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

Groups > comp.mobile.android > #56111 > unrolled thread

I thought this group was pretty free of stupid acrimonious crap

Back to article view | Back to comp.mobile.android

Contents

  I thought this group was pretty free of stupid acrimonious crap The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2018-09-28 12:08 -0700
    Re: I thought this group was pretty free of stupid acrimonious crap I R A Darth Aggie <n0b0dy@invalid.invalid> - 2018-09-28 20:57 +0000
    Re: I thought this group was pretty free of stupid acrimonious crap David Taylor <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> - 2018-09-29 06:37 +0100
      Re: I thought this group was pretty free of stupid acrimonious crap Charlie+ <charlie@xxx.net> - 2018-09-29 07:24 +0100
        Re: I thought this group was pretty free of stupid acrimonious crap Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> - 2018-09-29 13:19 +0200
    Re: I thought this group was pretty free of stupid acrimonious crap Tomasz Dawiec <tomek@dawiec.example> - 2018-09-29 07:58 +0200
      Re: I thought this group was pretty free of stupid acrimonious crap Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> - 2018-09-29 13:21 +0200
    Re: I thought this group was pretty free of stupid acrimonious crap John McGaw <Nobody@Nowh.ere> - 2018-09-29 10:38 -0400
      Re: I thought this group was pretty free of stupid acrimonious crap The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2018-09-29 10:28 -0700
        Re: I thought this group was pretty free of stupid acrimonious crap Bob Henson <robert.h.henson@gmail.com> - 2018-09-29 18:36 +0100
          Re: I thought this group was pretty free of stupid acrimonious crap Bob F <bobnospam@gmail.com> - 2018-09-29 17:53 -0700
            Re: I thought this group was pretty free of stupid acrimonious crap Bob Henson <robert.h.henson@gmail.com> - 2018-09-30 09:11 +0100
              Re: I thought this group was pretty free of stupid acrimonious crap Bob F <bobnospam@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 10:31 -0700
                Re: I thought this group was pretty free of stupid acrimonious crap The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 10:41 -0700
                  Re: I thought this group was pretty free of stupid acrimonious crap "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-10-03 13:01 +0200
                    Re: I thought this group was pretty free of stupid acrimonious crap Piet <www.godfatherof.nl/@opt-in.invalid> - 2018-10-03 13:05 +0200
                      Re: I thought this group was pretty free of stupid acrimonious crap Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> - 2018-10-03 22:35 +0200
                    Re: I thought this group was pretty free of stupid acrimonious crap 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-10-03 08:48 -0700
                      Re: I thought this group was pretty free of stupid acrimonious crap  Arlen    Holder <a%rlenh.older@no.spam.net> - 2018-10-03 16:16 +0000
                        Re: I thought this group was pretty free of stupid acrimonious crap 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-10-03 15:52 -0700
                          Re: I thought this group was pretty free of stupid acrimonious crap  Arlen    Holder <a%rlenh.older@no.spam.net> - 2018-10-03 23:30 +0000
                            Re: I thought this group was pretty free of stupid acrimonious crap 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-10-03 18:25 -0700
                  Re: I thought this group was pretty free of stupid acrimonious crap Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> - 2018-10-03 22:33 +0200
                    Re: I thought this group was pretty free of stupid acrimonious crap The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 14:41 -0700
                      Re: I thought this group was pretty free of stupid acrimonious crap nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-10-03 23:35 -0400
                      Re: I thought this group was pretty free of stupid acrimonious crap Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> - 2018-10-04 06:25 +0200
                        Re: I thought this group was pretty free of stupid acrimonious crap 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-10-03 21:59 -0700
                          Re: I thought this group was pretty free of stupid acrimonious crap Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> - 2018-10-04 08:26 +0200
                            Re: I thought this group was pretty free of stupid acrimonious crap Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> - 2018-10-04 08:27 +0200
                            Re: I thought this group was pretty free of stupid acrimonious crap 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-10-04 09:10 -0700
                          Re: I thought this group was pretty free of stupid acrimonious crap Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-10-04 17:17 +0000
                            Re: I thought this group was pretty free of stupid acrimonious crap 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-10-04 16:16 -0700
                        Re: I thought this group was pretty free of stupid acrimonious crap The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 23:23 -0700
                      Re: I thought this group was pretty free of stupid acrimonious crap Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-10-04 17:14 +0000
        Re: I thought this group was pretty free of stupid acrimonious crap Joe Beanfish <joebeanfish@nospam.duh> - 2018-10-02 13:12 +0000
    Re: I thought this group was pretty free of stupid acrimonious crap Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-09-30 09:32 +0000
    Re: I thought this group was pretty free of stupid acrimonious crap Taka Kobayashi <taka000@sahi.net> - 2018-09-30 22:13 +0900
      Re: I thought this group was pretty free of stupid acrimonious crap Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> - 2018-09-30 21:35 +0200
        Re: I thought this group was pretty free of stupid acrimonious crap Taka Kobayashi <taka000@sahi.net> - 2018-10-01 11:36 +0900
    Re: I thought this group was pretty free of stupid acrimonious crap Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> - 2018-09-30 21:37 +0200
      Re: I thought this group was pretty free of stupid acrimonious crap John B. Slocomb <johnb@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 06:59 +0700
        Re: I thought this group was pretty free of stupid acrimonious crap The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2018-09-30 20:30 -0700
        Re: I thought this group was pretty free of stupid acrimonious crap Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> - 2018-10-01 06:33 +0200
          Re: I thought this group was pretty free of stupid acrimonious crap Bob Henson <robert.h.henson@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 09:28 +0100
            Re: I thought this group was pretty free of stupid acrimonious crap Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> - 2018-10-01 14:13 +0200
              Re: I thought this group was pretty free of stupid acrimonious crap The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 09:36 -0700
                Re: I thought this group was pretty free of stupid acrimonious crap Ralph Fox <-rf-nz-@-.invalid> - 2018-10-02 06:43 +1300
                  Re: I thought this group was pretty free of stupid acrimonious crap The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 11:04 -0700
                  Re: I thought this group was pretty free of stupid acrimonious crap Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> - 2018-10-01 22:16 +0200
                Re: I thought this group was pretty free of stupid acrimonious crap Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> - 2018-10-01 22:15 +0200
              Re: I thought this group was pretty free of stupid acrimonious crap Bob Henson <robert.h.henson@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 09:46 +0100
        Re: I thought this group was pretty free of stupid acrimonious crap Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2018-10-04 13:50 +0100
    Re: I thought this group was pretty free of stupid acrimonious crap Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2018-10-03 19:14 +0100
      Re: I thought this group was pretty free of stupid acrimonious crap Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-10-03 20:15 +0000
        Re: I thought this group was pretty free of stupid acrimonious crap Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> - 2018-10-03 22:40 +0200
      Re: I thought this group was pretty free of stupid acrimonious crap Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> - 2018-10-03 22:38 +0200

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

#56139

On Sun, 30 Sep 2018 21:37:15 +0200, Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch>
wrote:

>Am 28.09.18 um 21:08 schrieb The Real Bev:
>> But I guess I was wrong.
>> 
>> See assholes fight.
>> Fight fight fight.
>> See assholes fight.
>> See newsgroups die.
>> 
>Would be absolutely no problem if all users in this group would make 
>maximum use of the filter capabilities of their news-clients.

When using a filter, as I do, you never see the original post that is
considered a Troll, but you do get to read the myriad responses :-)
--

Cheers,

John B.

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

#56141

On 09/30/2018 04:59 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Sep 2018 21:37:15 +0200, Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch>
> wrote:
>
>>Am 28.09.18 um 21:08 schrieb The Real Bev:
>>> But I guess I was wrong.
>>>
>>> See assholes fight.
>>> Fight fight fight.
>>> See assholes fight.
>>> See newsgroups die.
>>>
>>Would be absolutely no problem if all users in this group would make
>>maximum use of the filter capabilities of their news-clients.
>
> When using a filter, as I do, you never see the original post that is
> considered a Troll, but you do get to read the myriad responses :-)

Thunderbird will also allow you to kill the thread that the troll 
appears in.  I'm reluctant to do that because not all the comments in a 
contaminated thread are squabbling.

-- 
Cheers, Bev
    "Screw the end users. If they want good software,
     let them write it themselves."          -- Anon.

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

#56142

Am 01.10.18 um 01:59 schrieb John B. Slocomb:
> On Sun, 30 Sep 2018 21:37:15 +0200, Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch>
> wrote:
> 
>> Am 28.09.18 um 21:08 schrieb The Real Bev:
>>> But I guess I was wrong.
>>>
>>> See assholes fight.
>>> Fight fight fight.
>>> See assholes fight.
>>> See newsgroups die.
>>>
>> Would be absolutely no problem if all users in this group would make
>> maximum use of the filter capabilities of their news-clients.
> 
> When using a filter, as I do, you never see the original post that is
> considered a Troll, but you do get to read the myriad responses :-)

No, as long as you use as action "ignore subthread"

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

#56143

On 01/10/2018 5.33 am, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
> Am 01.10.18 um 01:59 schrieb John B. Slocomb:
>> On Sun, 30 Sep 2018 21:37:15 +0200, Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Am 28.09.18 um 21:08 schrieb The Real Bev:
>>>> But I guess I was wrong.
>>>>
>>>> See assholes fight.
>>>> Fight fight fight.
>>>> See assholes fight.
>>>> See newsgroups die.
>>>>
>>> Would be absolutely no problem if all users in this group would make
>>> maximum use of the filter capabilities of their news-clients.
>>
>> When using a filter, as I do, you never see the original post that is
>> considered a Troll, but you do get to read the myriad responses :-)
> 
> No, as long as you use as action "ignore subthread"
> 

It does not work correctly. I reported the bug six years ago

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=799040

but nothing has been done about it. Using "ignore thread" is no use
because it ignores the whole thread including the possibly non-spam
posts earlier in the thread. I consider this the worst bug in
Thunderbird, but the devs are not interested.

-- 
Tetbury, Gloucestershire, England

Doctor: I don't like the looks of your wife at all.
Husband: Me neither doc, but she's a great cook and really good with the
kids.

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

#56144

Am 01.10.18 um 10:28 schrieb Bob Henson:
> It does not work correctly. I reported the bug six years ago
> 
> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=799040
> 
> but nothing has been done about it. Using "ignore thread" is no use
> because it ignores the whole thread including the possibly non-spam
> posts earlier in the thread. I consider this the worst bug in
> Thunderbird, but the devs are not interested.

It is working perfectly on TB and Seamonkey. I'm using it for roghly a 
decade. I cannot figure out what you are doing given the lack of 
information.

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

#56146

On 10/01/2018 05:13 AM, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
> Am 01.10.18 um 10:28 schrieb Bob Henson:
>> It does not work correctly. I reported the bug six years ago
>>
>> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=799040
>>
>> but nothing has been done about it. Using "ignore thread" is no use
>> because it ignores the whole thread including the possibly non-spam
>> posts earlier in the thread. I consider this the worst bug in
>> Thunderbird, but the devs are not interested.
>
> It is working perfectly on TB and Seamonkey. I'm using it for roghly a
> decade. I cannot figure out what you are doing given the lack of
> information.

'Ignore thread' kill the entire thread, including the parts that 
appeared before the troll attack.  I guess that's what he's objecting 
to.  I can understand this if a given thread contains reference material 
that someone would want to refer to at a later date, but that seems 
pretty marginal.

-- 
Cheers, Bev

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

#56150

[Joerg Lorenz]  No, as long as you use as action "ignore subthread"

[Bob Henson]    It does not work correctly. I reported the bug six years ago

[Joerg Lorenz]  It is working perfectly on TB and Seamonkey. I'm using it for roghly a 
[Joerg Lorenz]  decade. I cannot figure out what you are doing given the lack of 
[Joerg Lorenz]  information.

[The Real Bev]  'Ignore thread' kill the entire thread, including the parts that 
[The Real Bev]  appeared before the troll attack.  I guess that's what he's objecting 
[The Real Bev]  to.

Bev, they are talking about "ignore subthread".  "Ignore subthread" 
does *not* kill the parts that appeared before the troll attack.


-- 
Kind regards
Ralph

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

#56153

On 10/01/2018 10:43 AM, Ralph Fox wrote:
>
> [Joerg Lorenz]  No, as long as you use as action "ignore subthread"
>
> [Bob Henson]    It does not work correctly. I reported the bug six years ago
>
> [Joerg Lorenz]  It is working perfectly on TB and Seamonkey. I'm using it for roghly a
> [Joerg Lorenz]  decade. I cannot figure out what you are doing given the lack of
> [Joerg Lorenz]  information.
>
> [The Real Bev]  'Ignore thread' kill the entire thread, including the parts that
> [The Real Bev]  appeared before the troll attack.  I guess that's what he's objecting
> [The Real Bev]  to.
>
> Bev, they are talking about "ignore subthread".  "Ignore subthread"
> does *not* kill the parts that appeared before the troll attack.

Heh.  I'd never noticed that.  I killed threads a long time ago, but 
haven't seen the need for at least a decade.


-- 
Cheers, Bev
    Why can't we all just get along and do things my way?

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

#56162

Am 01.10.18 um 19:43 schrieb Ralph Fox:
> 
> [Joerg Lorenz]  No, as long as you use as action "ignore subthread"
> 
> [Bob Henson]    It does not work correctly. I reported the bug six years ago
> 
> [Joerg Lorenz]  It is working perfectly on TB and Seamonkey. I'm using it for roghly a
> [Joerg Lorenz]  decade. I cannot figure out what you are doing given the lack of
> [Joerg Lorenz]  information.
> 
> [The Real Bev]  'Ignore thread' kill the entire thread, including the parts that
> [The Real Bev]  appeared before the troll attack.  I guess that's what he's objecting
> [The Real Bev]  to.
> 
> Bev, they are talking about "ignore subthread".  "Ignore subthread"
> does *not* kill the parts that appeared before the troll attack.
> 
> 
THX and +1

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

#56161

Am 01.10.18 um 18:36 schrieb The Real Bev:
> On 10/01/2018 05:13 AM, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>> Am 01.10.18 um 10:28 schrieb Bob Henson:
>>> It does not work correctly. I reported the bug six years ago
>>>
>>> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=799040
>>>
>>> but nothing has been done about it. Using "ignore thread" is no use
>>> because it ignores the whole thread including the possibly non-spam
>>> posts earlier in the thread. I consider this the worst bug in
>>> Thunderbird, but the devs are not interested.
>>
>> It is working perfectly on TB and Seamonkey. I'm using it for roghly a
>> decade. I cannot figure out what you are doing given the lack of
>> information.
> 
> 'Ignore thread' kill the entire thread, including the parts that
> appeared before the troll attack.  I guess that's what he's objecting

I wrote about "ignore subthread".

-- 
De gustibus non est disputandum

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

#56172

On 01/10/2018 1.13 pm, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
> Am 01.10.18 um 10:28 schrieb Bob Henson:
>> It does not work correctly. I reported the bug six years ago
>>
>> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=799040
>>
>> but nothing has been done about it. Using "ignore thread" is no use
>> because it ignores the whole thread including the possibly non-spam
>> posts earlier in the thread. I consider this the worst bug in
>> Thunderbird, but the devs are not interested.
> 
> It is working perfectly on TB and Seamonkey. I'm using it for roghly a 
> decade. I cannot figure out what you are doing given the lack of 
> information.
> 

There's plenty of explanation in the bug report. Everyone else
understands the problem. Maybe you don't use a message pane or have a
set up where the message pane becoming totally jammed up with underlined
messages that will not hide with View > Threads > Threads with Unread is
not critical as it is on nearly every Thunderbird system I have seen?

-- 
Tetbury, Gloucestershire, England

Bank Manager: A man who lends you his umbrella on a sunny day, and
demands it back as soon as it rains. - Mark Twain

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

#56275

John B. Slocomb wrote:

> When using a filter, as I do, you never see the original post that is
> considered a Troll, but you do get to read the myriad responses :-)

It's a long time since I used Agent, but doesn't it have a kill or 
mark-read option for the entire sub-thread?

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

#56238

The Real Bev wrote:

> I guess I was wrong.

I notice one of the nymshifters has used several new nyms recently, so 
my kf has been updated accordingly.

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

#56241

Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
> The Real Bev wrote:
> 
> > I guess I was wrong.
> 
> I notice one of the nymshifters has used several new nyms recently, so 
> my kf has been updated accordingly.

  Yes, some new nyms and some even more pathetic spelling changes to his
old nyms/e-mail addresses.

  Time to blacklist some servers and only whitelist some of the
non-kooks which happen to use those servers? Sigh!

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

#56247

Am 03.10.18 um 22:15 schrieb Frank Slootweg:
> Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
>> The Real Bev wrote:
>>
>>> I guess I was wrong.
>>
>> I notice one of the nymshifters has used several new nyms recently, so
>> my kf has been updated accordingly.
> 
>    Yes, some new nyms and some even more pathetic spelling changes to his
> old nyms/e-mail addresses.
> 
>    Time to blacklist some servers and only whitelist some of the
> non-kooks which happen to use those servers? Sigh!
> 
This very effective but can produce some unwanted collateral damage. 
Because the usenet is dying I reverted back to kfs.

-- 
De gustibus non est disputandum

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

#56246

Am 03.10.18 um 20:14 schrieb Andy Burns:
> The Real Bev wrote:
> 
>> I guess I was wrong.
> 
> I notice one of the nymshifters has used several new nyms recently, so
> my kf has been updated accordingly.
> 
+1

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

Back to top | Article view | comp.mobile.android

csiph-web