Email address

[eyecatcher]

Would like to contact Royse or one of the other carb gurus, but can't find an e mail address. Classic View doesn't come up with anything. How do I find an address?

 

[Royse]

I replied from Classic View, so the email link should work on this post.

 

[TheOldHokie]

(quoted from post at 10:12:34 06/23/18) I replied from Classic View, so the email link should work on this post.

All email now goes through the YT indirect forwarding system - even if you provided on in your profile direct email addresses are no longer displayed for "security" reasons....

TOH

 

[Tim PloughNman Daley]

In Classic View, lower RH corner of post has a blue highlighted [Email} dialog. Click on it to get to the YT form for contacting the recipient. A recipient must post their email addy in the dialog box at the top LH of message box under NAME and between Subject. You may have to find an old post of Royses' to get his email info. If not why not just make a post asking him? Once you get a reply, you will then have that persons email info and no longer need to go thru a third party like YTMAG. Note on any post, if the dialog box says [No Email] that means none was given/listed in that reply/post.

Tim Daley(MI)

 

[Royse]

(quoted from post at 11:39:25 06/23/18)

(quoted from post at 10:12:34 06/23/18) I replied from Classic View, so the email link should work on this post.

All email now goes through the YT indirect forwarding system - even if you provided on in your profile direct email addresses are no longer displayed for "security" reasons....

TOH

Correct but for those of us using Modern View, you see the email button.
It's there on every one of my posts made from moder view, as it is on your post.

On Classic View, I have to provide an email address, then it will display
a "Send Email" link. If I don't provide one, the link says "No Email".

I wish they'd just decide on one view and get rid of the other view.
Seems the Classic View is just maintained to keep customers and
they often don't sync well, so it's a pain to keep switching views
to see who said what and to whom or to find an email link, etc.

 

[Tim PloughNman Daley]

I still fail to see any advantage with using the "Modern View". Might just be me, but I find it hard to follow and reply to. I was raised here with the Classic View. The old adage applies, "... if it ain't broke, why 'fix' it..."?

Tim Daley(MI)

 

[HFJ]

horses weren't broke either, but i'm guessing none of us still use one for transportation.

i have never liked what this forum calls "classic view" since i first used it, years before i ever saw this forum.

it is, among other things, the reason why people often are oblivious to other replies in the topic.

 

[TheOldHokie]

(quoted from post at 13:21:54 06/24/18)
horses weren't broke either, but i'm guessing none of us still use one for transportation.

i have never liked what this forum calls "classic view" since i first used it, years before i ever saw this forum.

it is, among other things, the reason why people often are oblivious to other replies in the topic.

Most every forum I frequent uses something like "Modern View". It puts the most active threads at the top of the list where they are easily seen - much better IMO than having them buried 2-3 pages back as in "Classic View". Now if they would just re-activate HTML user input I would be a happy camper.

TOH

 

[R Geiger]

(quoted from post at 13:43:05 06/24/18)

(quoted from post at 13:21:54 06/24/18)
horses weren't broke either, but i'm guessing none of us still use one for transportation.

i have never liked what this forum calls "classic view" since i first used it, years before i ever saw this forum.

it is, among other things, the reason why people often are oblivious to other replies in the topic.

Most every forum I frequent uses something like "Modern View". It puts the most active threads at the top of the list where they are easily seen - much better IMO than having them buried 2-3 pages back as in "Classic View". Now if they would just re-activate HTML user input I would be a happy camper.

TOH

Well said, I use nothing but the modern view myself.

 

[HFJ]

(quoted from post at 16:43:05 06/24/18)

(quoted from post at 13:21:54 06/24/18)
horses weren't broke either, but i'm guessing none of us still use one for transportation.

i have never liked what this forum calls "classic view" since i first used it, years before i ever saw this forum.

it is, among other things, the reason why people often are oblivious to other replies in the topic.

Most every forum I frequent uses something like "Modern View". It puts the most active threads at the top of the list where they are easily seen - much better IMO than having them buried 2-3 pages back as in "Classic View". Now if they would just re-activate HTML user input I would be a happy camper.

TOH

yep. vbulletin (last i checked, the most widely used software,) phpbb ("modern view" here,) invision, punbb, simple machines - all use a common format, and i find that format to be far more useful than the "classic view" format. and that's in spite of my first having used sites which would be called classic view, back in the 90s - before i saw phpbb for the first time.

 

[Royse]

"if it ain't broke, why 'fix' it..."?"

Ah, but it IS broken.
The two views don't always sync posts between them.

For example, if you try to post a link, or in some cases, just
the name of a competitor, modern view will not let you post it.
It is blocked as it should be.

But classic view does not block the post like it should.
It lets you post it and see it, but then when it tries to sync over
to the modern side, it is not allowed and the entire post is
dropped. Everything you took the time to write is invisible to
anyone using modern view when classic view shouldn't have
let you post it to begin with.

Our good friends here in Michigan who sell parts and make
YouTube videos are frequently caught in this scenario. Every
time you mention their name, your entire post doesn't show
up for people using the other view. I call that broken.