Google| Subject | Re: Will Tony apologize?? (was: Re: Colonial Photo & Hobby) |
| From | Sandman |
| Date | 04/29/2014 07:24 (04/29/2014 07:24) |
| Message-ID | <slrnllue2l.b2u.mr@irc.sandman.net> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
| Follows | Eric Stevens |
| Followups | Eric Stevens (3h & 39m) > Sandman |
In article <v1ltl9h6262d7tr7udp2k1n98rbpdtglvn@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens wrote:
No elaboration in this? How does one break a thread? It's an interesting claim from you, Eric. Because in one instance, changing the subject meant I "created a new thread" and in another instance where I did the exact same thing, I "broke the thread". What's the difference, according to you?Eric StevensSandman
Is 'breaking the thread' a new concept to you?
Yep! I don't know how one "breaks" a thread.
I don't care about your POS news client. USENET definitions and terminology isn't centered around Forte Agent, Eric. I am asking YOU about YOUR definition, not how Agent handles it. I couldn't care less about Agent.Eric StevensSandman
With the way I have Agent configured (did you actually look at that URL?), it recognised that the subject had changed and set it up as a new thread. You will be pleased to know that it maintained the current (truncated) list of references.
I'm not asking how Agent *displays* it, I am asking you if adding one question mark to the subject line "creates a new thread" according to YOU. One small character, full references and "sequence" or articles it follows and the exact same subject (i.e. meaning) but with one added character.Is that a new thread to you?Eric Stevens
Do you need help parsing "it recognised that the subject had changed and set it up as a new thread"? Do you need help coming to the conclusion that that is a result of my preferred way I configured Agent (Have you looked at the URL yet? You haven't said).
Here: <slrnllrqps.6ls.mr@irc.sandman.net>SandmanEric Stevens
Oh, and please answer my related post as well - where I responded to a post of yours, removed your text and the References header and KEPT the subject line as-is. According to you, that should NOT be a new thread, since it retains the exact same subject line - which according to you is the only metric to determine whether a new thread has been created or not. So the question is - if it's part of an old thread, which post is it in response to?
I might give you an answer to that if you can identify the article.
Is that a new thread or part of an old thread? Remember, according to you, a new thread is only created when one changes the subject, right? But there you have a post that has the SAME subject, but no References header. So this is me testing your definitions, hoping to make you see the thin ice upon which it is based.
-- Sandman[.net]
04/14/2014-
