Subject | Re: Will Tony apologize? (was: Re: Colonial Photo & Hobby) |
From | Eric Stevens |
Date | 04/29/2014 11:34 (04/29/2014 21:34) |
Message-ID | <i7sul9ll2bnthiqq5s3pkasoma3b777hkg@4ax.com> |
Client | |
Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
Follows | android |
Followups | android (8m) Sandman (3h & 26m) |
androidWhere have you been?
In article <nfcul9ll4pse7unk3pq1calh55vq9fobs9@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz>wrote:Eric Stevensandroid
rOn Tue, 29 Apr 2014 06:28:09 +0200, android <here@there.was>wrote:androidEric Stevens
In article <p7gtl9dii0l62chbpmgmfn0alp7ijql748@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz>wrote:Eric Stevensandroid
On 28 Apr 2014 08:59:07 GMT, Sandman <mr@sandman.net>wrote:SandmanEric Stevens
In article <j45sl99d2e8dpisaoqe48vqgtclgraek94@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens wrote:SandmanEric StevensSandmanandroid
In article <8t8ql9l6nvo03uvvdk3phfdepvkdl191et@4ax.com>,Tony Cooperandroid
Right. Absolutely right. A thread is *always* determined by the subject line. You created a new thread.
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.
Management of what?
Of the sequencing of the articles.
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.
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.
A new thread would require a new and not modified subject, new content with out references to another article in order to continue an argument and no references in the headers. The last would be hijacking an old thread since some folks might have marked it and there newsclients might highlight it for them thus giving the articles undue exposure....
It seems as though there are as many ideas of what makes a thread as there are people. In the end I guess it depends upon how each person, personally, wants to file the articles they receive. I'm not going to ram any particular definition down anyone's throat.
So why does this interest you? Are you fishing for conflict? In love with the heat of battle are you?
You obviously don't care about the issue!