Posted on 10/28/2004 5:33:26 PM PDT by sweetliberty
By the way, the debate will reair at 11 our time. I missed the first part.
Thanks for fixing the title.
This is the result of some choke points that John mentioned to me. He said they keep moving around and he is analyzing the problem.
It takes time to tweak these things and I suspect he has a election day setup that will allow for rapid fire posting.
All in all, it is really better in some ways and glitchy in others.
Well, I haven't noticed the "better" part. I know I hate have to go through 20 0r 30 pages sometimes, to get back to posts I am looking for when I should be able to do it in 1 or 2 pages. It's time consuming and frustrating. Even the DUhmmies are talking about how much better their forum is running than FR does now. That's pretty bad.
LOL, I would not know about that......:-)
Anyhoo, I have not had any of those kinds of problems.
I have not seen the lost posting page info that others have complained about, and I rarely need to go back into the pings. I don't know why?????
This glitch today is the second one I have seen since the server overhaul. I have been online everyday for about 12 hours or so.
Using the pinger most of the time.
If I had to guess, the number of threads in the inbox is what is getting the most attention. I expect he will get it back to what it was. I never really missed it.
I posted a comment on this thread, and it did not show up. So I went to the pings page and it showed up as it should, after a refresh. But here is what is interesting. I came back to the thread to see if it was there, and it was not. I noticed on the ping page that the post number said "25 of 24".
It strikes me that there is a mathmatical glitch in the code. The post shows up on the thread eventually after a couple minutes and the math gets corrected, but I wonder if that mathmatical problem is the cause of the delayed posting. This has been happening a few times and it is kinda wierd.
What happened to Mike Huckabee? Was he corrupted by Little Rock? At one time, he was a no-holds-barred uncompromising conservative? It seems like Washington corrupted the Hutchinson brothers, but how could "little" Little Rock do the same to the Reverend Huckabee?
Seems to me he just doesn't have the stomach to stand up to the RATs. He appears to go along to get along. I could be mistaken. CH or the Battman could probably shed more light on Huckabee.
He had to make compromises. The state constitution gives the governors office very little to play with, and he used all he had.IMO
Hmmmmm. It worked that time!
And again.........I better quit!
Sorry I missed this. How did we do?
Jim Holt did quite well. His manner was good, his points were well delivered, and he probably won the debate on both substance and style.
So often, conservative candidates "lose" debates because they are ashamed of their conservative positions, do not really believe their stated views, or have no ability to project those views.
It sounds like Jim Holt has none of those drawbacks: he is conservative, believes in his views, and has the ability to project his arguments.
Still AR voters won't support him because he does not have the required name ID to win there. Plus Bill Clinton is strongly for Lincoln.
Thanks for the info YepYep....let me know if C-Span is running this again this weekend.
He is very plain spoken, not to mention direct and to the point. Blanche was really getting on my nerves. Her chronic air-sucking was as distracting as Al Gore's sighing in 2000. She relies on lots of weasel words and RAT talking points, with a good sized dash of phony conservatism. Meaningless drivel mostly, masking, and not very well, her socialist Kerryite, Hillaryite agenda.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.