Prev: 790XTA + Phenom X4 956
Next: One last build before smart phones take over
From: PeoplesChoice on 1 Aug 2010 00:14
On 31 Jul 2010 07:50:25 GMT, John Doe <jdoe(a)usenetlove.invalid> wrote:

>Again, the experts are in
>(alt.usenet.offline-reader.forte-agent)
>That is the group you should go to for help with Forte Agent.

Didn't this thread kind of get off the track?
From: Mike Easter on 1 Aug 2010 10:25
PeoplesChoice(a)Chicago.net wrote:
> John Doe
>
>> Again, the experts are in
>> (alt.usenet.offline-reader.forte-agent)
>> That is the group you should go to for help with Forte Agent.
>
> Didn't this thread kind of get off the track?

The conversation/s which are going on in the body of the messages are
'free' to drift and go away from the content seen in the subject (if
there is no moderation).

In fact, in my opinion, only the very first message in a thread is
liable to have its body content 'nailed' accurately by the/its subject.

That is, I believe that a new message thread should be created by the
author composing their message body clearly and unambiguously in the
body, and having completed that editing composition, they should make a
very very succinct and terse new subject title that best fits their
message body content.

Now, when I come along and reply to one line or two lines in their
larger message, my 'focus' needn't be on the focus or words in the
*subject*. I'm not replying up there in the subject. I am replying to
some specific word or words - a line - down in the body.

That doesn't mean that I should make new subject to best reflect what
the content of *my* message is - as opposed to what the content of
*their* message was. I am content to let my message's content be
determined (just) by what I have said down in the body. I don't choose
to make a new subject to better reflect what I am now talking about.

Some people like to make new subjects by modifying the old subject seen
after 'Was:' all the time. Some (other) people don't like to make new
subjects at all. Personally I'm more of a topic-drifting but
never-a-new-subject person. (Yet) Some other people are/become
disgruntled by the topic drifting away from what the newsgroup's topics
are supposed to be about.

This group is supposed to be about pc-homebuilt computers, but you
wanted to talk about how to find your earlier message thread and
Vanguard wanted to talk about different agents and I wanted to talk
about how to use GG advanced search and John Doe wanted to defend Agent
and the value of its support group.


--
Mike Easter
From: PeoplesChoice on 1 Aug 2010 14:10
On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 07:25:02 -0700, Mike Easter <MikeE(a)ster.invalid>
wrote:

>PeoplesChoice(a)Chicago.net wrote:
>> John Doe
>>
>>> Again, the experts are in
>>> (alt.usenet.offline-reader.forte-agent)
>>> That is the group you should go to for help with Forte Agent.
>>
>> Didn't this thread kind of get off the track?
>
>The conversation/s which are going on in the body of the messages are
>'free' to drift and go away from the content seen in the subject (if
>there is no moderation).
>
>In fact, in my opinion, only the very first message in a thread is
>liable to have its body content 'nailed' accurately by the/its subject.
>
>That is, I believe that a new message thread should be created by the
>author composing their message body clearly and unambiguously in the
>body, and having completed that editing composition, they should make a
>very very succinct and terse new subject title that best fits their
>message body content.
>
>Now, when I come along and reply to one line or two lines in their
>larger message, my 'focus' needn't be on the focus or words in the
>*subject*. I'm not replying up there in the subject. I am replying to
>some specific word or words - a line - down in the body.
>
>That doesn't mean that I should make new subject to best reflect what
>the content of *my* message is - as opposed to what the content of
>*their* message was. I am content to let my message's content be
>determined (just) by what I have said down in the body. I don't choose
>to make a new subject to better reflect what I am now talking about.
>
>Some people like to make new subjects by modifying the old subject seen
>after 'Was:' all the time. Some (other) people don't like to make new
>subjects at all. Personally I'm more of a topic-drifting but
>never-a-new-subject person. (Yet) Some other people are/become
>disgruntled by the topic drifting away from what the newsgroup's topics
>are supposed to be about.
>
>This group is supposed to be about pc-homebuilt computers, but you
>wanted to talk about how to find your earlier message thread and
>Vanguard wanted to talk about different agents and I wanted to talk
>about how to use GG advanced search and John Doe wanted to defend Agent
>and the value of its support group.


OK!
From: VanguardLH on 1 Aug 2010 17:15
PeoplesChoice(a)Chicago.net wrote:

> On 31 Jul 2010 07:50:25 GMT, John Doe <jdoe(a)usenetlove.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Again, the experts are in
>>(alt.usenet.offline-reader.forte-agent)
>>That is the group you should go to for help with Forte Agent.
>
> Didn't this thread kind of get off the track?

Both I and Doe mentioned unsubscribing/deleting and resubscribing to the
newsgroup to start a fresh download and indexing of the articles
database.

Subthreads are common in Usenet and can be about side issues based on a
starter topic. Both you and Doe are using the paid versions (I didn't
notice you using v5 until later when looking at your headers). As such,
perhaps neither of you are familiar with the Free Agent version anymore
and Doe doesn't want to discuss it here.

My apologies since I don't often deal with users that chose to dole out
money for a newsreader when there are free programs available for the
same functions.
From: Mike Easter on 1 Aug 2010 17:36
VanguardLH wrote:
> PeoplesChoice(a)Chicago.net wrote:

>> Didn't this thread kind of get off the track?

> Both you and Doe are using the paid versions

PC is using Agent 5 in this thread. JD is using *only* XNews in this thread.

> As such,
> perhaps neither of you are familiar with the Free Agent version anymore
> and Doe doesn't want to discuss it here.

Somehow you are managing to 'miscommunicate' (to me at least) about
Agent and Free Agent.

First, you said and I misunderstood 'Don't use Forte Agent' - then later
that was straightened out.

I'm pretty sure that JD knows that there is a free Agent, but I think
that he was mostly trying to say that its own designated group was a
better place to discuss it; and (I believe) he thinks that many of the
participants in news.software.readers are too biased toward other
readers to be helpful about Agent, as they also are about (not) being
helpful about OE.

Personally I've seen n.s.r participants be helpful about both Agent
(including Free) and OE.

I don't think that he/JD expressed that opinion about n.s.r particularly
well either - I don't know why both of you are communicating somewhat
'obliquely' in this thread - but I find myself reading both of your
posts in ways in which you might not have intended.

> My apologies since I don't often deal with users that chose to dole out
> money for a newsreader when there are free programs available for the
> same functions.

Oh, good grief. Surely you accept that the Agent 5 is a better agent
than the last Free Agent. Maybe not your personal choice, but an
improvement.


--
Mike Easter
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: 790XTA + Phenom X4 956
Next: One last build before smart phones take over