🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <14113@s.ms.uky.edu> sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) writes:
>cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell) writes:
>|I think that it would be better if the various threads in the article
>|selection menu were presented in chronological order instead of
>|alphabetical.  "psuedo followups" are common occurrences, but once you
>|alphabetize the menu the implicit ordering gets all messed up.
>
>I agree. I'd kind of like everything within a thread to be in chronological
>order.

While I'll grant that chronological sorting is a VERY nice idea, too many
machines out there:
    1) Fail to keep their clock time correct.
or, 2) Use weird time formats and/or zone names.

By far, #1 is the problem seen most often.  I suppose the question is whether
or not, in the real world, chronological sorting would cause more or fewer
problems.

What I would really like to see is sorting according to the References:
entries.  The problem with that stems from the propagation failures that
occur within the network, where the reply shows up before the original
article does.  Since not everyone is using NN, it's not likely to be fixed
anytime soon.

I suspect that the only way to fix it would involve a centralized network
authority.  Something that the UUCP network (UseNet) people (that's me!)
won't put up with.  [ All kowtow to the Great Anarchy! :-) :-) :-) ]

	"Who?... Me?... WHAT opinions?!?"	| Edwin Wiles
    Schedule: (n.) An ever changing nightmare.	| NetExpress, Inc.
  ...!{hadron,sundc,pyrdc,uunet}!netxcom!ewiles	| 1953 Gallows Rd. Suite 300
       ewiles@iad-nxe.global-mis.DHL.COM	| Vienna, VA 22182