Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.comp.software.firefox > #503 > unrolled thread

OT possibly - reading posts on groups.io

Back to article view | Back to alt.comp.software.firefox

Contents

  OT possibly - reading posts on groups.io Nobody <jock@soccer.com> - 2021-05-06 15:52 -0700
    Re: OT possibly - reading posts on groups.io Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2021-05-07 08:48 +0100
      Re: OT possibly - reading posts on groups.io Nobody <jock@soccer.com> - 2021-05-07 17:29 -0700
        Re: OT possibly - reading posts on groups.io Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2021-05-08 15:55 +0100
          Re: OT possibly - reading posts on groups.io Nobody <jock@soccer.com> - 2021-05-08 10:34 -0700
        Re: OT possibly - reading posts on groups.io "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2021-05-08 17:09 +0000
          Re: OT possibly - reading posts on groups.io Nobody <jock@soccer.com> - 2021-05-08 10:38 -0700
            Re: OT possibly - reading posts on groups.io "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2021-05-08 21:02 +0000
          Re: OT possibly - reading posts on groups.io Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2021-05-08 20:35 +0100

#503 — OT possibly - reading posts on groups.io

This is one of those "I haven't touched a thing" situations, and might
not be Firefox's fault.

I follow several hobby discussions using groups.io, one group
especially can generate several dozen postings in a day.  Therefore I
follow them on-line using Firefox, currently 88.0.1 on Win 10.

Pulling up a message list (not thread/conversation), and choosing the
first group posting I haven't viewed, I then advance through each
chronologically using the interface's 'next' arrow.

On Monday, looking back at the list I noticed that only the very first
message viewed was now marked as read; groups.io seems to have a
default of light blue/unread... grey/read.

Choosing each individually with a new tab and closing that after
viewing results in the list recognises it as read.  Choosing each
individually with just one tab open, and returning back to the list to
choose the next marks that as read.  But either way is a pain to chug
through.

It's just the advancing to a new message by arrow which fails, even
though all the messages read/viewed all appear in History.

It's only this week, first with Ffox 88.0, and now 88.0.1 that the
problem has arisen.

The same is apparent with the groups.io Ffox/SaeMonkey/T'bird boards,
which are basically dormant.

Ideas?

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#504

Nobody wrote:

> It's only this week, first with Ffox 88.0, and now 88.0.1 that the
> problem has arisen.
> 
> The same is apparent with the groups.io Ffox/SaeMonkey/T'bird boards,
> which are basically dormant.

I think the groups.io mozilla groups *are* pretty quiet

thunderbirdemail group, 9 in march, none in april or may

firefox-support group, 12 in march, none in april, 1 in may.

seamonkey-support group, 5 in march, 3 in april, none in may.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#505

On Fri, 7 May 2021 08:48:02 +0100, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk>
wrote:

>Nobody wrote:
>
>> It's only this week, first with Ffox 88.0, and now 88.0.1 that the
>> problem has arisen.
>> 
>> The same is apparent with the groups.io Ffox/SaeMonkey/T'bird boards,
>> which are basically dormant.
>
>I think the groups.io mozilla groups *are* pretty quiet
>
>thunderbirdemail group, 9 in march, none in april or may
>
>firefox-support group, 12 in march, none in april, 1 in may.
>
>seamonkey-support group, 5 in march, 3 in april, none in may.

Not to mention your effort to set up alt.fan.mozilla... which went to
almost pitch black after 114 'Welcome' responses.

I guess the grumblers/bitchers/squealers/malcontents from
moz.support.* have lurned to live with what they perceived were
freeware shortcomings.

But then I kinda like sour grapes...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#506

Nobody wrote:

> Not to mention your effort to set up alt.fan.mozilla...

Not me, that one ...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#509

On Sat, 8 May 2021 15:55:26 +0100, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk>
wrote:

>Nobody wrote:
>
>> Not to mention your effort to set up alt.fan.mozilla...
>
>Not me, that one ...

OK... I was basing my appreciation as your opening post to "Welcome
refugees..." on a.f.m is the first chronological entry I see.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#508

Nobody <jock@soccer.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 7 May 2021 08:48:02 +0100, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
>>Nobody wrote:

>>>It's only this week, first with Ffox 88.0, and now 88.0.1 that the
>>>problem has arisen.

>>>The same is apparent with the groups.io Ffox/SaeMonkey/T'bird boards,
>>>which are basically dormant.

>>I think the groups.io mozilla groups *are* pretty quiet

>>thunderbirdemail group, 9 in march, none in april or may

>>firefox-support group, 12 in march, none in april, 1 in may.

>>seamonkey-support group, 5 in march, 3 in april, none in may.

>Not to mention your effort to set up alt.fan.mozilla... which went to
>almost pitch black after 114 'Welcome' responses.

Andy was not the proponent of alt.fan.mozilla. That was
joint@eos.ncsu.edu who sent the newgroup message in 1995. I don't recall
if Andy attempted to revive the newsgroup, though.

If he had attempted to revive an existing newsgroup, I have no idea why
you would criticize him for it.

>I guess the grumblers/bitchers/squealers/malcontents from
>moz.support.* have lurned to live with what they perceived were
>freeware shortcomings.

The issue wasn't freeware but the fact that the News server for user
support was taken down and they wanted to move discussion to Usenet.

>But then I kinda like sour grapes...

You get a bigger high out of being wrong and tossing off nonsensical
accusations.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#510

On Sat, 8 May 2021 17:09:17 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>Nobody <jock@soccer.com> wrote:
>>On Fri, 7 May 2021 08:48:02 +0100, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
>>>Nobody wrote:
>
>>>>It's only this week, first with Ffox 88.0, and now 88.0.1 that the
>>>>problem has arisen.
>
>>>>The same is apparent with the groups.io Ffox/SaeMonkey/T'bird boards,
>>>>which are basically dormant.
>
>>>I think the groups.io mozilla groups *are* pretty quiet
>
>>>thunderbirdemail group, 9 in march, none in april or may
>
>>>firefox-support group, 12 in march, none in april, 1 in may.
>
>>>seamonkey-support group, 5 in march, 3 in april, none in may.
>
>>Not to mention your effort to set up alt.fan.mozilla... which went to
>>almost pitch black after 114 'Welcome' responses.
>
>Andy was not the proponent of alt.fan.mozilla. That was
>joint@eos.ncsu.edu who sent the newgroup message in 1995. I don't recall
>if Andy attempted to revive the newsgroup, though.
>
>If he had attempted to revive an existing newsgroup, I have no idea why
>you would criticize him for it.

What "criticism" of Andy?

>You get a bigger high out of being wrong and tossing off nonsensical
>accusations.

Another user re-plonked...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#514

Nobody  <jock@soccer.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 8 May 2021 17:09:17 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
><ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>
>>Nobody <jock@soccer.com> wrote:
>>>On Fri, 7 May 2021 08:48:02 +0100, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
>>>>Nobody wrote:
>>
>>>>>It's only this week, first with Ffox 88.0, and now 88.0.1 that the
>>>>>problem has arisen.
>>
>>>>>The same is apparent with the groups.io Ffox/SaeMonkey/T'bird boards,
>>>>>which are basically dormant.
>>
>>>>I think the groups.io mozilla groups *are* pretty quiet
>>
>>>>thunderbirdemail group, 9 in march, none in april or may
>>
>>>>firefox-support group, 12 in march, none in april, 1 in may.
>>
>>>>seamonkey-support group, 5 in march, 3 in april, none in may.
>>
>>>Not to mention your effort to set up alt.fan.mozilla... which went to
>>>almost pitch black after 114 'Welcome' responses.
>>
>>Andy was not the proponent of alt.fan.mozilla. That was
>>joint@eos.ncsu.edu who sent the newgroup message in 1995. I don't recall
>>if Andy attempted to revive the newsgroup, though.
>>
>>If he had attempted to revive an existing newsgroup, I have no idea why
>>you would criticize him for it.
>
>What "criticism" of Andy?
>
>>You get a bigger high out of being wrong and tossing off nonsensical
>>accusations.
>
>Another user re-plonked...

hi seamus

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#511

Adam H. Kerman wrote:

> Andy was not the proponent of alt.fan.mozilla. That was
> joint@eos.ncsu.edu who sent the newgroup message in 1995. I don't recall
> if Andy attempted to revive the newsgroup, though.

I wasn't sure if new groups could be created before mozilla's killing of 
the old ones, so suggested a place where users could keep in touch with 
each other in the meantime ...

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | alt.comp.software.firefox

csiph-web