Dan Anderson wrote: > On Feb 10, 2008 4:24 PM, singhals <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > I don't, myself, see much common-sense in re-reading a > thread you've already read once. I mean, if you're reading > the posts as they come in, why would you plow through each > time a new post comes in? If Post C was good when it was > fresh, it's probably still good when Post M is the fresh one. > > Cheryl > > > Cheryl, > > Me neither. I fully clean each board after I adopt it and review > messages as they are posted, editing when necessary right then. The > only reason I would review an entire thread again is if an objection > regarding topicality was raised. > > What I'm really addressing is reading a thread on a board I *do not* > admin. After filing an objection on post C, the "repaired" system takes > User to the initial board view (the list of threads) rather than back to > post C. Prior to the repair, User would have been taken back to Post > C. User has not read posts D-M (but wants to) therefore being taken to > the board view is inconvenient because User has to retrace the steps to > the point he/she was prior to filing the objection. > > Dan I'm still not _quite_ grasping your issue -- I don't see it as any of _MY_ business how another admin runs their board, and if 57 different people post messages on the Grammarham board with a SUBJ: HELP!! seems to me that's 57 different problems that are simply NMP; meanwhile, I've made a habit of not-visiting/reading boards which have what I consider to be too-much mis-information. From my little foothold on reality, then, I don't see that it matters where the system dumps me if I complain about a post. (I mean, if I've just objected to something I've read, why would I want to keep reading it? Masochism??) I don't get it. Cheryl -- There should be no attachments on this message, unless I specifically mentioned them above.