[justme[_2_]]

THANK YOU

j/b

[DoN. Nichols]

On 2009-03-25, justme wrote:
THANK YOU

For anyone who is using a proper newsreader, this should be an
unnecessary post, as their newsreaders can tell which you have read and
which you have not, and will only present the as yet unread (that is,
new) posts in any threads which they are reading.

I see that you are using Microsoft Outlook Express, so I don't
expect proper behavior from it -- though it *might* do that too.

Good Luck,
DoN.

--
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

[Wes[_2_]]

"DoN. Nichols" wrote:

I see that you are using Microsoft Outlook Express, so I don't
expect proper behavior from it -- though it *might* do that too.


If one replies to a 2 month old thread, my reader will show it 2 months back. I seldom
scroll that back unless looking for it. I don't read every thread either. I only delete
the crapola.

Now if he had put in a reference like
Message-ID:

In a new post, that would have been helpfull. Someone, reminded me of a promiss to Rc
test a cdco holder that way a while back via a new thread. Very helpfull.

Wes

--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

[Wes[_2_]]

"justme" wrote:

THANK YOU

j/b



ALL CAPS is considered shouting.

Just so you know,

Wes

[Jim Wilkins]

On Mar 25, 1:01*am, "DoN. Nichols" wrote:
On 2009-03-25, justme wrote:
THANK YOU

* * * * For anyone who is using a proper newsreader, this should be an
unnecessary post, as their newsreaders can tell which you have read and
which you have not, and will only present the as yet unread (that is,
new) posts in any threads which they are reading.

Even the maligned Google Groups displays replies in chronological
order with timestamps and marks them as read or unread.

[justme[_2_]]

SIGH!



"Wes" wrote in message
...
"justme" wrote:

THANK YOU

j/b



ALL CAPS is considered shouting.

Just so you know,

Wes

[DoN. Nichols]

On 2009-03-28, Steve Ackman wrote:
In ,
on Wed, 25 Mar 2009 03:12:50 -0700 (PDT), Jim Wilkins,
wrote:
On Mar 25, 1:01*am, "DoN. Nichols" wrote:
On 2009-03-25, justme wrote:
THANK YOU

* * * * For anyone who is using a proper newsreader, this should be an
unnecessary post, as their newsreaders can tell which you have read and
which you have not, and will only present the as yet unread (that is,
new) posts in any threads which they are reading.

Even the maligned Google Groups displays replies in chronological
order with timestamps and marks them as read or unread.

Marks them as read or unread? Howso? I've never
seen any difference. I always see "n new of n"
without any differentiation. And yes, I was logged
in at the time.

The "marks as read" keeps it from showing you the articles which
you have already read -- unless you ask it to show you the already read
ones as well.

Used to be the only time I'd see a difference was
if some groper deleted his message, I'd then see
"(n-1) new of n" but I don't think it even changes
for that anymore.

Is the second 'n' normally larger than the first, so it is
showing you read articles as well as unread? (the "new of" suggests
that, which means that the options in your newsreader need to be
tweaked.

What I see is a thread map of all the unread articles only. I
can ask it to read back in the threads and show the whole thread, but
that is slower, since it then has to read older articles as well, which
it normally skips.

All of the unread articles in a single thread (both those with
the same "Subject: " line, and those where it has been changed, but the
"References: " header has not been deleted or edited) are treated as the
same thread. I can thus opt to kill a thread if I find it going off
into politics. (Killing only for me, of course, not killing from others'
points of view.)

FWIW -- the newsreader which I am using at present is "slrn".

I'm actually quite baffled how you people can use
such a clunky interface to Usenet.

I guess now would be a good time to put a link to
the UIP: http://improve-usenet.org/

A good description of part of the problem.

Enjoy,
DoN.

--
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

[DoN. Nichols]

On 2009-03-29, Steve Ackman wrote:
In , on 29 Mar 2009
04:08:51 GMT, DoN. Nichols, wrote:
On 2009-03-28, Steve Ackman wrote:
In ,
on Wed, 25 Mar 2009 03:12:50 -0700 (PDT), Jim Wilkins,
wrote:
On Mar 25, 1:01*am, "DoN. Nichols" wrote:
On 2009-03-25, justme wrote:
THANK YOU

* * * * For anyone who is using a proper newsreader, this should be an
unnecessary post, as their newsreaders can tell which you have read and
which you have not, and will only present the as yet unread (that is,
new) posts in any threads which they are reading.

[ ... ]

My question is how does one get articles marked
as read in Google? I've never seen such an option.
Where is it?

I have no idea whether it exists there. *My* discussion was of
"proper newsreaders" as you can see in the quoted text left above.
(I'll snip out most between that and here.)

Used to be the only time I'd see a difference was
if some groper deleted his message, I'd then see
"(n-1) new of n" but I don't think it even changes
for that anymore.

Is the second 'n' normally larger than the first, so it is
showing you read articles as well as unread? (the "new of" suggests
that, which means that the options in your newsreader need to be
tweaked.

This no longer happens. I *always* see "n new of n"

What I see is a thread map of all the unread articles only. I
can ask it to read back in the threads and show the whole thread, but
that is slower, since it then has to read older articles as well, which
it normally skips.

I don't see how to make Google do that.

All of the unread articles in a single thread (both those with
the same "Subject: " line, and those where it has been changed, but the
"References: " header has not been deleted or edited) are treated as the
same thread. I can thus opt to kill a thread if I find it going off
into politics. (Killing only for me, of course, not killing from others'
points of view.)

FWIW -- the newsreader which I am using at present is "slrn".

Yes, I know, but the discussion is about Google.

Which is not a member of the set of "proper newsreaders". it is
a web-based newsreader, and a rather poor one at that.

My comment above was specifically addressed to Jim
Wilkins' statement that,
"Even the maligned Google Groups displays replies in chronological
order with timestamps and marks them as read or unread."

O.K. And that I can't answer -- having tried google *once* and
determined that it was so lacking that it was not worth the trouble.

I also use slrn. 0.9.9p1 in FreeBSD, 1.0.0~pre2 in Debian,
and 0.9.8.1 in PCLinuxOS.

O.K. Good enough -- you then *know* how a proper newsreader
behaves.

Enjoy,
DoN.

--
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---