Re: newsgroups

[VanguardLH[_2_]]

Andy Burns wrote:

> . . .winston wrote:
>
>> You should be using Windows Live Mail 2012
>
> Then he'll end-up in the killfile of anyone (myself included) who
> doesn't wish to unpick the tangle of non-quoted original message and
> reply text.

I have my NNTP client colorize posts made by users of WLM (after version
14 when Microsoft removed proper quoting in replies). Gives me a heads
up that I'm likely to see a garbaged or jumbled post: they don't
rearrange the quoted content to match their [top-]posting order and they
don't add the quoting prefix and its indentation to compensate for
Microsoft's removal of proper quoting. OE and WLM users are very often
messy posters.

As yet, I don't delete their posts but merely flagged (colorize) them.
Lots of them are noobs so they can't be expected to know netiquette yet.
They more about how to use Facebook than Usenet. Laziness has not yet
become a sufficient criteria for me to filter out OE and WLM posters.

By the way, if you are filtering out WLM posters then how did you see
winstons reply to one? If you don't want to see an article from a bad
poster, why would you want to see replies to that bad poster? Doesn't
Thunderbird, your choice of NNTP client, let you not only flag a post as
bad but also let you flag the entire subthread (all replies) to tat bad
post? If you leave all the replies, you punch holes in the hierarchy of
posts in a thread with the result you see new subthreads started with
each reply to the bad post you hid or deleted.

[Andy Burns[_3_]]

VanguardLH wrote:

> if you are filtering out WLM posters then how did you see
> winstons reply to one?

Because my WLM rule doesn't kill the subthread, it just marks the single
post as read, that way of someone else replies, I get a chance to see if
something worthwhile may be happening in the thread ...

[Stewart[_5_]]

Thanks to all, I now have enough hints to tinker around and see if I can get
one that is suitable.



"Andy Burns" wrote in message
o.uk...

VanguardLH wrote:

> if you are filtering out WLM posters then how did you see
> winstons reply to one?

Because my WLM rule doesn't kill the subthread, it just marks the single
post as read, that way of someone else replies, I get a chance to see if
something worthwhile may be happening in the thread ...

[VanguardLH[_2_]]

Andy Burns wrote:

> VanguardLH wrote:
>
>> if you are filtering out WLM posters then how did you see winstons
>> reply to one?
>
> Because my WLM rule doesn't kill the subthread, it just marks the single
> post as read, that way of someone else replies, I get a chance to see if
> something worthwhile may be happening in the thread ...

And why I do NOT delete unwanted posts. I only hide them (flag as
ignored and use a Hide Ignored view by default). Rare is when replies
to a bad poster have any importance. It happens but not often and why I
keep the bad posts and their subthreads but simply don't see them unless
I choose as, like you say, someone says something about content in a
hidden subthread that I can simply unhide.

I understand your preference is different than mine; however, don't the
unhidden replies show up as new subthread in your client? That screws
up the threading or hierachy for that subthread (which were replies to a
bad post). I used to have my client configured how you do yours. There
were times when I replied to the orphaned post but trimming of quoted
content made me duplicate that content or context was lost so my reply
was "off".

I think you don't hide the subthread for a bad post you filter out
(probably delete) because your choice of newsreader does not offer a
"watch/ignore flag works on subthreads" option. You couldn't hide the
subthread even if you wanted to. Or does WLM have such an option?
If seeing the replies to a bad post is what you want then WLM is working
how you want but I have to wonder how the threading is handled with a
missing (deleted or hidden) post.