tennis-forum.net
Promoting tennis discussion.

Main
Date: 30 Dec 2008 02:31:30
From: TT
Subject: Attn Davidw
Your posts have timestamp 29.1.2009. This makes them stay at the bottom
for ages as if they were latest messages. Fix it...thanks. :)


--
"Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland"




 
Date: 31 Dec 2008 01:32:40
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: Attn Davidw
On Dec 31, 11:33=A0am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided > wrote:
> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> > On Dec 31, 6:05 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
> >> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> >>> On Dec 31, 3:53 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
> >>>> TT wrote:
> >>>>> Javier Gonzalez wrote:
> >>>>>> arnab.z@gmail <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> So this is one case where google groups interface > usenet
> >>>>>>> newsreader. DavidW's posts are showing up fine here.
>
> >>>>>> Not better than my newsreader, at least - I hadn't noticed that
> >>>>>> David's date was wrong until TT brought it up. I get my messages
> >>>>>> threaded, so what matters to the reader isn't the date, it's
> >>>>>> getting the referenced article id right.
>
> >>>>> I also watch messages as threaded...but when there are only few
> >>>>> messages it's much better to sort them them by time which brings
> >>>>> latest messages on top/bottom. All one has to do to sort is click
> >>>>> "date", easy. Google groups is a mess for seeing latest messages
> >>>>> especially when there are coming new ones while you read...and
> >>>>> some messages can be several pages down.
>
> >>>> I use both views too: threaded and linear by date. The latter is
> >>>> useful once you've read the threads you are going to and only want
> >>>> to see new posts. GG doesn't seem to be able to do that, which has
> >>>> been most annoying when I've had to use it (my server down or
> >>>> whatever).
>
> >>> Not sure what you are talking about. GG provides both threaded and
> >>> chrono-linear views.
>
> >> Well, all I see under View is a choice of Topic List and Topic
> >> Summary. Both are threaded.
>
> > Not that View. Once you enter any thread, at the right end of the
> > topic-bearing gray header bar you will see Options. Click on it and a
> > drop down box will appear which contains two viewing options for
> > messages in a thread: Standard (ie linear) and Tree (ie threaded).
>
> That's no good. I don't want to enter any thread. I just want to see a li=
near
> list of the most recent posts from all threads in the main view.

That's probably asking too much from a web interface.


 
Date: 30 Dec 2008 16:14:04
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: Attn Davidw
On Dec 31, 6:05=A0am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided > wrote:
> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> > On Dec 31, 3:53 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
> >> TT wrote:
> >>> Javier Gonzalez wrote:
> >>>> arnab.z@gmail <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> So this is one case where google groups interface > usenet
> >>>>> newsreader. DavidW's posts are showing up fine here.
>
> >>>> Not better than my newsreader, at least - I hadn't noticed that
> >>>> David's date was wrong until TT brought it up. I get my messages
> >>>> threaded, so what matters to the reader isn't the date, it's
> >>>> getting the referenced article id right.
>
> >>> I also watch messages as threaded...but when there are only few
> >>> messages it's much better to sort them them by time which brings
> >>> latest messages on top/bottom. All one has to do to sort is click
> >>> "date", easy. Google groups is a mess for seeing latest messages
> >>> especially when there are coming new ones while you read...and some
> >>> messages can be several pages down.
>
> >> I use both views too: threaded and linear by date. The latter is
> >> useful once you've read the threads you are going to and only want
> >> to see new posts. GG doesn't seem to be able to do that, which has
> >> been most annoying when I've had to use it (my server down or
> >> whatever).
>
> > Not sure what you are talking about. GG provides both threaded and
> > chrono-linear views.
>
> Well, all I see under View is a choice of Topic List and Topic Summary. B=
oth
> are threaded.

Not that View. Once you enter any thread, at the right end of the
topic-bearing gray header bar you will see Options. Click on it and a
drop down box will appear which contains two viewing options for
messages in a thread: Standard (ie linear) and Tree (ie threaded).


  
Date: 31 Dec 2008 16:33:03
From: DavidW
Subject: Re: Attn Davidw
arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> On Dec 31, 6:05 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>>> On Dec 31, 3:53 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>>>> TT wrote:
>>>>> Javier Gonzalez wrote:
>>>>>> arnab.z@gmail <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> So this is one case where google groups interface > usenet
>>>>>>> newsreader. DavidW's posts are showing up fine here.
>>
>>>>>> Not better than my newsreader, at least - I hadn't noticed that
>>>>>> David's date was wrong until TT brought it up. I get my messages
>>>>>> threaded, so what matters to the reader isn't the date, it's
>>>>>> getting the referenced article id right.
>>
>>>>> I also watch messages as threaded...but when there are only few
>>>>> messages it's much better to sort them them by time which brings
>>>>> latest messages on top/bottom. All one has to do to sort is click
>>>>> "date", easy. Google groups is a mess for seeing latest messages
>>>>> especially when there are coming new ones while you read...and
>>>>> some messages can be several pages down.
>>
>>>> I use both views too: threaded and linear by date. The latter is
>>>> useful once you've read the threads you are going to and only want
>>>> to see new posts. GG doesn't seem to be able to do that, which has
>>>> been most annoying when I've had to use it (my server down or
>>>> whatever).
>>
>>> Not sure what you are talking about. GG provides both threaded and
>>> chrono-linear views.
>>
>> Well, all I see under View is a choice of Topic List and Topic
>> Summary. Both are threaded.
>
> Not that View. Once you enter any thread, at the right end of the
> topic-bearing gray header bar you will see Options. Click on it and a
> drop down box will appear which contains two viewing options for
> messages in a thread: Standard (ie linear) and Tree (ie threaded).

That's no good. I don't want to enter any thread. I just want to see a linear
list of the most recent posts from all threads in the main view.





   
Date: 31 Dec 2008 16:35:52
From: DavidW
Subject: Re: Attn Davidw
DavidW wrote:
> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>> Not that View. Once you enter any thread, at the right end of the
>> topic-bearing gray header bar you will see Options. Click on it and a
>> drop down box will appear which contains two viewing options for
>> messages in a thread: Standard (ie linear) and Tree (ie threaded).
>
> That's no good. I don't want to enter any thread. I just want to see
> a linear list of the most recent posts

> from all threads

I meant regardess of the thread the post belongs to.

> in the main
> view.





 
Date: 30 Dec 2008 14:58:44
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: Attn Davidw
On Dec 31, 3:53=A0am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided > wrote:
> TT wrote:
> > Javier Gonzalez wrote:
> >> arnab.z@gmail <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> So this is one case where google groups interface > usenet
> >>> newsreader. DavidW's posts are showing up fine here.
>
> >> Not better than my newsreader, at least - I hadn't noticed that
> >> David's date was wrong until TT brought it up. I get my messages
> >> threaded, so what matters to the reader isn't the date, it's getting
> >> the referenced article id right.
>
> > I also watch messages as threaded...but when there are only few
> > messages it's much better to sort them them by time which brings
> > latest messages on top/bottom. All one has to do to sort is click
> > "date", easy. Google groups is a mess for seeing latest messages
> > especially when there are coming new ones while you read...and some
> > messages can be several pages down.
>
> I use both views too: threaded and linear by date. The latter is useful o=
nce
> you've read the threads you are going to and only want to see new posts. =
GG
> doesn't seem to be able to do that, which has been most annoying when I'v=
e had
> to use it (my server down or whatever).

Not sure what you are talking about. GG provides both threaded and
chrono-linear views.


  
Date: 31 Dec 2008 11:05:26
From: DavidW
Subject: Re: Attn Davidw
arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> On Dec 31, 3:53 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>> TT wrote:
>>> Javier Gonzalez wrote:
>>>> arnab.z@gmail <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> So this is one case where google groups interface > usenet
>>>>> newsreader. DavidW's posts are showing up fine here.
>>
>>>> Not better than my newsreader, at least - I hadn't noticed that
>>>> David's date was wrong until TT brought it up. I get my messages
>>>> threaded, so what matters to the reader isn't the date, it's
>>>> getting the referenced article id right.
>>
>>> I also watch messages as threaded...but when there are only few
>>> messages it's much better to sort them them by time which brings
>>> latest messages on top/bottom. All one has to do to sort is click
>>> "date", easy. Google groups is a mess for seeing latest messages
>>> especially when there are coming new ones while you read...and some
>>> messages can be several pages down.
>>
>> I use both views too: threaded and linear by date. The latter is
>> useful once you've read the threads you are going to and only want
>> to see new posts. GG doesn't seem to be able to do that, which has
>> been most annoying when I've had to use it (my server down or
>> whatever).
>
> Not sure what you are talking about. GG provides both threaded and
> chrono-linear views.

Well, all I see under View is a choice of Topic List and Topic Summary. Both
are threaded.





 
Date: 30 Dec 2008 08:52:09
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: Attn Davidw
On Dec 30, 6:06=A0pm, Javier Gonzalez <ja.gon....@gmmmmail.com > wrote:
> DavidW <n...@email.provided> wrote:
> > TT wrote:
> >> Your posts have timestamp 29.1.2009. This makes them stay at the
> >> bottom for ages as if they were latest messages. Fix it...thanks. :)
>
> > Yes, I was checking the January calendar for something and didn't chang=
e it
> > back. There was another post early last year with '1111' in the subject=
line
> > that was dated the end of this year. Time has finally caught up with it=
. Stupid
> > Windows should distinguish between just looking and changing the date.
>
> Definitely, it's something that irritates be very much.
>
> > Also, my
> > server should pick this up. Servers have the right time and should impo=
se it on
> > all posts. Timestamps should not depend on everyone's PC having the rig=
ht time.
>
> But the timestamp would be the moment the server actually got them, not w=
hen
> you wrote it. Although some servers reject future dates...

So this is one case where google groups interface > usenet newsreader.
DavidW's posts are showing up fine here.


  
Date: 30 Dec 2008 13:58:02
From: Javier Gonzalez
Subject: Re: Attn Davidw
arnab.z@gmail <arnab.zaheen@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Dec 30, 6:06 pm, Javier Gonzalez <ja.gon....@gmmmmail.com> wrote:
>> DavidW <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>> > TT wrote:
>> >> Your posts have timestamp 29.1.2009. This makes them stay at the
>> >> bottom for ages as if they were latest messages. Fix it...thanks. :)
>>
>> > Yes, I was checking the January calendar for something and didn't change it
>> > back. There was another post early last year with '1111' in the subject line
>> > that was dated the end of this year. Time has finally caught up with it. Stupid
>> > Windows should distinguish between just looking and changing the date.
>>
>> Definitely, it's something that irritates be very much.
>>
>> > Also, my
>> > server should pick this up. Servers have the right time and should impose it on
>> > all posts. Timestamps should not depend on everyone's PC having the right time.
>>
>> But the timestamp would be the moment the server actually got them, not when
>> you wrote it. Although some servers reject future dates...
>
> So this is one case where google groups interface > usenet newsreader.
> DavidW's posts are showing up fine here.

Not better than my newsreader, at least - I hadn't noticed that David's date
was wrong until TT brought it up. I get my messages threaded, so what matters
to the reader isn't the date, it's getting the referenced article id right.


   
Date: 30 Dec 2008 19:46:54
From: TT
Subject: Re: Attn Davidw
Javier Gonzalez wrote:
> arnab.z@gmail <arnab.zaheen@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 30, 6:06 pm, Javier Gonzalez <ja.gon....@gmmmmail.com> wrote:
>>> DavidW <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>>>> TT wrote:
>>>>> Your posts have timestamp 29.1.2009. This makes them stay at the
>>>>> bottom for ages as if they were latest messages. Fix it...thanks. :)
>>>> Yes, I was checking the January calendar for something and didn't change it
>>>> back. There was another post early last year with '1111' in the subject line
>>>> that was dated the end of this year. Time has finally caught up with it. Stupid
>>>> Windows should distinguish between just looking and changing the date.
>>> Definitely, it's something that irritates be very much.
>>>
>>>> Also, my
>>>> server should pick this up. Servers have the right time and should impose it on
>>>> all posts. Timestamps should not depend on everyone's PC having the right time.
>>> But the timestamp would be the moment the server actually got them, not when
>>> you wrote it. Although some servers reject future dates...
>> So this is one case where google groups interface > usenet newsreader.
>> DavidW's posts are showing up fine here.
>
> Not better than my newsreader, at least - I hadn't noticed that David's date
> was wrong until TT brought it up. I get my messages threaded, so what matters
> to the reader isn't the date, it's getting the referenced article id right.

I also watch messages as threaded...but when there are only few messages
it's much better to sort them them by time which brings latest messages
on top/bottom. All one has to do to sort is click "date", easy. Google
groups is a mess for seeing latest messages especially when there are
coming new ones while you read...and some messages can be several pages
down.

--
"Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland"


    
Date: 31 Dec 2008 08:53:36
From: DavidW
Subject: Re: Attn Davidw
TT wrote:
> Javier Gonzalez wrote:
>> arnab.z@gmail <arnab.zaheen@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> So this is one case where google groups interface > usenet
>>> newsreader. DavidW's posts are showing up fine here.
>>
>> Not better than my newsreader, at least - I hadn't noticed that
>> David's date was wrong until TT brought it up. I get my messages
>> threaded, so what matters to the reader isn't the date, it's getting
>> the referenced article id right.
>
> I also watch messages as threaded...but when there are only few
> messages it's much better to sort them them by time which brings
> latest messages on top/bottom. All one has to do to sort is click
> "date", easy. Google groups is a mess for seeing latest messages
> especially when there are coming new ones while you read...and some
> messages can be several pages down.

I use both views too: threaded and linear by date. The latter is useful once
you've read the threads you are going to and only want to see new posts. GG
doesn't seem to be able to do that, which has been most annoying when I've had
to use it (my server down or whatever).





    
Date: 30 Dec 2008 19:50:14
From: TT
Subject: Re: Attn Davidw
TT wrote:
> Javier Gonzalez wrote:
>> arnab.z@gmail <arnab.zaheen@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Dec 30, 6:06 pm, Javier Gonzalez <ja.gon....@gmmmmail.com> wrote:
>>>> DavidW <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>>>>> TT wrote:
>>>>>> Your posts have timestamp 29.1.2009. This makes them stay at the
>>>>>> bottom for ages as if they were latest messages. Fix it...thanks. :)
>>>>> Yes, I was checking the January calendar for something and didn't
>>>>> change it
>>>>> back. There was another post early last year with '1111' in the
>>>>> subject line
>>>>> that was dated the end of this year. Time has finally caught up
>>>>> with it. Stupid
>>>>> Windows should distinguish between just looking and changing the date.
>>>> Definitely, it's something that irritates be very much.
>>>>
>>>>> Also, my
>>>>> server should pick this up. Servers have the right time and should
>>>>> impose it on
>>>>> all posts. Timestamps should not depend on everyone's PC having the
>>>>> right time.
>>>> But the timestamp would be the moment the server actually got them,
>>>> not when
>>>> you wrote it. Although some servers reject future dates...
>>> So this is one case where google groups interface > usenet newsreader.
>>> DavidW's posts are showing up fine here.
>>
>> Not better than my newsreader, at least - I hadn't noticed that
>> David's date
>> was wrong until TT brought it up. I get my messages threaded, so what
>> matters
>> to the reader isn't the date, it's getting the referenced article id
>> right.
>
> I also watch messages as threaded...but when there are only few messages
> it's much better to sort them them by time which brings latest messages
> on top/bottom. All one has to do to sort is click "date", easy. Google
> groups is a mess for seeing latest messages especially when there are
> coming new ones while you read...and some messages can be several pages
> down.
>

Btw I use Mozilla Thunderbird, I can read emails with same
program...killfile, tag posts with different coulours etc.
And very good email client it is...it learns which type of posts are
junk...for example it moved my father's xmas email straight to junk
folder...as it did my eticket flight reservations. Bravo.

--
"Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland"


 
Date: 30 Dec 2008 13:42:38
From: DavidW
Subject: Re: Attn Davidw
TT wrote:
> Your posts have timestamp 29.1.2009. This makes them stay at the
> bottom for ages as if they were latest messages. Fix it...thanks. :)

Yes, I was checking the January calendar for something and didn't change it
back. There was another post early last year with '1111' in the subject line
that was dated the end of this year. Time has finally caught up with it. Stupid
Windows should distinguish between just looking and changing the date. Also, my
server should pick this up. Servers have the right time and should impose it on
all posts. Timestamps should not depend on everyone's PC having the right time.





  
Date: 30 Dec 2008 09:06:07
From: Javier Gonzalez
Subject: Re: Attn Davidw
DavidW <no@email.provided > wrote:
> TT wrote:
>> Your posts have timestamp 29.1.2009. This makes them stay at the
>> bottom for ages as if they were latest messages. Fix it...thanks. :)
>
> Yes, I was checking the January calendar for something and didn't change it
> back. There was another post early last year with '1111' in the subject line
> that was dated the end of this year. Time has finally caught up with it. Stupid
> Windows should distinguish between just looking and changing the date.

Definitely, it's something that irritates be very much.

> Also, my
> server should pick this up. Servers have the right time and should impose it on
> all posts. Timestamps should not depend on everyone's PC having the right time.

But the timestamp would be the moment the server actually got them, not when
you wrote it. Although some servers reject future dates...


   
Date: 31 Dec 2008 08:54:21
From: DavidW
Subject: Re: Attn Davidw
Javier Gonzalez wrote:
> DavidW <no@email.provided> wrote:
>> TT wrote:
>>> Your posts have timestamp 29.1.2009. This makes them stay at the
>>> bottom for ages as if they were latest messages. Fix it...thanks. :)
>>
>> Yes, I was checking the January calendar for something and didn't
>> change it back. There was another post early last year with '1111'
>> in the subject line that was dated the end of this year. Time has
>> finally caught up with it. Stupid Windows should distinguish between
>> just looking and changing the date.
>
> Definitely, it's something that irritates be very much.
>
>> Also, my
>> server should pick this up. Servers have the right time and should
>> impose it on all posts. Timestamps should not depend on everyone's
>> PC having the right time.
>
> But the timestamp would be the moment the server actually got them,
> not when you wrote it.

Usually that would be moments after you send it.





   
Date: 30 Dec 2008 16:27:03
From: TT
Subject: Re: Attn Davidw
Javier Gonzalez wrote:
> DavidW <no@email.provided> wrote:
>> TT wrote:
>>> Your posts have timestamp 29.1.2009. This makes them stay at the
>>> bottom for ages as if they were latest messages. Fix it...thanks. :)
>> Yes, I was checking the January calendar for something and didn't change it
>> back. There was another post early last year with '1111' in the subject line
>> that was dated the end of this year. Time has finally caught up with it. Stupid
>> Windows should distinguish between just looking and changing the date.
>
> Definitely, it's something that irritates be very much.
>
>> Also, my
>> server should pick this up. Servers have the right time and should impose it on
>> all posts. Timestamps should not depend on everyone's PC having the right time.
>
> But the timestamp would be the moment the server actually got them, not when
> you wrote it. Although some servers reject future dates...

My personal solution was to delete all downloaded messages from my
computer to get rid of those messages hanging there for a month.

Just chose "delete all read messages after closing the program" ...or
something like that.

Could be used as a rather irritating spam or trolling method, although
that's why we actually have killfiles.

--
"Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland"