A proposition

Nancy Young said:

Please point out where I said I expect anyone to do anything?

"Those of you who use gmail, maybe you could do the same?
This way anyone who kills gmail won't miss your posts?"

-sw

"Sqwertz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Nancy Young said:

Please point out where I said I expect anyone to do anything?

"Those of you who use gmail, maybe you could do the same?
This way anyone who kills gmail won't miss your posts?"

Asking and expecting are far different things.

If I say to you, maybe you could give me some money?

Would I expect to see a check in the mail any time soon?

nancy

"Sqwertz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Nancy Young said:

Please point out where I said I expect anyone to do anything?

"Those of you who use gmail, maybe you could do the same?
This way anyone who kills gmail won't miss your posts?"

Asking and expecting are far different things.

If I say to you, maybe you could give me some money?

Would I expect to see a check in the mail any time soon?

nancy

"Sqwertz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Nancy Young said:

"Sqwertz" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

There is no way to whitelist people who would otherwise be
killfiled in OE.

Really? Have you read James Silverton's post?

OK. I didn't know that.

But OE still doesn't allow you killfile based on Message-ID,
which is what really needs to happen here - rather than having
ask people to change the way they display their email address
(Victor, especially, would have a fit over this).

I don't give a hoot what Victor thinks about anything.

But what you're not understanding or caring about is that
killfiling gmail did a great job for my purposes. I was not
complaining about that at all.

nancy

"Sqwertz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Nancy Young said:

"Sqwertz" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

There is no way to whitelist people who would otherwise be
killfiled in OE.

Really? Have you read James Silverton's post?

OK. I didn't know that.

But OE still doesn't allow you killfile based on Message-ID,
which is what really needs to happen here - rather than having
ask people to change the way they display their email address
(Victor, especially, would have a fit over this).

I don't give a hoot what Victor thinks about anything.

But what you're not understanding or caring about is that
killfiling gmail did a great job for my purposes. I was not
complaining about that at all.

nancy

Peter wrote on Sun, 7 Oct 2007 12:24:13 -0400:

PA> In article <[email hidden]>,
PA> [email hidden] says...
??>> I killfiled the gmail domain, life is certainly more
??>> pleasant without all that spam and other assorted [censored].
??>> Unfortunately, I see that I am missing too many people I
??>> don't want to miss, so I deleted the rule.
??>>
??>> I still have the rule for hotmail, but I see kili's posts
??>> because she has munged the @hotmail.com part of her
??>> address.
??>>
??>> Those of you who use gmail, maybe you could do the same?
??>> This way anyone who kills gmail won't miss your posts?
??>>
??>> Best of both worlds ... for me, at least.
??>>
??>> nancy
??>>
PA> Why don't you kill individuals rather than whole domains?
PA> It seems odd to expect others to change the way they post
PA> for your convenience.

Have you looked at earlier postings on this subject? Doing the
reverse and specifically allowing postings is not much of a
chore.

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

E-mail, with obvious alterations:
not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

Peter wrote on Sun, 7 Oct 2007 12:24:13 -0400:

PA> In article <[email hidden]>,
PA> [email hidden] says...
??>> I killfiled the gmail domain, life is certainly more
??>> pleasant without all that spam and other assorted [censored].
??>> Unfortunately, I see that I am missing too many people I
??>> don't want to miss, so I deleted the rule.
??>>
??>> I still have the rule for hotmail, but I see kili's posts
??>> because she has munged the @hotmail.com part of her
??>> address.
??>>
??>> Those of you who use gmail, maybe you could do the same?
??>> This way anyone who kills gmail won't miss your posts?
??>>
??>> Best of both worlds ... for me, at least.
??>>
??>> nancy
??>>
PA> Why don't you kill individuals rather than whole domains?
PA> It seems odd to expect others to change the way they post
PA> for your convenience.

Have you looked at earlier postings on this subject? Doing the
reverse and specifically allowing postings is not much of a
chore.

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

E-mail, with obvious alterations:
not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

Bobo Bonobo® said:

Whenever I see Islamospam, I post back with really offensive stuff,
accusing the Prophet's wives of all kind of cuckolding and perversion.

I'm sure that makes them think twice about spouting off the next
time.

-sw

Nancy Young said:

But what you're not understanding or caring about is that
killfiling gmail did a great job for my purposes. I was not
complaining about that at all.

And what you're not understanding is that you're only doing the
job half-assed. I understand that you think it's better, but
it's not nearly as effective as it could be.

-sw

aem said:

Nancy Young said:

"Sqwertz" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

You need to kill the Googlegroups domain, not the gmail email
addresses.

For some reason, this seems to me to be overly general. -aem

Say again? It's that same thing that the OP thinks she's
accomplishing, but isn't.

-sw

Nancy Young said:

"Sqwertz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Nancy Young said:

Please point out where I said I expect anyone to do anything?

"Those of you who use gmail, maybe you could do the same?
This way anyone who kills gmail won't miss your posts?"

Asking and expecting are far different things.

That's picking nits.

-sw

"Sqwertz" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Nancy Young said:

But what you're not understanding or caring about is that
killfiling gmail did a great job for my purposes. I was not
complaining about that at all.

And what you're not understanding is that you're only doing the
job half-assed. I understand that you think it's better, but
it's not nearly as effective as it could be.

How about this. I do not see anything that bothers me
with gmail banned. There are no messages appearing that
are making me with I could killfile them.

No worries. Whatsoever.

nancy

"Sqwertz" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Nancy Young said:

"Sqwertz" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

On Sun, 7 Oct 2007 12:25:11 -0400, Nancy Young wrote:

> Please point out where I said I expect anyone to do anything?

"Those of you who use gmail, maybe you could do the same?
This way anyone who kills gmail won't miss your posts?"

Asking and expecting are far different things.

That's picking nits.

*Absolutely Not* ... because I do not expect anyone to change
their address just because I asked. You are putting expectations
on me that were never in my mind.

It's only nitpicking if you think I did expect, say, maxine in ri
to mung her address or I would be mad or something. I was
*asking* if people thought they could see their way to do so.

Maybe when *you* ask people for a favor you *expect* them
to comply. I do not, so don't put that on me.

nancy

Nancy Young said:

"Sqwertz" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Nancy Young said:

"Sqwertz" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> On Sun, 7 Oct 2007 12:25:11 -0400, Nancy Young wrote:
>
>> Please point out where I said I expect anyone to do anything?
>
> "Those of you who use gmail, maybe you could do the same?
> This way anyone who kills gmail won't miss your posts?"

Asking and expecting are far different things.

That's picking nits.

*Absolutely Not* ... because I do not expect anyone to change
their address just because I asked. You are putting expectations
on me that were never in my mind.

If you didn't expect [some of] them to abide, then why did you
ask? You must have expected some to change their email addresses
otherwise you wouldn't have asked.

-sw

"Nancy Young" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"MJB" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

And it certainly made it easier to read about american football when I
didn't have to deal with morons yelling 'kill all [censored]... [censored] are
just animals... [censored]... [censored].... [censored]' for post after post after
post.

That must have been awful.

Not really. I'm a grown-up. It was just annoying and time-consuming to
have to wade through the nonsense filling-up the football newsgroups.

But I'm much better now.

<grin>

MJB

Sqwertz said:

aem said:

Nancy Young said:

"Sqwertz" <[email hidden]> wrote

> You need to kill the Googlegroups domain, not the gmail email
> addresses.

For some reason, this seems to me to be overly general. -aem

Say again? It's that same thing that the OP thinks she's
accomplishing, but isn't.

-sw

I thought your newsreader could killfile anything posted from giggle
groups domain... and yet you reply to aem's post? Oh, wait, you must
have him 'white listed'. My apologies.

--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

Garlic: the element without which life as we know it would be impossible

"Sqwertz" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Nancy Young said:

"Sqwertz" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

On Sun, 7 Oct 2007 13:01:31 -0400, Nancy Young wrote:

> "Sqwertz" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

>> On Sun, 7 Oct 2007 12:25:11 -0400, Nancy Young wrote:
>>
>>> Please point out where I said I expect anyone to do anything?
>>
>> "Those of you who use gmail, maybe you could do the same?
>> This way anyone who kills gmail won't miss your posts?"
>
> Asking and expecting are far different things.

That's picking nits.

*Absolutely Not* ... because I do not expect anyone to change
their address just because I asked. You are putting expectations
on me that were never in my mind.

If you didn't expect [some of] them to abide, then why did you
ask? You must have expected some to change their email addresses
otherwise you wouldn't have asked.

I see that you are familiar with what nitpicking is.

I do think that some of the people who I'm missing do like
me enough that they might do that for me. If they did not
want to, for whatever reason, I would not expect them to.
Therein lies the difference.

Maybe in your life, if you asked for something, you got it.
I'm not particularly familiar with that, so, No, when I ask
it's simply that. Asking. Not with any expectation that my
wish would be granted.

Frankly, I have no idea why you are concerning yourself
with an issue between me and Peter. He's the one who said
I expected anything. I didn't know you two were palsy walsy.

You cannot put me in a bad mood. I'm going to visit
my brother's brand new twins this afternoon.

nancy

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

"Peter A" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

I killfiled the gmail domain, life is certainly more pleasant
without all that spam and other assorted [censored]. Unfortunately,
I see that I am missing too many people I don't want to miss,
so I deleted the rule.

I still have the rule for hotmail, but I see kili's posts because
she has munged the @hotmail.com part of her address.

Those of you who use gmail, maybe you could do the same?
This way anyone who kills gmail won't miss your posts?

Best of both worlds ... for me, at least.

Why don't you kill individuals rather than whole domains? It seems odd
to expect others to change the way they post for your convenience.

Please point out where I said I expect anyone to do anything?

Here ya go:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Those of you who use gmail, maybe you could do the same?
This way anyone who kills gmail won't miss your posts?

--
Peter Aitken

"MJB" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

"Nancy Young" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"MJB" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

And it certainly made it easier to read about american football when I
didn't have to deal with morons yelling 'kill all [censored]... [censored] are
just animals... [censored]... [censored].... [censored]' for post after post after
post.

That must have been awful.

Not really. I'm a grown-up. It was just annoying and time-consuming to
have to wade through the nonsense filling-up the football newsgroups.

But I'm much better now.

(laugh!) I just meant in any way to have an actual football
discussion amid all that garbage. I'm glad you're okay, though!

nancy

"Peter A" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

"Peter A" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] says...
> I killfiled the gmail domain, life is certainly more pleasant
> without all that spam and other assorted [censored]. Unfortunately,
> I see that I am missing too many people I don't want to miss,
> so I deleted the rule.
>
> I still have the rule for hotmail, but I see kili's posts because
> she has munged the @hotmail.com part of her address.
>
> Those of you who use gmail, maybe you could do the same?
> This way anyone who kills gmail won't miss your posts?
>
> Best of both worlds ... for me, at least.
>
Why don't you kill individuals rather than whole domains? It seems odd
to expect others to change the way they post for your convenience.

Please point out where I said I expect anyone to do anything?

Here ya go:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Those of you who use gmail, maybe you could do the same?
This way anyone who kills gmail won't miss your posts?

What's that you like to say to people? Reading comprehension?

nancy