[FairfieldLife] Re: Jan Garbarek Group - Bluesy 99 names
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Janet Luise" wrote: > > > > > > > > I'm curious as why you linked this music with such a gut blue-y > > > > number as the Stand By Me that started this thread? > > > > > > Nabby, after all these years, doesn't know > > > how to start a new thread. > > > > Thanks for your concern but I don't understand what you are talking > > about; in the subjectline on my screen it says "Re: Jan Garbarek > > Group" - is that different from yours ? > > Yes. On the detail page for this post, one sees > your Subject line as a kind of sub-Subject line, > while the post itself is still clearly within > the thread called "Stand By Me - Playing for Change." > > This is what happens when you reply to an existing > post. Your post is going to be *in that thread*, and > will *not* start a new thread, even if you change the > Subject line when you send it. > > This is the reason that when you fire off some new > post by replying to the "UFC Goons" post you obviously > stored somewhere, the new post always is part of the > "UFC Goons" thread. It does NOT create a new thread. > > I understand that if you are viewing your posts in > your own email reader that you probably can't see this. > I'm just trying to explain it to you for the benefit > of people who might read Fairfield Life "threaded," > or by topic. If you really intend to create a new > topic, the way to do it is to send your new post > directly to the mailing list address, *not* by replying > to an existing post. That will *never* create a new > thread; it will always be part of the parent thread > of the post you replied to. > > Generally, it is considered "nicer" to start all-new > threads than to change the Subject line of an existing > thread. Just FYI. OK, thanks
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jan Garbarek Group - Bluesy 99 names
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Janet Luise" wrote: > > > > > > I'm curious as why you linked this music with such a gut blue-y > > > number as the Stand By Me that started this thread? > > > > Nabby, after all these years, doesn't know > > how to start a new thread. > > Thanks for your concern but I don't understand what you are talking > about; in the subjectline on my screen it says "Re: Jan Garbarek > Group" - is that different from yours ? Yes. On the detail page for this post, one sees your Subject line as a kind of sub-Subject line, while the post itself is still clearly within the thread called "Stand By Me - Playing for Change." This is what happens when you reply to an existing post. Your post is going to be *in that thread*, and will *not* start a new thread, even if you change the Subject line when you send it. This is the reason that when you fire off some new post by replying to the "UFC Goons" post you obviously stored somewhere, the new post always is part of the "UFC Goons" thread. It does NOT create a new thread. I understand that if you are viewing your posts in your own email reader that you probably can't see this. I'm just trying to explain it to you for the benefit of people who might read Fairfield Life "threaded," or by topic. If you really intend to create a new topic, the way to do it is to send your new post directly to the mailing list address, *not* by replying to an existing post. That will *never* create a new thread; it will always be part of the parent thread of the post you replied to. Generally, it is considered "nicer" to start all-new threads than to change the Subject line of an existing thread. Just FYI.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jan Garbarek Group - Bluesy 99 names
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Janet Luise" wrote: > > > > I'm curious as why you linked this music with such a gut blue-y > > number as the Stand By Me that started this thread? > > Nabby, after all these years, doesn't know > how to start a new thread. > Thanks for your concern but I don't understand what you are talking about; in the subjectline on my screen it says "Re: Jan Garbarek Group" - is that different from yours ?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jan Garbarek Group - Bluesy 99 names
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Janet Luise" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm curious as why you linked this music with such a gut blue-y > number as the Stand By Me that started this thread? Nabby, after all these years, doesn't know how to start a new thread. Really. Look at any of his posts to FFL. The only way he seems to know how to post is to reply to an existing post that he's saved. That's why the real Subject (not sub-Subject) of so many of his posts is "UFC Goons," a thread that died years ago. Nabby, here's how you do it. If you are posting from the Yahoo page, look at the link in the upper left that says "Post" or in the upper right that says "Start Topic." Clicking on either of them will allow you to *really* start a new thread and not just change the sub-Subject header on an existing topic. If you are posting from an email client and want to *really* start a new thread, DON'T reply to an existing post. Send a new one to the address of the list.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jan Garbarek Group - Bluesy 99 names
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Janet Luise" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Of his stuff I liked this best > Jan Garbarek & Ustad Fateh Ali Khan - Saga I disagree, but how did you meet this music ? They did some wonderful music together, much more than "Saga". Unfortunatly this is all youtube has to offer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3O_sGFrOm4&feature=related
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jan Garbarek Group - Bluesy 99 names
I'm curious as why you linked this music with such a gut blue-y number as the Stand By Me that started this thread? I love that song & listen to it several times a day. Jan Garbarek reminds me more of Don Ellis who I listen to a lot in the late 60s unique but you've got to get your head into it. Of his stuff I liked this best Jan Garbarek & Ustad Fateh Ali Khan - Saga Here's another one that's hard to get out of your ears.. This is the 99 beautiful names but with an almost rock & roll or at least good gut beat http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c99SB0rZfRM
