various

[Chris Hornbeck]

http://www.breezerbikes.com/bike_details.cfm?bikeType=town&frame=d&bike=villager

http://www.warrenelectronics.com/Antennas/Chmaster_ant.htm



Hi Pretty Girl.

Save these until I get back over there.

Love,
Chris

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Tue, 26 May 2009 03:45:43 GMT, Chris Hornbeck
> wrote:


Wow. Very sorry. I hate the current version of Agent, and
if you'd like to be similarly embarassed, buy their product too.
You don't have to be as dumb as me, but it helps.

Chris Hornbeck

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Tue, 26 May 2009 03:53:24 GMT, Chris Hornbeck
> wrote:

>Wow. Very sorry. I hate the current version of Agent, and
>if you'd like to be similarly embarassed, buy their product too.
>You don't have to be as dumb as me, but it helps.

Agent 4.2 gives the intended recipients' address and
*looks* like it's sending an email. Surprise!

Used to be their biggest fan - now, phooey!

And of course, there are no free updates. Duh.
It's broken and tough luck.

Alright, enough, sorry. They're not what they were,
but nothing is.
Chris Hornbeck

[Richard Crowley]

"Soundhaspriority" wrote ...
> I never saw the attraction of Agent. I still use the original Outlook
> Express. Tried Mozilla Thunderbird, but was similarly disappointed. It's
> surprising that something as ancient as Express could still be attractive.

Indeed after trying the top 6-8 newsreader clients, I came back
to Outlook Express. The others seemed so retro, clunky, non-
obvious, and even user-vicious. And yes, I started back in the
days of character-mode newsreaders on a dumb terminal. But
no, I don't long for the "good old days".

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Tue, 26 May 2009 07:44:15 +0200, "Phil W" > wrote:

> I know, OE isn´t the best choice obviously, but
>it´s still the one program, that I dislike the least, to say so. ;-)

So, if I can get ANY sense out of that tortured sentence, OE *IS* the
best choice for you?

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Tue, 26 May 2009 04:10:07 GMT, Chris Hornbeck
> wrote:

>On Tue, 26 May 2009 03:53:24 GMT, Chris Hornbeck
> wrote:
>
>>Wow. Very sorry. I hate the current version of Agent, and
>>if you'd like to be similarly embarassed, buy their product too.
>>You don't have to be as dumb as me, but it helps.
>
>Agent 4.2 gives the intended recipients' address and
>*looks* like it's sending an email. Surprise!
>
>Used to be their biggest fan - now, phooey!
>
>And of course, there are no free updates. Duh.
>It's broken and tough luck.
>
>Alright, enough, sorry. They're not what they were,
>but nothing is.
>Chris Hornbeck

I use Agent 1.5, which I think is the best news reader I've yet found
- really easy to navigate. I looked at the latest version, but
rejected it immediately. I find OE totally unacceptable for a whole
load of usability reasons - and of course the fact that without third
party assistance it wrecks threads.

d

[Phil W]

Laurence Payne wrote:
> On Tue, 26 May 2009 07:44:15 +0200, "Phil W" > wrote:
>
>> I know, OE isn´t the best choice obviously, but
>> it´s still the one program, that I dislike the least, to say so. ;-)
>
> So, if I can get ANY sense out of that tortured sentence, OE *IS* the
> best choice for you?

kind of... yes. it works for me, anyway. what I meant to say, that OE
doesn´t have the best reputation, due to the fact, that it has often been
abused as a spam sending engine. and besides that, it shows some strange
effects with some IMAP email-servers I use, but I can live with it and have
gotten used to some work-arounds. the "big" OL had even worse IMAP support.
as a newsreader, it´s the easiest to use program, that I´ve tried and it
does, what I want and need. with the OE-quotefix "add-on", it´s quite
usable.


cheers,

phil

[Eeyore[_2_]]

Chris Hornbeck wrote:

> On Tue, 26 May 2009 03:45:43 GMT, Chris Hornbeck
> > wrote:
>
> Wow. Very sorry. I hate the current version of Agent, and
> if you'd like to be similarly embarassed, buy their product too.
> You don't have to be as dumb as me, but it helps.

Agent is an over-featured hard to manage POS. Like Microsoft operating
systems of the last few decades.

Graham

[Eeyore[_2_]]

Don Pearce wrote:

> Chris Hornbeck > wrote:
> > Chris Hornbeck > wrote:
> >
> >>Wow. Very sorry. I hate the current version of Agent, and
> >>if you'd like to be similarly embarassed, buy their product too.
> >>You don't have to be as dumb as me, but it helps.
> >
> >Agent 4.2 gives the intended recipients' address and
> >*looks* like it's sending an email. Surprise!
> >
> >Used to be their biggest fan - now, phooey!
> >
> >And of course, there are no free updates. Duh.
> >It's broken and tough luck.
> >
> >Alright, enough, sorry. They're not what they were,
> >but nothing is.
>
>
> I use Agent 1.5, which I think is the best news reader I've yet found
> - really easy to navigate. I looked at the latest version, but
> rejected it immediately. I find OE totally unacceptable for a whole
> load of usability reasons - and of course the fact that without third
> party assistance it wrecks threads.

Netscape still works well. Use V 4.8 or 4.9. Or if you fancy the Win XP
look then Sea Monkey.

Graham

[Eeyore[_2_]]

Richard Crowley wrote:

> "Soundhaspriority" wrote ...
> > I never saw the attraction of Agent. I still use the original Outlook
> > Express. Tried Mozilla Thunderbird, but was similarly disappointed. It's
> > surprising that something as ancient as Express could still be attractive.
>
> Indeed after trying the top 6-8 newsreader clients, I came back
> to Outlook Express. The others seemed so retro, clunky, non-
> obvious, and even user-vicious. And yes, I started back in the
> days of character-mode newsreaders on a dumb terminal. But
> no, I don't long for the "good old days".

Did you ever try Netscape ? No nonsence. Read my headers if you can.

Graham

[Richard Crowley]

"Don Pearce" wrote ...
> I use Agent 1.5, which I think is the best news reader I've yet found
> - really easy to navigate. I looked at the latest version, but
> rejected it immediately. I find OE totally unacceptable for a whole
> load of usability reasons - and of course the fact that without third
> party assistance it wrecks threads.

Huh? I've been using it exclusively for many years and nobody has
ever complained about "wrecked threads".

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Tue, 26 May 2009 08:18:50 -0700, "Richard Crowley"
> wrote:

>"Don Pearce" wrote ...
>> I use Agent 1.5, which I think is the best news reader I've yet found
>> - really easy to navigate. I looked at the latest version, but
>> rejected it immediately. I find OE totally unacceptable for a whole
>> load of usability reasons - and of course the fact that without third
>> party assistance it wrecks threads.
>
>Huh? I've been using it exclusively for many years and nobody has
>ever complained about "wrecked threads".
>

I presume you use it with quotefix (or similar) because your posts
carry none of the usual oe stigmata.

d

[Richard Crowley]

"Don Pearce" wrote ...
> "Richard Crowley" wrote:
>>"Don Pearce" wrote ...
>>> I use Agent 1.5, which I think is the best news reader I've yet found
>>> - really easy to navigate. I looked at the latest version, but
>>> rejected it immediately. I find OE totally unacceptable for a whole
>>> load of usability reasons - and of course the fact that without third
>>> party assistance it wrecks threads.
>>
>>Huh? I've been using it exclusively for many years and nobody has
>>ever complained about "wrecked threads".
>
> I presume you use it with quotefix (or similar) because your posts
> carry none of the usual oe stigmata.

I use no third-party gadgets. I don't really know what quotefix is?

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Tue, 26 May 2009 09:28:00 -0700, "Richard Crowley"
> wrote:

>"Don Pearce" wrote ...
>> "Richard Crowley" wrote:
>>>"Don Pearce" wrote ...
>>>> I use Agent 1.5, which I think is the best news reader I've yet found
>>>> - really easy to navigate. I looked at the latest version, but
>>>> rejected it immediately. I find OE totally unacceptable for a whole
>>>> load of usability reasons - and of course the fact that without third
>>>> party assistance it wrecks threads.
>>>
>>>Huh? I've been using it exclusively for many years and nobody has
>>>ever complained about "wrecked threads".
>>
>> I presume you use it with quotefix (or similar) because your posts
>> carry none of the usual oe stigmata.
>
>I use no third-party gadgets. I don't really know what quotefix is?
>

Maybe MS have fixed it in the latest release...

d

[Jay Ts]

Chris Hornbeck wrote:
> I hate the current version of Agent, and if you'd like
> to be similarly embarassed, buy their product too. You don't have to be
> as dumb as me, but it helps.

Just wanted to mention another option, and maybe you will like it...

I've been using Pan on Linux for years, and there is also
a version for Windows that works almost identically:

http://paninstall.googlepages.com/

It is simple, but does everything I expect from a newsreader
except one thing: I can't fully ignore googlegroups users.

Although it's not the default setup, Pan can go into tabbed
layout mode (View->Layout->Tabbed Layout), and is then IMO
neat and simple to use.

Jay Ts
--
To contact me, use this web page:
http://www.jayts.com/contact.php

[Paul Stamler[_2_]]

"Phil W" > wrote in message
...
> Richard Crowley wrote:
>> "Soundhaspriority" wrote ...
>>> I never saw the attraction of Agent. I still use the original Outlook
>>> Express. Tried Mozilla Thunderbird, but was similarly disappointed.
>>> It's surprising that something as ancient as Express could still be
>>> attractive.
>>
>> Indeed after trying the top 6-8 newsreader clients, I came back
>> to Outlook Express. The others seemed so retro, clunky, non-
>> obvious, and even user-vicious.
>
> pretty much like my story. I know, OE isn´t the best choice obviously, but
> it´s still the one program, that I dislike the least, to say so. ;-)

At the end of last year, when I switched computers, I started using Mozilla
Thunderbird for e-mail. The user interface is the same as OE, but there are
fewer errors and I'm told the security is better. For newsgroups, though,
it's still OE.

Peace,
Paul

[Eeyore[_2_]]

Richard Crowley wrote:

> "Don Pearce" wrote ...
> > I use Agent 1.5, which I think is the best news reader I've yet found
> > - really easy to navigate. I looked at the latest version, but
> > rejected it immediately. I find OE totally unacceptable for a whole
> > load of usability reasons - and of course the fact that without third
> > party assistance it wrecks threads.
>
> Huh? I've been using it exclusively for many years and nobody has
> ever complained about "wrecked threads".

I've used Agent and found it both 'clumsy to use' and unneccesarily 'over
featured' for simple text groups. And unintuitive to use too.

Netscape / Sea Monkey trounces it.

Graham

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Wed, 27 May 2009 01:59:20 +0100, Eeyore
> wrote:

>I've used Agent and found it both 'clumsy to use' and unneccesarily 'over
>featured' for simple text groups. And unintuitive to use too.


Thanks everyone for the advice and condolensces (better spell-
check that one, and better check "advice" too. Too many decades
since Mrs. King's fifth grade English class - where I was an
excellent pupil - so there!)

I began with Free Agent, on the advice of the much-missed friend
who turned me on to Usenet, David Barnett. Liked it so much I
sprung for their paid version and used it forever as version 1.9xxx
until last Summer. New computer - XP Pro! - and figured I owed
them a little biz. Always had loved and recommended the early
versions - great, great stuff, solid as a rock, no BS at all.


Don't want to be (but am...) a Mister Whiny Poopy Pants, but the
current version seems structurally unrelated to the old ones. It
wasn't even possible to transfer the old saved stuff into the
current. Lame? - seems like it to me, but my real best course
of action should be to try to install version 1.9xxx on my fancy-
schmancy new computer, and quit whining and get over it.

Yeah, that'll happen... Arf!

Much thanks to all, as always,
Chris Hornbeck

[Neil[_7_]]

On Tue, 26 May 2009 12:42:50 +0100, Eeyore
> wrote:

>
>
>Richard Crowley wrote:
>
>> "Soundhaspriority" wrote ...
>> > I never saw the attraction of Agent. I still use the original Outlook
>> > Express. Tried Mozilla Thunderbird, but was similarly disappointed. It's
>> > surprising that something as ancient as Express could still be attractive.
>>
>> Indeed after trying the top 6-8 newsreader clients, I came back
>> to Outlook Express. The others seemed so retro, clunky, non-
>> obvious, and even user-vicious. And yes, I started back in the
>> days of character-mode newsreaders on a dumb terminal. But
>> no, I don't long for the "good old days".
>
>Did you ever try Netscape ? No nonsence. Read my headers if you can.
>
>Graham
like this?
Path:
forte-ams-easynews!news-in-01-ams.easynews.com!209.197.12.242.MISMATCH!nx01.iad0 1.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!217.73.144.44.MI SMATCH!ecngs!feeder.ecngs.de!feeder.news-service.com!newsfeed-fusi2.netcologne.de!195.14.215.230.MISMATCH!news.n etcologne.de!newsfeed-hp2.netcologne.de!news.astraweb.com!border1.a.news router.astraweb.com!not-for-mail
Message-ID: >
Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 12:42:50 +0100
From: Eeyore >
Organization: Eeyore's gloomy place
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.8 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
Subject: Re: various
References: >
>
>
>
>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 19
NNTP-Posting-Host: 5cb6d10b.news.astraweb.com
X-Trace:
DXC=Zbcg4YY]F[Lc_WgCkn9MLEL?0kYOcDh@J0DHO<GRCaXFMh9kDMIdBjL>W1Kfo5C?<MRREDYWKC`ZN\?9D[SEVa?@

[Phil W]

Richard Crowley wrote:
> "Don Pearce" wrote ...
>> "Richard Crowley" wrote:
>>> "Don Pearce" wrote ...
>>>> I use Agent 1.5, which I think is the best news reader I've yet
>>>> found - really easy to navigate. I looked at the latest version,
>>>> but rejected it immediately. I find OE totally unacceptable for a
>>>> whole load of usability reasons - and of course the fact that
>>>> without third party assistance it wrecks threads.
>>>
>>> Huh? I've been using it exclusively for many years and nobody has
>>> ever complained about "wrecked threads".
>>
>> I presume you use it with quotefix (or similar) because your posts
>> carry none of the usual oe stigmata.
>
> I use no third-party gadgets. I don't really know what quotefix is?

take a peek at the according website:
http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/

it´s a nice, litte add-on, which runs as a separate stand-alone application
in the background. I´ve been using it for some years now and it improves OE
enough to make it more usable - at least for me... ;-) if you turn the tray
icon off, you won´t even notice OE-quotefix is running in the background.
the "colouring" function is quite useful, besides the actual "quotefix"
function.

hints: in the main window of OE-quotefix turn everything on (maybe leave
"C-Mode" off), in the "advanced" window, you can turn off the tray icon.


hope that helps,

phil

[Richard Crowley]

"Phil W" wrote ...
> Richard Crowley wrote:
>> I use no third-party gadgets. I don't really know what quotefix is?
>
> take a peek at the according website:
> http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/
>
> it´s a nice, litte add-on, which runs as a separate stand-alone
> application in the background. I´ve been using it for some years now and
> it improves OE enough to make it more usable - at least for me... ;-) if
> you turn the tray icon off, you won´t even notice OE-quotefix is running
> in the background.
> the "colouring" function is quite useful, besides the actual "quotefix"
> function.
>
> hints: in the main window of OE-quotefix turn everything on (maybe leave
> "C-Mode" off), in the "advanced" window, you can turn off the tray icon.

Thanks, but I don't see why I need yet annother app running in the
background on my computer. I'm trying to get rid of all the junk that
is already there. I still don't see what the benefit is, even if there were
no downside.

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Richard Crowley wrote:

|| Thanks, but I don't see why I need yet annother app running in the
|| background on my computer. I'm trying to get rid of all the junk that
|| is already there. I still don't see what the benefit is, even if
|| there were no downside.

OÈ Quotefix makes OE a lot more like Netscape 4.7 in general message- and
quote handling and I can't remember having to reflow a quote manually.
Strongly recommended. And it does not appear to hang out at the CPU bar if
OE isn't active.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Mike Clayton]

Paul Stamler wrote:

> At the end of last year, when I switched computers, I started using Mozilla
> Thunderbird for e-mail. The user interface is the same as OE, but there are
> fewer errors and I'm told the security is better. For newsgroups, though,
> it's still OE.
>
> Peace,
> Paul

Interesting. I use Thunderbird specifically for reading newsgroups.
Works fine for me.

Mike Clayton

[Phil W]

Peter Larsen wrote:
> Richard Crowley wrote:
>
>>> Thanks, but I don't see why I need yet annother app running in the
>>> background on my computer. I'm trying to get rid of all the junk
>>> that is already there. I still don't see what the benefit is, even
>>> if there were no downside.
>
> OÈ Quotefix makes OE a lot more like Netscape 4.7 in general message-
> and quote handling and I can't remember having to reflow a quote
> manually. Strongly recommended. And it does not appear to hang out at
> the CPU bar if OE isn't active.

Well, if he doesn´t even want to try it... I can see the point in getting
rid of unnecessary background apps running, but OE-Quotefix is a quite
useful one, so I would not classify it as "junk". There are other things,
like several "services", that fit better into this description.
BTW: the benefit of OE-quotefix can be seen on the homepage, which I have
linked to several times in this thread already...

[Richard Crowley]

Phil W wrote:
> Peter Larsen wrote:
>> Richard Crowley wrote:
>>
>>>> Thanks, but I don't see why I need yet annother app running in
>>>> the background on my computer. I'm trying to get rid of all
>>>> the junk that is already there. I still don't see what the
>>>> benefit is, even if there were no downside.
>>
>> OÈ Quotefix makes OE a lot more like Netscape 4.7 in general
>> message- and quote handling and I can't remember having to
>> reflow a quote manually. Strongly recommended. And it does not
>> appear to hang out at the CPU bar if OE isn't active.
>
> Well, if he doesn´t even want to try it... I can see the point in
> getting rid of unnecessary background apps running, but
> OE-Quotefix is a quite useful one, so I would not classify it as
> "junk". There are other things, like several "services", that fit
> better into this description. BTW: the benefit of OE-quotefix can be seen
> on the homepage,
> which I have linked to several times in this thread already...

OK, I'm using it. Seems pretty nice, but yet annother process running, and
my tool-tray was already overflowing before it added yet annother icon.
I've got my Taskbar at double-height and still not enough room for
everything. :-/

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Richard Crowley wrote:

| OK, I'm using it. Seems pretty nice, but yet annother process
| running, and my tool-tray was already overflowing before it added
| yet annother icon. I've got my Taskbar at double-height and still
| not enough room for everything. :-/

On a wide screen I default to put it at the left side. For a real "tray hog"
try avast ....

Kind regards

Peter Larsen