Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

A Plea to SE re: (NT)'s

Dec 13, 2003 9:53PM PST

I realize it's a PITA to have to put the NT in yourself, but considering that you have to put something in the message body it seems a minor effort to include the NT in your subject line.

These forums are faster than the old ones, but it is still a royal PITA to open up empty messages. May I request that those who routinely post no-text-messages w/o an NT make an effort to make life a bit easier for the rest of us?

Thanks!
Evie Happy

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
(NT) Bump! Second Request Please?
Dec 22, 2003 7:52PM PST

.

- Collapse -
I agree. What's strange is that it seems to have got worse, not better,this week. nt
Dec 22, 2003 8:17PM PST

.

- Collapse -
Re:I agree. What's strange is that it seems to have got worse, not better,this week. nt
Dec 22, 2003 9:44PM PST

and you thought it would get better, why?

- Collapse -
David, you could have erase the nt in your above subject
Dec 22, 2003 11:37PM PST

even tho it is legit because it is a "Re:". I almost overlooked your text because of the "nt".

- Collapse -
I've had a problem with this too ...
Dec 22, 2003 11:41PM PST

... which is why I try to use the same format -- (NT) at the beginning of post -- as we had with the old software.
Makes sense to me, and then you get the more familiar looking Re: (NT) ... subject line.

Evie Happy

- Collapse -
David, you could have erase the nt in your above subject
Dec 22, 2003 11:46PM PST

oops, sorry John and Evie.
david williams

- Collapse -
No biggie David ...
Dec 23, 2003 12:11AM PST

... it's just that even with the change, many of us were used to years of looking for the (NT) at the beginning of the subject line. So if someone responded to one and it said Re: (NT) ... it was obvious that was a reply or else it would have automatically been (NT) Re: (NT) ...

If we all did our best to adopt the old standard I think life would be a lot easier and those who reply like you did with a message body of text wouldn't have to worry about the subject line.

I also find (NT) much easier to spot than nt ... maybe I'm just going blind in my advancing age!

Evie Happy

- Collapse -
Are you calling the kettle black?
Dec 22, 2003 10:22PM PST
- Collapse -
nt) Why? Its there? Just at the end. nt nt nt
Dec 23, 2003 2:16PM PST

.

- Collapse -
Related Issue -- Page Rendering Time
Dec 22, 2003 9:54PM PST

Overall, the pages load a lot faster with this new software. Using my back button and manually changing the # in the URL for the longer threads, I'm able to manage checking those 100+ relatively quickly ....

BUT, once I find a new post in such a thread and go to open it, that's when the software grinds to a halt and it takes forever for the page to display. This is my biggest issue with the NT's because many of them -- sorry if I'm off base here -- seem to be deliberately added in the long threads w/o the NT indicator (to draw attention?) and it's annoying as H - E - double toothpicks!

Evie Happy

- Collapse -
Returning from a week on the road and...
Dec 23, 2003 2:39AM PST

...I had the exact same thing happen to me. I opened that latest long gripefest thread and after that nothing seemed to move very fast at all. In fact it was PAINFULLY slow. I thought maybe my teens had done something to my computer while I was gone and was intending to get around to checking that possibility out till I noticed that I had no problems when closing the browser, reopening and visiting other sites. I kept getting "page not found" errors. Anyone else?

- Collapse -
Re:Returning from a week on the road and...
Dec 23, 2003 12:58PM PST

I have also had the same problem! And also thought it was my PC! Good to know I don't have to try and find the problem!

Glenda

- Collapse -
Re: A Plea to SE re: (NT)'s
Dec 22, 2003 11:23PM PST

Thanks for bringing this up again Evie. Some of our SE people are sometimes A-holes...right after you posted this they went ahead as usual or maybe they are a little like Forest Gump.

- Collapse -
Since I 'found' you here ...
Dec 22, 2003 11:38PM PST

... and I may be either blind or the entire thread was yanked for going south, I wanted to reply to our "Huh?" miscommunication.

I had read your take on the fate Saddam should face think we just got our wires crossed because I agree. I was only pointing out that IF we are to get anything further out of this man, rather than provide him (with what appears to be a French and Jordanian advocate!) with a soapbox in the Hague, the death penalty absolutely MUST be on the table.

Look at that serial killer who just avoided the death penalty by confessing and leading authorities to the remains of some 40+ women. Many of the victim's families were outraged that he evaded the "ultimate justice" in the plea, but others were grateful for closure in knowing what happened to their loved one. It might (might!) be worth sparing Saddam's life if the sniveling coward is willing to come clean on WMD's, which governments abetted him, the whereabouts of other terrorists/militants, locations of mass graves and who is responsible for the carnage, etc. to save his cowardly a$$. The Iraqi people get to ultimately decide I think. The devil would be in the details of actually keeping him alive and imprisoned!

Evie Happy

- Collapse -
(NT) Thanks ... must be going blind then :-)
Dec 23, 2003 1:51AM PST

.

- Collapse -
Re:Since I 'found' you here ...
Dec 23, 2003 12:55AM PST

You have a point there Evie, however I think others, including witnesses, can give locations of mass graves. Individual killings by his subordinates may not be known specifically by Saddam. WMD's, well if our or British expert thumb twisters cannot get info from his subordinates, what makes me thinks he could say anything of value just to save his *** from the death sentence. Besides, now recent news is that a Pakistan (sp) individual or group may have put Iran, Iraq, and N. Korea on to the "bomb".

Your point would also have weight with me personally if this guy was a leader of a country that didn't have terrorist or extreme religious violent radicals willing to blow themselves and innocents up. I don't believe Hitler had these types and we & the world would have executed Hitler (after a trial of course). I had indicated that with outside "soldier of fortune" experts being paid enough, no prison in Iraq could hold Saddam. Also, think of the terrorist/suicide people who would start hijacking and holding important hostages wanting an exchange. We would naturally loose some important people as we don't negotiate under that premise.