Okay, this has just become my number one pet peeve.

This message was just delivered to my e-mail inbox, but was hidden all 
the way back in my saved messages because for some reason the date on 
this "new" message is 12/15/2004.

If this truly is a new message, then could everyone here do all of us a 
favor and fix the date on your computer to the correct current date?  Or 
has one of us discovered the secret to time traveling?  If so, I can't 
imagine why anyone would want to go back to 2004!

But, if for some reason this message has been held up in oblivion for 1 
1/2 years, then would it be asking too much to have the list manager put 
today's current date on the message before releasing it and sending it 
to the group?

There's nothing worse than having to spend 20 minutes going back through 
years of saved e-mail messages in order to find some newly-delivered 


Mike Richter wrote:

> At 12:35 PM 12/15/2004 -0600, Rick Taylor wrote:
>> > Are there studies reporting results using the procedure/standard?
>> I don't know, but I'm having a grand time looking.  Here is a document
>> published
>> by the Library of Congress in 2003.  "LONGEVITY OF CD MEDIA:  
>> LIBRARY OF CONGRESS"  It's supposed to be in PDF format, but I can't 
>> seem to
>> access that version.  Maybe somebody at LOC can point the way.  In the
>> meantime, I found an HTML version by following this link:
> Unfortunately, the link brings up a text-only document with its 
> substantive
> content in graphics. It appears that the scope is pressed discs, not
> recordable ones; there are many lesser questions which apply.
> I do not want to appear to be a curmudgeon here. I have pursued questions
> of longevity of recordable optical media for some time and have not found
> better references - but neither have I found any which led to usable
> answers for the obvious questions.
> Mike
> -- 
> [log in to unmask]