Robin Garr wrote:* If we do want to move on, can we as a community band together to raise the money necessary to fund it? The result would absolutely break new ground a generation ahead of anything else out there - much as Eric's old WLDG did in the 1990s - but we're probably looking at a significant amount in the low five figures.
John D. Zuccarino wrote:I think the forums should be about the content not the software appeal.
Bob Parsons Alberta. wrote:What really annoys me whilst I am here is the way people refer to us on another forum. Say no more.
Bob Parsons Alberta. wrote:But I have other interests and use other forums, none are as complicated as this one.
I really can not believe that we are so cheap that we would not chip in to pay Eric to return us to the old but more secure software
Bob Henrick wrote:I don't know what he wants dollar wise
Paul Winalski wrote:I guess I never used the "threaded" feature of the old forum, since I don't know what people are talking about when they refer to it.
Mike Conner wrote:As far as I can tell with this software, the only thing it tells me is if there are new posts within this thread, not which ones I have already read. Therefore, I have to spend more time looking over posts to remember if I read it or not.
Robin Garr wrote:Mike, it's a little quirky sometimes, but the forum actually does have that functionality. When you open a forum and see the list of posts, you'll notice a tiny yellow folder just to the LEFT of the message title. Click it, and it's supposed to take you to the place in that thread where you left off. (There's also a folder icon to the RIGHT, next to the name of the last poster. Click that one, and it takes you to the last post in the thread.)