Lobster wrote:
John Rumm wrote:


OE will work ok, although there are better free alternatives.
Thunderbird (www.mozilla.com) should feel fairly similar but is a
little more capable.

Well I swapped to Thunderbird from OE (both used as newsreaders only)
about a couple of years ago. Apart from the warm fuzzy glow I get
from using a non-MS product, I can't really claim to see much
difference!

I used it & swapped back to OE. Bloody useless.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk
01634 717930
07850 597257

On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 21:54:32 GMT, The Medway Handyman wrote:

Lobster wrote:
[11 quoted lines suppressed]

I used it & swapped back to OE. Bloody useless.

Thunderbird is useless as a newsreader, its great as a email client but the
NG part needs a lot of work.

I would recommend 40tude dialog, its the newsreader that got me off OE onto
something thats more useable than the alternatives, and has quite advanced
filtering. Used in combination with thunderbird makes for a great
combination.

Steve

Steve wrote in
:

On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 21:54:32 GMT, The Medway Handyman wrote:

Lobster wrote:
[11 quoted lines suppressed]

I used it & swapped back to OE. Bloody useless.

Thunderbird is useless as a newsreader, its great as a email
client but the NG part needs a lot of work.

I would recommend 40tude dialog, its the newsreader that got me
off OE onto something thats more useable than the alternatives,
and has quite advanced filtering. Used in combination with
thunderbird makes for a great combination.

Xnews anybody?
http://xnews.newsguy.com/

--
Richard Perkin
To email me, change the AT in the address below
richard.perkinATmyrealbox.com

It's is not, it isn't ain't, and it's it's, not its, if you mean it
is. If you don't, it's its. Then too, it's hers. It isn't her's.
It isn't our's either. It's ours, and likewise yours and theirs.
-- Oxford University Press, Edpress News

I am aware filtering is possible via a NNTP client.

My comment was w.r.t. creating a Moderated Newsgroup as
defined via the usual RFD CFV process. Since uk.d-i-y is a
national hierarchy I have not checked whether it has rules
for newsgroup change - I last read the RFCs in 1995.

A moderated newsgroup operates by a local NNTP client
emailing posts to the group moderator or by a user directly
emailing a post to a group moderator. Group moderator
may be a 'bot/human and will only post the message to
the moderated newsgroup if it is allowed - "anti-spam".
Human moderator processing introduces high latency,
disrupting a topic area which is mainly conversational.

Even if it were possible to change uk.d-i-y to a moderated
group it is not a practical solution for a DIY topic area.

Someone could try to created a moderated uk.d-i-y.disc
however I suspect it would fail to get the requisite votes.
Moderated newsgroups are for qualified research areas,
where the latency suits "spare minutes on Janet" and a
poster can tolerate interactivity worse than a call centre.
--
DB.

Richard Perkin wrote:

Steve wrote in
:

On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 21:54:32 GMT, The Medway Handyman wrote:

Lobster wrote:
[11 quoted lines suppressed]
I used it & swapped back to OE. Bloody useless.
Thunderbird is useless as a newsreader, its great as a email
client but the NG part needs a lot of work.

I would recommend 40tude dialog, its the newsreader that got me
off OE onto something thats more useable than the alternatives,
and has quite advanced filtering. Used in combination with
thunderbird makes for a great combination.

Xnews anybody?
http://xnews.newsguy.com/

or forte or tin or...

I thought a new article may be of assistance here since these questions
seem to crop up from time to time:

http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?...up_access_tips

Could anyone who can spare a moment, slap their favoured newsreader in
at the end, and include quick setup details, and *more importantly* some
basic tips in to help people get the best out of it?


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

In message , Dorothy Bradbury
writes
I am aware filtering is possible via a NNTP client.

My comment was w.r.t. creating a Moderated Newsgroup as
defined via the usual RFD CFV process. Since uk.d-i-y is a
national hierarchy I have not checked whether it has rules
for newsgroup change - I last read the RFCs in 1995.

A moderated newsgroup operates by a local NNTP client
emailing posts to the group moderator or by a user directly
emailing a post to a group moderator. Group moderator
may be a 'bot/human and will only post the message to
the moderated newsgroup if it is allowed - "anti-spam".
Human moderator processing introduces high latency,
disrupting a topic area which is mainly conversational.

Even if it were possible to change uk.d-i-y to a moderated
group it is not a practical solution for a DIY topic area.

Someone could try to created a moderated uk.d-i-y.disc
however I suspect it would fail to get the requisite votes.
Moderated newsgroups are for qualified research areas,
where the latency suits "spare minutes on Janet" and a
poster can tolerate interactivity worse than a call centre.

perhaps it could be called uk.someonediditforme



--
geoff

On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 21:26:58 +0000
Andy Champ wrote:

TheOldFellow wrote:
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 17:59:58 +0000
Alan wrote:

In message , TheOldFellow
wrote


Or perhaps we should rename the group UK-DIY-Mohammed.
Surely uk.d-i-y-Teddy


You can't be serious. Think of all the chaps called Edward who would
be terrible upset.

Dunno why. The name comes from *Theodore* Roosevelt...

Andy

Indeed, but chaps called Edward tend to be called Ted around here at
least. Personally, I'm a Dick. ;-)

At least Mohammed is on-topic. He made up his own religion and then
sold it to people (at sword point mostly) - you don't get more DIY than
that.

R.

TheOldFellow wrote:
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 21:26:58 +0000
Andy Champ wrote:

TheOldFellow wrote:
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 17:59:58 +0000
Alan wrote:

In message , TheOldFellow
wrote


Or perhaps we should rename the group UK-DIY-Mohammed.
Surely uk.d-i-y-Teddy

You can't be serious. Think of all the chaps called Edward who would
be terrible upset.
Dunno why. The name comes from *Theodore* Roosevelt...

Andy

Indeed, but chaps called Edward tend to be called Ted around here at
least. Personally, I'm a Dick. ;-)

At least Mohammed is on-topic. He made up his own religion and then
sold it to people (at sword point mostly) - you don't get more DIY than
that.

R.
He didn't make it up. Its a straight adaption of Judaism. Just Like
Christianity. Judaism with Part 'P' ;-)

At least Jesus was a carpenter...

In article ,
Dorothy Bradbury wrote:
A moderated newsgroup operates by a local NNTP client
emailing posts to the group moderator or by a user directly
emailing a post to a group moderator. Group moderator
may be a 'bot/human and will only post the message to
the moderated newsgroup if it is allowed - "anti-spam".
Human moderator processing introduces high latency,
disrupting a topic area which is mainly conversational.

Have you *any* idea of the work involved for a group of this size?
Effective moderation with unlimited access means reading every single post
from unknown or first time poster - and soon after it's received to be of
any use. You'd probably have to allocate an hour a day 24/7.

--
*I like cats, too. Let's exchange recipes.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article , says...
perhaps it could be called uk.someonediditforme

uk.galmi (get a little man in).
--
Skipweasel.
Never knowingly understood.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
Have you *any* idea of the work involved for a group of this size?

Yes - it depends...

In article ,
Dorothy Bradbury wrote:

Group moderator may be a 'bot

....on whether your intention is just to use a 'bot to filter spam.


If your intention is human moderation...

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
You'd probably have to allocate an hour a day 24/7.

.... it would exceed that from experience moderating a mailing list,
although moderators can be numerous & distributed "groupware style".


Moderating USENET is not practical.
o It works well for .announce groups relating to say service providers
o It works poorly for conversational discussion. I would not vote for it.

Moderation involves risk.
o Moderating on spam via a 'bot is one thing
o Moderating further risks censorship and loses common-carrier status
o Moderating risks interest by various organisation vs responsibility of
poster
o Getting rid of a moderator due to high processing latency can be hard

Moderating is not practical. It is simpler to filter at the newsreader
level.
--
DB.

Dorothy Bradbury wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
Have you *any* idea of the work involved for a group of this size?

Yes - it depends...

In article ,
Dorothy Bradbury wrote:
Group moderator may be a 'bot

...on whether your intention is just to use a 'bot to filter spam.


If your intention is human moderation...

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
You'd probably have to allocate an hour a day 24/7.

... it would exceed that from experience moderating a mailing list,
although moderators can be numerous & distributed "groupware style".


Moderating USENET is not practical.
o It works well for .announce groups relating to say service providers
o It works poorly for conversational discussion. I would not vote for it.

Moderation involves risk.
o Moderating on spam via a 'bot is one thing
o Moderating further risks censorship and loses common-carrier status
o Moderating risks interest by various organisation vs responsibility of
poster
o Getting rid of a moderator due to high processing latency can be hard

Moderating is not practical. It is simpler to filter at the newsreader
level.

And we know the sort of person that is attracted to moderating

Lobster wrote:
Hugh Jampton wrote:
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 12:26:43 -0800 (PST), dicegeorge wrote:

is it possible to have this list moderated a bit please,
not censorship
but the deleting of off topic messages
and adverts and spam...
i know it means a bit of work for someone
and some delays in getting emails
but its not like we're emailing cos of a house on fire,
so delays are ok,
there seems to be more and more off topic spam on here,
if i want to debate religion i will find a group to debate it
this is the tool room not the church or the brothel or the shop!

Not possible - this newsgroup is unmoderated. Why not try killfiling
people/subjects you don't wish to see ? Having said that, I don't know if
that's possible using Google - if it isn't, why not try using a proper
newsreader ?

Agreed - I have just a few filters set up looking for keywords in the
subject field: one clobbers mohammed/muhammed/islam/allah/muslim;
another one does $$$/xxx/penis/****/porn; one for nike, and last but not
least, MI5 persecution.

....and have just added a new one to detect "" or ""!

David

On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 01:26:32 +0000, Dorothy Bradbury wrote:

Someone could try to created a moderated uk.d-i-y.disc
however I suspect it would fail to get the requisite votes.

There is also the problem that the moderation mechanism doesn't work: just
take a look at comp.lang.perl.moderated - it is full of the same sort of
vandalism that afflicts comp.os.linux.misc (amd I daresay other groups).
Indeed I understand there is a hackers' ng in the alt. heirarchy
(alt.2600?) that is moderated but has no moderators: you have to know
enough to hack your way past the moderation mechanism in order to
contribute to the group!

--
John Stumbles

I forgot to take my amnesia medecine again

In article ,
Dorothy Bradbury wrote:
You'd probably have to allocate an hour a day 24/7.

... it would exceed that from experience moderating a mailing list,
although moderators can be numerous & distributed "groupware style".

It was a guess from me being a co-moderator on a group which receives
about 5 requests to join/leave per day and has some 2000 members. What we
do is moderate the first post from a newbie then let them get on with it.
At the first sign of anyone breaking the rules they go back on moderation.
If they continue to break the rules - which are very basic anyway - apart
from their posts not being forwarded to the group they get removed. Dunno
how many chances they get - it's never happened to me while I've been
moderating. It's a Yahoo group and very little in the way of actual spam
gets even to the starting post.

--
*There are two sides to every divorce: Yours and **** head's*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 07:46:08 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

At least Jesus was a carpenter...

There's a story I like about a shrink[1] in a loon^H^H^Hmental hospital.
One of his patients claimed to be Jesus, so the shrink says "I understand
you're a carpenter?". The patient has to admit that he is, so the shrink
puts him to work to make some shelves for his office.


[1] Milton Ericsson, for those to whom the name means anything.

--
John Stumbles

My karma ran over my dogma

On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 20:11:47 +0000, Roger wrote:

I am sure Dribble would be very keen. ;-)

You must be joking. He'd be very keen to tell whoever was doing the work
how it should be done, no doubt ... :-)


--
John Stumbles

Procrastinate now!

In article ,
Stuart Noble wrote:
And we know the sort of person that is attracted to moderating

Heh heh. Most only enforce the rules of the particular group. The one I'm
involved with - a car one - got set up because the founder was fed up of
flame wars and excessive bad language on a similar one he read - and of
course purely commercial posts. But it does have several members who are
in the trade and a great source of useful information - and because of
that I'm sure get benefit from it too in terms of business.

I'd be perfectly happy if this group was moderated in a similar light
touch way - but it simply isn't going to happen.

--
*Santa's helpers are subordinate clauses*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 19:50:46 GMT someone who may be geoff
wrote this:-

1/ I certainly don't want this NG moderated, and

2/ who is going to do it ?

As has been pointed out by others, this is a DIY group and people
moderate it for themselves as they see fit, rather than getting
someone else to do it for them.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

The message
from John Stumbles contains these words:

I am sure Dribble would be very keen. ;-)

You must be joking. He'd be very keen to tell whoever was doing the work
how it should be done, no doubt ... :-)

He would also be very keen to block all the posts that highlight him as
an ignorant moron with a monumental ego.

--
Roger Chapman

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Stuart Noble wrote:
And we know the sort of person that is attracted to moderating

Heh heh. Most only enforce the rules of the particular group. The one I'm
involved with - a car one - got set up because the founder was fed up of
flame wars and excessive bad language on a similar one he read

I'd be perfectly happy if this group was moderated in a similar light
touch way - but it simply isn't going to happen.


So presumably the moderator of this car group doesn't permit the
interminable ding-dong threads between the likes of Drivel and certain
other members of this group.....????

David

In article ,
Lobster wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Stuart Noble wrote:
And we know the sort of person that is attracted to moderating

Heh heh. Most only enforce the rules of the particular group. The one
I'm involved with - a car one - got set up because the founder was fed
up of flame wars and excessive bad language on a similar one he read

I'd be perfectly happy if this group was moderated in a similar light
touch way - but it simply isn't going to happen.


So presumably the moderator of this car group doesn't permit the
interminable ding-dong threads between the likes of Drivel and certain
other members of this group.....????

Absolutely not.

You can disagree all you want but just just repeating you're wrong or
whatever without explaining why you think that certainly wouldn't be
tolerated.

--
He who laughs last, thinks slowest*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Dorothy Bradbury wrote:
A moderated newsgroup operates by a local NNTP client
emailing posts to the group moderator or by a user directly
emailing a post to a group moderator. Group moderator
may be a 'bot/human and will only post the message to
the moderated newsgroup if it is allowed - "anti-spam".
Human moderator processing introduces high latency,
disrupting a topic area which is mainly conversational.

Have you *any* idea of the work involved for a group of this size?


The OP doesn't seem to have much of an idea about anything concerning
newsgroups, so, probably not.

--
geoff

In message , The Natural
Philosopher writes
At least Mohammed is on-topic. He made up his own religion and then
sold it to people (at sword point mostly) - you don't get more DIY than
that.
R.
He didn't make it up. Its a straight adaption of Judaism. Just Like
Christianity. Judaism with Part 'P' ;-)

Well, it's a pick and mix of several religions, xtianity included


At least Jesus was a carpenter...

Well, a tradesman, I think is the currently accepted translation

the Nazareth Handyman


--
geoff

On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 13:24:40 +0000, Stuart Noble wrote:

Dorothy Bradbury wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
Have you *any* idea of the work involved for a group of this size?

Yes - it depends...

In article ,
Dorothy Bradbury wrote:
Group moderator may be a 'bot

...on whether your intention is just to use a 'bot to filter spam.


If your intention is human moderation...

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
You'd probably have to allocate an hour a day 24/7.

... it would exceed that from experience moderating a mailing list,
although moderators can be numerous & distributed "groupware style".


Moderating USENET is not practical.
o It works well for .announce groups relating to say service providers
o It works poorly for conversational discussion. I would not vote for
it.

Moderation involves risk.
o Moderating on spam via a 'bot is one thing o Moderating further risks
censorship and loses common-carrier status o Moderating risks interest
by various organisation vs responsibility of poster
o Getting rid of a moderator due to high processing latency can be hard

Moderating is not practical. It is simpler to filter at the newsreader
level.

And we know the sort of person that is attracted to moderating

Quite so; the skills to do it properly are inversely proportional to the
desire to do it.


--
Ed Sirett - Property maintainer and registered gas fitter.
The FAQ for uk.diy is at http://www.diyfaq.org.uk
Gas fitting FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/GasFitting.html
Sealed CH FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/SealedCH.html
Choosing a Boiler FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/BoilerChoice.html

Skipweasel wrote:
In article , says...
perhaps it could be called uk.someonediditforme

uk.galmi (get a little man in).

A little discriminatory against us BFBs...

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 30 Nov, 23:53, Richard Perkin wrote:

It's is not, it isn't ain't, and it's it's, not its, if you mean it
is. If you don't, it's its. Then too, it's hers. It isn't her's.
It isn't our's either. It's ours, and likewise yours and theirs.
-- Oxford University Press, Edpress News

Unreadable rubbish!

If the author of this is trying to teach people about grammar and
punctuation then they should first teach themselves about inverted
commas.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Dorothy Bradbury wrote:
A moderated newsgroup operates by a local NNTP client
emailing posts to the group moderator or by a user directly
emailing a post to a group moderator. Group moderator
may be a 'bot/human and will only post the message to
the moderated newsgroup if it is allowed - "anti-spam".
Human moderator processing introduces high latency,
disrupting a topic area which is mainly conversational.

Have you *any* idea of the work involved for a group of this size?
Effective moderation with unlimited access means reading every single
post from unknown or first time poster - and soon after it's received
to be of any use. You'd probably have to allocate an hour a day 24/7.

Not true IME. I run the worlds largest Yahoo group for mentalists (the
branch of magic devoted to simulated mind reading - Derren Brown stuff in a
nutshell). It has 350+ members worldwide.

Access isnt unlimited to be fair, but prospective members have to satisfy me
of a genuine interest in the subject before they can join. It works out OK,
takes very little time. I currently only have one member whose posts are
'moderated' because he became abusive to another member.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk
01634 717930
07850 597257

geoff wrote:
In message , The Natural
Philosopher writes
At least Mohammed is on-topic. He made up his own religion and
then sold it to people (at sword point mostly) - you don't get more
DIY than that.
R.
He didn't make it up. Its a straight adaption of Judaism. Just Like
Christianity. Judaism with Part 'P' ;-)

Well, it's a pick and mix of several religions, xtianity included


At least Jesus was a carpenter...

Well, a tradesman, I think is the currently accepted translation

the Nazareth Handyman

Oi!


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk
01634 717930
07850 597257

On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 20:19:26 +0000, geoff wrote:

Well, a tradesman, I think is the currently accepted translation

TradesPERSON, purleease! :-)


--
John Stumbles

Bob the builder / it'll cost 'yer
Bob the builder / loadsa dosh

On 2007-12-02 01:00:20 +0000, "The Medway Handyman"
said:

geoff wrote:
In message , The Natural
Philosopher writes
At least Mohammed is on-topic. He made up his own religion and
then sold it to people (at sword point mostly) - you don't get more
DIY than that.
R.
He didn't make it up. Its a straight adaption of Judaism. Just Like
Christianity. Judaism with Part 'P' ;-)

Well, it's a pick and mix of several religions, xtianity included


At least Jesus was a carpenter...

Well, a tradesman, I think is the currently accepted translation

the Nazareth Handyman

Oi!

Don't feel bad about it - it was said "Can anything good come from Nazareth?"

That hasn't changed in millennia - it's still just as bad - doesn't
even have an esplanade......

In article ,
The Medway Handyman wrote:
Have you *any* idea of the work involved for a group of this size?
Effective moderation with unlimited access means reading every single
post from unknown or first time poster - and soon after it's received
to be of any use. You'd probably have to allocate an hour a day 24/7.

Not true IME. I run the worlds largest Yahoo group for mentalists (the
branch of magic devoted to simulated mind reading - Derren Brown stuff
in a nutshell). It has 350+ members worldwide.

The one I co-moderate has over 2000 members world wide.

Access isnt unlimited to be fair, but prospective members have to
satisfy me of a genuine interest in the subject before they can join.
It works out OK, takes very little time. I currently only have one
member whose posts are 'moderated' because he became abusive to another
member.

The mechanics of an email group are very different to Usenet. For a start
it is only accessed via the one route - Yahoo in your case. Newsgroups are
available from loads of servers.

--
*I don't suffer from insanity -- I'm a carrier

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

If no-one replies to off-topic postings, then they disappear from the
front page in a matter of hours.

kent wrote:

If no-one replies to off-topic postings, then they disappear from the
front page in a matter of hours.

And if you bothered to learn how to use Usenet groups you would realise
what a load of ******** your statement is.

On 2007-12-02 11:57:20 +0000, kent said:

If no-one replies to off-topic postings, then they disappear from the
front page in a matter of hours.

Front page of what?

In message
,
kent writes
If no-one replies to off-topic postings, then they disappear from the
front page in a matter of hours.

What front page? That of Google Groups? That's an idiosyncratic way of
accessing usenet.

--
Si

On Dec 2, 12:20 pm, Si $3o&m wrote:
In message
,
kent writes

If no-one replies to off-topic postings, then they disappear from the
front page in a matter of hours.

What front page? That of Google Groups? That's an idiosyncratic way of
accessing usenet.

--
Si

Please tell me more about this.

In message
,
kent writes
On Dec 2, 12:20 pm, Si $3o&m wrote:
In message
,
kent writes

If no-one replies to off-topic postings, then they disappear from the
front page in a matter of hours.

What front page? That of Google Groups? That's an idiosyncratic way of
accessing usenet.

Please tell me more about this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet

Google Groups offers a limited view on usenet via a web-browser. OTOH,
dedicated usenet software http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_client can
offer a more flexible interface.

--
Si

Ed Sirett wrote:
On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 13:24:40 +0000, Stuart Noble wrote:

Dorothy Bradbury wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
Have you *any* idea of the work involved for a group of this size?
Yes - it depends...

In article ,
Dorothy Bradbury wrote:
Group moderator may be a 'bot
...on whether your intention is just to use a 'bot to filter spam.


If your intention is human moderation...

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
You'd probably have to allocate an hour a day 24/7.
... it would exceed that from experience moderating a mailing list,
although moderators can be numerous & distributed "groupware style".


Moderating USENET is not practical.
o It works well for .announce groups relating to say service providers
o It works poorly for conversational discussion. I would not vote for
it.

Moderation involves risk.
o Moderating on spam via a 'bot is one thing o Moderating further risks
censorship and loses common-carrier status o Moderating risks interest
by various organisation vs responsibility of poster
o Getting rid of a moderator due to high processing latency can be hard

Moderating is not practical. It is simpler to filter at the newsreader
level.
And we know the sort of person that is attracted to moderating

Quite so; the skills to do it properly are inversely proportional to the
desire to do it.



So when do I start?

kent wrote:
If no-one replies to off-topic postings, then they disappear from the
front page in a matter of hours.

Only if you choose to order whole threads based on the order in which
posts contained in them are received. Not always a very logical ordering.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/