Segmentation fault

[Richard]

Does that mean you have to respond to "query" before reading "ans_1"?
If it does, either get a better newsreader or learn to use the one you
have.

In mine, for example, I see a list of articles similar to the one you
describe. When I read an article, it's marked as read, but it doesn't
vanish from the list. That means I can easily read an entire thread
(at least the subset of it that's currently available), then go back
to an article I've already read and post a followup to it if there's a
point nobody else has made yet.

You can also reconstruct the thread with "A T" as well as mark articles
to stay visible despite read status.

 

[Stephen Sprunk]

Does that mean you have to respond to "query" before reading "ans_1"?
If it does, either get a better newsreader or learn to use the one you
have.

Indeed; I use the same newsreader, and I am rarely guilty of the same
accusation -- usually when I deliberately restate one of the prior
answers in a way that I think the OP will more easily understand, which
I think constitutes a reasonable exception.

In mine, for example, I see a list of articles similar to the one you
describe. When I read an article, it's marked as read, but it doesn't
vanish from the list. That means I can easily read an entire thread
(at least the subset of it that's currently available), then go back
to an article I've already read and post a followup to it if there's a
point nobody else has made yet.

If I see a query I want to respond to, I'll mark it unread (in reality,
"to be read again") and then read through all of the replies. When I've
finished reading the replies, or when the original query pops up again
when I hit "Next Unread", I will then either respond (if I have
something new to add) or mark it read.

(When I first started working with a GUI newsreader, I briefly changed
my method: I'd hit Reply immediately to open a response window, go back
to the main window and continue reading the threaded responses, and then
close the response window if someone else said what I was going to say.
I soon found that to be less manageable and went back to my original
method, but it might work for others...)

My newsreader is Gnus, which runs under emacs; if you don't like
emacs, you're not going to like Gnus. But any decent newsreader
should let you do something similar.

The above describes how I've read and replied to messages on newsgroups
with nn, rn, trn, Netscape, Agent, Outlook Express, and Thunderbird over
the last two decades. The only newsreader I've used that my method
_doesn't_ work with is Google Groups (and, formerly, DejaNews), and as a
result I do not use it for everyday reading; I only use GG for looking
up past articles that have expired on my NNTP server.

S

 

[James Kuyper]

I do. But within threads, things are organized as query followed
by answer. If there are multiple answers they are sorted by time.
e.g.:

.query t
|--.ans_1 t+1
|--.ans_2 t+22
| |--.ans_2_2 t+33
| |--.ans_2_3 t+34
|--.ans_3 t+3

etc. So I will see ans_1 and ans_2_* before ans_3.

Yes, but nothing prevents you from lookinin at all of those answers
before sending your own answer. At least, nothing other than you yourself.

 

[CBFalconer]

Does that mean you have to respond to "query" before reading
"ans_1"? If it does, either get a better newsreader or learn to
use the one you have.

In mine, for example, I see a list of articles similar to the one
you describe. When I read an article, it's marked as read, but
it doesn't vanish from the list. That means I can easily read an
entire thread (at least the subset of it that's currently
available), then go back to an article I've already read and post
a followup to it if there's a point nobody else has made yet.

Nor does mine vanish. However, going back can be a pain,
especially in a big thread. First, there is the problem of finding
the appropriate header to select. Second, each selected header
requires a delay, which may be appreciable, in bringing up that
message. Third, multiple answers are harmless. If identical, they
confirm each other. If different, they show differences in
attitude.

 

[Ben Bacarisse]

Keith Thompson wrote:

Nor does mine vanish. However, going back can be a pain,
especially in a big thread. First, there is the problem of finding
the appropriate header to select. Second, each selected header
requires a delay, which may be appreciable, in bringing up that
message. Third, multiple answers are harmless. If identical, they
confirm each other.

This is only true if a few people do it. I mark lots of messages
thinking that I might reply but rarely find I need to. If everyone
used your strategy I think c.l.c would drown. You admit you don't do
it because it is a pain. I refer you to the philosophy of Kant for a
discussion the morality of this approach.

If different, they show differences in
attitude.

I don't think anyone has objected to your posting different answers.

 

[osmium]

Third, multiple answers are harmless.

That's absurd! Do you think we have nothing better to do with our time than
look at your inane, out of date, droolings? Just because your time is
without value doesn't mean that is true for the rest of us.

If duplicate answers are harmless, then by the same reasoning off topic
answers are harmless too. Try to figure out the connection if you can, or
else, someone can explain it to you.

 

[Stephen Sprunk]

Nor does mine vanish. However, going back can be a pain,
especially in a big thread. First, there is the problem of finding
the appropriate header to select.

Just scroll upwards until you find the article you want to reply to. In
the case at hand, it's the first one in the thread, so all you have to
do is keep scrolling up until the Subject column changes. Or, you can
click on any message in the thread and then press the left arrow key
several times until you reach the original.

You can also remark a message unread, which means all you have to do to
get back to it is press "p" for Previous Unread -- or wait for it to
come up again when you press "n" for Next Unread and it loops around
past the end of the newsgroup.

If you prefer, you can also press Reply when you see the original
question to open a new message window, read through the other responses,
and then type up your response (or close the message window) when you're
done.

Second, each selected header requires a delay, which may be appreciable,
in bringing up that message.

Not unless you've horribly misconfigured your newsreader. Mine is set
to cache everything for 30 days (though less would certainly suffice),
including all headers and the bodies of any messages I've read, so
pulling up the original article is nearly instantaneous when I click on
it. I use the same newsreader as you do, so don't try to tell me yours
can't do it. I think that's even the default setting!

Third, multiple answers are harmless.

No, they are not. They waste the time of everyone who reads them if you
are adding nothing new.

S

 

[James Kuyper]

Nor does mine vanish. However, going back can be a pain,
especially in a big thread. First, there is the problem of finding
the appropriate header to select. Second, each selected header
requires a delay, which may be appreciable, in bringing up that
message. ...

The only reason you could have a problem finding the appropriate header
is if you insist on going through the messages in strict chronological
order, rather than the more appropriate option of displaying each thread
as a tree, with chronological order maintained only between threads, and
withing responses to a single message within each thread.

If the delay you mention is sufficiently significant to justify the
annoyance that your approach causes to other people, then your computer
system must be a real antique. The earliest version of mozilla that I
ever used, (which was not much later than the first one that came out)
performed that task on a Pentium II processor and 24K modem far too
quickly and easily to justify your refusal to look at other people's
responses before posting your own.

... Third, multiple answers are harmless. If identical, they
confirm each other. If different, they show differences in
attitude.

That's the attitude of a spammer. Do you want to be treated as a
spammer? Identical messages are simply a complete waste of everyone
else's time. Messages that are only slightly different waste people's
time while they puzzle out the similarities from the differences - such
messages should be written so as to avoid as much as possible repeating
the similar parts, and to concentrate on the differences, which is
something you can't do without reviewing the other responses first.

 

[Stupid Echo]

Does that mean you have to respond to "query" before reading
"ans_1"? If it does, either get a better newsreader or learn to
use the one you have.

In mine, for example, I see a list of articles similar to the one
you describe. When I read an article, it's marked as read, but
it doesn't vanish from the list. That means I can easily read an
entire thread (at least the subset of it that's currently
available), then go back to an article I've already read and post
a followup to it if there's a point nobody else has made yet.

Nor does mine vanish. However, going back can be a pain,
especially in a big thread. First, there is the problem of finding
the appropriate header to select. Second, each selected header
requires a delay, which may be appreciable, in bringing up that
message. Third, multiple answers are harmless. If identical, they
confirm each other. If different, they show differences in
attitude.

 

[CBFalconer]

.... snip ...

If the delay you mention is sufficiently significant to justify
the annoyance that your approach causes to other people, then
your computer system must be a real antique. The earliest

The delay is due to the newsserver being busy. It gets as large as
several minutes at times.

 

[Default User]

The delay is due to the newsserver being busy. It gets as large as
several minutes at times.

I prefer to load the entire messages initially. For that reason, I also
load all groups at the same time. Certainly if I had the sort of delay
you mention I'd recommend something like that.




Brian

 

[Ian Collins]

James Kuyper wrote:
.... snip ...

The delay is due to the newsserver being busy. It gets as large as
several minutes at times.

There are a couple of solutions to that:

1) use a faster server.
2) save headers and messages locally.

 

[Keith Thompson]

The delay is due to the newsserver being busy. It gets as large as
several minutes at times.

I sometimes see delays because the news server is busy (and when that
happens I go off and do something else), but most of the time the
response time is just fine.

 

[Kaz Kylheku]

There are a couple of solutions to that:

1) use a faster server.

It must be the network.

I use the same server. Though it has its outages, it's usually crisply
responsive for me.

My filter requires extra headers to be fetched too. I.e. when opening a
newsgroup with 300 unread articles, my reader fetches the full headers for each
one.

I don't experience any significant delay in navigating from a given article to
its parent.

 

[Richard]

The delay is due to the newsserver being busy. It gets as large as
several minutes at times.

Rubbish. There is a small delay of a few seconds some times. And even
then it does not explain your replying a day later.

 

[Richard]

I prefer to load the entire messages initially. For that reason, I also
load all groups at the same time. Certainly if I had the sort of delay
you mention I'd recommend something like that.




Brian

Stupid advice.

By doing that he is less likely to see replies at the time he gets
around to reply.

And please delimit your signature properly.

 

[Kaz Kylheku]

Rubbish. There is a small delay of a few seconds some times. And even
then it does not explain your replying a day later.

Don't forget that this is a pitiful idiot who thinks that by replying to a
crossposted article, quoting the whole fucking thing, and setting the
Followup-to: header, he is in fact superseding the original article!

The reason for doing this is that although there is no ``perfect'' way to
``compensate'' for the original error, one should try anyway. Since nobody
steps up to the responsibility, it falls on Chucky's shoulders to give it the
old heave-ho!

A for effort, Chucky!

Chucky expects other people to read the newer replies and ignore the older
ones. So that when he does his ``virtual superseding'' trick, everyone else
is supposed to realize that the newer article from him, containing the large
quote, is to be used in place of the superseded original for making followups.

Would Chucky ever follow that protocol himself, given that he ignores followups
that are as much as a day old?

 

[Dik T. Winter]

> The reason for doing this is that although there is no ``perfect'' way to
> ``compensate'' for the original error, one should try anyway. Since nobody
> steps up to the responsibility, it falls on Chucky's shoulders to give it the
> old heave-ho!

This may or may not be from Kaz, I do not know, and it is irrelevant, except
for the exposition of a name.

I see lots of people posting corrections to their original article by just
posting a new follow-up. When you foul-up post an article in response to
the article you yourself posted, I have frequently done this. Superseding
will be too late or not honoured, so admit your error. You will receive
responses to your foul-up, but you can honestly reply that you have
corrected it.