LONG!
Posted by Rokker on September 17, 2002 at 07:56:12: Previous Next
Long hair.
I've only met one woman in my entire life that I thought looked better with short hair.
Definitely LONG!
WHOA! How'd this post end up here?
Posted by Rokker on September 17, 2002 at 13:15:26: Previous Next
In Reply to: LONG! posted by Rokker on September 17, 2002 at 07:56:12:
This was supposed to be below. I entered it as a reply!
Hmmmmmmmm.....
Re: WHOA! How'd this post end up here?
Posted by STALKER on September 17, 2002 at 14:38:20: Previous Next
In Reply to: WHOA! How'd this post end up here? posted by Rokker on September 17, 2002 at 13:15:26:
: This was supposed to be below. I entered it as a reply!
: Hmmmmmmmm.....
You forgot to get to that message first to reply to. Instead, you replied to The Men's Long Hair HyperBoard!
Uh-uh...uh-uh!
Posted by Rokker on September 18, 2002 at 12:27:10: Previous Next
In Reply to: Re: WHOA! How'd this post end up here? posted by STALKER on September 17, 2002 at 14:38:20:
: You forgot to get to that message first to reply to. Instead, you replied to The Men's Long Hair HyperBoard!
No. I read the message, replied to it, and viola....it ended up here instead.
Besides...I'm perfect! I don't make mistakes. Could not have been my error!
;-)
Re: Uh-uh...uh-uh!
Posted by Bill on September 18, 2002 at 13:05:32: Previous Next
In Reply to: Uh-uh...uh-uh! posted by Rokker on September 18, 2002 at 12:27:10:
: : You forgot to get to that message first to reply to. Instead, you replied to The Men's Long Hair HyperBoard!
: No. I read the message, replied to it, and viola....it ended up here instead.
: Besides...I'm perfect! I don't make mistakes. Could not have been my error!
I run a web board with similar software, and I just looked at my version of the script. It appears highly unlikely for this to have happened, but anything is possible of course. :-) The original message in this thread contained no quoted text from the thread it is purportedly a followup within. The subject shown is a new one, not one beginning with Re: and followed by the previous one. The original message did not contain the words "In reply to". The main page has a slot for the message but the one from the previous thread does not. The messages posted immediately before and after the misplaced message were separated in time by many minutes (simultaneous posting can confuse the software, although this is rare). These would all lead me to most highly suspect human error here, but that's a judgment based on chance, not a foregone conclusion. A site visitor replying to a message relies on his browser to transmit a variable called "followup" along with his post, and web browsers have been known to go through semi-crashes, where they still sort of work but don't completely. :-) That may have been the culprit.
Re: Uh-uh...uh-uh!
Posted by Rokker on September 18, 2002 at 17:04:23: Previous Next
In Reply to: Re: Uh-uh...uh-uh! posted by Bill on September 18, 2002 at 13:05:32:
I'll blame it on the software, even though the evidence clearly points toward user error.
Hey...it worked for O.J.!