Why is the following mailbag staff report dated “2-Aug-2007”. As of now as I write this post, it is July 28, 2007. I have noticed in the past the dates on staff and Cecil Adams reports are very recent, like the same day I read them. But I think this is the first time I have seen a future date, although I could be wrong. In any event, what gives with this future date?
Thank you in advance to all who reply 
If you can thank us in advance, they can write an article ahead of time, right?
I’ve seen post-dated articles before. That’s usually the date they’re published on the website.
Weekly publications tend to use the last date that an issue will be on sale as the cover date. Thus, a weekly that came out yesterday would probably have a cover date of (checks calendar) yup, August 2nd; the next issue will appear on the 3rd and have a cover date of the 9th.
So this is probably intended for weeklies (as most papers carrying the column are, I believe) that appear on Friday.
Ha!
It’s something like this, but the online version. The thing doesn’t go up on the front page until Tuesday. If you subscribe to the mailing list you get a preview of next week’s staff reports along with the new SD column. The two most common questions that this raises are:
The reason for 1 is what I just explained; the reason for 2 is that Ed is usually still editing the staff reports when the email goes out. An unannounced benefit (or cost, depending on your views) of subscribing to the newletter is that you get to see Mr. Zotti at work sometimes. You might get to see content that gets cut from the final, watch the report get funnier, or see a really terrible sentence that I wrote before it gets repaired. All for the same low, low price!
Moved this to Comments on Staff Reports.
Gfactor, General Questions Moderator
Also those lyrics, while by Pete Townsend, and part of the last song of Tommy (so nothing you’ve said si wrong)… wouldn’t most people consider them to be “See Me, Feel Me” by themselves?
What does this have to do with post dated staff reports?? 
They’re quoted in the staff report that raised the issue.
Because it looks real young, but it’s just back-dated.