paula grenside Posted December 9, 2004 Share Posted December 9, 2004 Subject: Interest from the hereafter ? Geez. I am impressed. I found this in the list of : people interested in you; it has been there for two days though the update dates back to June <b>1895</b>. I promise I haven't teaken part in any seance. David King (updated 1895-06-04) It seems his ghost logged on recently: http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member?user_id=1328716 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cappoldt Posted December 9, 2004 Share Posted December 9, 2004 There are several ghosts lurking, Paula. There was a string about this last week, too, I think. Must be a glitch somewhere, or maybe people messing with the date settings on the 'puter? Dunno. Most of the folks with that date had screen names that were merely initials, too, adding to the intrigue. I have two or three like that interested in me, as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevemarcus Posted December 9, 2004 Share Posted December 9, 2004 I believe that members who have posted no comments or photos on the site, period, are listed as having their Summary and Community pages last updated on June 4, 1895. I don't know the significance of that date, nor do I know why it is used instead of the date the individuals in question signed up as members. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gemccaw Posted December 9, 2004 Share Posted December 9, 2004 I noticed that a few of them got into a bit of a flame war on the collodion wet plate forum...("oh yeh? you just wait until Nikons are invented, they're going to be so much better than Canons....") Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cappoldt Posted December 9, 2004 Share Posted December 9, 2004 So Gordon there were aliases getting controversial and opinionated? Shocker:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pmj Posted December 9, 2004 Share Posted December 9, 2004 Well, mystery solved. The Oracle function that determines the "most recent contribution" date would return a default value of 40,000 days in the past in case no contribution can be found for a particular member. Since any contribution to photo.net is more recent than that, it makes a good starting point for comparisons to determine the most recent contribution. However, it does look a bit strange if no contribution is found at all. I have changed this and now it returns no date in these cases, which seems more appropriate to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cappoldt Posted December 9, 2004 Share Posted December 9, 2004 It was that simple? I rather liked the shroud of mystery instead:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paula grenside Posted December 9, 2004 Author Share Posted December 9, 2004 Oh, Patrick! Somehow disillusioned; for a while I thought my photos were so incredibly stunning ( or awful) to resurrect the dead or, at least, make ectoplasms appear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now