Google| Subject | Re: Will Tony apologize? (was: Re: Colonial Photo & Hobby) |
| From | Sandman |
| Date | 04/26/2014 10:22 (04/26/2014 10:22) |
| Message-ID | <slrnllmraq.tpk.mr@irc.sandman.net> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
| Follows | Eric Stevens |
| Followups | Eric Stevens (38m) > Sandman |
In article <fljll9djo3hrhstou6n1456s4c87qhntjp@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens wrote:
There's a reason for creating a new thread as well - not being associated with some old content. But since the post in question not only followed in the same thread, it also *contained* old content in it, it was clearly not a new thread. Merely a new subject.Eric StevensSandmanTony CooperTony CooperSandman
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.
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.
The thread is "Will Tony apologize? (was: Re: Colonial Photo & Hobby)", and you initiated it.
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??
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.Incorrect. A new thread has an empty References: header. Mine did not.
Here is the entire thread again:
http://usenet.sandman.net/reader/index/read?id=153422
-- Sandman[.net]
04/14/2014-
