Subject | Re: Will Tony apologize?? (was: Re: Colonial Photo & Hobby) |
From | Eric Stevens |
Date | 04/29/2014 11:04 (04/29/2014 21:04) |
Message-ID | <8bqul99fqimo4gvttjf52bvnc0f6hj8499@4ax.com> |
Client | |
Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
Follows | Sandman |
Followups | Sandman (4h & 6m) > Eric Stevens |
SandmanApart from your devious detail twiddling, you maintained the subject in general but somehow changed it in detail.
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 am amused that you say you have asked me for my definition. I have several times asked you to point me to an official definition which supports your belief that a thread is defined entirely by the list of references. You haven't even pretended to answer that question as yet. I don't believe you can.SandmanEric 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).
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.
As I have described above, it's a new thread. You posted your article as a new article without a list of references. --SandmanOh, 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?Eric Stevens
I might give you an answer to that if you can identify the article.
Here: <slrnllrqps.6ls.mr@irc.sandman.net>
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.