Subject | Re: Will Tony apologize?? (was: Re: Colonial Photo & Hobby) |
From | Eric Stevens |
Date | 04/30/2014 23:54 (05/01/2014 09:54) |
Message-ID | <r1r2m9leqee0t88848qjfruorogjklgm8s@4ax.com> |
Client | |
Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
Follows | Sandman |
Followups | Sandman (9h & 7m) > Eric Stevens |
SandmanBreaking a thread occurs when a new thread is started but with a new subject which is apparently the same subject as it's predecessor. Most people read for meaning and tend not to notice subtle changes in the text. Machines do it the other way around and, if suitably configured, think any change is a new thread. Does that answer your question?
In article <69f1m9dhunib40sdvbu7fojkco7qa36908@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens wrote:SandmanEric StevensSandmanEric 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?
I can explain 'it' but I can't explain your grammar.
I changed the subject twice.
The first time, you said I created a new thread.
The second time, you said I broke the thread.
In what way were they different, Eric?SandmanSo, 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?Eric Stevens
Because you are trying to prove a point?
So, "trying to prove a point" breaks threads? What does that even mean?Eric StevensSandman
I can't answer the question because I can't be bothered chasing all over the news group to find the articles you are talking about. Give me a few message IDs or headers and I might be able to help you. But you had better hurry.
I'm in no rush.
Here is post #1: <slrnll8p8n.sun.mr@irc.sandman.net> Here is post #2: <slrnllpor2.31b.mr@irc.sandman.net>
Both contains content in the References header, both contain quoted material in the post, and a Message-ID of the post I am responding to.
And both have an edited subject line.
#1 is, according to you, me creating a new thread #2 is, according to you, me "breaking" the thread
Please explain.
I see. I thought I was addressing a human. 'Subject:', 'From:', 'Date:', etc are all secondary keys which need not be unique.Eric StevensEric 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".
What are all these things then?"Path:forte-easynews!core-iad-easynews!news-in-02-iad.easynews.com!not-for-mail From: Sandman <mr@sandman.net>Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital Subject: Re: Will Tony apologize?? (was: Re: Colonial Photo & Hobby) Date: 30 Apr 2014 07:35:42 GMT Lines: 47 Message-ID: <slrnlm1a3t.gm8.mr@irc.sandman.net>References: <slrnllpor2.31b.mr@irc.sandman.net> <l7vql91mmotn5332a6jmusqdvuo1pdt3n3@4ax.com> <slrnllror5.6fl.mr@irc.sandman.net> <li4sl91vgbf1qp76fumql4e4fnulhj81ht@4ax.com> <slrnlls64k.772.mr@irc.sandman.net> <svetl95s103mp4piv61qgdck7qdckcogti@4ax.com> <slrnllth60.9ia.mr@irc.sandman.net> <a3ttl9hsvicda8d4efb2ids70vudgpcjr7@4ax.com> <slrnllufe6.b2u.mr@irc.sandman.net> <tqqul9tmv3qfb7k5ti4biibj1705shn47j@4ax.com> <slrnllv9tm.be5.mr@irc.sandman.net> <tcc0m9t9qb7arkg4q558f1bhmsvtejfq8c@4ax.com>X-Trace: individual.net fp+Of5O3G/RVaG5z2UihvQhXPSCmclRg7qyezkssaOn63gtvk Cancel-Lock: sha1:i2ybbo6tB31JkhxzFKYbE8WNbdM User-Agent: slrn/pre1.0.0-18 (Linux) X-Received-Bytes: 2742 X-Received-Body-CRC: 839833703"Sandman
Headers, none of which are named "author" or "publication date".
Depends upon how you define a new thread. Humans aren't generally interested in reading a thread in strictly the sequence of the 'References:' list but they are interested in following particular subjects in chronological order. You should try and get a human to explain this to you, but don't ask me.SandmanEvery 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.Eric Stevens
Yes
Ah, so now you admit that changing the subject line does not create a new thread. Progress.
I know you find this difficult to understand but for the purposes of a useful display a thread is not determined solely by the 'References:' header. --SandmanEric StevensEric 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?
For display purposes - yes.
So a thread is thus determined by the References header.