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

Groups > alt.comp.software.thunderbird > #16749 > unrolled thread

Why do "<" and "^" do the same? And moving between panes?

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

Contents

  Why do "<" and "^" do the same? And moving between panes? "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-05-25 11:38 +0100
    Re: Why do "<" and "^" do the same? And moving between panes? Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-05-25 13:29 +0100
      Re: Why do "<" and "^" do the same? And moving between panes? "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-06-01 12:46 +0100
        Re: Why do "<" and "^" do the same? And moving between panes? "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-06-03 13:24 +0100
    Re: Why do "<" and "^" do the same? And moving between panes? VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-05-25 19:41 -0500
      Re: Why do "<" and "^" do the same? And moving between panes? "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-06-01 12:49 +0100
        Re: Why do "<" and "^" do the same? And moving between panes? VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-06-01 15:17 -0500
          Re: Why do "<" and "^" do the same? And moving between panes? sticks <wolverine01@charter.net> - 2025-06-01 16:01 -0500
            Re: Why do "<" and "^" do the same? And moving between panes? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-06-01 18:14 -0400
              Re: Why do "<" and "^" do the same? And moving between panes? sticks <wolverine01@charter.net> - 2025-06-02 09:40 -0500
            Re: Why do "<" and "^" do the same? And moving between panes? VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-06-01 17:25 -0500
              Re: Why do "<" and "^" do the same? And moving between panes? sticks <wolverine01@charter.net> - 2025-06-02 09:36 -0500
          Re: Why do "<" and "^" do the same? And moving between panes? "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-06-03 13:28 +0100
          Re: Why do "<" and "^" do the same? And moving between panes? sticks <wolverine01@charter.net> - 2025-06-03 09:03 -0500
            Re: Why do "<" and "^" do the same? And moving between panes? VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-06-03 12:34 -0500
              Re: Why do "<" and "^" do the same? And moving between panes? Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-06-03 18:38 +0100
    Re: Why do "<" and "^" do the same? And moving between panes? Ralph Fox <-rf-nz-@-.invalid> - 2025-05-26 18:04 +1200
      Re: Why do "<" and "^" do the same? And moving between panes? "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-06-01 12:50 +0100

#16749 — Why do "<" and "^" do the same? And moving between panes?

Sorry, newbie questions.

Say I'm into a thread:

original post
  followup 1
   followup 2
    followup 3
     followup 4

I'm looking at followup 4 (I have message pane [F8] on), and its bar is 
highlighted in blue.

If I press uparrow, the highlight moves back to followup 3 (and the 
message pane content follows) - fair enough.

But if I press leftarrow, _the same happens_ - whereas I'd expected the 
thread to collapse. Which it does when I'm on the original post. Is 
there a keystroke to collapse the thread - or subthread - when _not_ on 
the original post? (Yes, I could use the mouse - assuming the thread 
isn't so deep that the OP is off the top of the window.) It would seem 
more logical for leftarrow to collapse, even if not on OP, since uparrow 
works as it does.

Also, if my focus has left the list-of-posts pane - I've clicked in the 
message pane, or something, and the blue highlight bar in the 
list-of-posts pane (that shows which post I'm on) has turned grey - is 
there a keystroke to get back to the list pane? In some news client I 
have used in the past (not Turnpike, as that didn't _have_ the 
three-pane layout), they tab key would move focus from newsgroup list on 
the left, to list-of-posts top right, to message bottom right, then back 
to newsgroup list, and shift-tab would go in the opposite direction.
-- 
J. P. Gilliver

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#16751

J. P. Gilliver wrote:

> If I press uparrow, the highlight moves back to followup 3 (and the 
> message pane content follows) - fair enough.
> 
> But if I press leftarrow, the same happens - whereas I'd expected the 
> thread to collapse.

To collapse a thread press \
to expand it use *

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

#16796

On 25/05/2025 13:29, Andy Burns wrote:
> J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> 
>> If I press uparrow, the highlight moves back to followup 3 (and the 
>> message pane content follows) - fair enough.
>>
>> But if I press leftarrow, the same happens - whereas I'd expected the 
>> thread to collapse.
> 
> To collapse a thread press \
> to expand it use *
> 

Thanks for those! Now, how to remember them? The arrow keys seem logical.
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf


-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

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

#16825

On 01/06/2025 12:46, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> On 25/05/2025 13:29, Andy Burns wrote:
>> J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>>
>>> If I press uparrow, the highlight moves back to followup 3 (and the 
>>> message pane content follows) - fair enough.
>>>
>>> But if I press leftarrow, the same happens - whereas I'd expected the 
>>> thread to collapse.
>>
>> To collapse a thread press \
>> to expand it use *
>>
> 
> Thanks for those! Now, how to remember them? The arrow keys seem logical.

So far, I'm managing to remember "\". But it doesn't just collapse a 
thread - it collapses _all_ threads.
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf


-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

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

#16758

"J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

> Sorry, newbie questions.
> 
> Say I'm into a thread:
> 
> original post
>   followup 1
>    followup 2
>     followup 3
>      followup 4
> 
> I'm looking at followup 4 (I have message pane [F8] on), and its bar is 
> highlighted in blue.
> 
> If I press uparrow, the highlight moves back to followup 3 (and the 
> message pane content follows) - fair enough.
> 
> But if I press leftarrow, _the same happens_ - whereas I'd expected the 
> thread to collapse. Which it does when I'm on the original post. Is 
> there a keystroke to collapse the thread - or subthread - when _not_ on 
> the original post? (Yes, I could use the mouse - assuming the thread 
> isn't so deep that the OP is off the top of the window.) It would seem 
> more logical for leftarrow to collapse, even if not on OP, since uparrow 
> works as it does.
> 
> Also, if my focus has left the list-of-posts pane - I've clicked in the 
> message pane, or something, and the blue highlight bar in the 
> list-of-posts pane (that shows which post I'm on) has turned grey - is 
> there a keystroke to get back to the list pane? In some news client I 
> have used in the past (not Turnpike, as that didn't _have_ the 
> three-pane layout), they tab key would move focus from newsgroup list on 
> the left, to list-of-posts top right, to message bottom right, then back 
> to newsgroup list, and shift-tab would go in the opposite direction.

https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/keyboard-shortcuts-thunderbird

Andy already gave the key shortcuts to collapse/expand a thread.  There
are lots of keyboard shortcuts.  You won't remember them all, but you'll
probably the ones you check if they exist, because you wanted to use
them.

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

#16797

On 26/05/2025 01:41, VanguardLH wrote:
[]
> https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/keyboard-shortcuts-thunderbird
> 
> Andy already gave the key shortcuts to collapse/expand a thread.  There
> are lots of keyboard shortcuts.  You won't remember them all, but you'll
> probably the ones you check if they exist, because you wanted to use
> them.

Thanks for that!
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf


-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

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

#16805

"J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

> ...
> -- 
> J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
>
> -- 
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
> www.avg.com


Please disable signing your messages with AVG's spam.  You can disable
their spam via option in AVG.

With 2 sigblocks, clients that hide the sigblock will only hide the last
one (the Avast spam), but prior sigblock(s) remain.

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

#16806

On 6/1/2025 3:17 PM, VanguardLH wrote:
>> -- 
>> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
>> www.avg.com
> 
> Please disable signing your messages with AVG's spam.  You can disable
> their spam via option in AVG.

I have a good friend I've been telling for years he should get rid of 
that AVG spam on his business account.  His response is something along 
the lines of that is how the IT guy has it set up.  To me it's very 
unprofessional, and makes you look silly if you allow it.  It's his 
business and he could fix it if he wanted to.  I just don't see the 
rational of leaving it intact??

-- 
Darwinism Is Junk Science!!

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

#16807

On Sun, 6/1/2025 5:01 PM, sticks wrote:
> On 6/1/2025 3:17 PM, VanguardLH wrote:
>>> -- 
>>> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
>>> www.avg.com
>>
>> Please disable signing your messages with AVG's spam.  You can disable
>> their spam via option in AVG.
> 
> I have a good friend I've been telling for years he should get rid of that AVG spam on his business account.  His response is something along the lines of that is how the IT guy has it set up.  To me it's very unprofessional, and makes you look silly if you allow it.  It's his business and he could fix it if he wanted to.  I just don't see the rational of leaving it intact??
> 

Some people, just need the visual instructions.

https://support.avg.com/SupportArticleView?l=en&urlname=avg-antivirus-email-signature

You could explain to him, it's set up as an Opt-Out, and that's
why the IT person missed this. The IT person did not reach in
there and turn that on. It ships with that tick box ticked,
and the tick box needs to be cleaned and the tick removed.

   Paul

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

#16814

On 6/1/2025 5:14 PM, Paul wrote:
> On Sun, 6/1/2025 5:01 PM, sticks wrote:
>> On 6/1/2025 3:17 PM, VanguardLH wrote:
>>>> -- 
>>>> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
>>>> www.avg.com
>>>
>>> Please disable signing your messages with AVG's spam.  You can disable
>>> their spam via option in AVG.
>>
>> I have a good friend I've been telling for years he should get rid of that AVG spam on his business account.  His response is something along the lines of that is how the IT guy has it set up.  To me it's very unprofessional, and makes you look silly if you allow it.  It's his business and he could fix it if he wanted to.  I just don't see the rational of leaving it intact??
>>
> 
> Some people, just need the visual instructions.
> 
> https://support.avg.com/SupportArticleView?l=en&urlname=avg-antivirus-email-signature
> 
> You could explain to him, it's set up as an Opt-Out, and that's
> why the IT person missed this. The IT person did not reach in
> there and turn that on. It ships with that tick box ticked,
> and the tick box needs to be cleaned and the tick removed.

Thanks.  I've saved this link and like your way of approaching the topic.

FWIW, I still have not heard a valid reason for leaving it intact.


-- 
Darwinism Is Junk Science!!

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

#16808

sticks <wolverine01@charter.net> wrote:

> VanguardLH wrote:
>
>> "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
   (re-added attribution line omitted by sticks)
>>
>>> -- 
>>> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
>>> www.avg.com
>> 
>> Please disable signing your messages with AVG's spam.  You can disable
>> their spam via option in AVG.
> 
> I have a good friend I've been telling for years he should get rid of
> that AVG spam on his business account.  His response is something
> along the lines of that is how the IT guy has it set up.  To me it's
> very unprofessional, and makes you look silly if you allow it.  It's
> his business and he could fix it if he wanted to.  I just don't see
> the rational of leaving it intact??

You see someone stabbing someone else.
You ask them if they are assaulting someone.
They say No.
So, they must surely not be stabbing the other person.  They said so.
Duh.

State Farm State of Disbelief French Model
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DZbSlkFoSU
"They can't put anything on the Internet that isn't true."
"Where'd you hear that?"
"The Internet."

Shawshank Redemption (prison movie)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLMig9fTx6Y
"What are you in here for?"
"My lawyer fucked me."
"Everybody is innocent in here.  Didn't you know that?"

Walk into your home to find an intruder lifting your TV.
"Are you burglarizing my home?"
"Um, ah, no. I thought my lost cat might've wandered into here."
"Why are you carrying my TV?"
"Was checking behind your TV for my cat."

Saying your messages are clean is stupid.  It makes you look stupid.
Oh, they must be clean because you said so.  Uh huh (roll eyes).

It's just spam the AV product adds to your messages.  You become their
ignorant spam affiliate.  Of course, I couldn't possibly define my own
signature that said my messages were clean while attaching malware to
them, or adding hyperlinks to malicious sites.  But, oh yes, they're
clean because I said so.  

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

#16812

On 6/1/2025 5:25 PM, VanguardLH wrote:
> sticks <wolverine01@charter.net> wrote:
> 
>> VanguardLH wrote:
>>
>>> ---resnipped---
>     (re-added attribution line omitted by sticks)

FWIW, I omitted the attribution intentionally and for a reason.  I saw 
no need to make my argument about this specific individual, and did not 
wish to "shame" them needlessly.  My reply did have proper lines from 
your quoted text and it is apparent you were not the one who included 
the AVG spam because of the added level of quote marks.  I simply wanted 
the discussion to be about the AVG notice and not about anyone in 
particular.  If that concern goes against the norms, so be it.  I found 
it unnecessary.


>>>> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
>>>> www.avg.com
>>>
>>> Please disable signing your messages with AVG's spam.  You can disable
>>> their spam via option in AVG.

-- 
Darwinism Is Junk Science!!

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

#16826

On 01/06/2025 21:17, VanguardLH wrote:
> "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
> 
>> ...
>> -- 
>> J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
>>
>> -- 
>> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
>> www.avg.com
> 
> 
> Please disable signing your messages with AVG's spam.  You can disable
> their spam via option in AVG.

Sorry, new computer. That spam irritates me too! Hopefully, I've 
disabled it now (they make the setting hard to find, of course).>
> With 2 sigblocks, clients that hide the sigblock will only hide the last
> one (the Avast spam), but prior sigblock(s) remain.
Yes, I can see that.
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf


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

#16830

On 6/1/2025 3:17 PM, VanguardLH wrote:

> With 2 sigblocks, clients that hide the sigblock will only hide the last
> one (the Avast spam), but prior sigblock(s) remain.

This is not true on my BBird install.  Followup and Reply take out both 
sigs.


-- 
Darwinism Is Junk Science!!

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

#16838

sticks <wolverine01@charter.net> wrote:

> On 6/1/2025 3:17 PM, VanguardLH wrote:
> 
>> With 2 sigblocks, clients that hide the sigblock will only hide the last
>> one (the Avast spam), but prior sigblock(s) remain.
> 
> This is not true on my BBird install.  Followup and Reply take out both 
> sigs.

So does my NNTP client (40tude Dialog), but I wasn't addressing behavior
on replies or followups, but on viewing a post.  Thunderbird does not
have an option to hide signatures?

Signatures are ego-stroking fluff, anyway.  They duplicate the From
header, or are off-topic from the post, or are spam to advertise a web
site, or spew an opinion separate of the body, or are cutsy character
pics, phrases, or MOTDs.  Not all clients successfully remove all
signatures on replies, or they top-post to put their sig delimiter line
above the quoted content, so the entire quote becomes a huge sigblock.  

Thunderbird can't hide signatures?  If it can, will it hide multiple
sigblocks?  Not when you reply, but when you view.  If a poster added a
signature that was a hundred lines long, you'd always see all of it?

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

#16839

VanguardLH wrote:

> I wasn't addressing behavior on replies or followups, but on viewing
> a post.  Thunderbird does not have an option to hide signatures?

It does with the Quote Colours add-on ...

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

#16761

On Sun, 25 May 2025 11:38:30 +0100, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

> Subject: Why do "<" and "^" do the same? And moving between panes?

Here, "<" and "^" do not always do the same.

> Sorry, newbie questions.
> 
> Say I'm into a thread:
> 
> original post
>   followup 1
>    followup 2
>     followup 3
>      followup 4
> 
> I'm looking at followup 4 (I have message pane [F8] on), and its bar is 
> highlighted in blue.
> 
> If I press uparrow, the highlight moves back to followup 3 (and the 
> message pane content follows) - fair enough.
> 
> But if I press leftarrow, _the same happens_ 


Say I'm into a thread like this

original post
  followup 1
    followup 2
      followup 3
    followup 4

where followup 4 is a reply to followup 1, not to followup 3.

If I am on followup 4, 
  *  Uparrow takes me to followup 3, the previous in the list.
  *  Leftarrow takes me to followup 1, the 'parent' post which
     followup 4 is a reply to.


-- 
Kind regards
Ralph Fox
🦊️

Long lookt for comes at last.

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

#16798

On 26/05/2025 07:04, Ralph Fox wrote:
[]
> Say I'm into a thread like this
> 
> original post
>    followup 1
>      followup 2
>        followup 3
>      followup 4
> 
> where followup 4 is a reply to followup 1, not to followup 3.
> 
> If I am on followup 4,
>    *  Uparrow takes me to followup 3, the previous in the list.
>    *  Leftarrow takes me to followup 1, the 'parent' post which
>       followup 4 is a reply to.
> 
> 

Very true! I realised that, of course after posting.
Andy and VLH have posted about the 'cuts I was after.
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf


-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

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

csiph-web