Gus Richter wrote:
> Dave T. wrote:
>> Gus Richter wrote:
>>
>>> I doubt that most people set it up so that messages will be deleted
>>> once read. I suspect the more practical method is to set it threaded
>>> and for deletion after xx days, as I use it and believe to be more
>>> common, however, I get your point.
>>>
>>
>> Don't have a clue what other people do. If you are reading these
>> forums on-line you don't have a prob. I can't imagine why anyone would
>> want to deal with these forums on-line, but I (and I think most
>> people) am using a news reader (I use Thunderbird) that is set to show
>> only "Threads with unread".
>
> I also use Thunderbird as you can see in my header. I show "All". I have
> no idea why you, or anyone else, use your preference but we all have
> choices, right or wrong. Right for one - wrong for the other.
>
>> Therefore, posting a reply as a new thread shows only the reply, and
>> nothing else. Common sense says that a reply should be posted as a reply.
>
> I don't understand what you mean. A reply is always a reply. I see it,
> and everything related, as a thread. You don't. I could not live with it
> your way.
>
>> Furthermore, when I saw this post I made one click which displayed the
>> last 500 posts to this NG and was unable to find a post which seemed
>> to relate to this one. Admittedly, I chose not to spend a great deal
>> of my time trying to search it out.
>
> Therein is your problem. You're unable to review the subject thread for
> information or refreshing of memory, since all previous messages in the
> thread are gone. You should be careful when responding to postings in
> case you get flamed for being ignorant of previous posting content in a
> given subject matter.
>
> BTW, depending on the newsgroup, and I follow a few other than those by
> Mozilla, I have some set to retain all messages and some that I retain
> only for xx days.
>

This doesn't change the fact that probably about 80% of us have no idea
what he (she) is talking about.
And still don't.

Catherine

ezhivalyuk@gmail.com wrote, on 20/07/2008 7:07 pm:
> As Ron K. had suggested above,
>
> I can vouch that this is a confirmed fix for users experiencing this
> issue in Thunderbird. (I'm using 2.0.0.14)
>
> I was receiving this error shortly after browsing through several imap
> folder, and as I was receiving the error, I went to...
>
> Tools > Options > Advanced > Config Editor
>
> Copy and paste "mail.imap.max_cached_connections" into the filter
> field. Double click the option, and you can now change the default
> value from 10, to whatever you want. I chose 100. After pressing okay,
> and closing the config editor, I started browsing through my imap
> folders, and did not receive the error anymore.
>
> Finally.... got my thunderbird love back ^_^

Seriously, could you please tell us what you're referring to here, as it
may be useful to me but I've no idea what previous thread this follows
and Ron K. has made hundreds of posts.

Many thanks.

--
Wilf

Catherine wrote:
>
> This doesn't change the fact that probably about 80% of us have no idea
> what he (she) is talking about.
> And still don't.

Boys and girls, I don't mean to upset y'all, but I do believe that you
should *try* altering your settings so that you can see the *whole*
thread. If y'all can't go back to see what's being talked about, change
your settings, else don't respond. Simple and don't get upset.

--
Gus

On Monday 21 July 2008 08:30:07 Gus Richter wrote:
> I don't mean to upset y'all, but I do believe that you
> should *try* altering your settings so that you can see the *whole*
> thread.

Is this a deliberate troll??

The whole point is that (s)he started a new thread and did not continue a
previous thread. So although we can, most of us, see the whole of every
thread, the OP of this thread gives no clue about which previous thread he is
referring to.

Lisi

Lisi Reisz wrote:
> On Monday 21 July 2008 08:30:07 Gus Richter wrote:
>> I don't mean to upset y'all, but I do believe that you
>> should *try* altering your settings so that you can see the *whole*
>> thread.
>
> Is this a deliberate troll??
>
> The whole point is that (s)he started a new thread and did not continue a
> previous thread. So although we can, most of us, see the whole of every
> thread, the OP of this thread gives no clue about which previous thread he is
> referring to.
>
> Lisi

Dear Lisi,

Pretty harsh aren't we? I responded to EE regarding two points
specifically. The first referring to a previous post as "above" and the
second regarding this statement:

"... all the messages having been read will not be visible
if the news reader is set up the way most people do it."

My suggestion that the deletion of messages once read is not the way to
go and probably not the way most people do it seems to have taken on a
life of its own.

I never once referred to anything of the OPs post which is what you're
talking about. I can only advise you to re-read my first post in this
thread to EE. A not so simple task for people with the setting to delete
messages once read.

--
Gus

Gus Richter wrote, on 21/07/2008 3:33 pm:
> Lisi Reisz wrote:
>> On Monday 21 July 2008 08:30:07 Gus Richter wrote:
>>> I don't mean to upset y'all, but I do believe that you
>>> should *try* altering your settings so that you can see the *whole*
>>> thread.
>> Is this a deliberate troll??
>>
>> The whole point is that (s)he started a new thread and did not continue a
>> previous thread. So although we can, most of us, see the whole of every
>> thread, the OP of this thread gives no clue about which previous thread he is
>> referring to.
>>
>> Lisi
>
> Dear Lisi,
>
> Pretty harsh aren't we? I responded to EE regarding two points
> specifically. The first referring to a previous post as "above" and the
> second regarding this statement:
>
> "... all the messages having been read will not be visible
> if the news reader is set up the way most people do it."
>
> My suggestion that the deletion of messages once read is not the way to
> go and probably not the way most people do it seems to have taken on a
> life of its own.
>
> I never once referred to anything of the OPs post which is what you're
> talking about. I can only advise you to re-read my first post in this
> thread to EE. A not so simple task for people with the setting to delete
> messages once read.
>

Well, I can view all the messages in this NG going back about a month
and I cannot for the life of me work out which thread the OP of this
thread was referring to. A pity because he may have some interesting
information. All we need here is for the OP to tell us; I, for one,
don't want, or need, a load of surmising, philosophising, discussion, on
how to maintain messages in a news reader.
--
Wilf

* Wilf wrote, On 7/21/2008 08:58:
> Gus Richter wrote, on 21/07/2008 3:33 pm:
>> Lisi Reisz wrote:
>>> On Monday 21 July 2008 08:30:07 Gus Richter wrote:
>>>> I don't mean to upset y'all, but I do believe that you
>>>> should *try* altering your settings so that you can see the *whole*
>>>> thread.
>>> Is this a deliberate troll??
>>>
>>> The whole point is that (s)he started a new thread and did not continue a
>>> previous thread. So although we can, most of us, see the whole of every
>>> thread, the OP of this thread gives no clue about which previous thread he is
>>> referring to.
>>>
>>> Lisi
>> Dear Lisi,
>>
>> Pretty harsh aren't we? I responded to EE regarding two points
>> specifically. The first referring to a previous post as "above" and the
>> second regarding this statement:
>>
>> "... all the messages having been read will not be visible
>> if the news reader is set up the way most people do it."
>>
>> My suggestion that the deletion of messages once read is not the way to
>> go and probably not the way most people do it seems to have taken on a
>> life of its own.
>>
>> I never once referred to anything of the OPs post which is what you're
>> talking about. I can only advise you to re-read my first post in this
>> thread to EE. A not so simple task for people with the setting to delete
>> messages once read.
>>
>
> Well, I can view all the messages in this NG going back about a month
> and I cannot for the life of me work out which thread the OP of this
> thread was referring to. A pity because he may have some interesting
> information. All we need here is for the OP to tell us; I, for one,
> don't want, or need, a load of surmising, philosophising, discussion, on
> how to maintain messages in a news reader.

Agree 100% with you and Lisi. I do not delete msgs once read, and it's
set to view threads with unread. I'm not about to take the time to
change that setting, search for a thread, and then change it back. If
the writer is still interested in a reply, he should repost in the
original thread. (Notice he hasn't said another word in this thread -- a
troll?

Gus Richter wrote:
> Lisi Reisz wrote:
>> On Monday 21 July 2008 08:30:07 Gus Richter wrote:
>>> I don't mean to upset y'all, but I do believe that you
>>> should *try* altering your settings so that you can see the *whole*
>>> thread.
>>
>> Is this a deliberate troll??
>> The whole point is that (s)he started a new thread and did not
>> continue a previous thread. So although we can, most of us, see the
>> whole of every thread, the OP of this thread gives no clue about which
>> previous thread he is referring to.
>>
>> Lisi
>
> Dear Lisi,
>
> Pretty harsh aren't we? I responded to EE regarding two points
> specifically. The first referring to a previous post as "above" and the
> second regarding this statement:
>
> "... all the messages having been read will not be visible
> if the news reader is set up the way most people do it."
>
> My suggestion that the deletion of messages once read is not the way to
> go and probably not the way most people do it seems to have taken on a
> life of its own.
>
> I never once referred to anything of the OPs post which is what you're
> talking about. I can only advise you to re-read my first post in this
> thread to EE. A not so simple task for people with the setting to delete
> messages once read.
>

I live in the southern hemisphere - my 'above' is not the same as yours.

Catherine

Gus Richter wrote:
>
> I doubt that most people set it up so that messages will be deleted once
> read. I suspect the more practical method is to set it threaded and for
> deletion after xx days, as I use it and believe to be more common,
> however, I get your point.
>

They are not deleted. They are still on the news server, but they are
no longer downloaded if they have been read.

On 21.07.2008 12:39, Catherine wrote:

--- Original Message ---

> Gus Richter wrote:
>> Lisi Reisz wrote:
>>> On Monday 21 July 2008 08:30:07 Gus Richter wrote:
>>>> I don't mean to upset y'all, but I do believe that you
>>>> should *try* altering your settings so that you can see the *whole*
>>>> thread.
>>>
>>> Is this a deliberate troll??
>>> The whole point is that (s)he started a new thread and did not
>>> continue a previous thread. So although we can, most of us, see the
>>> whole of every thread, the OP of this thread gives no clue about which
>>> previous thread he is referring to.
>>>
>>> Lisi
>>
>> Dear Lisi,
>>
>> Pretty harsh aren't we? I responded to EE regarding two points
>> specifically. The first referring to a previous post as "above" and the
>> second regarding this statement:
>>
>> "... all the messages having been read will not be visible
>> if the news reader is set up the way most people do it."
>>
>> My suggestion that the deletion of messages once read is not the way to
>> go and probably not the way most people do it seems to have taken on a
>> life of its own.
>>
>> I never once referred to anything of the OPs post which is what you're
>> talking about. I can only advise you to re-read my first post in this
>> thread to EE. A not so simple task for people with the setting to delete
>> messages once read.
>>
>
> I live in the southern hemisphere - my 'above' is not the same as yours.
>
> Catherine

Kewl, you must stand on your head to read posts .... :-)

--
Jay Garcia - Netscape/Flock Champion
www.ufaq.org
Netscape - Flock - Firefox - Thunderbird - Seamonkey Support