Sandman
In article <piltl9149rk29ggdc597jb298r0ahh3678@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens wrote:

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?

Eric Stevens
You know my usual definition of a thread. You will have to find an alternative official definition if you want to argue that it is wrong.

Sandman
No need - I am questioning YOUR definition. And why can't you answer the question? It's simple enough.

Is a thread based on the subject or the References header?