Microsoft Windows Vista Community Forums - Vistaheads
Recommended Download

Welcome to the Microsoft Windows Vista Community Forums - Vistaheads, YOUR Largest Resource for Windows Vista related information.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so , join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Driver Scanner

Re: InPrivate as default


Speedup My PC
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 10-27-2009
PA Bear [MS MVP]

Posts: n/a
Re: InPrivate as default
[crosspost to IE General]

Always state your full Windows version (e.g., WinXP SP3; Vista 64-bit SP2;
Win7 RC; Win7 RTM) when posting in a forum or newsgroup. Please do so in
your next reply.

~Robear Dyer (PA Bear)
MS MVP-IE, Mail, Security, Windows Client - since 2002

alocksley wrote:
> Is there a setting for IE8 such that when I start IE it comes up with
> InPrivate first?

Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 10-27-2009

Posts: n/a
Re: InPrivate as default
PA Bear [MS MVP] wrote:

> [crosspost to IE General]
> Always state your full Windows version (e.g., WinXP SP3; Vista 64-bit SP2;
> Win7 RC; Win7 RTM) when posting in a forum or newsgroup. Please do so in
> your next reply.
> See

Another example of Bear making an invalid and unsolicited copy/move of a
thread to a different newsgroup based on his bias. Privacy is a
security concern so the original newsgroup was appropriate for the
original post.

Original newsgroups:
Added newsgroups: microsoft.public.internetexplorer.general
Effector/Respondent: PA Bear

This is to warn that Effector has copied [only a subthread of] an
existing discussion to other groups by cross-posting their reply to
groups not originally specified by the OP (original post[er]). There
may be additional replies back under the original post in its original
group(s) than just those shown under the subthread for the Effector's
cross-posted reply. If the OP and others wish to ensure that they see
ALL replies then they must visit the original groups to check if there
are subthreads *other* than under the Effector's reply.

If the OP wishes to move or copy their discussion to another group, that
should be *their* choice and not as an UNSOLICITED action enforced by
another *user*. Despite his pretense, the Effector is not a moderator
or admin but just another user who is propagating the OP's discussion to
different group(s) that he has divined are more appropriate and to
enlarge the audience or hopefully provide a more focused community on
the topic but which may not be a correct action (since the source of the
problem may not be relevant to those other groups simply based on where
the OP reported the symptoms). If the OP wants to move or copy their
discussion to another group, that should be THEIR choice and not of the
Respondent. The Respondent should only recommend to the OP that there
may be more appropriate or useful groups to which the OP should repost
or cross-post their message, not enforce the propagation of the OP's
discussion to other groups.

There are times when the Newsgroups header should be modified to a
different set of groups than was originally specified by the user.
Examples are: using a *.test group to redirect negative or expository
replies into the bit bucket (common with spammers or trolls); removal of
completely unrelated groups (i.e., the OP cross-posted to invalid
groups), an attempt to flame a smaller community or low-bandwidth group
with a rash of replies from other groups (i.e., an intentional attempt
to vengefully or maliciously flood forward into other groups), inclusion
of *.kook or other groups with the intention to flame the other groups
with the inflamed responses (i.e., attempt to flood backward into other
groups), responding to a spam exhibit or announcements but discussions
about them belong in another group, and so on. A misguided need to
enlarge exposure for a discussion based on a choice made by the
Respondent is not an adequate reason to alter the Newsgroups header.

Recommend the OP should move. Do not SHOVE them over. It should be the
OP's choice in what communities to focus on their post, not a forced
change made by the Respondent.
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
InPrivate Filtering and Browsing mpw microsoft.public.internetexplorer.general 6 09-14-2009 03:57
IE8 InPrivate browsing / filtering Charles W microsoft.public.internetexplorer.general 2 07-17-2009 07:07
RSS Feeds and InPrivate Filtering Spirit microsoft.public.internetexplorer.general 0 05-21-2009 02:23
InPrivate filtering in IE8 Smirnoff microsoft.public.internetexplorer.general 1 04-02-2009 08:58
IE8: InPrivate filtering is almost useless MK microsoft.public.internetexplorer.general 6 04-02-2009 00:33

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 22:36.

Driver Scanner - Free Scan Now is part of the Heads Network. See also , and

Design by Vjacheslav Trushkin for
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 RC 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120