| |
In lugnet.general, Geoffrey Hyde wrote:
>
> "Tim Gould" <tgould.lego(AT@)gmail(DOT.)com> wrote in message
> news:J784tv.ECz@lugnet.com...
> > In lugnet.general, Geoffrey Hyde wrote:
>
> > I'm afraid I have to disagree with you here. What Didier probably should
> > have
> > done was post the original to both .general and .off-topic.geek but it is
> > up to
> > the original poster to set the FUT with consideration to where the
> > responses
> > should go.
>
> I think what Didier should have done is decide where he actually wanted to
> post the message in the first place. Which is why confusion with top
> messages in a tree and FUT can abound. Most people generally will simply
> read right past anything saying FUT is directed, and unless there is a way
> to write it in the equivalent of very large letters in red ink that will be
> automatically display on the newsreader's preview pane on the screen, people
> will continue to read right past the FUT announcements in newsgroup posts.
I just realised something which is that if you are changing the followup-to you
should mark it at the bottom of the message (as I have just done). That is
something Didier should have done.
> > The responded can always read the followup-to settings in their
> > newsbrowser and
> > should double check to see that it is going where they would like it to go
> > (if
> > this differs from the original poster). I believe that the mistake about
> > double
> > posting and not seeing resposnses is yours. Either way the onus is on the
> > first
> > poster to make sure they are set appropriately AND the responders to make
> > sure
> > they know where it's going.
>
> I thank you for your comments. However, I feel to simply put it where you
> want it to go and not FUT people to newsgroups they don't normally frequent
> is the way to go.
I'm not sure how he is meant to know where people do or don't frequent. It is an
off-topic.geek question really. I still think the mistake is mutual, Didier for
not cross-posting and you for not checking.
Of course this response should probably be in .off-topic.debate which is why
followup-tos are neccessary. It allows a thread that has drifted to go where it
belongs rather than where it started.
> He did solve his problem though, apparently it's another MS IE "feature"
> whereby they decided not to support .PNG format and so have made .PNG images
> with alpha channel information go blank without warning. ;)
I think the simple answer is "IE is crap, use a decent browser" ;)
Tim
FUT off-topic.debate
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Trouble with IE, PNG and BS
|
| (...) That is great, except in some cases such as .announce.moc, which doesn't allow replies, so you are forced to set followups if you post there. (...) That is true, otherwise people trying to follow the thread on a newsreader will probably not (...) (18 years ago, 16-Oct-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Trouble with IE, PNG and BS
|
| "Tim Gould" <tgould.lego(AT@)gma...(DOT.)com> wrote in message news:J784tv.ECz@lugnet.com... (...) I think what Didier should have done is decide where he actually wanted to post the message in the first place. Which is why confusion with top (...) (18 years ago, 16-Oct-06, to lugnet.general)
|
17 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
