This is kinda puzzling to me.

When one blocks a sender and the sender has been a avid poster, it takes a
moment to delete all of their previous posts, after you have clicked that
you wish all of the previous posts to be deleted.

Do you think the computer will delete all postings from the same poster even
if they have a different posting name.

Dee Dee

"Dee.Dee" > wrote in message
...
> This is kinda puzzling to me.
>
> When one blocks a sender and the sender has been a avid poster, it takes a
> moment to delete all of their previous posts, after you have clicked that
> you wish all of the previous posts to be deleted.
>
> Do you think the computer will delete all postings from the same poster
> even if they have a different posting name.

If they change their name you have to block the new name as well.

On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 00:45:12 -0500, "Dee.Dee" >
wrote:

>
>Do you think the computer will delete all postings from the same poster even
>if they have a different posting name.

If the different posting names use the same address, yes. If not -
you'll need to KF every persona.

--
See return address to reply by email
remove the smiley face first

On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 05:53:53 GMT, "Julie Bove" >
wrote:

>
>"Dee.Dee" > wrote in message
...
>> This is kinda puzzling to me.
>>
>> When one blocks a sender and the sender has been a avid poster, it takes a
>> moment to delete all of their previous posts, after you have clicked that
>> you wish all of the previous posts to be deleted.
>>
>> Do you think the computer will delete all postings from the same poster
>> even if they have a different posting name.
>
>If they change their name you have to block the new name as well.
>
How does she know it's the same sender? Block using that clue as a
filter.

--
See return address to reply by email
remove the smiley face first

In article >,
"Dee.Dee" > wrote:

> This is kinda puzzling to me.
>
> When one blocks a sender and the sender has been a avid poster, it takes a
> moment to delete all of their previous posts, after you have clicked that
> you wish all of the previous posts to be deleted.
>
> Do you think the computer will delete all postings from the same poster even
> if they have a different posting name.

I think the computer will do what you tell it. If you block somebody,
and they take out a gmail account with a different name and address,
they won't be blocked. If they change their name every day, but keep
the same Email address, then if you block by Email address, they will be
blocked.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

"Dan Abel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Dee.Dee" > wrote:
>
>> This is kinda puzzling to me.
>>
>> When one blocks a sender and the sender has been a avid poster, it takes
>> a
>> moment to delete all of their previous posts, after you have clicked that
>> you wish all of the previous posts to be deleted.
>>
>> Do you think the computer will delete all postings from the same poster
>> even
>> if they have a different posting name.
>
> I think the computer will do what you tell it. If you block somebody,
> and they take out a gmail account with a different name and address,
> they won't be blocked. If they change their name every day, but keep
> the same Email address, then if you block by Email address, they will be
> blocked.
>
> --
> Dan Abel
> Petaluma, California USA


And, it won't block all the angry messages written *to* the offending
sender, unless the software offers that option. Often, those messages are
far more numerous than the one from the sender, so you're still seeing the
same subject line, and loads of messages anyway.

"Sqwertz" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 07:17:24 GMT, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>
>> And, it won't block all the angry messages written *to* the offending
>> sender, unless the software offers that option. Often, those messages are
>> far more numerous than the one from the sender, so you're still seeing
>> the
>> same subject line, and loads of messages anyway.
>
> Some newsreaders can block a sender and any replies that come
> after that in that sub-thread. Useful for things like the
> Peter-Ofelia thread, and a couple of the people who like to have
> a useless battle of non-cooking wits between one other
> participant.
>
> -sw


:-)


For mail messages, OE can filter based on words contained in the message
body, but only for mail, not news messages. That would be handy assuming
nobody had edited out the offending party's name. I keep meaning to hunt
around for something better, but the way OE displays watched and unwatched
threads is damned near perfect, as far as I'm concerned. And, I want a
program that handles both email and newsgroups, and can monitor multiple
email addresses without having to set up different user profiles. So, here I
am.

"Sqwertz" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 07:56:36 GMT, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>
>> For mail messages, OE can filter based on words contained in the message
>> body, but only for mail, not news messages. That would be handy assuming
>> nobody had edited out the offending party's name. I keep meaning to hunt
>> around for something better, but the way OE displays watched and
>> unwatched
>> threads is damned near perfect, as far as I'm concerned. And, I want a
>> program that handles both email and newsgroups, and can monitor multiple
>> email addresses without having to set up different user profiles. So,
>> here I
>> am.
>
> Have I mentioned 40tude Dialog? Yes - I think I have ;-) One of
> the best features is that any threads that you've contributed to
> can be automatically watched, and any responses to your posts can
> be automatically highlighted in another color.
>
> It also allows multiple identities and servers for mail and
> newsgroups.
>
> It's tough moving to a new newsreader and/or mail client but once
> you bear with it for a day or three, you realize how much a great
> investment it was to switch. Most people just don't want to
> invest the time and are stuck in their ways.
>
> -sw


Thanks. I'll check it out as soon as their web site gets over whatever
issues it's having at the moment.

Sqwertz wrote:
>
> Have I mentioned 40tude Dialog? Yes - I think I have ;-)
>
Ahem. Yes you have. It's not available for Linux, AFAIAA. Is it purely for
news, or does it do email too? I would ideally like something that handles
both...

> One of the best features is that any threads that you've contributed to
> can be automatically watched, and any responses to your posts can
> be automatically highlighted in another color.
>
> It also allows multiple identities and servers for mail and
> newsgroups.
>
Well KNode (which you also mentioned to me once or twice) does all of the
above too - and the filtering is pretty good in general. However, the GUI
reminds me of a Christmas tree (but I think I may have mentioned that a few
times too :-P). BTW, it also allows for easy customization of additional
headers (remember the WebTV thing?) and a few other nice bells and
whistles.

> It's tough moving to a new newsreader and/or mail client but once
> you bear with it for a day or three, you realize how much a great
> investment it was to switch. Most people just don't want to
> invest the time and are stuck in their ways.

You have a point about changing newsreaders being a 'schlep'. Old farts like
me are a prime example. However the one thing that KNode doesn't show is
the total number of messages in a thread. Which to me is a 'must'. Even TB
has that. Well, the stand-alone version of KNode I have, which I have been
messing with again for a week or three, doesn't have that feature (or I am
just too dumb to find it). It shows how many unread posts there are in a
thread, and you can switch on the number of lines per post, and the scoring
etc. Think they may have "upgraded" it by now, as I have seen an
email/newsreader "suite" now available called Kontact or something on the
KDE site, but I haven't gotten around to downloading and fiddling with
it... yet.

OBFood: Probably chicken soup. Got a "summer cold" coming on... sigh.
--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

Food is an important part of a balanced diet. Â*- Fran Lebowitz

Sqwertz wrote:

> On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 07:58:57 GMT, Sqwertz wrote:
>
>> It also allows multiple identities and servers for mail and
>> newsgroups.
>
> Oh - and it has full filtering capabilities - as much as any
> standalone news client could possibly have at the client level.
>
> -sw

<Memo to self - read the rest of the thread before asking certain questions>
--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

Food is an important part of a balanced diet. Â*- Fran Lebowitz

"ChattyCathy" > wrote in message
...

> However the one thing that KNode doesn't show is
> the total number of messages in a thread. Which to me is a 'must'.

Why is it a must?

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

> "ChattyCathy" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> However the one thing that KNode doesn't show is
>> the total number of messages in a thread. Which to me is a 'must'.
>
> Why is it a must?

Well, seeing as how you asked - the number of posts in a thread give *me* an
indication of whether it's worth reading (or not). I usually (not
always) 'give up' on threads that go over 100-150 posts because major
thread drift is inevitable. That's one reason. Another is the time
difference between here (RSA) and the USA (from which most r.f.c-ers seem
to post). I usually wake up to around four or five hundred posts, so I
just don't have the time to read the longer threads if I want to take a
look at all the various topics that come up "overnight". <shrug>

BTW, does Outlook Express have that function? Never used it. Just curious.
--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

Food is an important part of a balanced diet. Â*- Fran Lebowitz

"ChattyCathy" > wrote in message
. ..
> JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>
>> "ChattyCathy" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> However the one thing that KNode doesn't show is
>>> the total number of messages in a thread. Which to me is a 'must'.
>>
>> Why is it a must?
>
> Well, seeing as how you asked - the number of posts in a thread give *me*
> an
> indication of whether it's worth reading (or not). I usually (not
> always) 'give up' on threads that go over 100-150 posts because major
> thread drift is inevitable. That's one reason. Another is the time
> difference between here (RSA) and the USA (from which most r.f.c-ers seem
> to post). I usually wake up to around four or five hundred posts, so I
> just don't have the time to read the longer threads if I want to take a
> look at all the various topics that come up "overnight". <shrug>
>
> BTW, does Outlook Express have that function? Never used it. Just curious.
> --
> Cheers
> Chatty Cathy


No, it doesn't have that feature. But, it does a great job of showing the
"tree branches" within a thread. That makes it easier to visually ignore the
side discussions which are headed into oblivion.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

> "ChattyCathy" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>>
>>> "ChattyCathy" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> However the one thing that KNode doesn't show is
>>>> the total number of messages in a thread. Which to me is a 'must'.
>>>
>>> Why is it a must?

>>
>> BTW, does Outlook Express have that function? Never used it. Just
>
>
> No, it doesn't have that feature. But, it does a great job of showing the
> "tree branches" within a thread. That makes it easier to visually ignore
> the side discussions which are headed into oblivion.

Well, whatever you like to use is fine by me. <lol - like you care>
I have no trouble reading your posts, and at least you're good at snipping
when necessary and also keeping the attributions in the right place...
--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

Food is an important part of a balanced diet. Â*- Fran Lebowitz

"ChattyCathy" > wrote in message
...
and at least you're good at snipping
> when necessary and also keeping the attributions in the right place...
> --
> Cheers
> Chatty Cathy
>


Many times it's hard to keep the attributions straight. When this happens,
(for me) sometimes it's best not to post a reply for fear of a person taking
offense. I learned the hard way.
Dee Dee

"Dee.Dee" > ha scritto nel messaggio
...
>
> "ChattyCathy" > wrote in message
> ...
> and at least you're good at snipping
>> when necessary and also keeping the attributions in the right place...
>> --
>> Cheers
>> Chatty Cathy
>>
>
>
> Many times it's hard to keep the attributions straight. When this
> happens, (for me) sometimes it's best not to post a reply for fear of a
> person taking offense. I learned the hard way.
> Dee Dee
>
In many groups having someone else's words attributed to you would be a
minor irritant. Here it could put you in the brigade of shame.--
http://www.judithgreenwood.com

Dee.Dee wrote:
> "ChattyCathy" > wrote in message
> ...
> and at least you're good at snipping
>> when necessary and also keeping the attributions in the right place...

>
> Many times it's hard to keep the attributions straight. When this happens,
> (for me) sometimes it's best not to post a reply for fear of a person taking
> offense. I learned the hard way.
> Dee Dee

Can't say I've noticed any problems with your posts either Dee Dee. You
must be doing something right

--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

Food is an important part of a balanced diet. - Fran Lebowitz

Giusi wrote:
> "Dee.Dee" > ha scritto nel messaggio
> ...
>> "ChattyCathy" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> and at least you're good at snipping
>>> when necessary and also keeping the attributions in the right place...

>> Many times it's hard to keep the attributions straight. When this
>> happens, (for me) sometimes it's best not to post a reply for fear of a
>> person taking offense. I learned the hard way.
>> Dee Dee
>>
> In many groups having someone else's words attributed to you would be a
> minor irritant. Here it could put you in the brigade of shame.--

I look at it this way, Judith: I post enough 'words' myself that may
annoy people without having somebody else do it for me
--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

Food is an important part of a balanced diet. - Fran Lebowitz

ChattyCathy wrote:
> Giusi wrote:
> > "Dee.Dee" wrote:
> >> "ChattyCathy" wrote:
> >>> and at least you're good at snipping
> >>> and also keeping the attributions in the right place...
>
> >> it's hard to keep the attributions straight.
> >> sometimes it's best not to post a reply
> >> for fear of a person taking offense.
>
> > In many groups having someone else's words attributed
> > to you would be a minor irritant. Here it could put you in
> > the brigade of shame.
>
> I look at it this way, Judith: I post enough 'words' myself that may
> annoy people without having somebody else do it for me

No problem whatsoever other than lazyness... compare my post above to
yoose slovenliness below...

--------------------------------------------------------

On Feb 6, 8:50�am, ChattyCathy > wrote:
> Giusi wrote:
> > "Dee.Dee" > ha scritto nel messaggio
> ...
> >> "ChattyCathy" > wrote in message
> . ..
> >> and at least you're good at snipping
> >>> when necessary and also keeping the attributions in the right place...
> >> Many times it's hard to keep the attributions straight. �When this
> >> happens, (for me) sometimes it's best not to post a reply for fear of a
> >> person taking offense. I learned the hard way.
> >> Dee Dee
>
> > In many groups having someone else's words attributed to you would be a
> > minor irritant. �Here it could put you in the brigade of shame.--
>
> I look at it this way, Judith: I post enough 'words' myself that may
> annoy people without having somebody else do it for me
> --
> Cheers
> Chatty Cathy
>
> Food is an important part of a balanced diet. �- Fran Lebowitz

On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 07:17:24 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
> wrote:

>And, it won't block all the angry messages written *to* the offending
>sender, unless the software offers that option. Often, those messages are
>far more numerous than the one from the sender, so you're still seeing the
>same subject line, and loads of messages anyway.

Hello? Block the subject in that case. It's not that interesting if
those messages are just annoying you.

--
See return address to reply by email
remove the smiley face first

On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 08:09:43 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
> wrote:

>"Sqwertz" > wrote in message
...
>> On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 07:56:36 GMT, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>>
>>> For mail messages, OE can filter based on words contained in the message
>>> body, but only for mail, not news messages. That would be handy assuming
>>> nobody had edited out the offending party's name. I keep meaning to hunt
>>> around for something better, but the way OE displays watched and
>>> unwatched
>>> threads is damned near perfect, as far as I'm concerned. And, I want a
>>> program that handles both email and newsgroups, and can monitor multiple
>>> email addresses without having to set up different user profiles. So,
>>> here I
>>> am.
>>
>> Have I mentioned 40tude Dialog? Yes - I think I have ;-) One of
>> the best features is that any threads that you've contributed to
>> can be automatically watched, and any responses to your posts can
>> be automatically highlighted in another color.
>>
>> It also allows multiple identities and servers for mail and
>> newsgroups.
>>
>> It's tough moving to a new newsreader and/or mail client but once
>> you bear with it for a day or three, you realize how much a great
>> investment it was to switch. Most people just don't want to
>> invest the time and are stuck in their ways.
>>
>> -sw
>
>
>Thanks. I'll check it out as soon as their web site gets over whatever
>issues it's having at the moment.
>
If there's a single person on this ng who knows about alternate
personas and multiple addresses, it's sw. He's always circumventing
kill files.

--
See return address to reply by email
remove the smiley face first

sf wrote in :

> If there's a single person on this ng who knows about alternate
> personas and multiple addresses, it's sw. He's always circumventing
> kill files.
>

not mine.

--

The house of the burning beet-Alan

It'll be a sunny day in August, when the Moon will shine that night-
Elbonian Folklore

On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 08:20:55 -0500, "Dee.Dee" >
wrote:

>
>Many times it's hard to keep the attributions straight. When this happens,
>(for me) sometimes it's best not to post a reply for fear of a person taking
>offense. I learned the hard way.
>Dee Dee

Dee.... I put the blame squarely on the shoulders of the complainer.
Those people are the real dummies and show it by their taking offense.
If *they* had snipped with they should have instead of leaving it up
to you, you'd have made the correct attribution.

--
See return address to reply by email
remove the smiley face first

On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 14:42:50 +0100, "Giusi" >
wrote:

>
>
>"Dee.Dee" > ha scritto nel messaggio
...
>>
>> "ChattyCathy" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> and at least you're good at snipping
>>> when necessary and also keeping the attributions in the right place...
>>> --
>>> Cheers
>>> Chatty Cathy
>>>
>>
>>
>> Many times it's hard to keep the attributions straight. When this
>> happens, (for me) sometimes it's best not to post a reply for fear of a
>> person taking offense. I learned the hard way.
>> Dee Dee
>>
>In many groups having someone else's words attributed to you would be a
>minor irritant. Here it could put you in the brigade of shame.--

so suck it up. Most people who follow the thread know who said what.

--
See return address to reply by email
remove the smiley face first

On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 11:11:11 +0200, ChattyCathy
> wrote:

>Sqwertz wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 07:58:57 GMT, Sqwertz wrote:
>>
>>> It also allows multiple identities and servers for mail and
>>> newsgroups.
>>
>> Oh - and it has full filtering capabilities - as much as any
>> standalone news client could possibly have at the client level.
>>
>> -sw
>
><Memo to self - read the rest of the thread before asking certain questions>

NO, no, no. It makes it too boring to read an entire thread just to
post a reply. When there are many replies after the post that
interests you, yours probably will just be akin to a me too.

--
See return address to reply by email
remove the smiley face first

Sheldon wrote:
> ChattyCathy wrote:
>> Giusi wrote:
>>> "Dee.Dee" wrote:
>>>> "ChattyCathy" wrote:
>>>>> and at least you're good at snipping
>>>>> and also keeping the attributions in the right place...
>>>> it's hard to keep the attributions straight.
>>>> sometimes it's best not to post a reply
>>>> for fear of a person taking offense.
>>> In many groups having someone else's words attributed
>>> to you would be a minor irritant. Here it could put you in
>>> the brigade of shame.
>> I look at it this way, Judith: I post enough 'words' myself that may
>> annoy people without having somebody else do it for me
>
> No problem whatsoever other than lazyness... compare my post above to
> yoose slovenliness below...

<Cathy passes Sheldon his first "noddy badge" of the day for being so,
so, so... un-slovenly>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
> On Feb 6, 8:50�am, ChattyCathy > wrote:
>> Giusi wrote:
>>> "Dee.Dee" > ha scritto nel messaggio
>>> ...
>>>> "ChattyCathy" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>> and at least you're good at snipping
>>>>> when necessary and also keeping the attributions in the right place...
>>>> Many times it's hard to keep the attributions straight. �When this
>>>> happens, (for me) sometimes it's best not to post a reply for fear of a
>>>> person taking offense. I learned the hard way.
>>>> Dee Dee
>>> In many groups having someone else's words attributed to you would be a
>>> minor irritant. �Here it could put you in the brigade of shame.--
>> I look at it this way, Judith: I post enough 'words' myself that may
>> annoy people without having somebody else do it for me
>> --
>> Cheers
>> Chatty Cathy
>>
>> Food is an important part of a balanced diet. �- Fran Lebowitz
>
--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

Food is an important part of a balanced diet. - Fran Lebowitz

sf wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 08:20:55 -0500, "Dee.Dee" >
> wrote:
>
>> Many times it's hard to keep the attributions straight. When this happens,
>> (for me) sometimes it's best not to post a reply for fear of a person taking
>> offense. I learned the hard way.
>> Dee Dee
>
> Dee.... I put the blame squarely on the shoulders of the complainer.
> Those people are the real dummies and show it by their taking offense.
> If *they* had snipped with they should have instead of leaving it up
> to you, you'd have made the correct attribution.
>
Huh?
--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

Food is an important part of a balanced diet. - Fran Lebowitz

<sf> wrote in message ...
> On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 07:17:24 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
> > wrote:
>
>>And, it won't block all the angry messages written *to* the offending
>>sender, unless the software offers that option. Often, those messages are
>>far more numerous than the one from the sender, so you're still seeing the
>>same subject line, and loads of messages anyway.
>
> Hello? Block the subject in that case. It's not that interesting if
> those messages are just annoying you.


I really don't care that much. But, blocking the subject won't block
subsequent new threads begun by the offending parties.

"Sqwertz" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 08:23:22 GMT, Sqwertz wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 08:09:43 GMT, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks. I'll check it out as soon as their web site gets over whatever
>>> issues it's having at the moment.
>>
>> It's been down for 36 hours or so, for some reason. I have a
>> copy of the Dialog package he
>>
>> ftp://ftpput.sco.com/incoming/4d2b38.exe
>> (That directory gets erased every night around midnight or so)
>
> Looks like they're onto me and have changed the permissions opn
> that directory.
>
> If anybody needs it, just email me.
>

Or get it here

http://www.download.com/40tude-Dialo...-10771271.html

"Janet Baraclough" > wrote in message
...
> The message >
> from ChattyCathy > contains these words:
>
>> JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>
>> > "ChattyCathy" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >
>> >> However the one thing that KNode doesn't show is
>> >> the total number of messages in a thread. Which to me is a 'must'.
>> >
>> > Why is it a must?
>
>> Well, seeing as how you asked - the number of posts in a thread give *me*
>> an
>> indication of whether it's worth reading (or not).
>
> Well, it could be a pair of idiots slugging it out for hours, about
> nonsense.
> A more accurate way to judge the likely interest level (on my
> newsreader) is to look at the author list.
>
> Janet.

That makes too much sense.

Janet Baraclough wrote:
> The message >
> from ChattyCathy > contains these words:
>
>> JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>
>>> "ChattyCathy" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> However the one thing that KNode doesn't show is
>>>> the total number of messages in a thread. Which to me is a 'must'.
>>> Why is it a must?
>
>> Well, seeing as how you asked - the number of posts in a thread give *me* an
>> indication of whether it's worth reading (or not).
>
> Well, it could be a pair of idiots slugging it out for hours, about
> nonsense.

Only a pair? You're an optimist, Janet.

> A more accurate way to judge the likely interest level (on my
> newsreader) is to look at the author list.

If it works for you, that's good.
--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

Food is an important part of a balanced diet. - Fran Lebowitz

sf wrote:

> On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 07:17:24 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
> > wrote:
>
> > And, it won't block all the angry messages written to the offending
> > sender, unless the software offers that option. Often, those
> > messages are far more numerous than the one from the sender, so
> > you're still seeing the same subject line, and loads of messages
> > anyway.
>
> Hello? Block the subject in that case. It's not that interesting if
> those messages are just annoying you.

One way to do it is to create a filter to search the message body. That
will usually work as long as the respondant left in the attribution
line. Body filters tend to slow loading significantly if you load
entire messages (and won't work if you only download headers).





Brian

--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)

In article >,
Sqwrtz > wrote:
>On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 15:12:17 GMT, hahabogus wrote:
>
>> sf wrote in :
>>
>>> If there's a single person on this ng who knows about alternate
>>> personas and multiple addresses, it's sw. He's always circumventing
>>> kill files.

[lolcat]

OH HAI THAR STEVE.

DID U KNO THAT SF DOES NOT WANT! UR POASTS?

LET HER TELL U INTERNETZ ... AND TELL U AND TELL U SOME MOAR.

[/lolcat]

What do you think she's getting you for V-Day??

>> not mine.
>
>Is this a challenge?

Heh. I was taking this as hahabogus saying "you're doing it wrong", but,
hey, it could be. I don't think so, though ... people who do that tend to
go for the huge dramatic "YOU SUCK. PLONK" with the follow-on "I'm
ignoring him ... see how I'm ignoring him?" plea for validation (which, of
course, perpetuates the drama).

ObTechie: it's a good idea when asking questions like this to tell people
what newsreader you're using! The answers are different for different
kinds.

ObFood (Not For Everyone): got some golden beets at the market so going
to make myself some borscht in the style of my Russian pal Vanya.
Basically meat broth, meat, and vegetables.

Charlotte



--

Sqwertz wrote:

> On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 12:44:00 +0200, ChattyCathy wrote:
>
> > Well, seeing as how you asked - the number of posts in a thread
> > give me an indication of whether it's worth reading (or not).
>
> Yep. Sqwertz's rule of reading USENET is that all useful,
> pertinent information will be posted within the first 3 levels of
> responses. Anything that's indented more than an inch of screen
> space on a threaded newsreader is usually not worth reading -
> especially when those responses alternate between two
> respondents.

Yeah, when a branch is a big ol' diagonal line with just two
contributors, it's either an argument or a lovefest.




Brian

--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)

In article >,
(Charlotte L. Blackmer) wrote:

> ObFood (Not For Everyone): got some golden beets at the market so going
> to make myself some borscht in the style of my Russian pal Vanya.
> Basically meat broth, meat, and vegetables.
>
> Charlotte
> --
So where do the beets fit in, then?

--
-Barb, Mother Superior, HOSSSPoJ
http://www.jamlady.eboard.com;pics of my no-knead bread posted
Laissez les bons temps rouler!

On Feb 6, 5:51�pm, "Default User" > wrote:
> Sqwertz wrote:
> > On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 12:44:00 +0200, ChattyCathy wrote:
>
> > > Well, seeing as how you asked - the number of posts in a thread
> > > give me an indication of whether it's worth reading (or not).
>
> > Yep. �Sqwertz's rule of reading USENET is that all useful,
> > pertinent information will be posted within the first 3 levels of
> > responses. �Anything that's indented more than an inch of screen
> > space on a threaded newsreader is usually not worth reading -
> > especially when those responses alternate between two
> > respondents.
>
> Yeah, when a branch is a big ol' diagonal line with just two
> contributors, it's either an argument or a lovefest.

Anyone who spends as much time and effort as sqwertz figuring out how
to block posts has the brain of an ameoba and spine of a jellyfish...
normal vertebrates who posses functioning brains can easily by pass
those posts they don't wish to read... I mean like normal brained
folks don't buy every single item on the stupidmarklet shelf jsut
because it's there.

A meaningful accomplishment would be to figure out how to prevent
particular individuals from reading posts so they won't be able to see
what a brainless know nothing the poster is... sqwertz is definitely
usenet's top know nothing... with all his noise and bravado until he
can figure out how to block me from reading his pathetic imbecilic
posts, fact is sqwertz is less PC savvy than a newbie webtv'er. And
all of yoose, each and every one of yoose who is even discussing
killfiles and blocking, is a spineless gutless no account useless
mother****er... I don't want any of yoose cowardly invertebrate back
stabbers as friends.

On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 19:40:47 +0000 (UTC),
(Charlotte L. Blackmer) wrote:

>In article >,
>Sqwrtz > wrote:
>>On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 15:12:17 GMT, hahabogus wrote:
>>
>>> sf wrote in :
>>>
>>>> If there's a single person on this ng who knows about alternate
>>>> personas and multiple addresses, it's sw. He's always circumventing
>>>> kill files.
>
>[lolcat]
>
>OH HAI THAR STEVE.
>
>DID U KNO THAT SF DOES NOT WANT! UR POASTS?
>
>LET HER TELL U INTERNETZ ... AND TELL U AND TELL U SOME MOAR.
>
>[/lolcat]
>
>What do you think she's getting you for V-Day??
>
>>> not mine.
>>
>>Is this a challenge?
>
>Heh. I was taking this as hahabogus saying "you're doing it wrong", but,
>hey, it could be. I don't think so, though ... people who do that tend to
>go for the huge dramatic "YOU SUCK. PLONK" with the follow-on "I'm
>ignoring him ... see how I'm ignoring him?" plea for validation (which, of
>course, perpetuates the drama).
>
>ObTechie: it's a good idea when asking questions like this to tell people
>what newsreader you're using! The answers are different for different
>kinds.
>
>ObFood (Not For Everyone): got some golden beets at the market so going
>to make myself some borscht in the style of my Russian pal Vanya.
>Basically meat broth, meat, and vegetables.
>
Not sure why you replied as you did. I was only pointing out that I
sometimes see him as sw and mostly don't. I suppose it's because he
uses more than one email address as sw. He hasn't ****ed me off yet
with the alternate, so it's not blocked.... yet.

Other posters claim he morphs personalities and he had admitted it. I
don't have a clue if it's true or if he's just playing with them.
There are a lot of personas in my kill file, most of which are not
permanent because they come and are gone forever after a little while
- so why clog up the kill file with short timers?

--
See return address to reply by email
remove the smiley face first

On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 17:40:52 +0200, ChattyCathy
> wrote:

>sf wrote:
>> On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 08:20:55 -0500, "Dee.Dee" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Many times it's hard to keep the attributions straight. When this happens,
>>> (for me) sometimes it's best not to post a reply for fear of a person taking
>>> offense. I learned the hard way.
>>> Dee Dee
>>
>> Dee.... I put the blame squarely on the shoulders of the complainer.
>> Those people are the real dummies and show it by their taking offense.
>> If *they* had snipped with they should have instead of leaving it up
>> to you, you'd have made the correct attribution.
>>
>Huh?

I was in a hurry.... change "with" to what.

>> If *they* had snipped what they should have <snipped> instead of leaving it up
>> to you, you'd have made the correct attribution.

--
See return address to reply by email
remove the smiley face first

On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 17:16:13 GMT, Janet Baraclough
> wrote:

>The message >
>from "Dee.Dee" > contains these words:
>
>> Many times it's hard to keep the attributions straight.
>
> A good newsreader does that automatically.
>
> Janet.

Any news reader keeps the attributions straight. It's up to the dummy
reading them to figure them out.

--
See return address to reply by email
remove the smiley face first

On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 17:27:36 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
> wrote:

><sf> wrote in message ...
>> On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 07:17:24 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>And, it won't block all the angry messages written *to* the offending
>>>sender, unless the software offers that option. Often, those messages are
>>>far more numerous than the one from the sender, so you're still seeing the
>>>same subject line, and loads of messages anyway.
>>
>> Hello? Block the subject in that case. It's not that interesting if
>> those messages are just annoying you.
>
>
>I really don't care that much. But, blocking the subject won't block
>subsequent new threads begun by the offending parties.
>
Your skin is that *thin*???? I think not.


--
See return address to reply by email
remove the smiley face first