cyclingforums.com

[Sky Fly]

"Simon Brooke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> in message <[email protected]>, Robert Bruce ('willbedeletedoffserver@analytical-
> dynamics.co.uk') wrote:
>
> > mae <[email protected]> wedi ysgrifennu:
> >> davebee wrote:
> >> > I found this newsgroup via cyclingforums.com and post through it.
> >> I find > the interface a lot easier to use.
> >>
> >> I agree with this
> >
> > I couldn't agree less. Web interfaces to discussion groups are the work
of
> > lucifer hisself.
>
> Absolutely. I've never seen a Web based discussion forum that's even remotely usable, and I've
> even written a good few of them. However, these poor deluded souls probably think the choice is
> between using a Web
gateway
> and using one of the Microsoft Outlook family of totally useless messaging clients, and if the
> choice were between a Web gateway and Outlook, the Web gateway probably does win.

Totally disagree. I use OE, and I find it perfectly adequate for my needs. What I wonder about
though, is why you have to be insultingly dismissive about other people's choice of newsreader.
Isn't it enough that you've found a newsreader that you're happy to use without you pouring scorn on
the 'opposition'?

--
Akin

aknak at aksoto dot idps dot co dot uk

 

[Pete Biggs]

Simon Brooke wrote:

>> Using Outlook Express (not Outlook!), first download and install OE-QuoteFix
>> from http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/
>
> N, don't. Outlook Express is unfixably broken. Get a proper newsreader (and
> ideally a proper email client as well).

OE with QuoteFix works for me and is actually more convenient for newsgroups than
any other (free) newsreader I've tried so far. I don't get any problems and
messages are read quickly simply by pointing the mouse and single-clicking. The
bashing it gets is way OTT, IMO.

~PB

 

[Pete Biggs]

MartinM wrote:
> errr, does anyone else just do google, then groups, then cycling? or am I
> missing something?

Not only is the interface slow to use, but messages can be delayed for hours.

~PB

 

[Pete Biggs]

> "Simon Brooke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> Absolutely. I've never seen a Web based discussion forum that's even remotely
>> usable, and I've even written a good few of them. However, these poor deluded
>> souls probably think the choice is between using a Web gateway and using one
>> of the Microsoft Outlook family of totally useless messaging clients, and if
>> the choice were between a Web gateway and Outlook, the Web gateway probably
>> does win.

OE has certain faults but to call it "totally useless" is ridiculous because it
has a great deal of use. It does all the basics that most people need and is fast
and configurable enough. The bugs can be fixed or avoided, easily.

~PB

 

[Graeme]

"Pete Biggs" <ptangerine{remove_fruit}@biggs.tc> wrote in news:c2bi3g
[email protected]:

> OE with QuoteFix works for me and is actually more convenient for newsgroups
> than any other (free) newsreader I've tried so far.

Have you tried Xnews?

 

[Pete Biggs]

Graeme wrote:
>
>> OE with QuoteFix works for me and is actually more convenient for newsgroups
>> than any other (free) newsreader I've tried so far.
>
> Have you tried Xnews?

Doesn't ring a bell.

~PB

 

[Graeme]

"Pete Biggs" <ptangerine{remove_fruit}@biggs.tc> wrote in news:c2bjr3
[email protected]:

> Doesn't ring a bell.
>

Sorry, I should have put more info in my post. You can get more info on it here
http://xnews.newsguy.com/ It's the newsreader which I use. I find it is much more
flexible than OE, plus it has the advantage that it doesn't try to take over as
your email client every so often and it doesn't have big security holes that
virus/trojan writers can take advantage of. You can also assign scores to various
threads based on subject or contributors. This means that you can avoid
subjects/posters you don't like, e.g. helmet threads/P**l S***h, without getting
rid of them all together, they just appear on screen with a low score. It
automatically gives threads you contribute to, and replies to your posts, a high
score as obviously they are *much* more important than the nonsense that anyone
else writes

I know people rubbish OE, I used to use it and found it to be simple to use but
lacking in more advanced features. I access some binary groups, no not the
seriously iffy ones, the decent things like alt.binaries.sounds.radio.bbc, and it
is excellent for dealing with multipart binaries. Not that I'd ever use it for
downloading old episodes of I'm Sorry I Haven't A Clue, Just A Minute etc. not
me, never, that wouldn't be allowed ;-)

Graeme

 

[Pete Biggs]

Graeme wrote:

>> Doesn't ring a bell.
>
> Sorry, I should have put more info in my post. You can get more info on it here
> http://xnews.newsguy.com/

That's alright, thanks for the suggestion. I found it via Google and
downloaded it.

1. Can read threads be hidden and all view options saved?

2. Can whole threads be marked as read?

I'll have to look into all the (complicated) options and help properly but it
won't be worth it unless the above is possible. It's no good having more security
and advanced features if the threads and messages are less clear and quick to
read. I particularly like the way unread messages in OE are in clear emboldened
text which changes to normal once read instead of using tiny icon changes.

~PB

 

[Graeme]

"Pete Biggs" <ptangerine{remove_fruit}@biggs.tc> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> 1. Can read threads be hidden and all view options saved?

Read threads hidden - yes, "Filter" then "Show Threads with Unread" View options
saved - not sure, I've not done this and I can't see a way of doing it but it may
be possible as each view is effectively just a filter.

> 2. Can whole threads be marked as read?

Yes, just right click the thread and mark all as read (same as OE if I remember
correctly)

> I'll have to look into all the (complicated) options and help properly but it
> won't be worth it unless the above is possible. It's no good having more
> security and advanced features if the threads and messages are less clear and
> quick to read.

Yes, it is complicated and if it doesn't do what you want it to do then you're
right, it's no good for you. I tried a few readers for a week or so and settled
on Xnews. It had other advantages over all the others although I initially
thought it didn't do everything I wanted it to do. That perception changed as I
learned more about it and got used to the fact that some of the things I wanted
were things from OE that I'd just got used to. It was often just a case of
getting used to clicking on a different menu item than before.

> I particularly like the way unread messages in OE are in clear emboldened text
> which changes to normal once read instead of using tiny icon changes.

You can have unread threads show up in 24 point lurid green bold italic Wingdings
font if you like. Under "setup Xnews" (Ctrl+F1) select "Fonts and Colours" and
alter the unread font to your hearts content

Graeme

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Sky Fly
('[email protected]') wrote:

>
> "Simon Brooke" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:hl4mh1-
> [email protected]...
>> in message <[email protected]
>> berlin.de>, Robert Bruce ('willbedeletedoffserver@analytical-
>> dynamics.co.uk') wrote:
>>
>> > mae <[email protected]> wedi ysgrifennu:
>> >> davebee wrote:
>> >> > I found this newsgroup via cyclingforums.com and
>> >> > post through it.
>> >> I find > the interface a lot easier to use.
>> >>
>> >> I agree with this
>> >
>> > I couldn't agree less. Web interfaces to discussion
>> > groups are the work
> of
>> > lucifer hisself.
>>
>> Absolutely. I've never seen a Web based discussion forum
>> that's even remotely usable, and I've even written a good
>> few of them. However, these poor deluded souls probably
>> think the choice is between using a Web
> gateway
>> and using one of the Microsoft Outlook family of totally
>> useless messaging clients, and if the choice were
>> between a Web gateway and Outlook, the Web gateway
>> probably does win.
>
> Totally disagree. I use OE, and I find it perfectly
> adequate for my needs. What I wonder about though, is why
> you have to be insultingly dismissive about other people's
> choice of newsreader.

I deal with Internet security professionally. I have no
particular opinion *which* news client you should use rather
than OE; I personally use different ones at different times.
But anyone who regularly uses OE for anything is opening up
security holes which they don't need to open; and that's
before you get into the insultingly patronising excuse for a
user interface, and the cavalier attitude to so many
established internet conventions and standards.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke)
http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/ .::;===r==\ /
/___||___\____ //==\- ||- | /__\( MS Windows IS an operating
environment. //____\__||___|_// \|: C++ IS an object
oriented programming language. \__/ ~~~~~~~~~ \__/ Citroen
2cv6 IS a four door family saloon.

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, MartinM
('[email protected]') wrote:

> Ewoud Dronkert <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
>> On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 17:28:57 +0000, David Waters wrote:
>> > OK. I have just downloaded the Mozilla thingy and it is
>> > far superior to either the Outlook (which is very very
>> > poor)
>>
>> Both OE and Moz can display the messages threaded or
>> unthreaded.
>
> errr, does anyone else just do google, then groups, then
> cycling? or am I missing something?

Well, if you're wanting to find one particular article from
1995 or so, then yes... but for everyday news reading? No.
Frankly, no.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke)
http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; All in all you're just another nick in the ball
-- Think Droid

 

[James Annan]

Simon Brooke wrote:

> in message
> <[email protected]>, MartinM
> ('[email protected]') wrote:
>
>>errr, does anyone else just do google, then groups, then
>>cycling? or am I missing something?
>
>
> Well, if you're wanting to find one particular article
> from 1995 or so, then yes... but for everyday news
> reading? No. Frankly, no.

I find it quite handy for groups that I don't really wish
to read regularly, but dip into when I have the time. It
has the advantage that a significant proportion of the
more obnoxious trolls killfile themselves a priori. Mind
you my alternative of Netscape probably doesn't rate that
highly either, but I've used it for years and can't be
bothered changing.

James

 

[Nick Kew]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Pete Biggs" <ptangerine{remove_fruit}@biggs.tc> writes:

> OE has certain faults but to call it "totally useless" is
> ridiculous

Yep. It's worse than useless. Far worse.

For one thing, it channels you into a lot of bad practices,
that (at best) make the user look clueless. Not an
insurmountable problem, but you need to know what you're
doing first. Very nasty for the innocent newbie who just
does the obvious things - the kind of behaviour that would
be commonsense with any half-decent software.

More seriously, it's a huge virus-incubator by design.

--
Nick Kew

 

[Pete Biggs]

Graeme wrote:
> "Pete Biggs" <ptangerine{remove_fruit}@biggs.tc> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> 1. Can read threads be hidden and all view options saved?
>
> Read threads hidden - yes, "Filter" then "Show Threads
> with Unread" View options saved - not sure, I've not done
> this and I can't see a way of doing it but it may be
> possible as each view is effectively just a filter.

Hopefully the settings via Setup-Display will do. I now see
I can at least permanently have Expand All Threads off and
reverse date order.

>> 2. Can whole threads be marked as read?
>
> Yes, just right click the thread and mark all as read
> (same as OE if I remember correctly)

That marks *all* threads as read. In OE, there's "Mark
Conversation as Read".

>> I'll have to look into all the (complicated) options and
>> help properly but it won't be worth it unless the above
>> is possible. It's no good having more security and
>> advanced features if the threads and messages are less
>> clear and quick to read.
>
> Yes, it is complicated and if it doesn't do what you want
> it to do then you're right, it's no good for you. I tried
> a few readers for a week or so and settled on Xnews. It
> had other advantages over all the others although I
> initially thought it didn't do everything I wanted it to
> do. That perception changed as I learned more about it and
> got used to the fact that some of the things I wanted were
> things from OE that I'd just got used to. It was often
> just a case of getting used to clicking on a different
> menu item than before.

Thanks again. I'll give it a go, I can see it has certain
advantages already. I like it better than Free Agent anyway.

>> I particularly like the way unread messages in OE are in
>> clear emboldened text which changes to normal once read
>> instead of using tiny icon changes.
>
> You can have unread threads show up in 24 point lurid
> green bold italic Wingdings font if you like. Under "setup
> Xnews" (Ctrl+F1) select "Fonts and Colours" and alter the
> unread font to your hearts content

That's good!

~PB

 

[Tony Raven]

Nick Kew wrote:
>
> For one thing, it channels you into a lot of bad
> practices, that (at best) make the user look clueless.

Only to <1% of people. To the 99+% that use OE you are
just normal.

Tony

 

[Graeme]

"Pete Biggs" <ptangerine{remove_fruit}@biggs.tc> wrote in news:c2chst
[email protected]:

> Graeme wrote:
>> Yes, just right click the thread and mark all as read
>> (same as OE if I remember correctly)
>
> That marks *all* threads as read. In OE, there's "Mark
> Conversation as Read".

Ah, should have tested it I suppose. I just saw it as an
option but I'd never used it. My life being void of any real
meaning I read almost everything on URC, even the helmet
threads ;-)

One advantage of things like Xnews is you can email the
author and suggest such features as an addition. Why not
give it a try?

Graeme

 

[Sky Fly]

"Simon Brooke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> in message <[email protected]>,
> Sky Fly ('[email protected]') wrote:
>
> >
> > "Simon Brooke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >> in message <[email protected]
> >> berlin.de>, Robert Bruce ('willbedeletedoffserver@analytical-
> >> dynamics.co.uk') wrote:
> >>
> >> > mae <[email protected]> wedi ysgrifennu:
> >> >> davebee wrote:
> >> >> > I found this newsgroup via cyclingforums.com and
> >> >> > post through
it.
> >> >> I find > the interface a lot easier to use.
> >> >>
> >> >> I agree with this
> >> >
> >> > I couldn't agree less. Web interfaces to discussion
> >> > groups are the
work
> > of
> >> > lucifer hisself.
> >>
> >> Absolutely. I've never seen a Web based discussion
> >> forum that's even remotely usable, and I've even
> >> written a good few of them. However,
these
> >> poor deluded souls probably think the choice is between
> >> using a Web
> > gateway
> >> and using one of the Microsoft Outlook family of
> >> totally useless messaging clients, and if the choice
> >> were between a Web gateway and Outlook, the Web gateway
> >> probably does win.
> >
> > Totally disagree. I use OE, and I find it perfectly
> > adequate for my needs. What I wonder about though, is
> > why you have to be insultingly dismissive about other
> > people's choice of newsreader.
>
> I deal with Internet security professionally. I have no
> particular opinion *which* news client you should use
> rather than OE; I personally use different ones at
> different times. But anyone who regularly uses OE for
> anything is opening up security holes which they don't
> need to open;

Eh? Surely there are patches for whatever security holes
there may have been in the past.

> and that's before you get into the insultingly patronising
> excuse for a user interface,

Again a matter of opinion. Different people have
different attitudes to different UIs, so it may be
'insultingly patronising' to you but friendly and
welcoming to someone else.

> and the cavalier attitude to so many established internet
> conventions and standards.

Which conventions and standard would you be talking about
here? If you refer to encouraging people to post in html, I
agree that it's a pain, because it is arrogant to assume
that everyone can read html in their newsreader. If you are
talking about top-posting, I could care less - I have no
problems reading a post of someone who has top posted (as
long as he is replying someone *else* who has top posted).

By the way, don't take this post to mean that I worship at
the altar of OE. I'm a newsreader agnostic - I will use
whatever there is available as long as it lets me read
Usenet messages without too much difficulty.

--
Akin

aknak at aksoto dot idps dot co dot uk

 

[Martinm]

James Annan <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Simon Brooke wrote:
>
> > in message
> > <[email protected]>,
> > MartinM ('[email protected]') wrote:
> >
> >>errr, does anyone else just do google, then groups, then
> >>cycling? or am I missing something?
> >
> >
> > Well, if you're wanting to find one particular article
> > from 1995 or so, then yes... but for everyday news
> > reading? No. Frankly, no.
>
> I find it quite handy for groups that I don't really wish
> to read regularly, but dip into when I have the time. It
> has the advantage that a significant proportion of the
> more obnoxious trolls killfile themselves a priori. Mind
> you my alternative of Netscape probably doesn't rate that
> highly either, but I've used it for years and can't be
> bothered changing.
>
> James

So is it like the private email list I am in, every single
reply to a thread will appear in my inbox unless I KF? if so
I would much prefer to use google. ;-)

 

[sdorrity]

I started using cycling forums when my local usenet feed started getting flakey. At first I just thought I was very unpopular, then I found out that although I was getting an up to date feed my own posts were not getting out at all. I use some of the "in house" cyclingforums forums as well.

Regards

Steve D

Originally posted by Dirtylitterboxo
Wot a cheek...

I popped over to the web site to have a look at how it links into this newsgroup, which, as we know
is *not* a cycling forums forum, but is part of Usenet... which has been around a darn sight longer
than cycling forums...

Yes, anyone who posts via Usenet - the "normal" way to post on to a Usenet newsgroup - has their
post also appearing on cycling forums AND are noted as being a "guest" of cycling forums.

Wot a blummin cheek ;-) We wuz here first ;-)

Cheers, helen s

--This is an invalid email address to avoid spam-- to get correct one remove dependency on fame &
fortune h*$el*$$e**nd***$o$ts***i*$*$m**m$$o*n**s@$*$a$$o**l.c**$*$om$$

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Sat, 6 Mar 2004 16:48:45 -0000, "Sky Fly" <[email protected]>
wrote in message <[email protected]>:

>> I deal with Internet security professionally. I have no
>> particular opinion *which* news client you should use
>> rather than OE; I personally use different ones at
>> different times. But anyone who regularly uses OE for
>> anything is opening up security holes which they don't
>> need to open;

>Eh? Surely there are patches for whatever security holes
>there may have been in the past.

Nope. That's why we have all the worm outbreaks - they all
exploit the same fundamental weaknesses in Outhouse.

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University