Sandman
In article <p7gtl9dii0l62chbpmgmfn0alp7ijql748@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens wrote:

android
In article <8t8ql9l6nvo03uvvdk3phfdepvkdl191et@4ax.com>,

Tony Cooper
Right. Absolutely right. A thread is *always* determined by the subject line. You created a new thread.

android
Silly me. I thought a thread was a series of articles with references in their headers to others. And that the original article would have no such references...

How's the weather? ;-)

Eric Stevens
The references are but a tool to enable management.

Sandman
Management of what?

Eric Stevens
Of the sequencing of the articles.

Sandman
Make up your mind. The post in question:

<slrnll8p8n.sun.mr@irc.sandman.net>

Had content in it's References header, something you now agree is to be used to manage the sequence of the article in relation to other articles (i.e. the thread) yet you seem to ALSO claim that it is a completely new thread, meaning that it should NOT be sequenced with other posts.

Please clarify.

Eric Stevens
You are either very dense or being deliberately difficult.

It's a new subject descended from a chain of articles dealing with a different subject.

Sandman
Whether or not it is a new subject is not in question, it quite clearly is. The question is whether it is a new thread or not.

You claim the References header manages the sequence of articles, yet you contradict that by saying that if you change the subject line of an article, it becomes a new thread (i.e. is not part of any other sequence of articles).

So, which is it?