>>>Only members of the Premier Universal Thread Membership can apply a filter on a category.
>>
>>Yuo can still find the thread using that information.
>And how would I enter Thread# in that interface which does not have thread field?

You wouldn't. You've made the decision not to spend the money for PUTM status, but given the wealth of information MH provided, you can still find it. I've taken the liberty of extracting and repeating his reference below:

>>Use the calender section and look for: Troubleshooting Re: Error 'Mismatched pushjmp/popjmp call.' Thread #300986 Message #301164 From 09/12/1999 13:59:58


Search won't work. Invoke Calendar Mode, and select the date cited: 09/12/1999 (he uses a different date format than I do - that's 9 December, not 12 September.) On that day, there were a total of 649 messages. Go to the section he cited: Troubleshooting, and look for the messages related to the thread. My browser (IE 5.01 at the moment) has an option under the Edit menu point called "Find on this page" - it searches for text in the current frame of the current URL, which would lead you to your information. I don't know if BUTM can filter the category in Calendar Mode, but if so, select the category he named, Troubleshooting, and on that date, a total of 17 messages were entered in the Category.

Given the wealth of information in the back history of UT, and an ongoing need for assistance, often in areas that have had significant coverage in the past, a PUTM might make sense for you. The added functionality is well worth the annual expense of $125CDN to me, and like any other business expense like newsletter subscriptions, it's tax-deductible. It makes UT a more useful tool for you, but that's strictly my opinion. I've been a PUTM, and recovered the cost of the PUTM from discounts on products I've bought from vendors involved with UT, not considering ease of use issues. I've posted about 7800 messages on UT to date - I'd be hard pressed to recall details of my own post if some asks me "Hey - remember that hack to eliminate the Admin install requirement for Setup Wizard under NT you posted?" I'd be at a loss to recall exactly what I said lacking PUTM search abilities. I'm not going to debate the issue of getting a PUTM or not, but I find it's worthwhile for me, and assume it'd be even more useful if where I wasn't as smug, stubborn and self-confident. It can be really annoying to bang your head on the wall on something easy when the answer is there if I just go look. SO I have a PUTM, an e-subscription to FoxTalk (which gives full access to their back issue library; I strongly recommend it. If I only had one VFP-related subscription, the e-subscription to FoxTalk would be my choice. http://www.pinnacle.com/foxtalk - BUTM will have to cut and paste to get to the URL.

PUTM makes it easier for others to help you, and for you to help yourself. If I want to be certain that a URL will click through, I have to manually add HTML to my message - add an < A HREF=URL >some topic to click< /A > without the spaces after the < and before the >. Lots more work. But everyone should get to FoxTalk

(And FWIW, the first things I do when I have a VFP question after Help, HackFox.CHM and the FoxTalk back issues, is to hit the FAQ here, and search for old messages containing a key phrase or two. If it's a VFP OOP question, I'll hunt up all of Jim Booth's posts. It's often paid off - the full subject has porobably been discussed, in an exchange that might have taken several days, the one guy who knew the answer may have won the lotto, moved to an isolated island in the Carribean and not do UT any more, or might not see it for a week, and if it doesn't show after a little search, I can still post and ask the question...)

While UT does have people with a wide range of experience, a facility with using FAQs is worth developing - I have points to two key non-VFP FAQ sites in my sig that cover NT, Win2K and Win32 scripting. You're far more likely to get good advice on these topics from their specialized FAQs than by asking the denizens here on UT. Other on-line mechanisms exist that might fit your needs better - there's a new vfp.general newsgroup on news.devx.com, and the microsoft.public.fox groups on news.microsoft.com are two good NNTP-based sources.

The fox.wikis.com site is a great source of accumulated and well-discussed and distilled information, but not the place to go if you have a question, don't want to read relevant docs, and can't wait while the wikian populace builds and distills a good wiki document. The results of the chat sessions from the VFP beta study groups were captured, edited, collected and distilled, and much of the non-topical chat content that littered the sessions (as you'd expect in a Chat) is left out. Nancy Folsom and Marcia Atkins did a great job of editing andspell-checking the commentary, and desrve some recognition for it.

Other threaded message bases like www.foxforum.com exist, too. And the newly revised CompuServe Web access, open to anyone who has an AOL account, or an AOL Instant Messenger ID, which is free, or any of a number of other adequate identities, offer Web access to CSi forums - you only need a CSi Classic or CS2K account if you want an OLR or CIS software based services. I've not been there - I left CSi entirely after sysoping there for PCWorld and Adaptec for a number of years, largely because of the consolidation disaster from last year, when CSi reduced the number of forums, combining many incompatible groups into a single forum. I stayed on briefly with Emerging Technologies, where PCWorld got moved, and left after the first inrush of AOL 'users' during the early teething. FWIW, both PCWorld and Adaptec are now heavily invested in their own Web-based services; from their POV, if their users were coming in via the Web, they thought they could offer a better structure than the CSi web interface. I think both were right. I have no opinion on the revived VFP forum on CSi, have never even visited, and was never an active member of that on-line community. I will say that some of the strongest elements of the MS MVP program are there, and if UT and the newsgroups don't suit me well, it's an option I can explore.

But the wiki isn't UT. UT is not an AOhHell Chat room, either. There are a couple of AIM CHannels for Fox chats, and a couple IRCs as well.

BTW, once this rambling sinks in, you might thank the MH for telling you how to get to the message. I often forget that BUTM don't have the easy search by message and thread, and may only answer "Gee, we talked about that in message #123456 in detail" and you'd be stuck as a BUTM.