1  2  3  |   Order by default

May 1, 1998, 9:17am

I 'd love to have an invisible (no green checkmark) option;
preferably one that remained set the way one left it upon shutting down
the browser. There are many times I'd like to be able to build quietly
for awhile until I choose to have that dreaded green checkmark appear.

Has anyone else noticed that almost everyone turns off
"Show what world I'm in"? I'll bet there are quite a few of us who
would very much welcome a total privacy option.

[View Quote] > I know this has been brought to everyone's attention and I'm sorry to re-
> state and re-hash but PLEASE! For the sake of everyone's sanity, please
> give us a way to turn off the telegrams, be "invisible", ignore some/all
> telegrams, something! <snip>

May 1, 1998, 9:26am

heh..hoped to sneak in and out quietly...privacy was that important to me!
Might have known I couldn't escape your eagle eye (darn, you were fast!) :)

[View Quote] > <gasp!> Lara posted in the newsgroups!&(*# <faint>
>
[View Quote]

May 1, 1998, 7:37pm

I understand your concern. It doesn't seem to be a problem, though, with ICQ.

I'd think those who wish to take a break from building and chat for awhile
would turn it back on when ready. Those who use AW primarily to visit
and chat would simply keep it on.

If a complete privacy option were available, it would also be nice to be
able to select/deselect people on your contact list that you were willing to
let
see your name checkmarked at any given time. But if that gets too
complicated,
I'd opt for, "Please, let us have a complete privacy option now....work out
any
fancier details in the future".

[View Quote] > Actually, that's one thing that worries me about an invisible option... if
> everyone chooses to use it at once, the contact list becomes pretty much a
> waste of space and programming. I'm not saying that such an option
> shouldn't exist... just that there are things about it which concern me.
>
> TechnoZeus
>
[View Quote]

Jul 5, 2000, 7:16pm

Sounds good to me, Rehabber. By the way, if anyone wants to "sign" a petition that Rose and some others started regarding the contacts list, go to aw 6753.5N 4233.8W 0.1a and leave a sign there. (Face the opposite direction to see who has already signed.)

A website explaining the petition is at: http://www.geocities.com/awpetition

Lara

[View Quote]

Jul 6, 2000, 4:11pm

I'd rather see colors for status. Those ICQ icons are too hard for older eyes to see. ;) But, I really don't care what kind of indicator AW uses as long as *something* is done to make the contacts list show at least TWO very basic things about the citizen's status:

"I'm here and not busy - can respond to telegrams."

"I'm not at the keyboard and/or am busy - can't respond to telegrams."

Doesn't have to be fancy - just some kind of indicator for those two things. Sometimes it's best to ask for something simple first. Bells and whistles can be added later.

Lara

[View Quote] (more that was snipped)

Jan 9, 2001, 7:38am

I can't imagine AWCI ever being willing to have no checkmark light up at all when a user is online. Scottie is right in that the whole program would look deserted. :-) However, a different color checkmark for "busy/away" would be useful to indicate that a person is not reading or responding to telegrams. There'd be no need to "ask forgiveness" later. As things are now with the single green checkmark, you're considered rude if you don't respond within a minute or so of receiving a telegram.

Easier to ask forgiveness? Not when there's a big backlog of telegrams one has been ignoring while busy...most of which would not have been sent had the people only known you weren't even glancing at telegrams for awhile.

My wish is that if/when AWCI finally does implement a change to the checkmark thingie, they keep it simple. There's no need for it be ICQ-like. Green for online and one other color for "busy/away" is sufficient. We don't need bells and whistles. Just one option to flip the green mark to another color for courtesy's sake.

Lara

[View Quote] _____

Tony56 (Tony M.) had written:
Hmm.. I read the post about 'Privacy (ability to disable green
checkmark when we want to)' which was posted 4/17/98.. and noticed how
we still don't have that option. Well, I got to thinking maybe now
would be a good time to bring that litte issue back from the dead.

Roland, has AWCI even considered having such an option?<
_____

Apr 3, 2001, 5:00am

I know what Tony meant. Sometimes I'll inadvertently click a URL I'm trying to copy off the chat window, if not very careful about where the mouse is pointing when I start to hold down the left button. Very aggravating when the web window pops open accidentally.

Lara

[View Quote]

Mar 20, 2004, 12:03pm

It's risky to try to speak for someone else, but I *think* what Ryan meant to type was "unblock telegrams to you" (instead of "from you".) I think he was agreeing with you that the system, as it is now, is good.

I like it too, except for one thing. That infernal yellow question mark, which makes me appear antisocial, when really all I'm trying to do is keep my contacts list down to a "don't have to scroll it" size.
Would it be possible to keep the same system and do away with the yellow question mark? Have it show no symbol at all to people who are not on my contacts list? Is it absolutely necessary that some kind of symbol be there all the time, to make the present system work?

Lara

[View Quote]

Mar 29, 2004, 9:36pm

You are soooo right, Builderz. The powers-that-be should (imho) be spending a goodly portion of their time contacting the computer magazines (and writers about 3D virtual stuff in general), trying to get *free* publicity about Active Worlds. That kind of groundwork might have resulted in getting Active Worlds included, instead of ignored, in the article you mentioned later.

Lara

[View Quote]

Aug 20, 2004, 1:36am

I agree absolutely, highflier! The yellow question mark was a terrible thing to put into the so-called "privacy" feature. The only thing the question mark does is offend people or hurt their feelings, because it means one of these things:

A. You have not put that person on your contacts list at all.

B. That person is on your contacts, but you've not turned on the option for that person to see when you are online.

Either way, it makes you come across as rude when perhaps your only intention (mine, anyway) in not adding the name of everyone you know, was to keep your contacts list short. That leads to hurt feelings, of course, whether the others come right out and ask, "Why haven't you added me?" or whether they just silently feel slighted. The yellow question mark is a very ugly thing in more ways than one, imho.

Having NO mark at all until I deliberately want to turn on the green online checkmark would be sooooooooooo much nicer.

Lara

[View Quote]

Aug 24, 2004, 7:04pm

[View Quote] >even if Lara's showing as a ? that only happens when she's online ... I see she's online because the checkmark is there when she's online and not there if she's offline<

huh?
Lady Nighthawk, the only reason you see nothing in front of my name sometimes, and a green checkmark sometimes, is because I added your name to my contacts list and clicked the privacy setting beside your name to allow you to see when I'm online in Activeworlds. If I hadn't added you to my contacts, you'd see the yellow question mark all the time (beside my name on YOUR contacts list) even when I'm ONline.

You're right, though, about the question mark having no bearing on communication by telegram (assuming the people have not blocked telegrams. I never block them...might be days before I get around to coming in here, reading them or answering; but I never, never have blocked telegrams.)

Unless things have changed a lot in the newer versions, as I understand it... if, say, Betty has me on HER contacts list, but I don't have Betty on MY contacts list, Betty will *always* see a yellow question mark beside my name on her list - whether I'm online or offline.

It's only if I have put Betty on my contacts list and have clicked the privacy setting to let Betty see when I'm online that the yellow question mark would ever go away - beside MY name on Betty's list.

And THAT is the big problem I have always had with the yellow question mark. If Betty is thin-skinned, easily offended, easily hurt, sensitive, etc., then as long as she has me on her contacts list and sees that yellow question mark beside my name, she KNOWS that I have never added her to my contacts list (and/or that I've have failed to switch on the feature to show myself online to her.) Sensitive Betty (whom I may very well like) now thinks that I don't like her simply because I did not add her to my contacts list. It may sound like a small thing, dumb thing, silly thing... but I've never liked to inadvertently hurt people's feelings. The yellow question mark can do that. It's an in-your-face strong indication that a person has not bothered to put you on their contacts list. For sensitive people it can hurt their feelings - make you look like you don't like them personally, when that is not the case at all.

Some people say, "So what? "No big deal." "I couldn't care less." "Doesn't matter to me." "So, just stop being 'antisocial'." "I always let everyone see if I'm online."

Well, that's all fine and good for the tougher people (of which I'm one :-) I'm in the "couldn't care less if I'm on someone's contacts or not".) But there *are* many people in here who take it very personally when they have put YOU on their contacts, but you haven't put THEM on your contacts list. They see that big, ugly yellow question mark beside your name all the time proving that you haven't added them. And they see it whether you're online or offline. It's just an unnecessary ugly mark that can lead all too often to unnecessary hurt feelings, imho.

Back in the days of no mark of any kind when you were offline, it simply looked (to people you didn't have on your own contacts list, but they had you on theirs) as if you weren't online. Of course they knew sometimes if you were on - you answered a telegram, or they saw you chatting, etc., but it wasn't a constant slap in the face the way the yellow question mark is to some people.

For years people asked for a "privacy" feature. A way to come in but not have the green checkmark show up while you were busy. Something you didn't have to turn on until you were ready to chat, answer telegrams, etc. It was great when we finally heard there would be a privacy feature. Yea!!!!

How disappointing when the "hurt-feelings-just-waiting-to-happen" yellow checkmark was added into otherwise very nice privacy features. :-(

Aug 24, 2004, 7:50pm

It's not a matter of being antisocial. One can build AND like people. Sometimes one is in the mood to build and not chat, or chat and not build, or do both at the same time.

People who phone you (no answer) or knock on your door (no answer) don't know if you are home or not, IRL.
Yes, you can ignore them in Activeworlds, too. However, the point of a privacy feature (or at least it was the main point back when so many of us were repeatedly asking for it) was to be able to flip the green checkmark on only when we felt like having our online status announced. Icing on the cake would be to let friends see it come on, even if no one else saw it. Additional bells and whistles, like blocking telegrams, would have been fine. But bottom line, for most anyway, was to be able to have privacy occasionally - WITHOUT HURTING OTHER'S FEELINGS. No one that I know of was ever asking for an indication (like the yellow question mark) which most of the time is clearly announcing: "I haven't put you on my contacts list."

"if you want to be a hermit" LOL Exactly the point I'm trying to make. That's one of the impressions that the ugly yellow question mark gives - hermit, antisocial, snob, not friendly, doesn't like me, ignoring me, etc., etc.

HenrikG said it perfectly the first time the privacy features were implemented and the now infamous yellow checkmark immediately popped up. He said words to this effect, "All that does is prove I'm an antisocial b******." Of course people who knew HenrikG, and had been on the receiving end of his helpfulness many times, and had used the wonderful tutorials he created, knew that that nice, quiet, unassuming man was making that statement tongue-in-cheek. He saw the yellow question mark for what it was - and is. An easily misunderstood piece of junk.

People who like to spend some of their online time building quietly without announcing they are online at the moment are not necessarily people who don't like other people, or who are trying to be hermits. Many people simply don't like to offend others by making it obvious (via the yellow question mark) that they have not added everyone to their contacts list.

The whole issue of the yellow question mark probably means next to nothing to the powers-that-be at AWI. They can zip around anonymously any time they wish, under any name they wish. So, I doubt it will ever be tossed.

Bowen, I wish it *were* still $20 a year for a citizenship. ;-P

Lara



[View Quote]

Nov 2, 2001, 7:12pm

Hi Tom,

Your correction post mentions "and special events."

My personal opinion: the Universal message should be used only to notify users of technical things, i.e, "Building in AWCorp owned public worlds will be disabled from __ VRT until further notice while we (do whatever)."

I don't think it should ever be used to announce an event, no matter how special, or to wish anyone "happy birthday". Better to keep it very professional, dealing with technical announcements only. Events can be announced effectively enough on the awcommunity webpages or billboards at alphaworld gz and awgate. I agree with Moria that using the universal message to announce events is not a good idea.

Lara

[View Quote]

Nov 18, 2001, 4:58am

IMHO, the points Moria made apply no matter what the event is. I think the Universal Message should be treated absolutely professionally and reserved for technical announcements. I don't think exceptions should be made for events of any kind. How the universal message is used should certainly not be decided by vote. There are plenty of ways to get the word out about events - the awec calendar, activeworlds newsletter, and even billboards at aw gz and the gate.

I know the CY awards are dear to your heart, Bit. You and others work so hard on them and have made them quite a show. The CY ceremony is a popular event and draws a big crowd anyway. The word will get out and around just fine without taking advantage of the universal message. :) I really think that feature should be treated in a completely business-like way, not as some kind of reminder.

Lara

[View Quote]

Feb 11, 2002, 2:22am

Goob, AWCorp suddenly unveiled the ill-fated price plan of January 2 on its users without warning and without asking for input from the community-at-large.

Does the February revision really indicate a willingness to listen to constructive criticism? Or is the revision better described as a sheer survival response? Droves of previously loyal citizens and world owners not only complained about the January price plan, but told AWCorp in no uncertain terms... "If you do this, we cannot/will not renew our citizenships or our worlds. Good-bye."

The February revision doesn't reflect a change in attitude toward the "community" at all, imho. Given the reaction to the January plan - the "complaints", if you will - the company had no choice but to try something else that the users might swallow. Or just pull the plug. You can bet that if they had NetBroadcast making money for them, the plug *would* probably already have been pulled on this browser/software.

Don't get me wrong. I understand full well that if ActiveWorlds (the program) can't make money for Activeworlds, Corp (the company) AWCorp will have to let this go. I don't expect any business to exist as an altruistic exercise. I would love to see this program rolling in the dough for them. I'm all for this program making money so the program itself can survive.

Many users probably did phone and write the company to offer constructive ideas (along with strident complaints) during January. However, the February revision hit the website the same way January's did. No draft for the userbase at large to look at ahead of time and critique before it went into effect. It's still a "we're the corporate executives - we know best what will make this program successful" attitude. That would be understandable in a large company doing a traditional kind of business. But this is a program with a "community" aspect to it which makes it not fit the usual business model. This program can succeed and be profitable only if that's fully recognized and capitalized upon. I still don't see that management learned much of anything from the debacle of January 2nd about how to make a program like this succeed financially.

Does management really think the majority of people who said "you need tourists back" meant it's good for tourists to be corraled in AWGate world with no opportunity to try out building? The February plan doesn't allow tourists to enter AWSchool world or any other AWCorp owned public building world. As one person at the Gate said, "it's like letting them sit in the car but not giving them the keys for a test drive."

I seriously doubt that the majority of world owners who asked for return of tourists meant that they would pay an additional $59.95 fee in order to buy "permission" to make a world *they had already bought* tourist accessible again. The unfairness of that aside, management's idea that making it difficult for tourists to see worlds other than AWGate would be an "incentive" to get them to register, is ludicrous.

Perhaps the day will come before it's too late, that management will see the value of a good idea you tried to get going last year, Goober... a way to get "constructive" input from the community at large. Back then you meant it as a way to get ideas about how to improve the features. It's still a good idea today; however, with a focus now on brainstorming for ways to increase registrations and make the program profitable...able to survive and flourish in the long run.

However, if management continues to regard the "community" as nothing more than a virtual anthill, and looks upon the userbase as annoyances who just "don't understand business", there isn't much hope that the the rate of registrations will ever increase the way it could.

You know the popular phrase that most managers in every business have learned by rote: "we value you and welcome your input"? Well, I'll use Aine's phrase (below): "I don't have any confidence that that is true."

Lara

[View Quote]

Sep 1, 2003, 10:19pm

I understand your reasoning, m0e, but alphaworld is still the only place to have a true oldtimer's day, even with what happened to good old gz. :)

Besides, tourists can't enter the "awgz" world, can they? Got some oldtimers trickling back in nowadays as tourists.

Lara

[View Quote]

Oct 4, 2003, 10:13pm

Sorry to hear that. Thanks for all you've done!

Lara

Dec 14, 2003, 3:57pm

But Andras! At least there are rats and mice in Hole, just like the news reports said!
*pssst..hey, Mauz - you can send my part via PayPal. ;)

Lara

[View Quote]

Dec 18, 2003, 7:22pm

Elven Princess, sweets is correct.
Registration has never been $19.95 per *month*.
It was $19.95 per *year* from Sept. 1, 1997 until January 2002.


From Mauz's history page:
http://mauz.info/awhistory.html

1997
0901 Registration fee introduced ($19.95 per year)


2002
0103 Version 3.2 build 398, forced upgrade: no more tourists,
newcomers required credit card to enter; more expensive
pricing model ($9.50 per month)

0206 Build 400, new pricing plan: tourists allowed in AWGate
and some worlds, lower prices ($6.95 per month),
free citizenships no longer available with small worlds

0213 Build 401: 1 week free trial citizenship with credit card


Or, if you'd rather hear it straight from the horse's mouth
(no disrespect intended)here's an excerpt from Rick Noll's
letter of January 2, 2002 to all aw users:

"This new pricing structure would go into effect on the 3rd of January,
but no existing users would be affected for this initial period.
Renewals would still be done at the regular $19.95, per year and
sometime in early February we would announce what kind of pricing
program we can offer the existing user base."

Rick Noll's open letters (no longer on the AWI website) and the
accompanying FAQ's during the 2002 price change upheaval are at:
http://tnlc.com/Lara/aw/awpriceplan-2002/

Lara

[View Quote] [View Quote]

Nov 15, 1999, 12:57pm

I'm glad to see the newsgroups back up. However, I'm sorry to see
ability to post being restricted to registered citizens only. To me,
the "community" is everyone... registered citizens, tourists, rabble
rousers and dissidents, as well as people who are perfectly happy with
ActiveWorlds. A community is the whole spectrum. Anyone who is
interested in AW should be able to post to the community newsgroup
whether they be a registered citizen or a tourist. If the moderators
want to set limits on what kind of language is used or what topic is
discussed, that's one thing. But to require that the poster be a
registered citizen of ActiveWorlds shuts off any questions that a
tourist might wish to ask on a "community" newsgroup.

Lara

[View Quote]

Apr 24, 2000, 3:07am

Wonderful job, Selanit! I hope many people will add to the Database.

Lara

[View Quote]

May 7, 2000, 9:49am

The new objects can be seen at AW 23555.4N 23517.6W 0.0a 0

Also, you can see a list of the new object names at
http://objects.activeworlds.com/aw/models/?M=D

Thanks to Mauz for telling me about "?M=D" which makes the most
recently added files appear at the top of the list. The new objects
were put in May 2, 2000.

The big thank-you's should go to Technozeus and Just In. Both of
those citizens made those cool new objects for alphaworld. :-)

Lara

[View Quote]

May 7, 2000, 9:49am

They are on display at AW 23554.3N 23517.6W 0.0a 0
(Thanks, Technozeus and Just In, for creating them!)

Lara

[View Quote] > Where can these marvels be viewed?

May 26, 2000, 7:14pm

Well, you needed one more answer for me to pick the answer I really
prefer. :-) Perhaps a C-c): I *like* them, but I think the old
textures should be restored, and the new textures offered under
different names.

Lara

[View Quote]

May 30, 2000, 3:13pm

"C revised" would be my choice, too, Fyrene, for the same reason you
mentioned. I wish Active Worlds would restore the old textures under
their old names right away. Let the old objects/textures have their
old names back again so that old buildings, landscaping, etc., can
have the appearance the original builder intended.

AWCI should have given the new "high-resolution" textures new names.
Perhaps adding the letter "n" (for "New") to the hi-res names.

tree7.jpg for the old texture
tree7n.jpg for the hi-res version

tree7m.rwx would go back to being the old tree
tree7mn.rwx would be the hi-res version of that tree

It's not too late to do the renaming, but AWCI needs to do it now -
before many more builders expect the old texture names to look the way
they do now. I happen to like the new textures. NOT as replacements,
however. But as *additions* that should be renamed as quickly as
possible. ;-)

Lara

[View Quote] > news:392e52d5$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...

Oct 22, 2000, 7:51pm

Recommended reading for whoever is in charge of the very annoying bot timer scenery/lighting/fog changes in AlphaWorld:

http://www.lojyk.com/petition.htm

That page contains very well-reasoned suggestions from one of Active World's most creative builders - Dreme Lojyk.

Lara

[View Quote]

Oct 22, 2000, 10:22pm

I know what you mean, wing, about enjoying changes and making things seem more real in AlphaWorld. My idea of enjoyable changes in AlphaWorld is simply an unexpected change *once a month* for several hours or several days...snowy ground and backdrop for a few days around Christmas time, fog and night background for a few days during Halloween, fireworks in the sky for New Year's and Fourth of July.

An occasional bizarre fun change for a day or so doesn't hurt either. E.g.,the "Great Flood" when all AlphaWorld ground turned to water, or the Martian landscape backdrop for a few days during the real life probe landing on Mars. A day of thunderstorms, a night of lava and meteors...I have no problem with the idea of adding spice to AlphaWorld's backdrops on an *occasional* (once a month is plenty!) fun basis.

However, frequent steady rotations of big earth, thick dark fog, peach/orange fog/lighting simply get tiresome - to me, anyway. Many builders do take special care in choosing colors for their buildings, signs, landscaping ... gearing their work to look best in "daylight", no fog, and with no strangely tinted lighting.

My personal preference is for pure daylight, no fog, in AlphaWorld except for rare special occasions when "fun stuff" is used for several hours or even for a few days surrounding holidays. Attempting to put AlphaWorld on a regular day/night schedule (or even randomly timed changes) several times each and every day just isn't very attractive to me. By the way, I count "night" as a "fun stuff" thing, to be enjoyed often in Real Life, but sparingly in AlphaWorld. ;-)

If AlphaWorld settings just *must* be fiddled with, Dreme Lojyk's ideas on the subject are the direction to go. :)

http://www.lojyk.com/petition.htm

Lara

[View Quote] <snipped>

Feb 8, 2001, 5:09pm

I rarely post to the ng's, but here goes... Facter, I fully understand your feelings about the way Eep attacks people when he thinks they have said or done something he regards as stupid. He does do it in a personal manner. He does leap across the bounds of what most people consider common courtesy. I've shaken my head in dismay many a time when reading what he says to newcomers and to people trying to communicate in a language not their native tongue, etc.

I'm sure there are many people cheering your decision to ban Eep from the ng unless he posts a public apology to you. I'm *not* one of the ones cheering. :-(

I hope that you, Facter, will reconsider drawing that kind of line in the sand. Chalk it up to post-flu (not to mention overwork while ill) anger at how Eep addressed you personally, how he talks to others and how he talks about the company.

People can choose to filter him, mute him, just not read his posts, whatever. But to take away *anyone's* privilege to post to the ng's based on what you wrote below, is carrying the ability to muzzle him too far, imho.

Unless a moderated (read "censored") newsgroup is what people *really* want in here again, then "mean, rude, arrogant and derogatory" remarks are part and parcel of the newsgroup. Along with nuggets of good information (yes, from Eep as well as others), thoughtful posts and courteous people helping others.

I believe it's better to leave it to the individual readers to decide if they want to filter *anyone* or not. Please don't take it on yourself to make that decision for us, Facter. There are plenty of people reading the ng who do appreciate what you, Roland, Tom and many others are trying to do to make Active Worlds better. :-)
Filtering or ignoring is the way to go here... not banning from the newsgroup.

Lara

[View Quote] <snipped>
> I never said I didnt have any power, I said I didnt want to - but, as you
> obviously dont know how to apologise, or be a tolerable person in these
> newsgroups, it is my unfortunate duty to inform you that you will no longer
> have access to them. Access to these newsgroup is a priviledge provided by
> AWCI, not a right.
<snipped>
> This is not an action I wish to take, but unfortunatly, unless a publically
> posted apology to the rest of the group is forthcoming, then you are not
> welcome to post within these newsgroups for the time being.

<snipped>
> I hate doing this, and I hate censorship, but unfortunatly, measures must
> sometimes be taken no matter how much you pesonally dislike doing them - and
> in this case, if this is the only way to show you that your manner, actions
> and comments to others in this newsgroup are mean, rude, arrogant and
> derogatory, then I apologise to everyone else but say that it is now
> necessary.

<snipped>
> You all have my deep regrets that such an action has become necessary. If a
> publicly posted apology by Eep, showing his remorse over his comments and
> actions, directed to the entire group here, is posted sometime today, then
> this action will not be necessary whatsoever.
<snipped>
> Everyone else, please make note of this last offer to him - even after his
> latest postings - I dont want you guys thinking that this is something that
> I like having to do.
>
> It is entirely up to you Eep.
>
> Sincerly,
> Fletcher Andersen
> AW Support

<snipped>
> posts
> even
> that
> personally
> you
<snipped>
> you
> of
> what
> means
> any
> be

Feb 8, 2001, 5:53pm

Facter, any kind of vote by users of this newsgroup is not the point I was trying to make and would hardly be democratic at all. Sorry that I wasn't clear. The individual reader's ability to use filter or simply ignore messages by certain posters is all that is needed. There is no need for anyone to *watch* himself/herself being personally attacked. There is no need to make it a "him or me" issue. It's simple. Filter or ignore them. We all have probably skipped posts we don't want to bother to read. Don't take away the privilege to post and certainly don't put it up to some kind of "vote".

You willingness to come into the newsgroup to post as a citizen or as an employee is always appreciated. It has nothing to do with Facter vs Eep, truly.

Lara

[View Quote]

Feb 8, 2001, 6:08pm

I know what you mean, holistic1. I already do skip a lot of childish posts in the ng, once I've determined that some particular posters don't ever say anything I'm interested in reading. :-) If the bad outweighs anything informative someone has to say, I still say, just skip that particular poster's messages. Same with websites if they are too hard to read, navigate, load, etc.

Lara

[View Quote]

1  2  3  |   Order by default