Help with setting folder permissions

[Kit White]

I'm running XP Home Edition on a Dell Dimension 8100, Pentium 4, 80 gig HD,
256 RAM (although none of that info will probably be needed to answer this
question....LOL).

Somehow, someway ALL of my file folders are now set to 'read-only'. When I
go through the normal steps to change this, I'm able to untick the read-only
box, apply and click okay. I immediately check the properties and the
folder is once again 'read-only'. I've tried this same process with the
root folder in a tree, hoping that when applying the all subfolders this
would cure the problem...........no such luck.......same situation.

This is driving me nuts! I've got tons of things I need to do in these
folders and the 'read-only' is prohibiting me.

Can someone help? I'm sure there's GOT to be a simple solution that I'm
missing.

Thanks so much,

Kit

[Walter Clayton]

RO attribute on directories isn't your problem nor are all your directories
RO unless you've just done some kind of restore from CD/DVD using an
application that failed to retain the original attributes.

RO attribute on directories is ignored by all except a literal mere handful
of command line programs.

Explain exactly what your problem is.

--
Walter Clayton - MS MVP(WinXP)
Associate Expert
[url]http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone[/url]
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
[url]http://www.dts-l.org[/url]
[url]http://support.microsoft.com/servicedesks/fileversion/default.asp[/url]


"Kit White" <kitkit@kitwhite.com> wrote in message
news:GFVRa.1036$R46.393@fe3.columbus.rr.com...

> I'm running XP Home Edition on a Dell Dimension 8100, Pentium 4, 80 gig

HD,

> 256 RAM (although none of that info will probably be needed to answer this
> question....LOL).
>
> Somehow, someway ALL of my file folders are now set to 'read-only'. When

I

> go through the normal steps to change this, I'm able to untick the

read-only

> box, apply and click okay. I immediately check the properties and the
> folder is once again 'read-only'. I've tried this same process with the
> root folder in a tree, hoping that when applying the all subfolders this
> would cure the problem...........no such luck.......same situation.
>
> This is driving me nuts! I've got tons of things I need to do in these
> folders and the 'read-only' is prohibiting me.
>
> Can someone help? I'm sure there's GOT to be a simple solution that I'm
> missing.
>
> Thanks so much,
>
> Kit
>
>

[Kit White]

I'm sorry but I must beg to differ with you, Walter. I just checked the
properties of 86 random file folders, some were sub-folders, some were not,
but each and every one was 'read-only'. I have not "done some kind of
restore from CD/DVD using an application that failed to retain the original
attributes". The only restore I've done is a 'restore point' restore which
was done yesterday to a point the day before. However, this problem has
existed for well over a week and I've been trying to correct it myself
rather than asking here and getting a presumptive, pompous response such as
yours.

My most recent problem is this, dear Walter; I was attempting to perform a
batch conversion of all files within a folder and was unable to do so
because the FOLDER was read-only. This type of conversion is a normal
procedure I utilize when working with different types of graphics within
MANY graphic programs.

I look forward to any help you may have to offer.

Kit


"Walter Clayton" <w-claytonNO@SPmvps.AMorg> wrote in message
news:uuoybLVTDHA.3188@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
RO attribute on directories isn't your problem nor are all your directories
RO unless you've just done some kind of restore from CD/DVD using an
application that failed to retain the original attributes.

RO attribute on directories is ignored by all except a literal mere handful
of command line programs.

Explain exactly what your problem is.

--
Walter Clayton - MS MVP(WinXP)
Associate Expert
[url]http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone[/url]
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
[url]http://www.dts-l.org[/url]
[url]http://support.microsoft.com/servicedesks/fileversion/default.asp[/url]


"Kit White" <kitkit@kitwhite.com> wrote in message
news:GFVRa.1036$R46.393@fe3.columbus.rr.com...

> I'm running XP Home Edition on a Dell Dimension 8100, Pentium 4, 80 gig

HD,

> 256 RAM (although none of that info will probably be needed to answer this
> question....LOL).
>
> Somehow, someway ALL of my file folders are now set to 'read-only'. When

I

> go through the normal steps to change this, I'm able to untick the

read-only

> box, apply and click okay. I immediately check the properties and the
> folder is once again 'read-only'. I've tried this same process with the
> root folder in a tree, hoping that when applying the all subfolders this
> would cure the problem...........no such luck.......same situation.
>
> This is driving me nuts! I've got tons of things I need to do in these
> folders and the 'read-only' is prohibiting me.
>
> Can someone help? I'm sure there's GOT to be a simple solution that I'm
> missing.
>
> Thanks so much,
>
> Kit
>
>

[Walter Clayton]

Pompous? Been called lot's of things before. ;-)
That's also irrelevant at present.

What are you using to check the RO status of a directory? The properties
sheet on a directory in explorer is meaningless when attempting to look at
the RO attribute. And can not be used to change the RO attribute of a
directory. Again, this is because with the exception of a very few command
line applications, RO on a directory is irrelevant. First thing is to prove
it to you first so that we can address the real issue. ;-)

--
Walter Clayton - MS MVP(WinXP)
Associate Expert
[url]http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone[/url]
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
[url]http://www.dts-l.org[/url]
[url]http://support.microsoft.com/servicedesks/fileversion/default.asp[/url]


"Kit White" <kitkit@kitwhite.com> wrote in message
news:iIWRa.1041$R46.801@fe3.columbus.rr.com...

> I'm sorry but I must beg to differ with you, Walter. I just checked the
> properties of 86 random file folders, some were sub-folders, some were

not,

> but each and every one was 'read-only'. I have not "done some kind of
> restore from CD/DVD using an application that failed to retain the

original

> attributes". The only restore I've done is a 'restore point' restore

which

> was done yesterday to a point the day before. However, this problem has
> existed for well over a week and I've been trying to correct it myself
> rather than asking here and getting a presumptive, pompous response such

as

> yours.
>
> My most recent problem is this, dear Walter; I was attempting to perform a
> batch conversion of all files within a folder and was unable to do so
> because the FOLDER was read-only. This type of conversion is a normal
> procedure I utilize when working with different types of graphics within
> MANY graphic programs.
>
> I look forward to any help you may have to offer.
>
> Kit
>
>
> "Walter Clayton" <w-claytonNO@SPmvps.AMorg> wrote in message
> news:uuoybLVTDHA.3188@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> RO attribute on directories isn't your problem nor are all your

directories

> RO unless you've just done some kind of restore from CD/DVD using an
> application that failed to retain the original attributes.
>
> RO attribute on directories is ignored by all except a literal mere

handful

> of command line programs.
>
> Explain exactly what your problem is.
>
> --
> Walter Clayton - MS MVP(WinXP)
> Associate Expert
> [url]http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone[/url]
> Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
> [url]http://www.dts-l.org[/url]
> [url]http://support.microsoft.com/servicedesks/fileversion/default.asp[/url]
>
>
> "Kit White" <kitkit@kitwhite.com> wrote in message
> news:GFVRa.1036$R46.393@fe3.columbus.rr.com...

> > I'm running XP Home Edition on a Dell Dimension 8100, Pentium 4, 80 gig

> HD,

> > 256 RAM (although none of that info will probably be needed to answer

this

> > question....LOL).
> >
> > Somehow, someway ALL of my file folders are now set to 'read-only'.

When

> I

> > go through the normal steps to change this, I'm able to untick the

> read-only

> > box, apply and click okay. I immediately check the properties and the
> > folder is once again 'read-only'. I've tried this same process with the
> > root folder in a tree, hoping that when applying the all subfolders this
> > would cure the problem...........no such luck.......same situation.
> >
> > This is driving me nuts! I've got tons of things I need to do in these
> > folders and the 'read-only' is prohibiting me.
> >
> > Can someone help? I'm sure there's GOT to be a simple solution that I'm
> > missing.
> >
> > Thanks so much,
> >
> > Kit
> >
> >

>
>
>

[Amethyst]

Kit White wrote:

> I'm sorry but I must beg to differ with you, Walter. I just checked
> the properties of 86 random file folders, some were sub-folders, some
> were not, but each and every one was 'read-only'. I have not "done
> some kind of restore from CD/DVD using an application that failed to
> retain the original attributes". The only restore I've done is a
> 'restore point' restore which was done yesterday to a point the day
> before. However, this problem has existed for well over a week and
> I've been trying to correct it myself rather than asking here and
> getting a presumptive, pompous response such as yours.
>
> My most recent problem is this, dear Walter; I was attempting to
> perform a batch conversion of all files within a folder and was
> unable to do so because the FOLDER was read-only. This type of
> conversion is a normal procedure I utilize when working with
> different types of graphics within MANY graphic programs.
>
> I look forward to any help you may have to offer.
>
> Kit

Walter is correct - YOU are wrong - may I suggest that you apologise? The
folders are /NOT/, I repeat *NOT* read only. The behaviour you are seeing is
by design.

"I look forward to any help you may have to offer"?! Well, with your
attitude, you certainly won't be receiving any from me and, if Walter has
any sense (and I feel sure he has), he'll put you right where I'm about to -
my kill-file.

Come back when you've had therapy for your lack of social skills issue.

People like you don't deserve to be assisted.

You came here asking for assistance Walt Clayton MVP (that means he knows a
damned sight more than you do) and then you tell him he's wrong! Well if
you're so damned smart, fix your own problem!




--
Cassandra
Card carrying member of the Fresh Start Club 'The Undead Are People
Too!'

Reply address is fake. Please send all praise, abuse, insults, bequests
of £1million to cassandra (at) craigy34 (dot) freeserve (dot) co (dot)
uk. Change the obvious to the obvious.
Private requests for assistance will not be acknowledged. Please post
all correspondence to the group so that all may benefit. Thank you.

[Ted]

"Kit White" <kitkit@kitwhite.com> wrote in message news:iIWRa.1041$R46.801@fe3.columbus.rr.com...
<snipped>

Not to pick, but Walter is correct in this, but who knows, right?

Anyway, don't listen to that bitch, "Amethyst", the reply she made to you is typical, and that is primarily her "modus operandi" here!

Here is a sample reply to a person seeking help she made earlier, and those kinds of posts by her, are logged in the thousands, going back just the past few months. Note her last sentence, sans proper punctuation, especially where "commas" are needed, and she claims to have an English degree, and attacks people here regularly for bad grammar! NMote, while she demands you "apologise" to Walter, you won't see her do any such thing for the obvious newbie!

zhizhi wrote:

> > Is there anyone can help me to answer following question?
> > Please identify five specialized terms related to your
> > operating system, for example, an Applications Programmer
> > Interface (API) in Windows. For each term, indicate what
> > it means and what the feature allows you to do.
> >
> > If you know, please send your opinions to my e-mail box.
> > Thank you very much:)
> > zhizhi

""""Amethyst" <amethyst@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:bf6b88$kna$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...>

> This group is for newbies having problems with the Windows XP operating
> system, not for pubescents too damned lazy to do their own homework!
>
> So - to summarise - no do the work yourself you lazy cretin!"""

[Kit White]

Thank you for your response, Walter. I was using Paint Shop Pro Version
7.04 in an attempt to do a batch conversion of graphics within a selected
folder; the program returned this response "The selected folder is
read-only. Please select a different folder or change folder permission."
I've done this particular operation numerous times in the past but began
having this problem for over a week now.

I then opened Windows Explorer, right clicked on the folder and noted that
'read-only' was checked after which I went through the steps as stated in my
initial post. Is this the 'property sheet' you refer to? If this is not
the correct manner to change folder permissions, please advise what should
be done.

As pointed out by at least one person (I'm unsure of the species of the
other party), I seem to have overreacted and apologize for my remarks.
Although you may be, and probably are, correct, I simply felt your reponse
was a bit "edgy" and I may have taken it the wrong way. Please accept my
apology. I DO appreciate your time and help.

Kit


"Walter Clayton" <w-claytonNO@SPmvps.AMorg> wrote in message
news:eQU4gKWTDHA.3192@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
Pompous? Been called lot's of things before. ;-)
That's also irrelevant at present.

What are you using to check the RO status of a directory? The properties
sheet on a directory in explorer is meaningless when attempting to look at
the RO attribute. And can not be used to change the RO attribute of a
directory. Again, this is because with the exception of a very few command
line applications, RO on a directory is irrelevant. First thing is to prove
it to you first so that we can address the real issue. ;-)

--
Walter Clayton - MS MVP(WinXP)
Associate Expert
[url]http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone[/url]
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
[url]http://www.dts-l.org[/url]
[url]http://support.microsoft.com/servicedesks/fileversion/default.asp[/url]


"Kit White" <kitkit@kitwhite.com> wrote in message
news:iIWRa.1041$R46.801@fe3.columbus.rr.com...

> I'm sorry but I must beg to differ with you, Walter. I just checked the
> properties of 86 random file folders, some were sub-folders, some were

not,

> but each and every one was 'read-only'. I have not "done some kind of
> restore from CD/DVD using an application that failed to retain the

original

> attributes". The only restore I've done is a 'restore point' restore

which

> was done yesterday to a point the day before. However, this problem has
> existed for well over a week and I've been trying to correct it myself
> rather than asking here and getting a presumptive, pompous response such

as

> yours.
>
> My most recent problem is this, dear Walter; I was attempting to perform a
> batch conversion of all files within a folder and was unable to do so
> because the FOLDER was read-only. This type of conversion is a normal
> procedure I utilize when working with different types of graphics within
> MANY graphic programs.
>
> I look forward to any help you may have to offer.
>
> Kit
>
>
> "Walter Clayton" <w-claytonNO@SPmvps.AMorg> wrote in message
> news:uuoybLVTDHA.3188@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> RO attribute on directories isn't your problem nor are all your

directories

> RO unless you've just done some kind of restore from CD/DVD using an
> application that failed to retain the original attributes.
>
> RO attribute on directories is ignored by all except a literal mere

handful

> of command line programs.
>
> Explain exactly what your problem is.
>
> --
> Walter Clayton - MS MVP(WinXP)
> Associate Expert
> [url]http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone[/url]
> Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
> [url]http://www.dts-l.org[/url]
> [url]http://support.microsoft.com/servicedesks/fileversion/default.asp[/url]
>
>
> "Kit White" <kitkit@kitwhite.com> wrote in message
> news:GFVRa.1036$R46.393@fe3.columbus.rr.com...

> > I'm running XP Home Edition on a Dell Dimension 8100, Pentium 4, 80 gig

> HD,

> > 256 RAM (although none of that info will probably be needed to answer

this

> > question....LOL).
> >
> > Somehow, someway ALL of my file folders are now set to 'read-only'.

When

> I

> > go through the normal steps to change this, I'm able to untick the

> read-only

> > box, apply and click okay. I immediately check the properties and the
> > folder is once again 'read-only'. I've tried this same process with the
> > root folder in a tree, hoping that when applying the all subfolders this
> > would cure the problem...........no such luck.......same situation.
> >
> > This is driving me nuts! I've got tons of things I need to do in these
> > folders and the 'read-only' is prohibiting me.
> >
> > Can someone help? I'm sure there's GOT to be a simple solution that I'm
> > missing.
> >
> > Thanks so much,
> >
> > Kit
> >
> >

>
>
>

[Kit White]

I find it interesting that you fantasize that anyone cares what you think,
say or do. What's even more intriguing is that it appears you honestly feel
it necessary to come to the DEfense of anyone as you are undoubtedly the
most OFfensive morphon encountered in quite some time.

I see in your "eloquent" response that you've spouted "if Walter has any
sense (and I feel sure he has), he'll put you right where I'm about to -
my kill-file"; so, I won't plan on seeing anything further from you.

Thank you for the amusement.

Kit

"Amethyst" <amethyst@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bf9l4a$6il$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
Kit White wrote:

> I'm sorry but I must beg to differ with you, Walter. I just checked
> the properties of 86 random file folders, some were sub-folders, some
> were not, but each and every one was 'read-only'. I have not "done
> some kind of restore from CD/DVD using an application that failed to
> retain the original attributes". The only restore I've done is a
> 'restore point' restore which was done yesterday to a point the day
> before. However, this problem has existed for well over a week and
> I've been trying to correct it myself rather than asking here and
> getting a presumptive, pompous response such as yours.
>
> My most recent problem is this, dear Walter; I was attempting to
> perform a batch conversion of all files within a folder and was
> unable to do so because the FOLDER was read-only. This type of
> conversion is a normal procedure I utilize when working with
> different types of graphics within MANY graphic programs.
>
> I look forward to any help you may have to offer.
>
> Kit

Walter is correct - YOU are wrong - may I suggest that you apologise? The
folders are /NOT/, I repeat *NOT* read only. The behaviour you are seeing is
by design.

"I look forward to any help you may have to offer"?! Well, with your
attitude, you certainly won't be receiving any from me and, if Walter has
any sense (and I feel sure he has), he'll put you right where I'm about to -
my kill-file.

Come back when you've had therapy for your lack of social skills issue.

People like you don't deserve to be assisted.

You came here asking for assistance Walt Clayton MVP (that means he knows a
damned sight more than you do) and then you tell him he's wrong! Well if
you're so damned smart, fix your own problem!




--
Cassandra
Card carrying member of the Fresh Start Club 'The Undead Are People
Too!'

Reply address is fake. Please send all praise, abuse, insults, bequests
of £1million to cassandra (at) craigy34 (dot) freeserve (dot) co (dot)
uk. Change the obvious to the obvious.
Private requests for assistance will not be acknowledged. Please post
all correspondence to the group so that all may benefit. Thank you.

[Walter Clayton]

You were looking at the properties sheet. And I can still practically
guarantee that you have only a very few directories with RO set rather than
the entire drive. ;-)

If I recall correctly, now that specific product names have been used, PSP
may be one of the very few, if not the only, 32b apps that might honor RO on
a directory. Best I can remember off the top of my head was that it was one
of the graphics apps, which is why I needed specifics. However to confirm
whether or the directory is in fact RO you have to either display the
attribute column within explorer or use the attrib command in a command
prompt window. What you see on the properties sheet on a directory is simply
a tri-state action toggle that allows you to set the RO attribute on *files*
only and has no bearing on the current state of any RO attribute anywhere in
the system (and yes MS has been taken to task over that bit of
inconsistency). Explorer can not alter the RO attribute byte on a directory.
To actually alter the RO attribute, you have to use the attrib command or a
3rd party tool, but attrib is easy to use.

1st order of business however is still to confirm that RO is in fact set and
you're not dealing with a permissions issue. To verify the RO attribute
launch explorer and position to the parent directory. In the view pull down,
select details then check off attributes. Hit OK and you'll now see the
actual attributes. If there is an R any where in the column then launch a
command prompt (start->run->cmd). Do a change directory to the parent path
(cd {d:\}\path [enter]). Now use the attrib command to reset the RO
attribute bit via (attrib -r {directory} [enter]) - enclose the directory
name in quotes if it has embedded spaces. Optional you can append the /s /d
switches to recurse and process all sub directories. In theory you could do
the entire drive if run the command from the root of the drive, but that may
take just a wee bit of time and some files have RO set for various reasons.

If the RO isn't set however, then you're dealing with a permissions issue
which requires a different, more complicated solution.

--
Walter Clayton - MS MVP(WinXP)
Associate Expert
[url]http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone[/url]
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
[url]http://www.dts-l.org[/url]
[url]http://support.microsoft.com/servicedesks/fileversion/default.asp[/url]


"Kit White" <kitkit@kitwhite.com> wrote in message
news:bj%Ra.1204$R46.1153@fe3.columbus.rr.com...

> Thank you for your response, Walter. I was using Paint Shop Pro Version
> 7.04 in an attempt to do a batch conversion of graphics within a selected
> folder; the program returned this response "The selected folder is
> read-only. Please select a different folder or change folder permission."
> I've done this particular operation numerous times in the past but began
> having this problem for over a week now.
>
> I then opened Windows Explorer, right clicked on the folder and noted that
> 'read-only' was checked after which I went through the steps as stated in

my

> initial post. Is this the 'property sheet' you refer to? If this is not
> the correct manner to change folder permissions, please advise what should
> be done.
>
> As pointed out by at least one person (I'm unsure of the species of the
> other party), I seem to have overreacted and apologize for my remarks.
> Although you may be, and probably are, correct, I simply felt your reponse
> was a bit "edgy" and I may have taken it the wrong way. Please accept my
> apology. I DO appreciate your time and help.
>
> Kit
>
>
> "Walter Clayton" <w-claytonNO@SPmvps.AMorg> wrote in message
> news:eQU4gKWTDHA.3192@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Pompous? Been called lot's of things before. ;-)
> That's also irrelevant at present.
>
> What are you using to check the RO status of a directory? The properties
> sheet on a directory in explorer is meaningless when attempting to look at
> the RO attribute. And can not be used to change the RO attribute of a
> directory. Again, this is because with the exception of a very few command
> line applications, RO on a directory is irrelevant. First thing is to

prove

> it to you first so that we can address the real issue. ;-)
>
> --
> Walter Clayton - MS MVP(WinXP)
> Associate Expert
> [url]http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone[/url]
> Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
> [url]http://www.dts-l.org[/url]
> [url]http://support.microsoft.com/servicedesks/fileversion/default.asp[/url]
>
>
> "Kit White" <kitkit@kitwhite.com> wrote in message
> news:iIWRa.1041$R46.801@fe3.columbus.rr.com...

> > I'm sorry but I must beg to differ with you, Walter. I just checked the
> > properties of 86 random file folders, some were sub-folders, some were

> not,

> > but each and every one was 'read-only'. I have not "done some kind of
> > restore from CD/DVD using an application that failed to retain the

> original

> > attributes". The only restore I've done is a 'restore point' restore

> which

> > was done yesterday to a point the day before. However, this problem has
> > existed for well over a week and I've been trying to correct it myself
> > rather than asking here and getting a presumptive, pompous response such

> as

> > yours.
> >
> > My most recent problem is this, dear Walter; I was attempting to perform

a

> > batch conversion of all files within a folder and was unable to do so
> > because the FOLDER was read-only. This type of conversion is a normal
> > procedure I utilize when working with different types of graphics within
> > MANY graphic programs.
> >
> > I look forward to any help you may have to offer.
> >
> > Kit
> >
> >
> > "Walter Clayton" <w-claytonNO@SPmvps.AMorg> wrote in message
> > news:uuoybLVTDHA.3188@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > RO attribute on directories isn't your problem nor are all your

> directories

> > RO unless you've just done some kind of restore from CD/DVD using an
> > application that failed to retain the original attributes.
> >
> > RO attribute on directories is ignored by all except a literal mere

> handful

> > of command line programs.
> >
> > Explain exactly what your problem is.
> >
> > --
> > Walter Clayton - MS MVP(WinXP)
> > Associate Expert
> > [url]http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone[/url]
> > Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
> > [url]http://www.dts-l.org[/url]
> > [url]http://support.microsoft.com/servicedesks/fileversion/default.asp[/url]
> >
> >
> > "Kit White" <kitkit@kitwhite.com> wrote in message
> > news:GFVRa.1036$R46.393@fe3.columbus.rr.com...

> > > I'm running XP Home Edition on a Dell Dimension 8100, Pentium 4, 80

gig

> > HD,

> > > 256 RAM (although none of that info will probably be needed to answer

> this

> > > question....LOL).
> > >
> > > Somehow, someway ALL of my file folders are now set to 'read-only'.

> When

> > I

> > > go through the normal steps to change this, I'm able to untick the

> > read-only

> > > box, apply and click okay. I immediately check the properties and the
> > > folder is once again 'read-only'. I've tried this same process with

the

> > > root folder in a tree, hoping that when applying the all subfolders

this

> > > would cure the problem...........no such luck.......same situation.
> > >
> > > This is driving me nuts! I've got tons of things I need to do in

these

> > > folders and the 'read-only' is prohibiting me.
> > >
> > > Can someone help? I'm sure there's GOT to be a simple solution that

I'm

> > > missing.
> > >
> > > Thanks so much,
> > >
> > > Kit
> > >
> > >

> >
> >
> >

>
>
>

[PaulC]

Never mind Amethyst, she's being a bitch, as usual. People like her don't
deserve to live.
"Amethyst" <anusfist@hotmale.com> wrote in message
news:027701c34d77$9c588600$a601280a@phx.gbl...

>

> >-----Original Message-----
> >I'm sorry but I must beg to differ with you, Walter. I

> just checked the

> >properties of 86 random file folders, some were sub-

> folders, some were not,

> >but each and every one was 'read-only'. I have not "done

> some kind of

> >restore from CD/DVD using an application that failed to

> retain the original

> >attributes". The only restore I've done is a 'restore

> point' restore which

> >was done yesterday to a point the day before. However,

> this problem has

> >existed for well over a week and I've been trying to

> correct it myself

> >rather than asking here and getting a presumptive,

> pompous response such as

> >yours.
> >
> >My most recent problem is this, dear Walter; I was

> attempting to perform a

> >batch conversion of all files within a folder and was

> unable to do so

> >because the FOLDER was read-only. This type of

> conversion is a normal

> >procedure I utilize when working with different types of

> graphics within

> >MANY graphic programs.
> >
> >I look forward to any help you may have to offer.
> >
> >Kit
> >
> >

>
> Walter is correct - YOU are wrong - I know, because I
> personally lick his brown eye between his bum cheeks, may
> I suggest that you apologise? The
> folders are /NOT/, I repeat *NOT* read only. The behaviour
> you are seeing is
> by design.
>
> "I look forward to any help you may have to offer"?! Well,
> with your
> attitude, you certainly won't be receiving any from me
> and, if Walter has
> any sense (and I feel sure he has), he'll put you right
> where I'm about to -
> my kill-file.
>
> Come back when you've had therapy for your lack of social
> skills issue.
>
> People like you don't deserve to be assisted.
>
> You came here asking for assistance Walt Clayton MVP (that
> means he knows a
> damned sight more than you do) and then you tell him he's
> wrong! Well if
> you're so damned smart, fix your own problem!
>
> And if you think you're getting away without me adding
> even more to this, then you have another thing coming!
> Personally speaking, and I know from experience with
> posting long irrelevant diatribes, as you don't know_your_
> arse_from_your_elbow.
>
> Only fuckwits like you challenge the gods that run these
> forums who are never wrong! The fact you referred to his
> reply as "pompous" shows you to be nothing more than a
> cretin, and a moron!
>
> Let me add also (I am not finished), that when you reply
> like an arse, you won't get assistance from me (fuck you,
> I said this again) any other of the MVPs, because they
> want to avoid seeing my long, boring, drawn out replies,
> berating others, with absolutely no meaning, totally
> unhelpful, and usually off-topic!
>
> So, if you think you're going to come back with replies
> that berate my beloved MVPs, well you got another thing
> coming still girlie! These fine folks spend all their free
> time trying very hard to work with the fuckwits, like you,
> who should really, never be using PCs. I honestly do not
> know how folks like you are allowed to purchase computer
> goods!
>
> Also, did you ever occur to you, that are arrogant when
> you type crap like that in reply to these gods? Please do
> us all a favor, just FOAD, and please (again, I'll say
> this as many as I please!), don't come back for
> assistance, as you have worn out your welcome here,
> especially from me!
>
> By the way, if you do reply please aplogise 1000 times to
> all here in every group belonging to MS, then maybe I
> might forgive your pathetic arse, and give you a bit more
> of unhelpful replies, calling you a fuckwit, cretin,
> moron, pubescent, lazy bitch!
>
> --
> Cuntsandra
> Card carrying member of the Stink Cunt Club 'The Yeast
> Infected Are People Too!'
>
> My tits are fake. Please send all praise, abuse, insults,
> to cuntsandra (at) cheesy34 (dot) freakserve (dot) co
> (dot)
> uk. Change the obvious to the obvious.
> Private requests for assistance will be berated. Please
> post all correspondence to the group so that I can further
> spread my vitriol, and my legs. Thank you.

[Amethyst]

>-----Original Message-----

>I'm sorry but I must beg to differ with you, Walter. I

just checked the

>properties of 86 random file folders, some were sub-

folders, some were not,

>but each and every one was 'read-only'. I have not "done

some kind of

>restore from CD/DVD using an application that failed to

retain the original

>attributes". The only restore I've done is a 'restore

point' restore which

>was done yesterday to a point the day before. However,

this problem has

>existed for well over a week and I've been trying to

correct it myself

>rather than asking here and getting a presumptive,

pompous response such as

>yours.
>
>My most recent problem is this, dear Walter; I was

attempting to perform a

>batch conversion of all files within a folder and was

unable to do so

>because the FOLDER was read-only. This type of

conversion is a normal

>procedure I utilize when working with different types of

graphics within

>MANY graphic programs.
>
>I look forward to any help you may have to offer.
>
>Kit
>
>

Walter is correct - YOU are wrong - I know, because I
personally lick his brown eye between his bum cheeks, may
I suggest that you apologise? The
folders are /NOT/, I repeat *NOT* read only. The behaviour
you are seeing is
by design.

"I look forward to any help you may have to offer"?! Well,
with your
attitude, you certainly won't be receiving any from me
and, if Walter has
any sense (and I feel sure he has), he'll put you right
where I'm about to -
my kill-file.

Come back when you've had therapy for your lack of social
skills issue.

People like you don't deserve to be assisted.

You came here asking for assistance Walt Clayton MVP (that
means he knows a
damned sight more than you do) and then you tell him he's
wrong! Well if
you're so damned smart, fix your own problem!

And if you think you're getting away without me adding
even more to this, then you have another thing coming!
Personally speaking, and I know from experience with
posting long irrelevant diatribes, as you don't know_your_
arse_from_your_elbow.

Only fuckwits like you challenge the gods that run these
forums who are never wrong! The fact you referred to his
reply as "pompous" shows you to be nothing more than a
cretin, and a moron!

Let me add also (I am not finished), that when you reply
like an arse, you won't get assistance from me (fuck you,
I said this again) any other of the MVPs, because they
want to avoid seeing my long, boring, drawn out replies,
berating others, with absolutely no meaning, totally
unhelpful, and usually off-topic!

So, if you think you're going to come back with replies
that berate my beloved MVPs, well you got another thing
coming still girlie! These fine folks spend all their free
time trying very hard to work with the fuckwits, like you,
who should really, never be using PCs. I honestly do not
know how folks like you are allowed to purchase computer
goods!

Also, did you ever occur to you, that are arrogant when
you type crap like that in reply to these gods? Please do
us all a favor, just FOAD, and please (again, I'll say
this as many as I please!), don't come back for
assistance, as you have worn out your welcome here,
especially from me!

By the way, if you do reply please aplogise 1000 times to
all here in every group belonging to MS, then maybe I
might forgive your pathetic arse, and give you a bit more
of unhelpful replies, calling you a fuckwit, cretin,
moron, pubescent, lazy bitch!

--
Cuntsandra
Card carrying member of the Stink Cunt Club 'The Yeast
Infected Are People Too!'

My tits are fake. Please send all praise, abuse, insults,
to cuntsandra (at) cheesy34 (dot) freakserve (dot) co
(dot)
uk. Change the obvious to the obvious.
Private requests for assistance will be berated. Please
post all correspondence to the group so that I can further
spread my vitriol, and my legs. Thank you.

[Kit White]

ROFL.......oh, this is priceless. It's delightful to see such fluent,
articulate language from someone with an "english degree". My hunch was
correct; you spewed uneducated, childish four-letter garbage SOONER as
opposed to LATER.

Congrats on your conclusive display of ignorance. Perhaps your parents
would like a bumper sticker.

And, ONCE AGAIN, since I'm "kill-filed", I (joyfully) won't anticipate yet
another sententious reply.

Thanks again for the entertainment.

Kit


"Amethyst" <anusfist@hotmale.com> wrote in message
news:04f301c34da7$f60b78d0$a401280a@phx.gbl...

>-----Original Message-----
>I'm sorry but I must beg to differ with you, Walter. I

just checked the

>properties of 86 random file folders, some were sub-

folders, some were not,

>but each and every one was 'read-only'. I have not "done

some kind of

>restore from CD/DVD using an application that failed to

retain the original

>attributes". The only restore I've done is a 'restore

point' restore which

>was done yesterday to a point the day before. However,

this problem has

>existed for well over a week and I've been trying to

correct it myself

>rather than asking here and getting a presumptive,

pompous response such as

>yours.
>
>My most recent problem is this, dear Walter; I was

attempting to perform a

>batch conversion of all files within a folder and was

unable to do so

>because the FOLDER was read-only. This type of

conversion is a normal

>procedure I utilize when working with different types of

graphics within

>MANY graphic programs.
>
>I look forward to any help you may have to offer.
>
>Kit
>
>

Walter is correct - YOU are wrong - I know, because I
personally lick his brown eye between his bum cheeks, may
I suggest that you apologise? The
folders are /NOT/, I repeat *NOT* read only. The behaviour
you are seeing is
by design.

"I look forward to any help you may have to offer"?! Well,
with your
attitude, you certainly won't be receiving any from me
and, if Walter has
any sense (and I feel sure he has), he'll put you right
where I'm about to -
my kill-file.

Come back when you've had therapy for your lack of social
skills issue.

People like you don't deserve to be assisted.

You came here asking for assistance Walt Clayton MVP (that
means he knows a
damned sight more than you do) and then you tell him he's
wrong! Well if
you're so damned smart, fix your own problem!

And if you think you're getting away without me adding
even more to this, then you have another thing coming!
Personally speaking, and I know from experience with
posting long irrelevant diatribes, as you don't know_your_
arse_from_your_elbow.

Only fuckwits like you challenge the gods that run these
forums who are never wrong! The fact you referred to his
reply as "pompous" shows you to be nothing more than a
cretin, and a moron!

Let me add also (I am not finished), that when you reply
like an arse, you won't get assistance from me (fuck you,
I said this again) any other of the MVPs, because they
want to avoid seeing my long, boring, drawn out replies,
berating others, with absolutely no meaning, totally
unhelpful, and usually off-topic!

So, if you think you're going to come back with replies
that berate my beloved MVPs, well you got another thing
coming still girlie! These fine folks spend all their free
time trying very hard to work with the fuckwits, like you,
who should really, never be using PCs. I honestly do not
know how folks like you are allowed to purchase computer
goods!

Also, did you ever occur to you, that are arrogant when
you type crap like that in reply to these gods? Please do
us all a favor, just FOAD, and please (again, I'll say
this as many as I please!), don't come back for
assistance, as you have worn out your welcome here,
especially from me!

By the way, if you do reply please aplogise 1000 times to
all here in every group belonging to MS, then maybe I
might forgive your pathetic arse, and give you a bit more
of unhelpful replies, calling you a fuckwit, cretin,
moron, pubescent, lazy bitch!

--
Cuntsandra
Card carrying member of the Stink Cunt Club 'The Yeast
Infected Are People Too!'

My tits are fake. Please send all praise, abuse, insults,
to cuntsandra (at) cheesy34 (dot) freakserve (dot) co
(dot)
uk. Change the obvious to the obvious.
Private requests for assistance will be berated. Please
post all correspondence to the group so that I can further
spread my vitriol, and my legs. Thank you.

[Ted]

"Kit White" <kit@nospamkitwhite.com> wrote in message news:TL3Sa.2231$R46.338@fe3.columbus.rr.com...

> ROFL.......oh, this is priceless. It's delightful to see such fluent,
> articulate language from someone with an "english degree". My hunch was
> correct; you spewed uneducated, childish four-letter garbage SOONER as
> opposed to LATER.
>
> Congrats on your conclusive display of ignorance. Perhaps your parents
> would like a bumper sticker.
>
> And, ONCE AGAIN, since I'm "kill-filed", I (joyfully) won't anticipate yet
> another sententious reply.
>
> Thanks again for the entertainment.
>
> Kit

While on a personal interaction basis, I could not, in my wild dreams, defend the bint "Amethyst"; the post you replied to was not hers! Someone is mocking her through the web based MS newsgroup feature. Though it looks funny, and probably would have been real if Amethyst hadn't taken her medication. She is so unliked, that there obviously are some mimicking her to make her miserable; if only she's get that point!

My previous post, for some reason, left out basically what I said here, that it wasn't her. I may have thought I sent a message, when I didn't type anything, oh well!

[Kit White]

Finally had time to print out and work through your directions.

You were correct that not ALL of my folders were read-only. When exploring
to C:, I found 43 of the 46 directories had the R attribute. Took me a
while, but your remedy solved the problem! And I do thank you so very much
for taking the time to help in spite of my tacky remarks early on.

You're a gem and I'm surely among many who appreciate you.

Kit
"Walter Clayton" <w-claytonNO@SPmvpsAM.org> wrote in message
news:%23YTxZjYTDHA.1688@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
You were looking at the properties sheet. And I can still practically
guarantee that you have only a very few directories with RO set rather than
the entire drive. ;-)

If I recall correctly, now that specific product names have been used, PSP
may be one of the very few, if not the only, 32b apps that might honor RO on
a directory. Best I can remember off the top of my head was that it was one
of the graphics apps, which is why I needed specifics. However to confirm
whether or the directory is in fact RO you have to either display the
attribute column within explorer or use the attrib command in a command
prompt window. What you see on the properties sheet on a directory is simply
a tri-state action toggle that allows you to set the RO attribute on *files*
only and has no bearing on the current state of any RO attribute anywhere in
the system (and yes MS has been taken to task over that bit of
inconsistency). Explorer can not alter the RO attribute byte on a directory.
To actually alter the RO attribute, you have to use the attrib command or a
3rd party tool, but attrib is easy to use.

1st order of business however is still to confirm that RO is in fact set and
you're not dealing with a permissions issue. To verify the RO attribute
launch explorer and position to the parent directory. In the view pull down,
select details then check off attributes. Hit OK and you'll now see the
actual attributes. If there is an R any where in the column then launch a
command prompt (start->run->cmd). Do a change directory to the parent path
(cd {d:\}\path [enter]). Now use the attrib command to reset the RO
attribute bit via (attrib -r {directory} [enter]) - enclose the directory
name in quotes if it has embedded spaces. Optional you can append the /s /d
switches to recurse and process all sub directories. In theory you could do
the entire drive if run the command from the root of the drive, but that may
take just a wee bit of time and some files have RO set for various reasons.

If the RO isn't set however, then you're dealing with a permissions issue
which requires a different, more complicated solution.

--
Walter Clayton - MS MVP(WinXP)
Associate Expert
[url]http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone[/url]
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
[url]http://www.dts-l.org[/url]
[url]http://support.microsoft.com/servicedesks/fileversion/default.asp[/url]


"Kit White" <kitkit@kitwhite.com> wrote in message
news:bj%Ra.1204$R46.1153@fe3.columbus.rr.com...

> Thank you for your response, Walter. I was using Paint Shop Pro Version
> 7.04 in an attempt to do a batch conversion of graphics within a selected
> folder; the program returned this response "The selected folder is
> read-only. Please select a different folder or change folder permission."
> I've done this particular operation numerous times in the past but began
> having this problem for over a week now.
>
> I then opened Windows Explorer, right clicked on the folder and noted that
> 'read-only' was checked after which I went through the steps as stated in

my

> initial post. Is this the 'property sheet' you refer to? If this is not
> the correct manner to change folder permissions, please advise what should
> be done.
>
> As pointed out by at least one person (I'm unsure of the species of the
> other party), I seem to have overreacted and apologize for my remarks.
> Although you may be, and probably are, correct, I simply felt your reponse
> was a bit "edgy" and I may have taken it the wrong way. Please accept my
> apology. I DO appreciate your time and help.
>
> Kit
>
>
> "Walter Clayton" <w-claytonNO@SPmvps.AMorg> wrote in message
> news:eQU4gKWTDHA.3192@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Pompous? Been called lot's of things before. ;-)
> That's also irrelevant at present.
>
> What are you using to check the RO status of a directory? The properties
> sheet on a directory in explorer is meaningless when attempting to look at
> the RO attribute. And can not be used to change the RO attribute of a
> directory. Again, this is because with the exception of a very few command
> line applications, RO on a directory is irrelevant. First thing is to

prove

> it to you first so that we can address the real issue. ;-)
>
> --
> Walter Clayton - MS MVP(WinXP)
> Associate Expert
> [url]http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone[/url]
> Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
> [url]http://www.dts-l.org[/url]
> [url]http://support.microsoft.com/servicedesks/fileversion/default.asp[/url]
>
>
> "Kit White" <kitkit@kitwhite.com> wrote in message
> news:iIWRa.1041$R46.801@fe3.columbus.rr.com...

> > I'm sorry but I must beg to differ with you, Walter. I just checked the
> > properties of 86 random file folders, some were sub-folders, some were

> not,

> > but each and every one was 'read-only'. I have not "done some kind of
> > restore from CD/DVD using an application that failed to retain the

> original

> > attributes". The only restore I've done is a 'restore point' restore

> which

> > was done yesterday to a point the day before. However, this problem has
> > existed for well over a week and I've been trying to correct it myself
> > rather than asking here and getting a presumptive, pompous response such

> as

> > yours.
> >
> > My most recent problem is this, dear Walter; I was attempting to perform

a

> > batch conversion of all files within a folder and was unable to do so
> > because the FOLDER was read-only. This type of conversion is a normal
> > procedure I utilize when working with different types of graphics within
> > MANY graphic programs.
> >
> > I look forward to any help you may have to offer.
> >
> > Kit
> >
> >
> > "Walter Clayton" <w-claytonNO@SPmvps.AMorg> wrote in message
> > news:uuoybLVTDHA.3188@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > RO attribute on directories isn't your problem nor are all your

> directories

> > RO unless you've just done some kind of restore from CD/DVD using an
> > application that failed to retain the original attributes.
> >
> > RO attribute on directories is ignored by all except a literal mere

> handful

> > of command line programs.
> >
> > Explain exactly what your problem is.
> >
> > --
> > Walter Clayton - MS MVP(WinXP)
> > Associate Expert
> > [url]http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone[/url]
> > Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
> > [url]http://www.dts-l.org[/url]
> > [url]http://support.microsoft.com/servicedesks/fileversion/default.asp[/url]
> >
> >
> > "Kit White" <kitkit@kitwhite.com> wrote in message
> > news:GFVRa.1036$R46.393@fe3.columbus.rr.com...

> > > I'm running XP Home Edition on a Dell Dimension 8100, Pentium 4, 80

gig

> > HD,

> > > 256 RAM (although none of that info will probably be needed to answer

> this

> > > question....LOL).
> > >
> > > Somehow, someway ALL of my file folders are now set to 'read-only'.

> When

> > I

> > > go through the normal steps to change this, I'm able to untick the

> > read-only

> > > box, apply and click okay. I immediately check the properties and the
> > > folder is once again 'read-only'. I've tried this same process with

the

> > > root folder in a tree, hoping that when applying the all subfolders

this

> > > would cure the problem...........no such luck.......same situation.
> > >
> > > This is driving me nuts! I've got tons of things I need to do in

these

> > > folders and the 'read-only' is prohibiting me.
> > >
> > > Can someone help? I'm sure there's GOT to be a simple solution that

I'm

> > > missing.
> > >
> > > Thanks so much,
> > >
> > > Kit
> > >
> > >

> >
> >
> >

>
>
>