Jay R. Ashworth
Tue, 1 May 2001 18:24:41 -0400
On Tue, May 01, 2001 at 03:16:27PM -0700, Dan Mick wrote:
> > I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, then.
> Jay, that was the point of my original post. Why are you worrying me like
> a dog with rawhide on this one? I'm not something you have to topple,
> I'm just stating my opinion.
Hmmm... I guess, Dan, that I'll have to go re-read the thread. It
seemed to me like you were popping up in the middle of a "how should we
fix this" thread with "don't".
> > Hmmm... isn't that what we said?
> I don't know. There was a hell of a lot of discussion about Received headers
> and moderation delays, and I think it's wasted effort. I was mostly ignoring
> that conversation, but I stopped to offer an
> opinion-on-the-way-to-what-I'd-do-as-solution, since you seemed to be
> haranguing me for one.
> > And no, "time sent by the sender" is a meaningful date as well... *even
> > if* it's not correctly represented by the header.
> But there's no way to measure that with any accuracy at all except the
> Date: header, which can be wrong, but shouldn't be. All else is sophistry.
That it can't accurately be measured does not make it immaterial; to so
assert is also sophistry. :-)
> > Funny... I thought Barry'd started it. I'll have to go back and look.
> I started the thread titled Dates, today.
Congratulations. But that wasn't the thread that started the
discussion of the topic; that one was "2006 Messages in Archives".
And it wasn't Barry, as it happens, it was Ousmane Wilane.
> > But regardless, I concur with Barry and the other people who called it
> > a problem, and I think a solution is in order. Barry's solution has an
> > on-off switch. If you think that this is not a problem *to the people
> > for whom you maintain an archive*, then shut that switch off.
> Well, duh, Jay. Again, I don't know why you think I don't understand that,
> or that I'm recommending any behavior for you or anyone else. I'm merely
> offering an opinion. Stop being so threatened by that.
I sounded threatened?
I thought you didn't understand that because your postings made it
sound like you didn't understand that. The *real* problem, as I
mentioned above, is that you started a new thread for no particularly
apparent reason; we were *already talking about this*, in a thread
that, as my memory had led me to expect, *started the day before your
So quit snarking at me, especially since you're having to invent
reasons to do so.
Jay R. Ashworth firstname.lastname@example.org
Member of the Technical Staff Baylink
The Suncoast Freenet The Things I Think
Tampa Bay, Florida http://baylink.pitas.com +1 727 804 5015