Skip to main content
news

Re: Will Tony apologize?? (...

Eric Stevens
SubjectRe: Will Tony apologize?? (was: Re: Colonial Photo & Hobby)
FromEric Stevens
Date04/29/2014 11:04 (04/29/2014 21:04)
Message-ID<8bqul99fqimo4gvttjf52bvnc0f6hj8499@4ax.com>
Client
Newsgroupsrec.photo.digital
FollowsSandman
FollowupsSandman (4h & 6m) > Eric Stevens

On 29 Apr 2014 05:24:56 GMT, Sandman <mr@sandman.net>wrote:

Sandman
In article <v1ltl9h6262d7tr7udp2k1n98rbpdtglvn@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens wrote:

Eric Stevens
Is 'breaking the thread' a new concept to you?

Sandman
Yep! I don't know how one "breaks" a thread.

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?

Apart from your devious detail twiddling, you maintained the subject in general but somehow changed it in detail.

THreads are usually broken by people who post an article under the same subject heading as another but post it as a new article.

Eric Stevens
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.

Sandman
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).

Sandman
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.

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.

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?

Eric Stevens
I might give you an answer to that if you can identify the article.

Sandman
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.

As I have described above, it's a new thread. You posted your article as a new article without a list of references. --

Regards,

Eric Stevens