" what I'm
"getting"
is that such breaches primarily inconvenience the poster himself rather
than
the reader--so how difficult is it to JUST NOT READ the same post twice in
two different groups?

I realize that since they took Star Trek and "Zena, Warrior Princess" off
TV
prima donna computer geeks haven't had much besides PDAs and Bluetooth
technology to keep them company, but really: GET A LIFE! A great deal of
the acerbic sniping that goes on in these "professional" discussion groups
is
tantamount to the prattle exchanged by adolescents in teen chat rooms.
GROW
UP!


Why have you put this rant in another thread - you already have it in your
original thread - unless of course it is your intention to pizz everybody
off by having to read/delete all over again.
This will be my only response to you on this subject.
Antioch.
 
G

Guest

I put this "rant" in another thread because--after having received three
nasty replies in twelve replies altogether (to other TECHNICAL posts)--I
thought it was appropriate; and I was unaware that any of you would be FORCED
to view it more than once. I receive email notification of replies to my
posts (or others I'm interested in) and I only browse ones that I WANT to
read. I don't HAVE TO read any that I'm not interested in, and I don't have
to "delete" ANY of them. If anyone else is confined to some other
arrangement that I am unaware of then I apologize for the inconvenience but,
like a web designer who can't know how a site will render on all platforms: I
don't know what you're seeing. And because "Pop" wasn't the only person to
be terse and rude with me I wanted to convey these observations to more than
just him and I thought that starting a new thread was the only way to do
this. If I was wrong, I apologize...for THAT and THAT ALONE.

Proficiency requires experience, which will inevitably entail mistakes along
the way--but it's unnecessary for discussion group users to be caustic in
"straightening out" novice subscribers. There's enough strife in the world
already.
 
A

antioch

I will make an exception - this time.
Then stop using that old/tired/clunky/slow/error prone discussion group in
the web interface and learn to use newsgroups, into which, alas, your thread
has fallen.
If you want info re newsgroups then ask.
Rgds
Antioch
 
J

Jon

If you take the advice and choose a newsreader, make sure that it also
works with pop3 ['Pop free'] accounts.
 
D

David Webb

I answered your original query in your original thread but since you're using
the web based interface you may have lost easy access to it, so here's my
response again:

You can easily restore/customize this folder and all of its subfolders to a
basic format. Simply right-click on the top folder and select Properties > tab
Customize > under "What kind of folder do you want" select "Documents (for any
type file)", click on "Also apply this template to all subfolders, and then
click on Apply.

I believe that the perceived double sort that you mentioned was actually a
simple sort on the Name field and the results that you see are due to the
alpha-numeric results of the sorting, i.e., track numbers of the MP3 files would
come before the album name of the M3U file as per this example:

26 - The Beatles - Let It Be .mp3
27 - The Beatles - The Long And Winding Road .mp3
The Beatles1.m3u

Originally the M3U file was named as 1.m3u which put it second from the top of
the list. I renamed it for that reason.

| Gee willikers mister "Pop," sir...is that right? Golly! What's it like to
| be so smart?
|
| While I'm new to discussion groups (I can usually find all the answers I
| need in KB articles or elsewhere online) since I've been a
| programmer/analyst, hardware technician and helpline specialist for over
| thirty years I've got more advice to offer than I do questions, and here's
| some for you: GET SOME MANNERS!
|
| Out of a dozen replies to some half-dozen posts I've made in the last couple
| of days THREE of them have been rude and disrespectful, like yours--one of
| them calling me "stupid"...and ONLY because he couldn't wrap his tiny brain
| around what I was saying.
|
| IF YA CAN'T SAY SUMTHIN' NICE, DON'T SAY NUTHIN' AT ALL!
|
| Since you make no apologies for your sarcasm I'm not going to apologize for
| my inadvertent breach of discussion group protocol, and after reading "How
| can I post a message to more than one Usenet newsgroup?" what I'm "getting"
| is that such breaches primarily inconvenience the poster himself rather than
| the reader--so how difficult is it to JUST NOT READ the same post twice in
| two different groups?
|
| I realize that since they took Star Trek and "Zena, Warrior Princess" off TV
| prima donna computer geeks haven't had much besides PDAs and Bluetooth
| technology to keep them company, but really: GET A LIFE! A great deal of
| the acerbic sniping that goes on in these "professional" discussion groups is
| tantamount to the prattle exchanged by adolescents in teen chat rooms. GROW
| UP!
|
| "Pop`" wrote:
|
| > Soon's you learn how to Cross-post, many more experts will be willing to
| > help you. until then, have fun traversing all the places you posted to
| > looking for answers.
| >
| > http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/usenet/xpost.html
| >
| > hkeycurrentuser wrote:
| > > I have an MP3 folder containing two types of files: .MP3 audio files
| > > (all COMPLETELY legal) and .M3U playlist files. Until recently I've
| > > been able to sort the files in this folder two ways SIMULTANEOUSLY:
| > > first by Name, then by Type; i.e., the songs were sorted in ascending
| > > alphanumeric order at the beginning of the list and the playlists
| > > were sorted in the same order AFTER the MP3s. Furthermore, all the
| > > files in this folder would STAY arranged this way from one visit to
| > > the folder to the next, and even between reboot sessions.
| > >
| > > Recently though, this two-key sort is lost--not just from one session
| > > to the next but just between visits to this folder. I'm guessing
| > > that this might be a bug introduced by Microsoft during a recent
| > > update since it seems to have coincided with the appearance of
| > > additional sort options in this folder (Artist, Album Title, etc.)
| > > and the DISappearance of the "Modified" sort option.
| > >
| > > I've got my folders (and in fact ALL of Windows) set up in as
| > > "classic" a fashion as possible, but something has changed. Does
| > > anyone know how I might get back the previous, better-mannered
| > > behavior?
| > >
| > > Thanks
|
 
G

Guest

<<If you want info re newsgroups then ask.>>

Okay, I'm all ears--or in this case: I's all eyes. Yes I've heard of them,
but I had no idea exactly how they worked or why (except for receiving
multiple postings) they're better than this "old/tired/clunky/slow/error
prone discussion group in the web interface." And yes: it's OBVIOUSLY
possible for the "simplest" of things to escape the knowledge of even an
experienced user, as evidenced by the fact that some OBVIOUSLY experienced
users here are overlooking or forgetting some of the basics.

Thanks for your generous offer, as well as for this one-time exception to
your personal rule. If you've got a favorite description of newsgroups you'd
like to direct me to I'd be all too happy to read it. Otherwise I'm sure I
can Google something up on it myself.

Now see? It's not REALLY so difficult to get a point across in a civil
manner--is it?

Rgds back at'cha.
hkeycurrentuser
 
G

Guest

Hi, David.

Thanks for your courteous attempt to actually ANSWER my question rather than
malign me publicly for my unintentionally improper use of this forum.

<<I answered your original query in your original thread but since you're
using the web based interface you may have lost easy access to it, so here's
my response again:>>

No, I didn't lose it, but what you were directing me to do is what I'd
already done and I guess I didn't know how to author a post advising you that
your advice wasn't working without seeming ungrateful. Perhaps I should have
replied with SOMETHING? If so I apologize for my oversight.

<<I believe that the perceived double sort that you mentioned was actually a
simple sort on the Name field and the results that you see are due to the
alpha-numeric results of the sorting, i.e., track numbers of the MP3 files
would come before the album name of the M3U file as per this example:

26 - The Beatles - Let It Be .mp3
27 - The Beatles - The Long And Winding Road .mp3
The Beatles1.m3u>>

The fact that this wasn't the case doesn't diminish my gratitude for your
having taken the time to write (twice in fact) but no: this wasn't the case...

First, I don't have any files prefixed with track numbers like you've shown
here. All of my MP3s use the naming convention "Artist - Title.mp3".

Second, there was nothing "perceived" about this double-sort: it actually
happened! By default the files in this folder (MP3s and M3Us) would be
sorted in ascending alphanumeric order, and toggling "View...Arrange Icons
by...Name" would alternate this alphanumeric sort between Ascending and
DEscending order with the MP3s and M3Us mixed together in either case. But
then executing "View...Arrange Icons by...Type" would send all the M3Us to
the end/bottom of the listing while both sets of file types remained in
alphanumeric order. (I frankly wish it wasn't necessary to have playlist
files in the MP3 folder at all, but it's necessary in order for Winamp to
find them. I execute all my playlists from a separate Playlists folder in
which I've created shortcuts to the .M3Us back in the MP3 folder, which makes
them easier to access than having them mixed together with the MP3s.)

Here's an example of how a portion of my MP3 folder looked after sorting the
files in it by Name only...

BB King - Into The Night.mp3
Beach Boys - Barbara Ann.mp3
Beach Boys - Feel Flows.mp3
Beach Boys - Sail On Sailor.mp3
Beach Boys.m3u
Beach Bums - Upholstery.mp3
Beastie Boys - Mullet Head.mp3
Beatles - Norwegian Wood.mp3

....but then further sorting the files by Type moved "Beach Boys.m3u" to the
end of the listing (after "ZZ Top - Sharp Dressed Man.mp3") in a/n order with
the other M3Us.

As I said, up until a few months ago this sorting arrangement would stay in
place between sessions but now it doesn't want to. One thing that appears to
have MAYBE worked (sometimes these fixes seem to work at first, then you
realize they don't under all circumstances) was a suggestion I ran across
elsewhere in these forums to hold down the Ctrl key while X-ing out of the
window. In the last half-day since trying it, every time I've returned to
the MP3 folder the files have remained sorted the way I want them. I haven't
tried rebooting yet so I don't know if that will affect it.

BTW: I'm not just imagining the fact that this has changed recently, nor do
I know why it would have. Suffice it to say Microsoft's updates DO sometimes
affect the conspicuous operation of certain functions of the OS, like the new
(and annoying) message window "This page has an unspecified potential
security risk. Would you like to continue?" that has recently begun popping
up when user tries to access his TIF caches under Content.IE5 via a shortcut,
and the automatic replacement of the default "e" icon for URLs with favicons
under IE7.

Thanks again for your time, David--and especially for caring enough to send
your reply twice. As I said, the fact that I'd already done precisely what
you were suggesting doesn't detract from the courtesy you've demonstrated one
iota.

Respectfully,
hkeycurrentuser

PS: I really don't need to hear from anyone else who might read this how
f***ed up my taste in music is, or anything else of a non-constructive nature.

______________________________________
 
G

Guest

Thanks very much, Jon. I'll do that.

Jon said:
If you take the advice and choose a newsreader, make sure that it also
works with pop3 ['Pop free'] accounts.

--
Jon



I have it on good authority that "antioch said:
I will make an exception - this time.
Then stop using that old/tired/clunky/slow/error prone discussion group in
the web interface and learn to use newsgroups, into which, alas, your
thread has fallen.
If you want info re newsgroups then ask.
Rgds
Antioch
 
D

David Webb

You're welcome....and thanks for the feedback!

It seems strange that you cannot revert the folder's format to the Document type
as you originally wanted. Maybe it has something to do with IE7 since there is a
lot of commonality between Internet Explorer and Windows Explorer. Personally,
I'm still staying with IE6 SP2 until the smoke clears.

In your examples in appears that you have all mp3 and m3u files under one
folder. If that's the case and your folder format is "Music(best for audio files
and playlists)", you may want to sort by Type and select "Show in Groups" under
View > Arrange Icons by. This will put the M3U group at the top. Try sorting on
different fields, i.e., Artist, Album, etc., until you find something that suits
your needs.

Good luck.

| Hi, David.
|
| Thanks for your courteous attempt to actually ANSWER my question rather than
| malign me publicly for my unintentionally improper use of this forum.
|
| <<I answered your original query in your original thread but since you're
| using the web based interface you may have lost easy access to it, so here's
| my response again:>>
|
| No, I didn't lose it, but what you were directing me to do is what I'd
| already done and I guess I didn't know how to author a post advising you that
| your advice wasn't working without seeming ungrateful. Perhaps I should have
| replied with SOMETHING? If so I apologize for my oversight.
|
| <<I believe that the perceived double sort that you mentioned was actually a
| simple sort on the Name field and the results that you see are due to the
| alpha-numeric results of the sorting, i.e., track numbers of the MP3 files
| would come before the album name of the M3U file as per this example:
|
| 26 - The Beatles - Let It Be .mp3
| 27 - The Beatles - The Long And Winding Road .mp3
| The Beatles1.m3u>>
|
| The fact that this wasn't the case doesn't diminish my gratitude for your
| having taken the time to write (twice in fact) but no: this wasn't the case...
|
| First, I don't have any files prefixed with track numbers like you've shown
| here. All of my MP3s use the naming convention "Artist - Title.mp3".
|
| Second, there was nothing "perceived" about this double-sort: it actually
| happened! By default the files in this folder (MP3s and M3Us) would be
| sorted in ascending alphanumeric order, and toggling "View...Arrange Icons
| by...Name" would alternate this alphanumeric sort between Ascending and
| DEscending order with the MP3s and M3Us mixed together in either case. But
| then executing "View...Arrange Icons by...Type" would send all the M3Us to
| the end/bottom of the listing while both sets of file types remained in
| alphanumeric order. (I frankly wish it wasn't necessary to have playlist
| files in the MP3 folder at all, but it's necessary in order for Winamp to
| find them. I execute all my playlists from a separate Playlists folder in
| which I've created shortcuts to the .M3Us back in the MP3 folder, which makes
| them easier to access than having them mixed together with the MP3s.)
|
| Here's an example of how a portion of my MP3 folder looked after sorting the
| files in it by Name only...
|
| BB King - Into The Night.mp3
| Beach Boys - Barbara Ann.mp3
| Beach Boys - Feel Flows.mp3
| Beach Boys - Sail On Sailor.mp3
| Beach Boys.m3u
| Beach Bums - Upholstery.mp3
| Beastie Boys - Mullet Head.mp3
| Beatles - Norwegian Wood.mp3
|
| ...but then further sorting the files by Type moved "Beach Boys.m3u" to the
| end of the listing (after "ZZ Top - Sharp Dressed Man.mp3") in a/n order with
| the other M3Us.
|
| As I said, up until a few months ago this sorting arrangement would stay in
| place between sessions but now it doesn't want to. One thing that appears to
| have MAYBE worked (sometimes these fixes seem to work at first, then you
| realize they don't under all circumstances) was a suggestion I ran across
| elsewhere in these forums to hold down the Ctrl key while X-ing out of the
| window. In the last half-day since trying it, every time I've returned to
| the MP3 folder the files have remained sorted the way I want them. I haven't
| tried rebooting yet so I don't know if that will affect it.
|
| BTW: I'm not just imagining the fact that this has changed recently, nor do
| I know why it would have. Suffice it to say Microsoft's updates DO sometimes
| affect the conspicuous operation of certain functions of the OS, like the new
| (and annoying) message window "This page has an unspecified potential
| security risk. Would you like to continue?" that has recently begun popping
| up when user tries to access his TIF caches under Content.IE5 via a shortcut,
| and the automatic replacement of the default "e" icon for URLs with favicons
| under IE7.
|
| Thanks again for your time, David--and especially for caring enough to send
| your reply twice. As I said, the fact that I'd already done precisely what
| you were suggesting doesn't detract from the courtesy you've demonstrated one
| iota.
|
| Respectfully,
| hkeycurrentuser
|
| PS: I really don't need to hear from anyone else who might read this how
| f***ed up my taste in music is, or anything else of a non-constructive nature.
|
| ______________________________________
|
| "David Webb" wrote:
|
| > I answered your original query in your original thread but since you're
using
| > the web based interface you may have lost easy access to it, so here's my
| > response again:
| >
| > You can easily restore/customize this folder and all of its subfolders to a
| > basic format. Simply right-click on the top folder and select Properties >
tab
| > Customize > under "What kind of folder do you want" select "Documents (for
any
| > type file)", click on "Also apply this template to all subfolders, and then
| > click on Apply.
| >
| > I believe that the perceived double sort that you mentioned was actually a
| > simple sort on the Name field and the results that you see are due to the
| > alpha-numeric results of the sorting, i.e., track numbers of the MP3 files
would
| > come before the album name of the M3U file as per this example:
| >
| > 26 - The Beatles - Let It Be .mp3
| > 27 - The Beatles - The Long And Winding Road .mp3
| > The Beatles1.m3u
| >
| > Originally the M3U file was named as 1.m3u which put it second from the top
of
| > the list. I renamed it for that reason.
| >
message
| > | > | Gee willikers mister "Pop," sir...is that right? Golly! What's it like
to
| > | be so smart?
| > |
| > | While I'm new to discussion groups (I can usually find all the answers I
| > | need in KB articles or elsewhere online) since I've been a
| > | programmer/analyst, hardware technician and helpline specialist for over
| > | thirty years I've got more advice to offer than I do questions, and here's
| > | some for you: GET SOME MANNERS!
| > |
| > | Out of a dozen replies to some half-dozen posts I've made in the last
couple
| > | of days THREE of them have been rude and disrespectful, like yours--one of
| > | them calling me "stupid"...and ONLY because he couldn't wrap his tiny
brain
| > | around what I was saying.
| > |
| > | IF YA CAN'T SAY SUMTHIN' NICE, DON'T SAY NUTHIN' AT ALL!
| > |
| > | Since you make no apologies for your sarcasm I'm not going to apologize
for
| > | my inadvertent breach of discussion group protocol, and after reading "How
| > | can I post a message to more than one Usenet newsgroup?" what I'm
"getting"
| > | is that such breaches primarily inconvenience the poster himself rather
than
| > | the reader--so how difficult is it to JUST NOT READ the same post twice in
| > | two different groups?
| > |
| > | I realize that since they took Star Trek and "Zena, Warrior Princess" off
TV
| > | prima donna computer geeks haven't had much besides PDAs and Bluetooth
| > | technology to keep them company, but really: GET A LIFE! A great deal of
| > | the acerbic sniping that goes on in these "professional" discussion groups
is
| > | tantamount to the prattle exchanged by adolescents in teen chat rooms.
GROW
| > | UP!
| > |
| > | "Pop`" wrote:
| > |
| > | > Soon's you learn how to Cross-post, many more experts will be willing to
| > | > help you. until then, have fun traversing all the places you posted to
| > | > looking for answers.
| > | >
| > | > http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/usenet/xpost.html
| > | >
| > | > hkeycurrentuser wrote:
| > | > > I have an MP3 folder containing two types of files: .MP3 audio files
| > | > > (all COMPLETELY legal) and .M3U playlist files. Until recently I've
| > | > > been able to sort the files in this folder two ways SIMULTANEOUSLY:
| > | > > first by Name, then by Type; i.e., the songs were sorted in ascending
| > | > > alphanumeric order at the beginning of the list and the playlists
| > | > > were sorted in the same order AFTER the MP3s. Furthermore, all the
| > | > > files in this folder would STAY arranged this way from one visit to
| > | > > the folder to the next, and even between reboot sessions.
| > | > >
| > | > > Recently though, this two-key sort is lost--not just from one session
| > | > > to the next but just between visits to this folder. I'm guessing
| > | > > that this might be a bug introduced by Microsoft during a recent
| > | > > update since it seems to have coincided with the appearance of
| > | > > additional sort options in this folder (Artist, Album Title, etc.)
| > | > > and the DISappearance of the "Modified" sort option.
| > | > >
| > | > > I've got my folders (and in fact ALL of Windows) set up in as
| > | > > "classic" a fashion as possible, but something has changed. Does
| > | > > anyone know how I might get back the previous, better-mannered
| > | > > behavior?
| > | > >
| > | > > Thanks
| > |
| >
| >
| >
 
A

antioch

Reply contextualised/intertwined and clipped for brevity

hkeycurrentuser said:
<<If you want info re newsgroups then ask.>>

Okay, I'm all ears--or in this case: I's all eyes. Yes I've heard of them,
but I had no idea exactly how they worked or
why..............................

Here you are -

Try using a news client, such as Forte Agent, Thunderbird, or even Outlook
Express. It's a lot easier to do nearly everything that way. You can mark
messages to be watched, filter the views so you can see replies to your
posts easily, and search/find posters/messages/subjects.

Newsreaders for Windows:
http://www.forteinc.com/agent/index.php
http://www.mozilla.org
http://gravity.tbates.org/
http://www.40tude.com/dialog/
http://xnews.newsguy.com/

Outlook Express - Set up -
http://www.michaelstevenstech.com/outlookexpressnewreader.htm

http://insideoe.tomsterdam.com/resources/communities.htm#setupmsnews

Windows XP Newsgroup Setup Instructions for Outlook Express
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone/newsgroupsetup.mspx

Stop using the web interface and switch to a newsreader.
http://rickrogers.org/setupoe.htm

There are very good reasons for using the recommended newsgroup quoting
style. It has to do with making it easy for others to understand what you
are talking about when you post a reply to anything by placing your comments
into context.

1) If you do not quote at all in a reply you leave the reader guessing at
what you are replying to.

2) If you quote the entire message but then post your reply above or below
the the message you are responding to, and the message happens to be very
long and cover a lot of topics of discussion, again you leave the reader
guessing as to what part of the message your reply was for.
This is why you should put your replies into context.

4) Newsgroup quoting styles have been in use now for well over 20 years,
they are very well understood and accepted quoting practices among those who
participate in newsgroup threaded discussions. Because of that, if you
choose for whatever reason to not follow these accepted practices, then you
invite criticism. Quite often people who fail to follow accepted practices
in threaded discussions and choose to ignore request to start doing so, will
eventually be ignored completely and/or not taken seriously.

5) It's bad form to quote the entire message of an OP (Original Poster)
especially so if that message is more than just a few lines in length,
unless you are doing a point by point response to the message and properly
contextualizing your responses as you go. You should [snip] any comments you
are not responding to.

6) Address the person to whom you are replying and sign off at the end of
your post.


Here are some guidelines about how to correspond in newsgroups
http://members.fortunecity.com/nnqweb/nquote.html

http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.html

Do not multipost. Crosspost if you must.
http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/mul_crss.htm

How to ask a newsgroup question:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375

How Not to Get Help in Newsgroups
http://users.tpg.com.au/bzyhjr/liszt.html
Thanks for your generous offer, as well as for this one-time exception to
your personal rule.

No problem - hope you find it more practical.
If you've got a favorite description of newsgroups you'd
like to direct me to I'd be all too happy to read it. Otherwise I'm sure
I
can Google something up on it myself.

The above is a collection of advice given my many leading helpers in the
newsgroups - my thanks to those who recognise their contributions.
Now see? It's not REALLY so difficult to get a point across in a civil
manner--is it?

No, you managed that admirably - as good as I could have done it ;-) ;-)
Happy reading.
Antioch
 
G

Guest

I think you're wise to stick with IE6 for awhile. I imaged my OS/apps
partition before updating to IE7 but it took me several days to decide
whether I wanted to stay with it or not and by then I'd added and configured
a couple of new apps and tweaked the system enough that I didn't want to have
to redo that all over again for the few problems I've had with IE7, which
have been relatively minor compared to some people's. Still, if I had it to
do all over again I think I would have waited a patch or two--especially
since I've been on a dial-up (DSL just came today!) and the anti-phishing
filter DOES take its time. Besides, IE7's enhanced security was apparently
breached before it was released: http://www.securityfocus.com/brief/348.

Thanks again for the help, amigo--and good luck to you, too.
 
G

Guest

<<Here you are >>

Thanks very much, Antioch! Looks like a great compilation of resources and
I promise to read every one of them, starting with "Stop using the web
interface and switch to a newsreader." I'm sure by the time I understand
what you guys are talking about I'll be duly embarrassed for any earlier,
unintentional indiscretions.

<<hope you find it more practical>>

Thanks, I'm sure I will. I appreciate the effort you've made bringing me up
to speed.

Happy computing!
HKCU

antioch said:
Reply contextualised/intertwined and clipped for brevity

hkeycurrentuser said:
<<If you want info re newsgroups then ask.>>

Okay, I'm all ears--or in this case: I's all eyes. Yes I've heard of them,
but I had no idea exactly how they worked or
why..............................

Here you are -

Try using a news client, such as Forte Agent, Thunderbird, or even Outlook
Express. It's a lot easier to do nearly everything that way. You can mark
messages to be watched, filter the views so you can see replies to your
posts easily, and search/find posters/messages/subjects.

Newsreaders for Windows:
http://www.forteinc.com/agent/index.php
http://www.mozilla.org
http://gravity.tbates.org/
http://www.40tude.com/dialog/
http://xnews.newsguy.com/

Outlook Express - Set up -
http://www.michaelstevenstech.com/outlookexpressnewreader.htm

http://insideoe.tomsterdam.com/resources/communities.htm#setupmsnews

Windows XP Newsgroup Setup Instructions for Outlook Express
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone/newsgroupsetup.mspx

Stop using the web interface and switch to a newsreader.
http://rickrogers.org/setupoe.htm

There are very good reasons for using the recommended newsgroup quoting
style. It has to do with making it easy for others to understand what you
are talking about when you post a reply to anything by placing your comments
into context.

1) If you do not quote at all in a reply you leave the reader guessing at
what you are replying to.

2) If you quote the entire message but then post your reply above or below
the the message you are responding to, and the message happens to be very
long and cover a lot of topics of discussion, again you leave the reader
guessing as to what part of the message your reply was for.
This is why you should put your replies into context.

4) Newsgroup quoting styles have been in use now for well over 20 years,
they are very well understood and accepted quoting practices among those who
participate in newsgroup threaded discussions. Because of that, if you
choose for whatever reason to not follow these accepted practices, then you
invite criticism. Quite often people who fail to follow accepted practices
in threaded discussions and choose to ignore request to start doing so, will
eventually be ignored completely and/or not taken seriously.

5) It's bad form to quote the entire message of an OP (Original Poster)
especially so if that message is more than just a few lines in length,
unless you are doing a point by point response to the message and properly
contextualizing your responses as you go. You should [snip] any comments you
are not responding to.

6) Address the person to whom you are replying and sign off at the end of
your post.


Here are some guidelines about how to correspond in newsgroups
http://members.fortunecity.com/nnqweb/nquote.html

http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.html

Do not multipost. Crosspost if you must.
http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/mul_crss.htm

How to ask a newsgroup question:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375

How Not to Get Help in Newsgroups
http://users.tpg.com.au/bzyhjr/liszt.html
Thanks for your generous offer, as well as for this one-time exception to
your personal rule.

No problem - hope you find it more practical.
If you've got a favorite description of newsgroups you'd
like to direct me to I'd be all too happy to read it. Otherwise I'm sure
I
can Google something up on it myself.

The above is a collection of advice given my many leading helpers in the
newsgroups - my thanks to those who recognise their contributions.
Now see? It's not REALLY so difficult to get a point across in a civil
manner--is it?

No, you managed that admirably - as good as I could have done it ;-) ;-)
Happy reading.
Antioch
Rgds back at'cha.
hkeycurrentuser
 
A

antioch

Happy to help convert another to newsreaders - I am glad I was shown 'the
light' :)
Antioch


hkeycurrentuser said:
<<Here you are >>

Thanks very much, Antioch! Looks like a great compilation of resources
and
I promise to read every one of them, starting with "Stop using the web
interface and switch to a newsreader." I'm sure by the time I understand
what you guys are talking about I'll be duly embarrassed for any earlier,
unintentional indiscretions.

<<hope you find it more practical>>

Thanks, I'm sure I will. I appreciate the effort you've made bringing me
up
to speed.

Happy computing!
HKCU

antioch said:
Reply contextualised/intertwined and clipped for brevity

hkeycurrentuser said:
<<If you want info re newsgroups then ask.>>

Okay, I'm all ears--or in this case: I's all eyes. Yes I've heard of
them,
but I had no idea exactly how they worked or
why..............................

Here you are -

Try using a news client, such as Forte Agent, Thunderbird, or even
Outlook
Express. It's a lot easier to do nearly everything that way. You can mark
messages to be watched, filter the views so you can see replies to your
posts easily, and search/find posters/messages/subjects.

Newsreaders for Windows:
http://www.forteinc.com/agent/index.php
http://www.mozilla.org
http://gravity.tbates.org/
http://www.40tude.com/dialog/
http://xnews.newsguy.com/

Outlook Express - Set up -
http://www.michaelstevenstech.com/outlookexpressnewreader.htm

http://insideoe.tomsterdam.com/resources/communities.htm#setupmsnews

Windows XP Newsgroup Setup Instructions for Outlook Express
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone/newsgroupsetup.mspx

Stop using the web interface and switch to a newsreader.
http://rickrogers.org/setupoe.htm

There are very good reasons for using the recommended newsgroup quoting
style. It has to do with making it easy for others to understand what you
are talking about when you post a reply to anything by placing your
comments
into context.

1) If you do not quote at all in a reply you leave the reader guessing at
what you are replying to.

2) If you quote the entire message but then post your reply above or
below
the the message you are responding to, and the message happens to be very
long and cover a lot of topics of discussion, again you leave the reader
guessing as to what part of the message your reply was for.
This is why you should put your replies into context.

4) Newsgroup quoting styles have been in use now for well over 20 years,
they are very well understood and accepted quoting practices among those
who
participate in newsgroup threaded discussions. Because of that, if you
choose for whatever reason to not follow these accepted practices, then
you
invite criticism. Quite often people who fail to follow accepted
practices
in threaded discussions and choose to ignore request to start doing so,
will
eventually be ignored completely and/or not taken seriously.

5) It's bad form to quote the entire message of an OP (Original Poster)
especially so if that message is more than just a few lines in length,
unless you are doing a point by point response to the message and
properly
contextualizing your responses as you go. You should [snip] any comments
you
are not responding to.

6) Address the person to whom you are replying and sign off at the end of
your post.


Here are some guidelines about how to correspond in newsgroups
http://members.fortunecity.com/nnqweb/nquote.html

http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.html

Do not multipost. Crosspost if you must.
http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/mul_crss.htm

How to ask a newsgroup question:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375

How Not to Get Help in Newsgroups
http://users.tpg.com.au/bzyhjr/liszt.html
Thanks for your generous offer, as well as for this one-time exception
to
your personal rule.

No problem - hope you find it more practical.
If you've got a favorite description of newsgroups you'd
like to direct me to I'd be all too happy to read it. Otherwise I'm
sure
I
can Google something up on it myself.

The above is a collection of advice given my many leading helpers in the
newsgroups - my thanks to those who recognise their contributions.
Now see? It's not REALLY so difficult to get a point across in a civil
manner--is it?

No, you managed that admirably - as good as I could have done it ;-) ;-)
Happy reading.
Antioch
Rgds back at'cha.
hkeycurrentuser
 
G

Guest

Why are some of you SO hung up on someone accidently using an improper
newsgroup (and everything else irrelevant to the question)? Also, as
hkeycurrent user mentioned, why do you HAVE to read things that offend your
obviousely superior intelligence. If you can't allow people to be human and
make human mistakes then you yourself had damn well better never make
(another) one. It might do you well to realize that the purpose of these
newsgroups supposedly are to solve problems, not for egotistical maniacs to
use to belittle people.
 
Top