On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 21:11:04 +0100, Ophelia wrote: > cybercat wrote: >> "Ophelia" <ophe...@elsinore.me.uk> wrote in message >> news:7a1th1F1suhpmU1@mid.individual.net... >>> Felice wrote: >>>> Take it outside, ladies.
>>> Madam. Had you read my response you would have seen that my part in >>> it is finished!
>> Now, now, Ms. O. Come sit down for cookies and tea.
blake murphy wrote: > On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 21:11:04 +0100, Ophelia wrote:
>> cybercat wrote: >>> "Ophelia" <ophe...@elsinore.me.uk> wrote in message >>> news:7a1th1F1suhpmU1@mid.individual.net... >>>> Felice wrote: >>>>> Take it outside, ladies.
>>>> Madam. Had you read my response you would have seen that my part >>>> in it is finished!
>>> Now, now, Ms. O. Come sit down for cookies and tea.
>> Why thank you m'dear, I shall enjoy that:))
> no gin?
Heh now you're talking ^5.. Sorry cat......................
>> On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 23:47:11 +0200, ChattyCathy wrote:
>>> How old does a thread have to be before you deem it to be 'old news' >>> and no longer worth responding to?
>> the wisdom dispensed on r.f.c. is timeless.
><snork>
About a month ago (maybe two, not counting) I started reading at March 2009 and have progressed to June 2009 answering what I felt like along the way... jumped ahead when searching for something specific and noticing other interesting subjects but I plan on reading ~54K postings still marked as unread eventually...
It is amazing how many times I have been looking for something (anything really) and gone to a place where that knowledge is stored, done a search and found someone else had already worked my problem over and found one or more solutions... thus my thinking on the subject is that knowledge stored is stored for a very good reason and I intend to take advantage of that when ever I can :) I suspect that there are other who also will come late to the party who would think it a benefit to dig up an old posting and reply for further clarification to their specific needs etc.
And that further leads to my frequent rant on information wanting nay needing to be free and shared which is another thing that is going away and very sadly. Actual email is 'wblalok .at. xmission .dot. com' to reply
On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 11:41:11 -0700, Will@Blaylock wrote: >About a month ago (maybe two, not counting) I started reading at March >2009 and have progressed to June 2009 answering what I felt like along >the way... jumped ahead when searching for something specific and >noticing other interesting subjects but I plan on reading ~54K >postings still marked as unread eventually...
Thanks for explaining, but replies are not necessary to old threads. Let them stay dead. This is a high traffic ng. One day's worth of new posts is more than enough. I make a point to delete anything more than 48 hours old if I've been away, not because I can't read that volume but because I don't want to resurrect dead threads (like you are doing now).
Tell you what... read and reply, but "send later". When you log off the computer, delete all your replies. Start replying to current threads ASAP and welcome to rfc.
-- I love cooking with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
In article <ctm3f5lkqm66f7dammlg7i8mpvt8mle...@4ax.com>, sf <s...@geemail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 11:41:11 -0700, Will@Blaylock wrote:
> >About a month ago (maybe two, not counting) I started reading at March > >2009 and have progressed to June 2009 answering what I felt like along > >the way... jumped ahead when searching for something specific and > >noticing other interesting subjects but I plan on reading ~54K > >postings still marked as unread eventually...
> Thanks for explaining, but replies are not necessary to old threads. > Let them stay dead. This is a high traffic ng. One day's worth of > new posts is more than enough. I make a point to delete anything more > than 48 hours old if I've been away, not because I can't read that > volume but because I don't want to resurrect dead threads (like you > are doing now).
I don't agree with sf. When I'm gone for some time, I'll see how I feel. Sometimes I'll mark everything as read, sometimes I'll read threads that I was interested in before I left and sometimes I'll make a valiant effort to get caught up. At some point, though, even if I'm keeping current somewhat, I need to kill threads and sometimes everything. There's just too much. But when I do reply to an old post, I feel no guilt. Once I respond, it isn't dead anymore.
> Tell you what... read and reply, but "send later". When you log off > the computer, delete all your replies. Start replying to current > threads ASAP and welcome to rfc.
No sense replying if you don't send them. I think you are being awfully ambitious in going back to March 2009, and you should be aware that your replies may (or may not) duplicate things that have been said since then.
-- Dan Abel Petaluma, California USA da...@sonic.net
On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 12:01:06 -0800, sf <s...@geemail.com> wrote: >On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 11:41:11 -0700, Will@Blaylock wrote:
>>About a month ago (maybe two, not counting) I started reading at March >>2009 and have progressed to June 2009 answering what I felt like along >>the way... jumped ahead when searching for something specific and >>noticing other interesting subjects but I plan on reading ~54K >>postings still marked as unread eventually...
>Thanks for explaining, but replies are not necessary to old threads. >Let them stay dead. This is a high traffic ng. One day's worth of >new posts is more than enough. I make a point to delete anything more >than 48 hours old if I've been away, not because I can't read that >volume but because I don't want to resurrect dead threads (like you >are doing now).
>Tell you what... read and reply, but "send later". When you log off >the computer, delete all your replies. Start replying to current >threads ASAP and welcome to rfc.
I disagree. If you have something USEFUL to contribute to an old thread, go ahead and post it. 5 other people are probably asking the same question, given what a high traffic newsgroup this is, and you might save one or two of them from having to ask. Information is never wasted... --
On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 12:30:02 -0800, Dan Abel wrote: > In article <ctm3f5lkqm66f7dammlg7i8mpvt8mle...@4ax.com>, > sf <s...@geemail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 11:41:11 -0700, Will@Blaylock wrote:
>>>About a month ago (maybe two, not counting) I started reading at March >>>2009 and have progressed to June 2009 answering what I felt like along >>>the way... jumped ahead when searching for something specific and >>>noticing other interesting subjects but I plan on reading ~54K >>>postings still marked as unread eventually...
>> Thanks for explaining, but replies are not necessary to old threads. >> Let them stay dead. This is a high traffic ng. One day's worth of >> new posts is more than enough. I make a point to delete anything more >> than 48 hours old if I've been away, not because I can't read that >> volume but because I don't want to resurrect dead threads (like you >> are doing now).
> I don't agree with sf. When I'm gone for some time, I'll see how I > feel. Sometimes I'll mark everything as read, sometimes I'll read > threads that I was interested in before I left and sometimes I'll make a > valiant effort to get caught up. At some point, though, even if I'm > keeping current somewhat, I need to kill threads and sometimes > everything. There's just too much. But when I do reply to an old post, > I feel no guilt. Once I respond, it isn't dead anymore.
i don't see any harm in that, as long as it not something like the death of micheal jackson. many, many topics are perennial here, so resurrection isn't a sin.
<blakepmNOTT...@verizon.net> wrote: >i don't see any harm in that, as long as it not something like the death of >micheal jackson. many, many topics are perennial here, so resurrection >isn't a sin.
I think sf is just being a dolt. I've responded to a post close to a year old to thank the poster after I finally tried something. But sf doesn't thank, she demands. I try to always thank someone if I use a recipe or a method they post.
On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 12:09:23 -0600, Lou Decruss wrote: > On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 12:14:41 -0500, blake murphy > <blakepmNOTT...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>i don't see any harm in that, as long as it not something like the death of >>micheal jackson. many, many topics are perennial here, so resurrection >>isn't a sin.
> I think sf is just being a dolt. I've responded to a post close to a > year old to thank the poster after I finally tried something. But sf > doesn't thank, she demands. I try to always thank someone if I use a > recipe or a method they post.
|
