Subject | Re: Will Tony apologize?? (was: Re: Colonial Photo & Hobby) |
From | Eric Stevens |
Date | 04/30/2014 11:35 (04/30/2014 21:35) |
Message-ID | <69f1m9dhunib40sdvbu7fojkco7qa36908@4ax.com> |
Client | |
Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
Follows | Sandman |
Followups | Sandman (1h & 57m) > Eric Stevens |
SandmanI can explain 'it' but I can't explain your grammar.
In article <82b0m91v1c6kldia9id4tp2lp6nf58l944@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens wrote:SandmanEric StevensSandmanEric StevensNo 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.
Apart from your devious detail twiddling, you maintained the subject in general but somehow changed it in detail.
"Somehow"? I added a question mark, otherwise the subject was identical. No new meaning, nothing but one single character. Which according to you "breaks" the thread. I am wonder why.
You am wonder why. I am wondering at your wonder.
And you can't explain it?
Because you are trying to prove a point?SandmanAgain - in two occassions have I changed the subject line, but kept the References header alone. In one instance you told me I had created a new thread, and in the other instance you claim I have "broken the thread". Why are they different? According to what RFC did I "break the thread"?Eric Stevens
Presumably the RFC defining what a thread is that you have never been able to find for me. I will be able to answer your question when you come up with the RFC (and no, it's not RFC 5537).
So, why are they different Eric? Why did I "create a new thread" and "break a thread" using the exact same action? Why can't you answer this question?
I never said that was the only way. I thought you understood these things.SandmanEric StevensEric StevensSandman
THreads are usually broken by people who post an article under the same subject heading as another but post it as a new article.
But wait - hold on here. You've told me that a "new article" (i.e. new thread, right?) is a post where there is a NEW subject.
I have given you no such definition of a new article.
Eric Stevens 04/25/2014 <fljll9djo3hrhstou6n1456s4c87qhntjp@4ax.com>
"That's the reason for changing the subject line: to get away from the old subject. Unfortunately not all news readers will recognise the change in subject and the response of others may be configurable. But irrespective of how your news reader responds, you started a new thread."
You're welcome.
Umm, umm - rhymes with dumb.SandmanSo posting an article under the SAME subject heading would - according to you - be to post in the SAME thread, would it not?You're suggesting here that one can KEEP the subject, yet still post it as a NEW thread. How is that possible if threads are related only by their subject?Eric Stevens
Message numbers are primary keys for the mesasge indexing system.
"Message numbers"? Do you mean the "Message-ID" header now?
What are all these things then?Eric StevensSandman
These primary keys must be unique. 'Subject', 'author', 'date of publication', etc are all secondary keys which need not be unique.
Of those three, only one is an actual header field; "Subject".
You really are dumb. Either that or pretending to be dumb.Eric StevensSandman
What you see on the screen depends on how the messages are sorted: on what use is made of the keys and how they are agregated.
I don't know what "keys" you're in reference to here.
Every post that follows the NNTP standard contains information about the sequence of articles it belongs to - UNLESS it is a new post and thus a new thread.Yes
For display purposes - yes.Eric StevensSandman
An article bearing an existing subject line but with no list of references i.e. no list of prior articles can be treated as the begining of a new thread.
How about an article that DOES have a list of references, then? Can that post be regarded as part of an OLD thread?
You still haven't thought about it much.Eric StevensSandman
But you know all this: you just haven't thought about it much.
Given the fact that I've actually BUILT news readers, I've forgotten more about this than you'll ever learn.
Why? Is there one or are you relying on a concesus of opinion?SandmanEric StevensEric StevensSandman
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.
I have pointed to the FACT that it is the *standard* way to do it, calling Agent non-standard. RFC's doesn't concern themselves in how clients display articles, they DO concern themselves in how posting sequences are kept in the usenet format, which is NOT by using the Subject header.
I wonder how many times you will have to repeat the word *standard* before one creates itself out of thin air?
Please look the word up in a dictionary, Eric.
If you are going to rely on this kind of definition of standard you are going to have to call on a higher level of statistics tghan you have indicated you understand. In short, you are bullshitting.SandmanI have also PROVEN that Agent is non-standard in the way you claim it breaks up threads, since no other client does that. Well, among the clients that make up the vast vast majority of users out there.Eric Stevens
You might think you mean 'non-standard' but, in the absence of a standard you really should be saying 'uncommon'.
standard 1 used or accepted as normal or average • (of a size, measure, design, etc.) regularly used or produced; not special or exceptional
It's quite straightforward as Agent users understand. Unfortunately you keep demonstrating it's beyond your understanding. I won't waste time by trying to explain it to you.Well? Is it the References header or the Subject header, Eric?Eric StevensSandman
As I have described above, it's a new thread. You posted your article as a new article without a list of references.
So... References is what determines whether or not it belongs to a thread or not - not the subject?SandmanYou're really giving me mixed signals here, Eric. I think you're, as usual, just arguing for the sake of argument without thinking this through.Eric Stevens
It's just too complicated for you.
Answering questions seem way too complicated to you. But I can understand it, you've got yourself tangled up in a mess of claims that contradict each other and you can't answer one question without contradicting yourself.
Which is all a bunch of bullshit.SandmanThe post I linked to above has the EXACT samt subject as the post I replied to in my news client. And according to you, threads are determined by the subject header, yet here you're saying that while the subject is *exactly the same*, it lacks the *References* header in order to be part of an ongoing thread - I.e. what I have been saying ALL ALONG.Eric Stevens
But then you have only been partly right. Where you are wrong is in insisting that the way I have configured agent to behave is wrong.
When did I "insist" this? I said it was non-standard (and that I consider such non-standard behaviour to be broken). I have also supported that claim by displaying what the standard is, while at the same time supporting what and for the References header is used for.
You haven't shown that. You have carefully avoided commenting on the details of Agent. I don't think you know how it works. --SandmanAs you can see, the subject line has nothing to do with what is considered a thread by the vast vast majority of news clients and news *readers* (i.e. people).Eric Stevens
Have you any data? I bet you don't.
Of course I do. I index a lot of usenet groups, and here are the stats from the last three years:
01. Thunderbird 894722 02. G2/1.0 482732 03. MT-NewsWatcher 460660 04. Windows Mail 278659 05. Unison 278318 06. slrn 213900 07. Entourage 211730 08. Thoth 180637 09. 40tude 102610 10. Outlook Express 82305 11. GNU Emacs 78182 12. pan 58280 13. KNode 45322 14. MicroPlanet-Gravity/3.0.4 40455 15. Forte Agent 38970 16. Tin 31496 17. Xnews 30504 18. Jeff-Relf.Me/X.HTM 16957 19. trn 13113 20. Opera 12865
As you can see, and as I said - Thunderbird is by far the most used client.Eric StevensSandman
I suspect that you have never really thought about it or realised that there is more than one way to group messages.
Of course I have, most news clients can choose to not show posts as threads and sort them in many different ways. But as I've shown, then they show them as threads, they use the RFC-based structure for post sequencing.
That is, all but Agent.