Re: Wakefield Show report
- From: Tim Hill <tim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 16 May 2009 11:16:58 +0100
In article <fIxm7.2485$lk6.887450@orpheusnews>, Felicity S.
<Fliss@orpheusnet> wrote:
Tim Hill wrote:
Felicity wrote:
<Fliss@orpheusnet> wrote:
Eric Rucker wrote:
Felicity S. wrote:
Please explain how being held up in a queue gives posts earlier
times.
It wouldn't give them earlier times, but it would give them later
received times relative to other messages.
That's right Eric; however, Tim's post had an earlier time, and yet
his explanation was that it must have been held up in a queue.
I posted it to a local Q at time 'a' and it was uploaded at time 'b'.
Your software wrongly displayed time 'b' whereas it should display
'a'.
If that were so, your post would've shown an even earlier time!!
I still am at a loss to understand what happened as the times in the post
you mentioned seemed exactly right to me.
--
Better Telecoms: http://tinyurl.com/phone-coop
Genuine and spam-proof addresses for Usenet: www.invalid.org.uk
Email address for replies: substitute postmaster@ for tim@
.... "Our doubts are traitors, and make us lose the good we oft might win, by fearing to attempt" M for M, Act i, Sc.5
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Wakefield Show report
- From: Felicity S.
- Re: Wakefield Show report
- References:
- Re: Wakefield Show report
- From: Eric Rucker
- Re: Wakefield Show report
- From: Felicity S.
- Re: Wakefield Show report
- From: Tim Hill
- Re: Wakefield Show report
- From: Felicity S.
- Re: Wakefield Show report
- Prev by Date: Re: Change to Talk Talk
- Next by Date: Acer Aspire 5610
- Previous by thread: Re: Wakefield Show report
- Next by thread: Re: Wakefield Show report
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|