On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 11:51:09 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 11:40:52 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote:

On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 18:34:08 -0400, John H. penned the following well
considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:


|
|If he is using Agent, it is not necessary to 'subscribe' to a group to see
|headers, read the posts, or respond to the posts. One simply looks in the
|"All Groups" list, finds 'rec.boats' and downloads the headers.

I don't remember that far back, you are using Version 1.91.... that is
6 years old. I don't remember a time when you didn't have to
subscribe. Certainly, since 2.0 it was necessary to subscribe. Ditto
every other Usenet client I have used in the last few years. He's
using Google Groups,,,, one must subscribe....


In all pre-2.0 versiopns of agent, you can download sample headers, or
all headers in any group without subscribing. If you plan on reading a
group, even occasionally, you would be better off subscribing so you
don't have to download all previous headers again every time.
"Subscribing" is meaningless. You aren't joining or quitting anything.
It's merely a local setting on your computer telling your own
newsreader how to treat a particular group. Not much different from
bookmarking a website. The news servers are completely unaware and
oblivious to it.

Here's from somebody currently using Agent 1.93. Me.
You can look in "All Groups" anytime and get recent messages
from "unsubscribed" ng's.
Message counter removal is optional should you remove a "subscribed"
group from subscription. Otherwise message counters are maintained in
the Agent DB whether the group is subscribed or not.
I read a few groups occasionally, and don't want to pull their recent
posts in every time I do so for my subscribed groups - because it
slows down getting to what I want to read NOW.
Won't get into anybody else's definition of "subscribed."

--Vic

On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 10:57:19 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 07:11:21 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Jul 16, 9:51*am, JimH wrote:
On Jul 16, 9:28*am, "Don White" wrote:

"Jim" wrote in message

...

You don't close cases around here Jimmy boy. And we don't STFU because a
deranged nincompoop tells us to.

Yeah but...just think how much the newsgroup would improve if you did.

Florida Jim has no interest in improving the tone and quality of this
NG.

Take a look at Don's latest contribution to the group. How does that
improve the group? How does telling people to STFU improve the tone
and quality of the group? How does your boyfriend WAFA's constant name
calling, and third grade insults improve the quality and tone of the
group? How does his constant lies improve the quality and tone of the
group?

I think it's pretty clear by now that NO ONE is interested in
improving the tone of the group. All sides continue to bait, and point
fingers. Not a one of you is helping things. Just a bunch of whiny,
ineffectual, pussies. EVERY_SINGLE_ONE



You're wrong. But that's OK.

It's definitely true that there are plenty of folks on both sides who don't
give a crap. But to say 'NO ONE' is inaccurate. Are you including yourself?

On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 11:40:52 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote:

On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 18:34:08 -0400, John H. penned the following well
considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:


|
|If he is using Agent, it is not necessary to 'subscribe' to a group to see
|headers, read the posts, or respond to the posts. One simply looks in the
|"All Groups" list, finds 'rec.boats' and downloads the headers.

I don't remember that far back, you are using Version 1.91.... that is
6 years old. I don't remember a time when you didn't have to
subscribe. Certainly, since 2.0 it was necessary to subscribe. Ditto
every other Usenet client I have used in the last few years. He's
using Google Groups,,,, one must subscribe....

Well, that shows that I've been OBE!

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 11:40:52 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote:

On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 18:34:08 -0400, John H. penned the following well
considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:


|
|If he is using Agent, it is not necessary to 'subscribe' to a group to
see
|headers, read the posts, or respond to the posts. One simply looks in the
|"All Groups" list, finds 'rec.boats' and downloads the headers.

I don't remember that far back, you are using Version 1.91.... that is
6 years old. I don't remember a time when you didn't have to
subscribe. Certainly, since 2.0 it was necessary to subscribe. Ditto
every other Usenet client I have used in the last few years. He's
using Google Groups,,,, one must subscribe....

Well, that shows that I've been OBE! Out Buying Eggs ?

wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 14:30:27 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 10:57:19 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 07:11:21 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Jul 16, 9:51 am, JimH wrote:
On Jul 16, 9:28 am, "Don White" wrote:

"Jim" wrote in message
...
You don't close cases around here Jimmy boy. And we don't STFU because a
deranged nincompoop tells us to.
Yeah but...just think how much the newsgroup would improve if you did.
Florida Jim has no interest in improving the tone and quality of this
NG.
Take a look at Don's latest contribution to the group. How does that
improve the group? How does telling people to STFU improve the tone
and quality of the group? How does your boyfriend WAFA's constant name
calling, and third grade insults improve the quality and tone of the
group? How does his constant lies improve the quality and tone of the
group?
I think it's pretty clear by now that NO ONE is interested in
improving the tone of the group. All sides continue to bait, and point
fingers. Not a one of you is helping things. Just a bunch of whiny,
ineffectual, pussies. EVERY_SINGLE_ONE



You're wrong. But that's OK.

It's definitely true that there are plenty of folks on both sides who don't
give a crap. But to say 'NO ONE' is inaccurate. Are you including yourself?

Sure. I'm not expending any great energy trying to fix the group.
There are some participants that I barely pay any attention to when
they post, and if it gets to the point where my eyes glaze over and
there's nothing entertaining enough, I'll probably stop bothering to
keep it on my list of regular stops. It's not that important to me.
There are many thousands of other groups on a variety of subjects
where I can waste the same amount of time. Whether I visit or even
post here doesn't make any difference. There are newsgroups where I
was a very active regular for many, many years that I haven't looked
at in years. I lost interest for one reason or another.
What separates me from you, Harry, Don, The Jims, loogyfreaks, etc, is
that I think you are all essentially the same, and all are the
problem. Even the ones who pretend to be peacemakers or the voice of
reason always manage to keep it going in the same direction. I don't
think any of you wants to improve the group. If you did, it would have
happened a long time ago. You are a bunch of talkers, not do-ers. As I
said, you all run around stirring up nonsense and old bull****, and at
the same time point fingers at everyone else. None of you REALLY wants
to improve the group, and I frankly don't care that much either way.






Gad, what a bag of intestinal gas you are, salty. Phew.

On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 14:42:14 -0400, wrote:


Can you read headers?

Does the bear **** in the woods?

--Vic

On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 14:34:40 -0400, "Jim" wrote:


"John H." wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 11:40:52 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote:

On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 18:34:08 -0400, John H. penned the following well
considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:


|
|If he is using Agent, it is not necessary to 'subscribe' to a group to
see
|headers, read the posts, or respond to the posts. One simply looks in the
|"All Groups" list, finds 'rec.boats' and downloads the headers.

I don't remember that far back, you are using Version 1.91.... that is
6 years old. I don't remember a time when you didn't have to
subscribe. Certainly, since 2.0 it was necessary to subscribe. Ditto
every other Usenet client I have used in the last few years. He's
using Google Groups,,,, one must subscribe....

Well, that shows that I've been OBE! Out Buying Eggs ?

Very close. Overtaken By Events.

On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 14:40:34 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 14:30:27 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 10:57:19 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 07:11:21 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Jul 16, 9:51*am, JimH wrote:
On Jul 16, 9:28*am, "Don White" wrote:

"Jim" wrote in message

...

You don't close cases around here Jimmy boy. And we don't STFU because a
deranged nincompoop tells us to.

Yeah but...just think how much the newsgroup would improve if you did.

Florida Jim has no interest in improving the tone and quality of this
NG.

Take a look at Don's latest contribution to the group. How does that
improve the group? How does telling people to STFU improve the tone
and quality of the group? How does your boyfriend WAFA's constant name
calling, and third grade insults improve the quality and tone of the
group? How does his constant lies improve the quality and tone of the
group?

I think it's pretty clear by now that NO ONE is interested in
improving the tone of the group. All sides continue to bait, and point
fingers. Not a one of you is helping things. Just a bunch of whiny,
ineffectual, pussies. EVERY_SINGLE_ONE



You're wrong. But that's OK.

It's definitely true that there are plenty of folks on both sides who don't
give a crap. But to say 'NO ONE' is inaccurate. Are you including yourself?

Sure. I'm not expending any great energy trying to fix the group.

Noted.

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...

On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 14:52:12 -0400, wrote:


If that's where he is when the mood strikes. Can you read headers?



Not sure if you're serious, since you were talking about pre 2.0 as if
you knew it. All 1.93 and previous Agent versions I've used use
header-based retrievals.
Options allow for message body retrieval upon header retrieval but
mine are set for headers only. I pull message bodies separately to
avoid pulling in spam.
Parsing the server side message ID's to match the Agent counters
when retrieving "latest" seems to be "slow" part of Agent.
Message body retrieval is normally very fast.

--Vic


Please refrain from exercising your remaining brain cells. We are supposed
to be in the "forget" mode.
You're making the rest of us look bad.

Eisboch

On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 14:52:12 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 13:49:46 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 14:42:14 -0400, wrote:


Can you read headers?

Does the bear **** in the woods?

--Vic

If that's where he is when the mood strikes. Can you read headers?

Not sure if you're serious, since you were talking about pre 2.0 as if
you knew it. All 1.93 and previous Agent versions I've used use
header-based retrievals.
Options allow for message body retrieval upon header retrieval but
mine are set for headers only. I pull message bodies separately to
avoid pulling in spam.
Parsing the server side message ID's to match the Agent counters
when retrieving "latest" seems to be "slow" part of Agent.
Message body retrieval is normally very fast.

--Vic