Are they gone yet ?

Dane Buson wrote:
Michael Press wrote:

Kill files and the like are too much trouble. Look at all the effort
expended to `ignore' people. With this news reader I push a button to
instantly get the next article. Push a button to mark the current
batch of articles in the thread read, and start the next thread.

Well, I can see your point, but I don't agree. Your method works for
individual 'noise' posts, but not so well for people or subjects that
are consistently 'junk'. I have a limited amount of time to read
usenet. If I finish my normal groups, I can head off to groups I
infrequently read and enjoy them...

I really don't understand this. Are you guys saying you normally read
_every_ post, in _every_ thread?

I always assumed everyone would read what they were interested in, and
skip the rest. Anything else sounds like OCD!

- Frank Krygowski

D'ohBoy wrote:
Sandy prairie-dogged:

seems not

....later.................

Wait, here comes the square taper spindle thread! Yay! Chalo broke
them at 230 lbs, now he won't even ride them - whereas others at that
weight have ridden them for tens of thousands of miles and never broken
one!

Throw in the external bearing kerfuffle and a touch of spindle grease
and the trifecta is complete.

It's RBT in a nutshell!

You forgot disk brakes and anti-GWB trolling (that works *every* time).

E.P.

On 16 May 2006 07:03:41 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle"
wrote:


John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
On Mon, 15 May 2006 18:34:09 -0700, Mark Hickey
wrote:
It's just that almost no one involved in the thread really bothered to
listen to reason,

You mean they didn't listen to you? Yeah, they're lame.


New! 1.4X more powerful than the previous model! It's TurboTroll !!!

I wasn't trolling, I was mocking. No response from Hickey was desired.

So if you're going to stalk my posts and rag on me, at least rag on me
with the proper terms.

Thanks,

JT


****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
On 16 May 2006 07:03:41 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle"
wrote:


John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
On Mon, 15 May 2006 18:34:09 -0700, Mark Hickey
wrote:
It's just that almost no one involved in the thread really bothered to
listen to reason,

You mean they didn't listen to you? Yeah, they're lame.


New! 1.4X more powerful than the previous model! It's TurboTroll !!!

I wasn't trolling, I was mocking. No response from Hickey was desired.


A troll by any other name.....


So if you're going to stalk my posts and rag on me

Coming soon: "The Tale of the Pot and the Kettle". ;-)



at least rag on me
with the proper terms.


Okay, you're a nasty, agressive, trolling moron.

wrote:
Dane Buson wrote:

Well, I can see your point, but I don't agree. Your method works for
individual 'noise' posts, but not so well for people or subjects that
are consistently 'junk'. I have a limited amount of time to read
usenet. If I finish my normal groups, I can head off to groups I
infrequently read and enjoy them...

I really don't understand this. Are you guys saying you normally read
_every_ post, in _every_ thread?

I'm not *that* bad. I do tend to skim most threads just to see if
anyone I usually find enlightening posts. If it's something I really
have no interest in I'll mark the thread as read. H*lm*t threads
usually just get a high-level scan at the thread-view level, then a mass
kill.

I always assumed everyone would read what they were interested in, and
skip the rest. Anything else sounds like OCD!

Well, for smaller threads it's just as fast to tab through them than to
actually go up to the thread selection level. At least for my
newsreading setup. Regardless of how you read though, killfiling will
speed up the process. Unless you're explicitly reading via a whitelist
setup.

--
Dane Buson -
"Sometimes, you can't do anything about something that sucks.
No matter how much it sucks.
-Slovotsky's Law #19

In article
.com,
wrote:

Dane Buson wrote:
Michael Press wrote:

Kill files and the like are too much trouble. Look at all the effort
expended to `ignore' people. With this news reader I push a button to
instantly get the next article. Push a button to mark the current
batch of articles in the thread read, and start the next thread.

Well, I can see your point, but I don't agree. Your method works for
individual 'noise' posts, but not so well for people or subjects that
are consistently 'junk'. I have a limited amount of time to read
usenet. If I finish my normal groups, I can head off to groups I
infrequently read and enjoy them...

I really don't understand this. Are you guys saying you normally read
_every_ post, in _every_ thread?

I always assumed everyone would read what they were interested in, and
skip the rest. Anything else sounds like OCD!

No. Read what I wrote. I can push a button that marks as
read all current articles in a thread, and displays the
first article in the next thread. Studying the list of
article headers a waste of my time. Programming a kill
file and the like is a waste of my time.

I keep one article window open and run articles through
it, skipping to the next article or thread at will. I
study, read, speed read, skim, or skip an article as I
please. Rarely look at the list of article headers; it
does not tell me anything I want to know.

--
Michael Press

Michael Press wrote:
In article
.com,
wrote:

I really don't understand this. Are you guys saying you normally read
_every_ post, in _every_ thread?

I always assumed everyone would read what they were interested in, and
skip the rest. Anything else sounds like OCD!

No. Read what I wrote. I can push a button that marks as
read all current articles in a thread, and displays the
first article in the next thread. Studying the list of
article headers a waste of my time. Programming a kill
file and the like is a waste of my time.

I keep one article window open and run articles through
it, skipping to the next article or thread at will. I
study, read, speed read, skim, or skip an article as I
please. Rarely look at the list of article headers; it
does not tell me anything I want to know.

Well, I should not have inclded you in the "you guys." But I am amazed
at people that seem compelled to read everything. This includes, by
necessity, people who complain about threads on helmets, or chain lube,
or greased cranks, or whatever.

I read only a small percentage of threads. I use the article headers
to decide which to check out. I flag those threads that truly interest
me and ignore the rest. The exceptions come when I see a thread with
an uninteresting title (like this one) that has hung around for a
while. Then I'll take a quick look to see why. In most cases, it
still isn't worth my time.

Complaining about other peoples' chosen topics for discussion seems
intensely silly to me. I'm perfectly capable of reading a newspaper,
yet skipping the sports section.

- Frank Krygowski

In article
.com,
wrote:

Michael Press wrote:
In article
.com,
wrote:

I really don't understand this. Are you guys saying you normally read
_every_ post, in _every_ thread?

I always assumed everyone would read what they were interested in, and
skip the rest. Anything else sounds like OCD!

No. Read what I wrote. I can push a button that marks as
read all current articles in a thread, and displays the
first article in the next thread. Studying the list of
article headers a waste of my time. Programming a kill
file and the like is a waste of my time.

I keep one article window open and run articles through
it, skipping to the next article or thread at will. I
study, read, speed read, skim, or skip an article as I
please. Rarely look at the list of article headers; it
does not tell me anything I want to know.

Well, I should not have inclded you in the "you guys." But I am amazed
at people that seem compelled to read everything. This includes, by
necessity, people who complain about threads on helmets, or chain lube,
or greased cranks, or whatever.

I read only a small percentage of threads. I use the article headers
to decide which to check out. I flag those threads that truly interest
me and ignore the rest. The exceptions come when I see a thread with
an uninteresting title (like this one) that has hung around for a
while. Then I'll take a quick look to see why. In most cases, it
still isn't worth my time.

Complaining about other peoples' chosen topics for discussion seems
intensely silly to me. I'm perfectly capable of reading a newspaper,
yet skipping the sports section.

I'll go out on a limb here and extend this at least one
more article. Looking at a list of Subject: headers takes
time and brain power; and I still cannot generate
sufficient confidence in any assessment I make. Whereas
reading a few sentences in an article tells me exactly
what I need to know; reading a few articles in a thread
tells me if I want to skip to the next thread with very
high confidence.

--
Michael Press

1400 posts, from only 81 authors. Probably not too many more readers
than that.

As they say in the Tenderloin, get a room!