ali-cat Posted June 4, 2006 Share Posted June 4, 2006 Does it also count the number of times the sender/recipient views it - on the other side? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cassis Posted June 4, 2006 Author Share Posted June 4, 2006 Could be, Ali. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Smith Posted June 4, 2006 Share Posted June 4, 2006 I believe that may, possibly, be the case.What we REALLY need is a warning when you log on that a PM has been received - some people obviously don't check, or check their emails, or aren't warned by email or something. Whatever, they never read PMs or reply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cassis Posted June 4, 2006 Author Share Posted June 4, 2006 Aaah. Is that why we get these apparently daft messages saying 'I've PM'd you'?Phil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Smith Posted June 4, 2006 Share Posted June 4, 2006 Indeed. Every other piece of forum software does it for us! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Zoff Posted June 14, 2006 Share Posted June 14, 2006 So the "1 view" of my PM to Ty Korrigan some weeks ago was not a viewing at all but simply down to me posting the message. I assumed it was showing that he had read it and that the lack of a response was that he had chosen not to acknowledge it. If I have correctly understood this thread, he hasn't a clue (unless he now reads this, which is a little late in the day) that I sent him a message. Perhaps I should have posted one of the "daft messages" saying I had PM'd him.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suein56 Posted June 14, 2006 Share Posted June 14, 2006 ***Perhaps I should have posted one of the "daft messages" saying I had PM'd him....***Sometimes it is: necessary/ diplomatic/ helpful/ politic/ polite or simply more efficient to do just that. That is what I have discovered. Sue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitty Posted June 14, 2006 Share Posted June 14, 2006 I thought that P M meant Prime Minister. So to be P M ed means to be Prime Ministered? Something Cherie Blair and Edwina Currie would know about... [;-)] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cassis Posted June 14, 2006 Author Share Posted June 14, 2006 [quote user="Spg"]***Perhaps I should have posted one of the "daft messages" saying I had PM'd him....***Sometimes it is: necessary/ diplomatic/ helpful/ politic/ polite or simply more efficient to do just that. That is what I have discovered. Sue[/quote]So would emailing be more reliable than PM-ing on this forum? What, effectively, is the difference between PM-ing and emailing in terms of privacy and end result? Serious question! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russethouse Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 The person who sends the email doesn't get your email address or you theirs from the first communication, but if you start corresponding that way, then email addressses are revealed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now