Savageduck
On 2014-04-25 22:39:43 +0000, Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com>said:

Tony Cooper
On Sat, 26 Apr 2014 09:10:47 +1200, Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz>wrote:

Eric Stevens
On 25 Apr 2014 16:14:25 GMT, Sandman <mr@sandman.net>wrote:

Sandman
In article <ib1ll9l6606p5bpbvej5sk1ismc0jar7ik@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper wrote:

Tony Cooper
The opening salvo came out of your popgun defense of your repeated error. It does take some audacity to claim you didn't "open" it when it's in a thread you opened.

Sandman
Why can't you READ? Why is it so hard for you?? My first post in this thread was not part of any "debate", moron.

Tony Cooper
The thread is "Will Tony apologize? (was: Re: Colonial Photo & Hobby)", and you initiated it.

Sandman
It's the same thread. I just changed the subject line. Changing the subject line doesn't create a new thread. How ignorant are you??

Eric Stevens
That's the reason for changing the subject line: to get away from the old subject. Unfortunately not all news readers will recognise the change in subject and the response of others may be configurable. But irrespective of how your news reader responds, you started a new thread.

Tony Cooper
I don't know how other newsreaders are configured, but changing the Subject line moves the post from the old thread's sequence position to a new place in mine, at least. It becomes a new thread.

Savageduck
With mine, Unison, even if the Subject line is changed the continuity and timeline of the original thread is maintained regardless of what is typed in the Subject line. I have to active start a new post with new Subject line rather replying with an altered subject line to start a new thread. So for me regardless of what the subject line reads, or what Jonas's intent was in this case a new thread was not created. Both subject lines are contained within the original thread. < https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_665.jpg >