Hi, Anne, nice to see you are still hanging about here!

I think your can was bad. Take the little button nozzle off and put it under a faucet
with very hot water and see if that makes it work better. If not, take it back to the
store and ask to try again. Most grocery stores will replace items the customer
complains about. I have received replacements for a bad Cure 81 ham, for milk
that got too warm during the delivery and soured long before the expiration date,
etc., no questions asked.

N.

On Mon, 30 Oct 2017 20:10:44 -0700 (PDT), Nancy2
> wrote:

>Hi, Anne, nice to see you are still hanging about here!
>
>I think your can was bad. Take the little button nozzle off and put it under a faucet
>with very hot water and see if that makes it work better. If not, take it back to the
>store and ask to try again. Most grocery stores will replace items the customer
>complains about. I have received replacements for a bad Cure 81 ham, for milk
>that got too warm during the delivery and soured long before the expiration date,
>etc., no questions asked.
>
>N.

17 year old post
Janet US

On Mon, 30 Oct 2017 20:10:44 -0700 (PDT), Nancy2 wrote:

> Hi, Anne, nice to see you are still hanging about here!

Somebody from Google dug up the old post (17 years ago), quoted it,
and then didn't add anything to the post.

Anne did stop in here for real a couple years ago, but didn't stick
around long (few hours!). And she's a member of the RFC Facebook
group.

-sw

On 10/30/2017 10:48 PM, Sqwertz wrote:
> And she's a member of the RFC Facebook
> group.
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ost
> >
> 3/18/2011 3:49 PM
> Microsoft Internet News 4.70.1162
> readnews.com - News for Geeks and ISPs
> fa35d278.newsreader.readnews.com
>
>
> Sorry I don't fit either of your Ideal Psycho Pal Profiles.
>
> -sw
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I'd prefer you use a sniper rifle on me from a few hundred yards away.
> There you go - a reason for you to buy yet another gun and ammo.
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
https://www.centraltexasfoodbank.org...ntation-057jpg
>
> Hide the Ho Ho's!!!!!!!!!!
>
> - sw

Oops, my really bad...I almost always note the date before responding, but missed it
here. Sorry. (Slowly backing out of thread.....)

N.

Nancy2 presented the following explanation :
> Oops, my really bad...I almost always note the date before responding, but
> missed it here. Sorry. (Slowly backing out of thread.....)
>
> N.
>

You google posting tards are idiots!

On 11/2/2017 9:43 AM, Casa de los peregrinos wrote:
> Nancy2 presented the following explanation :
>> Oops, my really bad...I almost always note the date before responding,
>> but missed it here. Sorry.* (Slowly backing out of thread.....)
>>
>> N.
>>
>
> You google posting tards are idiots!

wertz forged

On Thu, 2 Nov 2017 08:05:11 -0700 (PDT), Nancy2
> wrote:

>Oops, my really bad...I almost always note the date before responding, but missed it
>here. Sorry. (Slowly backing out of thread.....)
>
>N.


There is really nothing wrong with responding to an old thread. It can
make for some funny responses as history moves on and the original
comments are not particularly relevant, but sometimes, they are.

No harm. No foul.

Dropping old messages is not new in Usenet, but I, myself, have
noticed it with more frequency the past 6 months. Wild guess - perhaps
Google is playing around with code/specs somewhere and itty bitty
glitches show up, or they are testing a new use for old archives.

Deja News, which used to be the archive of Usenet, was terrific with
storage, history and search terms. Google took it all over years ago,
promising all sort of things, but nothing substantive in the
storage/retrieval process was maintained for long. There are other,
limited archives out there, but it was great when everything was all
in one place.

On Thu, 2 Nov 2017 08:05:11 -0700 (PDT), Nancy2
> wrote:

>Oops, my really bad...I almost always note the date before responding, but missed it
>here. Sorry. (Slowly backing out of thread.....)
>
>N.

Don't make eye contact with anyone and you will be o.k. ;-)
Janet US

On Thursday, November 2, 2017 at 5:05:15 AM UTC-10, Nancy2 wrote:
> Oops, my really bad...I almost always note the date before responding, but missed it
> here. Sorry. (Slowly backing out of thread.....)
>
> N.

I don't have any problem with responding to these archival posts. The situation is pretty much the same. Baker's Joy still won't work for some people. I'm just giving an update to this 17 year old post.

People resent others that respond to these Google Group archive posts because they don't have the ability/desire to see past their NNTP server's retention period. People never did appreciate others that can see further than themselves.

On 11/2/2017 10:53 AM, dsi1 wrote:
> On Thursday, November 2, 2017 at 5:05:15 AM UTC-10, Nancy2 wrote:
>> Oops, my really bad...I almost always note the date before responding, but missed it
>> here. Sorry. (Slowly backing out of thread.....)
>>
>> N.
>
> I don't have any problem with responding to these archival posts. The situation is pretty much the same. Baker's Joy still won't work for some people. I'm just giving an update to this 17 year old post.
>
> People resent others that respond to these Google Group archive posts because they don't have the ability/desire to see past their NNTP server's retention period. People never did appreciate others that can see further than themselves.
>

Plus there's something almost John Titor-fanciful about replying to a
post that old as if the matrix overlays of time and space have been
folded back together like an origami duck!

On Thursday, November 2, 2017 at 7:04:27 AM UTC-10, Casa de los peregrinos wrote:
>
> Plus there's something almost John Titor-fanciful about replying to a
> post that old as if the matrix overlays of time and space have been
> folded back together like an origami duck!

People here don't usually get to see the whole thread in posts of this nature. It doesn't seem too strange to me because I do. A hundred years years from now it's not going to make much difference to the people that study the archives because they won't be glued to the here and now and the time separating the posts will be somewhat abstract in their way of seeing things.

On 11/2/2017 11:55 AM, dsi1 wrote:
> On Thursday, November 2, 2017 at 7:04:27 AM UTC-10, Casa de los peregrinos wrote:
>>
>> Plus there's something almost John Titor-fanciful about replying to a
>> post that old as if the matrix overlays of time and space have been
>> folded back together like an origami duck!
>
> People here don't usually get to see the whole thread in posts of this nature. It doesn't seem too strange to me because I do. A hundred years years from now it's not going to make much difference to the people that study the archives because they won't be glued to the here and now and the time separating the posts will be somewhat abstract in their way of seeing things.
>

Like playing old time futuristic chess:


http://blog.chesshouse.com/wp-conten...t-complete.jpg