 | | Re: Posting Dates
|
|
(...) so you think if it inserted itself with all the read messages, it'd be less confusing? I know I'd never see it, now will anyone who reads through the web interface... (...) naw - it's not the server's fault that whoever it is sat on the (...) (23 years ago, 28-Feb-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Posting Dates
|
|
(...) Oops...ought to clarify for readers that this is a web interface problem. Obviously those having the messages delivered via newsgroup or e-mail would not see this as a new message...it would just show up by date where it belongs in their (...) (23 years ago, 28-Feb-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Posting Dates
|
|
(...) That would only be true if the message somehow just showed up where it belonged in line. If it posts as a new message 28 days later, it is highly confusing. This instance has proven that. Besides, it is a disservice to the users to have their (...) (23 years ago, 28-Feb-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Posting Dates
|
|
(...) I don't see it as broken. The date of a message is the date it was composed. The date it was posted is unimportant, imo. :) Dan (23 years ago, 28-Feb-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Porthole alternative
|
|
(...) Nope, that's not what anyone is saying. There would have been a point reached where, had the replies continued, it should have been moved to wherever else if it had nothing to do with trains. It's like, hypothetically, RCX newsgroup, "Hey I'm (...) (23 years ago, 28-Feb-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Porthole alternative
|
|
I quite agree with Lar on the points he relates here (snippage aside). I myself have a vested interest in Lego marketing directly from TLC, but it would be absolutely inappropriate for me to make more than just the casual reference that I make at (...) (23 years ago, 28-Feb-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Posting Dates (Was: The Care and Feedng of Your Trademark (Was: Community Policing...))
|
|
(...) Indeed! My most abject apologies Scott. Had I caught that error in the posting scheme, I would never have responded as I did! Again, my apologies! Thank you Rob, for catching that mistake. Admins: What is the deal with this? Is it a function (...) (23 years ago, 28-Feb-02, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Porthole alternative
|
|
(...) Which is why the original post, which had on topic aspects, got merely a ribbing. I whould have hoped that Bram was enough of a thought leader to connect the dots (where his purely market relatd followup should go) without an explicit warning. (...) (23 years ago, 28-Feb-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Posting Dates (Was: The Care and Feedng of Your Trademark (Was: Community Policing...))
|
|
(...) It looks like you both did. Scott's message is dated 1-Feb, a couple of days following the previous message, although it showed up some 8 hours ago. If I look at the dates, you're the one holding the shovel. I thought this NNTP date (...) (23 years ago, 28-Feb-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Porthole alternative
|
|
(...) Shouldn't that be "rucki"? XFUT: off-topic.pun, because this doesn't belong in admin.general. And if you disagree, I'm gonna go get mom! -- Tony Hafner www.hafhead.com (23 years ago, 28-Feb-02, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.pun)
|
