«

We keep getting answers to posts but not the original post. Is there
any way to correct for this? I certainly learn more from answers to
questions, than just answers or thank you postings.

Ken

Kenosis wrote:
> We keep getting answers to posts but not the original post. Is there
> any way to correct for this? I certainly learn more from answers to
> questions, than just answers or thank you postings.
>
> Ken
>
>
>
I'm guessing they are from older threads?

-Justin

On 7/7/06, Kenosis <> wrote:
> We keep getting answers to posts but not the original post. Is there
> any way to correct for this? I certainly learn more from answers to
> questions, than just answers or thank you postings.

As Justin said, they're from older posts. The restoration of the
gateway is not retroactive -- posts that had appeared on c.l.r. or the
mailing list prior to the restoration weren't flooded to the other
side, only new posts are ferried across. As the threads cut by the
restoration finish and new threads start, this "problem" will go away.


Jacob Fugal

On Jul 7, 2006, at 3:51 PM, Jacob Fugal wrote:

> On 7/7/06, Kenosis <> wrote:
>> We keep getting answers to posts but not the original post. Is there
>> any way to correct for this? I certainly learn more from answers to
>> questions, than just answers or thank you postings.
>
> As Justin said, they're from older posts. The restoration of the
> gateway is not retroactive -- posts that had appeared on c.l.r. or the
> mailing list prior to the restoration weren't flooded to the other
> side, only new posts are ferried across.

I considered going back in time a little to play catch-up, but I
figured I would get hate mail for the flooding and we would still
have the exact same problem. (We would just see the middle of older
threads.)

Given that, I figured the small adjustment period as we get back into
the discussions was the lesser evil. I agree this problem will
naturally solve itself in time.

James Edward Gray II

On 7/7/06, James Edward Gray II <> wrote:
> I considered going back in time a little to play catch-up, but I
> figured I would get hate mail for the flooding and we would still
> have the exact same problem. (We would just see the middle of older
> threads.)

Exactly. I'm one of them. Well, I wouldn't have sent you hate mail,
but I might have grumbled a little under my breath.

And you're absolutely right, as long as the cut is rigid across a
point in time, you're not going to get a clean cut (barring extreme
luck). One option would have been to see all active threads (had a
response in the last 24 hours, for instance), and only copy the old
posts from those threads over... but I wouldn't wish the chore of
collecting those posts on anyone.

Jacob Fugal

That makes sense and I agree that what were seeing now is better than
the alternative. Thanks for the explanations.

Ken

Jacob Fugal wrote:
> On 7/7/06, James Edward Gray II <> wrote:
> > I considered going back in time a little to play catch-up, but I
> > figured I would get hate mail for the flooding and we would still
> > have the exact same problem. (We would just see the middle of older
> > threads.)
>
> Exactly. I'm one of them. Well, I wouldn't have sent you hate mail,
> but I might have grumbled a little under my breath.
>
> And you're absolutely right, as long as the cut is rigid across a
> point in time, you're not going to get a clean cut (barring extreme
> luck). One option would have been to see all active threads (had a
> response in the last 24 hours, for instance), and only copy the old
> posts from those threads over... but I wouldn't wish the chore of
> collecting those posts on anyone.
>
> Jacob Fugal