Re: I think they've done it again.

[nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Dave Houston)]

"Robert Green" <ROBERT_GREEN1963@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>"Dave Houston" <nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>news:449db3a6.166255390@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

>> I think the "SmarthomeJohn" comment
>> is from the other thread and is a year old.
>
>Respectfully disagree, sir!  I recall I had to look hard for a date on the
>messages and at first only saw the word "Today" without reference to a year.
>It seems that the board's designers believe that the day a poster joined was
>the most important number to place on the message header.  Look again.  It's
>easy to be confused by how they do things in their HTML but with a straight
>text copy it shows clearly that SmarthomeJohn's post had a message date of
>May 20, 2006 but a join date featured more prominently that says July 2005:

You're right!

The person who first referenced it said it was a "year old thread". When I
looked, I saw a year old date and so took it to be older than it is. The
actual date of a post doesn't jump right out.

However, in one post "SmarthomeJohn" says they found it was the triac while
in another he says they found it was the choke. I would reserve judgement.

Anyways, I got my latest roZetta boards so I'll be busy with that and will
not have time for much else.