Sandman
In article <fljll9djo3hrhstou6n1456s4c87qhntjp@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens 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.

Sandman
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 Stevens
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.

Sandman
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