On Tuesday, December 1, 1998 12:00:00 AM UTC-8, Rick W 999 wrote:
If anyone has one of these, please tell me about it. Thanks.
Rick

I have one.
What would you like to know?
Bob

In article ,
wrote:
On Tuesday, December 1, 1998 12:00:00 AM UTC-8, Rick W 999 wrote:
If anyone has one of these, please tell me about it. Thanks.
Rick

I have one.
What would you like to know?
Bob

What are you replying to a 13 1/2 year old message? Do you really think
the poster is still reading/interested?

In article ,
wrote:
On Tuesday, December 1, 1998 12:00:00 AM UTC-8, Rick W 999 wrote:
If anyone has one of these, please tell me about it. Thanks.
Rick

I have one.
What would you like to know?
Bob

On 7/18/2012 11:55 AM, wrote:

What are you replying to a 13 1/2 year old message? Do you really think
the poster is still reading/interested?

You do realize what most likely happened, don't you?

The lithium cell in the OP's computer is dead, he had a power failure
(or just turned the computer off) and its clock defaulted to an earlier
date.

In article , Joe from Kokomo wrote:

In article ,
wrote:
On Tuesday, December 1, 1998 12:00:00 AM UTC-8, Rick W 999 wrote:
If anyone has one of these, please tell me about it. Thanks.
Rick

I have one.
What would you like to know?
Bob

On 7/18/2012 11:55 AM, wrote:

What are you replying to a 13 1/2 year old message? Do you really think
the poster is still reading/interested?

You do realize what most likely happened, don't you?

The lithium cell in the OP's computer is dead, he had a power failure
(or just turned the computer off) and its clock defaulted to an earlier
date.

Thought of that; but I'm assuming the OP did not ignore the alert boxes
that Windows throws at you every time you boot up in that situation.

In any case; I read the thread because I also once owned an SR-66 ...
would help to know what the question is.

I have an SR-66 that still works too! Have one out of the case if someone is still interested!

On Wednesday, July 18, 2012 at 3:49:00 PM UTC-4, wrote:
In article Joe from Kokomo wrote:

In article,
wrote:
On Tuesday, December 1, 1998 12:00:00 AM UTC-8, Rick W 999 wrote:
If anyone has one of these, please tell me about it. Thanks.
Rick

I have one.
What would you like to know?
Bob


In any case; I read the thread because I also once owned an SR-66 ...
would help to know what the question is.

On 07/22/2016 12:23 PM, wrote:
I have an SR-66 that still works too! Have one out of the case if someone is still interested!

On Wednesday, July 18, 2012 at 3:49:00 PM UTC-4, wrote:
In article Joe from Kokomo wrote:

In article,
wrote:
On Tuesday, December 1, 1998 12:00:00 AM UTC-8, Rick W 999 wrote:
If anyone has one of these, please tell me about it. Thanks.
Rick

I have one.
What would you like to know?
Bob


In any case; I read the thread because I also once owned an SR-66 ...
would help to know what the question is.


I know it sometimes gets a bit slow around here, but is there
really a reason to revive and 18 year old thread?

George

On Wed, 18 Jul 2012, Joe from Kokomo wrote:


In article ,
wrote:
On Tuesday, December 1, 1998 12:00:00 AM UTC-8, Rick W 999 wrote:
If anyone has one of these, please tell me about it. Thanks.
Rick

I have one.
What would you like to know?
Bob

On 7/18/2012 11:55 AM, wrote:

What are you replying to a 13 1/2 year old message? Do you really think
the poster is still reading/interested?

You do realize what most likely happened, don't you?

The lithium cell in the OP's computer is dead, he had a power failure (or
just turned the computer off) and its clock defaulted to an earlier date.



No, you won't see the original message except at google, unless some site
has 14 year retention time.

Google is back to allowing replies to old posts. When they brought in one
upgrade they accidentally allowed this (likely thinking of their own
groups, rather than Usenet) and complaints caused them to fix things. FOr
a short time, it became a sport of idiots to reply to old posts, including
some quite famous. So they fixed it so you couldn't reply to messages
older than 30 days.

The bug is now back, likely because they've introduced yet another
interface, and again have forgotten.

It's happening, replies to old messages and they are all coming from
google.

What never makes sense is why someone is looking that far back. It makes
sense to do searches at google for things that interest you, but then why
bother replying? The poster who replied completely overlooked the fact
that Rick 999 (who hasnt' been here in a long time) did get a couple of
replies back in 1998, likely enough.

Chances are good that if someone is replying to an old message it is
because of google. Other verifying points are that you don't remember the
original message.

Michael