Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Old Google Groups format links
117 views
Skip to first unread message
Jean Davison
Aug 10, 2012, 12:26:44 PM8/10/12
to jjdavi...@yahoo.com
Google keeps sending me to its horrible new format, but these
links still have the old set-up (posted earlier by someone else):
http://groups.google.ru/grphp?hl=en
http://groups.google.no/grphp?hl=en
http://groups.google.dk/grphp?hl=en
http://groups.google.fi/grphp?hl=en
http://groups.google.se/grphp?hl=en
Jean
Bud
Aug 10, 2012, 8:13:07 PM8/10/12
to
of languishing in the new format. What is google thinking? I could`t
even do the kinds of searches I could easily do with the old set up.
Jean Davison
Aug 10, 2012, 11:59:06 PM8/10/12
to jjdavi...@yahoo.com
On Aug 10, 7:13 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> On Aug 10, 12:26 pm, Jean Davison <jean.davis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Google keeps sending me to its horrible new format, but these
> > links still have the old set-up (posted earlier by someone else):
>
> >http://groups.google.ru/grphp?hl=enhttp://groups.google.no/grphp?hl=e...
> On Aug 10, 12:26 pm, Jean Davison <jean.davis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Google keeps sending me to its horrible new format, but these
> > links still have the old set-up (posted earlier by someone else):
>
>
> > Jean
>
> Thanks for the heads up Jean, I`m back to the old format after weeks
> of languishing in the new format. What is google thinking? I could`t
> even do the kinds of searches I could easily do with the old set up.
I agree, Bud. I couldn't figure out the new version at all.
> > Jean
>
> Thanks for the heads up Jean, I`m back to the old format after weeks
> of languishing in the new format. What is google thinking? I could`t
> even do the kinds of searches I could easily do with the old set up.
Jean
David Von Pein
Aug 11, 2012, 8:06:06 AM8/11/12
to
Thanks, Jean (and to whoever you got the links from).
Those are excellent shortcut links back to the old (and much better)
Google format.
I, too, hate the "New" Google Groups. Much more confusing than the old
layout, IMO. And having access to the old Groups means I get all of my
"individual message" pages back too (vs. the "anchored inside the
thread" links now provided in the new format, which take much longer
to load too).
I suppose Google will automatically switch us back to the new Groups
again in the near future, but I guess we can then use the links in
Jean's post to go back to the old again (for a while), eh?
I'd suggest doing what I just now did -- copying and bookmarking one
of the links in Jean's post into your browser for super easy access
back into the old format in case the crappy new one is forced upon us
again. :)
BTW/FYI --
I've been gaining new information almost daily about that postmark
controversy in CE773 (Oswald's envelope mailed to Klein's). I keep
updating the blog post below whenever I get more info:
http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-postmark-on-commission-exhibit-773.html
Jean Davison
Aug 11, 2012, 5:11:11 PM8/11/12
to jjdavi...@yahoo.com
On Aug 11, 1:09 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/th...
or whoever it was.
>
> Those are excellent shortcut links back to the old (and much better)
> Google format.
>
> I, too, hate the "New" Google Groups. Much more confusing than the old
> layout, IMO. And having access to the old Groups means I get all of my
> "individual message" pages back too (vs. the "anchored inside the
> thread" links now provided in the new format, which take much longer
> to load too).
>
> I suppose Google will automatically switch us back to the new Groups
> again in the near future, but I guess we can then use the links in
> Jean's post to go back to the old again (for a while), eh?
>
> I'd suggest doing what I just now did -- copying and bookmarking one
> of the links in Jean's post into your browser for super easy access
> back into the old format in case the crappy new one is forced upon us
> again. :)
If (or when) we're forced to use the new system, David, I hope
you'll give us all a tutorial. Sounds as if you've figured out some of
its features. I can't make sense of it, myself.
>
> BTW/FYI --
>
> I've been gaining new information almost daily about that postmark
> controversy in CE773 (Oswald's envelope mailed to Klein's). I keep
> updating the blog post below whenever I get more info:
>
> http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-postmark-on-commission-e...
Excellent work on that, David. Very interesting, too.
Jean
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/th...
>
> JEAN DAVISON SAID:
>
> Google keeps sending me to its horrible new format, but these links
> still have the old set-up (posted earlier by someone else):
>
> JEAN DAVISON SAID:
>
> Google keeps sending me to its horrible new format, but these links
> still have the old set-up (posted earlier by someone else):
>
> BUD SAID:
>
> Thanks for the heads up Jean, I'm back to the old format after weeks
> of languishing in the new format. What is google thinking? I couldn't
>
> Thanks for the heads up Jean, I'm back to the old format after weeks
> even do the kinds of searches I could easily do with the old set up.
>
>
> JEAN DAVISON SAID:
>
> I agree, Bud. I couldn't figure out the new version at all.
>
>
> I agree, Bud. I couldn't figure out the new version at all.
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> Thanks, Jean (and to whoever you got the links from).
I think it was Herbert who first posted that. Thanks to him
>
> Thanks, Jean (and to whoever you got the links from).
or whoever it was.
>
> Those are excellent shortcut links back to the old (and much better)
> Google format.
>
> I, too, hate the "New" Google Groups. Much more confusing than the old
> layout, IMO. And having access to the old Groups means I get all of my
> "individual message" pages back too (vs. the "anchored inside the
> thread" links now provided in the new format, which take much longer
> to load too).
>
> I suppose Google will automatically switch us back to the new Groups
> again in the near future, but I guess we can then use the links in
> Jean's post to go back to the old again (for a while), eh?
>
> I'd suggest doing what I just now did -- copying and bookmarking one
> of the links in Jean's post into your browser for super easy access
> back into the old format in case the crappy new one is forced upon us
> again. :)
you'll give us all a tutorial. Sounds as if you've figured out some of
its features. I can't make sense of it, myself.
>
> BTW/FYI --
>
> I've been gaining new information almost daily about that postmark
> controversy in CE773 (Oswald's envelope mailed to Klein's). I keep
> updating the blog post below whenever I get more info:
>
Excellent work on that, David. Very interesting, too.
Jean
Research
Aug 11, 2012, 8:04:37 PM8/11/12
to
"Jean Davison" <jean.d...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a3fc46ee-6c1f-47ba...@z11g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
IE7. But when I saw how the 8 worked I uninstalled it. and re-installed my
7. Cause the 8 is crap and the 7 is much better. Some of this new
technology is just a crappy way of getting in your pocket. With patches
and stuff. Trying to make this new stuff more profitable for the
conglomerate.
Anthony Marsh
Aug 11, 2012, 10:29:08 PM8/11/12
to
Research
Aug 12, 2012, 10:40:02 AM8/12/12
to
>> The Internet Explorer 8 is the same way. I downloaded it and it erased my
>> IE7. But when I saw how the 8 worked I uninstalled it. and re-installed
>> my
>> 7. Cause the 8 is crap and the 7 is much better. Some of this new
>> technology is just a crappy way of getting in your pocket. With patches
>> and stuff. Trying to make this new stuff more profitable for the
>> conglomerate.
>
> Jeez, you should see Windows 8. It is designed for babies.
>
don't have deal the dos or mos or anything like we used to back when all we
had was an a drive. Geesh.
The operating system is fine. But explorer 8 is crap. It continually crashed
and it don't tab like 7. Well, I like 7 better. What ever floats your tub.
Anthony Marsh
Aug 12, 2012, 7:05:56 PM8/12/12
to
version of IE.
0 new messages