Sandman
In article <ru14m91aej7iufunclbr8vrt01p5u01khd@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens wrote:

Eric Stevens
Breaking a thread occurs when a new thread is started but with a new subject which is apparently the same subject as it's predecessor.

Sandman
New subject that apparently is the same subject? Both posts above had new subjects - i.e. they both contained the old subject in the Subject header, but with new content added to the subject.

Eric Stevens
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?

Sandman
Not at all. We know your news clients breaks out new subjects as new threads, that's not in dispute.

Eric Stevens
You also know that it doesn't have to do it that way but I have configured it to do that as I prefer new subjects to be separated from the old.

Sandman
It does so by default.

Eric Stevens
It is amusing (?) that you prefer them to be all mixed up together.

Sandman
It is not at all amusing that I want threads to be kept together by the sequencing provided in the posts, as defined by the RFC. When a poster replies to another poster, I want that reply to be a "child" to that post, not displayed as a new thread, since it's part of an already existing thread.

I am questioning your description of the two very similar actions as one creating a new thread and one breaking the thread.

You have yet to successfully explain why they're different.

1. Both posts contained a full set of References 2. Both posts contained quoted text from the post they were in response to 3. Both posts had 100% of the old subject kept in the Subject line.

So, what makes them different?

Eric Stevens
Maybe nothing, but I'm fed up with continuing to beat this subject to death with someone who tries to be as truculently stupid as you do.

Sandman
I knew you couldn't explain yourself.

Apparently not - earlier you told me in no uncertain terms that I created a new thread, not "depending on how you define thread".

Eric Stevens
What was and wasn't a thread had already been defined in that discussion.

Sandman
No. A lot of hand waving from you, and no actual "definitions" other than the ones I've provided.

Eric Stevens 04/25/2014 <fljll9djo3hrhstou6n1456s4c87qhntjp@4ax.com>

"But irrespective of how your news reader responds, you started a new thread."

If your post had been "Well, according to some, changing the subject may be considered starting a new thread", we wouldn't have this discussion, because that's a perfectly valid claim, since it's subjective.

Eric Stevens
Valid now is it? It's not that long since you were describing a newsreader which behaved that way as broken.

Sandman
So?

Eric Stevens
Humans aren't generally interested in reading a thread in strictly the sequence of the 'References:' list

Sandman
According to whom? If they aren't, why does the vast majority of news clients display them in sequence according to the RFC?

Eric Stevens
But they don't.

Sandman
Indeed they do.

Eric Stevens
The selection of news readers which you posted the other day sequence the thread differently from each other.

Sandman
No, they sequence it identically to each other, putting my post as a child to Andreas' post, as per the RFC.

Eric Stevens
I've already posted the evidence for that.

Sandman
Incorrect. Read my followup.

Eric Stevens
They can't all be using the same algorithm for sequencing the articles.

Sandman
Yes, they can.

Eric Stevens
You would have known this if you had checked them before you posted.

Sandman
You're ignorant.

Eric Stevens
but they are interested in following particular subjects in chronological order.

Sandman
I would claim that this is false. Chronological order is probably the worst way to follow a discussion. You usually read it in a thread, hierarchically, where posts does not show up in a chronological order.

Eric Stevens
You are dingbats. Of course people want them in chronological order.

Sandman
So why aren't they in a chronological order in your news client. Look again in the date column of this screenshot of yours:

<https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/31088803/Agent%20Thread.jpg>

As you can see, the dates are NOT chronologically sorted, since your news client group threads by conversation, where one post may occur later in the last, but be posted earlier.

Case in point, the first four posts were posted on the 29th, the next the 27th and the next four the 28th.

<>

Is that what you call "chronologically"?

Also note that in the first expanded thread, not even there are the posts sorted chronologically, as you can see here:

<>

Not sorted chronologically. That's because your news client THREAD the discussion, and posts are shown chronologically only in one ...

... subthread, i.e. when a child is shown under a parent, but discussions grow in to many subthreads so in the list, earlier posts can show up before and after later posts. If you were to sort your messages chronologically, your news client would look like this:

<>

THAT is a chronologically sorted list of messages.

Eric Stevens
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.

Sandman
According to...?

Eric Stevens
People who read them. The 'References: ' header is fine until somebody branches off with a subthread.

Sandman
I need some cites here from these people. Can you name them? This is an explicit claim from you, you know. You're saying that "people who read them" has determined that a thread is not defined by the References header.

This will be regarded as hot air and hand waving (read: Bullshit) until you provide such support.