Re: [RBW] Re: Why the "Re:" posts?

No idea offhand - this is what I get when I click on the arrow: It does sound like you are looking at an email message rather than the web link. For example, the url to this thread is : https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rbw-owners-bunch/paHMqHzUakE If you use that, do you see broader opt

Re: [RBW] Re: Why the "Re:" posts?

It seems to me like you are using the mail interface, and not the Google Groups interface. For example, this thread can be seen at https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rbw-owners-bunch/paHMqHzUakE --Metin On Tuesday, November 26, 2013 3:46:03 PM UTC-8, Patrick Moore wrote: > > Jim (manually

[RBW] Re: Why the "Re:" posts?

My biggest challenge interacting with the group is that new folks posting while their membership is pending show up as new posts on the website but not in the thread, so I mark all as read, but then when their membership is approved the posts are already there in line with when they posted rathe

Re: [RBW] Re: Why the "Re:" posts?

So much for my attempt to "manually select recipient"! Thanks, Deacon. I don't see that, alas. On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 4:57 PM, Deacon Patrick wrote: > Here's what I get in Safari when I select the down arrow next to reply: > > >

Re: [RBW] Re: Why the "Re:" posts?

Thank heavens! Variety is the spice of life! Grin. Just be careful. The grin is reportedly contagious. With abandon, Patrick On Tuesday, November 26, 2013 5:11:14 PM UTC-7, Bill Lindsay wrote: > > Even though my view of the world differs from Deacon Patrick in several > ways, my view of Google

Re: [RBW] Re: Why the "Re:" posts?

Even though my view of the world differs from Deacon Patrick in several ways, my view of Google Groups and its drop-down menus matches his exactly. Grin On Tuesday, November 26, 2013 3:57:32 PM UTC-8, Deacon Patrick wrote: > > Here's what I get in Safari when I select the down arrow next to rep

Re: [RBW] Re: Why the "Re:" posts?

Here's what I get in Safari when I select the down arrow next to reply: On Tuesday, November 26, 2013 4:46:03 PM UTC-7, Patrick Moore wrote: > > Jim (manually selec

Re: [RBW] Re: Why the "Re:" posts?

Jim (manually selected recipient) -- thanks for following up. I confirmed I've got 31.0.1650.57, but the 'reply to sender" option is still absent, or else I'm confused (very likely). When I click on the "down arrowhead" mark at the right of your email message, I get a dropdown with these options:

Re: [RBW] Re: Why the "Re:" posts?

Hey there Patrick - Chrome Version 31.0.1650.57 supports that option in Mac OSX 10.7.5 Just confirming it via that browser/OS as we speak. - Jim "multi-browser" On Tuesday, November 26, 2013 11:13:06 AM UTC-8, Patrick Moore wrote: > > Thanks, all. It seems Chrome doesn't support that option in

Re: [RBW] Re: Why the "Re:" posts?

I like things the way they are, but I have my own interface to this list limited to zero emails. A high traffic board like this would generate more emails than I'd like to deal with. I use Google Chrome and the drop down menu on the right works fine. The annoyance that I do experience with "R

Re: [RBW] Re: Why the "Re:" posts?

With 2,499 people subscribed, doesn't seem to be a huge outcry of unhappiness with the status quo. I don't like the way other lists reply to multiple people, so thought I would offer my opinion of preferring the reply to function as is. Over and out. On 11/26/13, Steve Palincsar wrote: > On 11/

Re: [RBW] Re: Why the "Re:" posts?

On 11/26/2013 02:06 PM, cyclotourist wrote: Works for me as-is. Prefer it actually. Not me. I'll also bet not for a lot of other people -- otherwise why would this even come up for discussion? And what would it hurt to change to User Decides? On 11/26/13, Steve Palincsar wrote: On 11

Re: [RBW] Re: Why the "Re:" posts?

Thanks, all. It seems Chrome doesn't support that option in the drop down menu. Oh well. On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 11:16 AM, Cyclofiend Jim wrote: > Actually, that specific mechanism does exist. You do need to be viewing > via the web interface. > > To the right of the "Reply" arrow (itself to th

Re: [RBW] Re: Why the "Re:" posts?

Works for me as-is. Prefer it actually. On 11/26/13, Steve Palincsar wrote: > On 11/26/2013 01:16 PM, Cyclofiend Jim wrote: >> Actually, that specific mechanism does exist. You do need to be >> viewing via the web interface. >> >> To the right of the "Reply" arrow (itself to the right of every p

Re: [RBW] Re: Why the "Re:" posts?

Actually, that specific mechanism does exist. You do need to be viewing via the web interface. To the right of the "Reply" arrow (itself to the right of every post) is a small, downward pointing triangle. Clicking on this will bring down a menu of "More Message Actions". Among the choices is

Re: [RBW] Re: Why the "Re:" posts?

Speaking about "Re:" threads, here's another: why doesn't the list reply mechanism allow a choice between "reply" and "reply all", as on the Boblist and CR list? As it is, when you want to reply only to the sender, you have to find the sender's address, click reply, erase the list address, and past

[RBW] Re: Why the "Re:" posts?

Not sure, but I suspect it's a function of using email to reply to a thread in a way that submits it as a new thread, instead of addition to the existing thread... (Replying to the email version of the list, not via the board...) -L On Monday, November 25, 2013 9:11:47 PM UTC-5, Michael wrote: