Google| Subject | Re: Will Tony apologize?? (was: Re: Colonial Photo & Hobby) |
| From | Eric Stevens |
| Date | 05/02/2014 23:45 (05/03/2014 09:45) |
| Message-ID | <6n38m9h8tl8vjqu9fglk80i1q9122mi9rj@4ax.com> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
| Follows | Sandman |
| Followups | Sandman (16h & 57m) > Eric Stevens |
On 2 May 2014 07:29:07 GMT, Sandman <mr@sandman.net>wrote:
SandmanThose who want to keep their subjects separate.
In article <cuh5m9tv11qo474r3u3qd6ppjtdda0916n@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens wrote:SandmanIt does so by default.Eric Stevens
It's got to have one setting or another and Forte have picked the one which makes the most sense.
Most sense... according to whom?
So if I change the subject and launch off on a discussion of pyramids with others following you will be happy to have this displayed as part of your attempt to get Tony to apologise over some aspect Colonial Photo & Hobby?SandmanEric StevensEric StevensSandman
It is amusing (?) that you prefer them to be all mixed up together.
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.
Which is a roundabout way of saying all mixed together.
Not "mixed", and certainly not "mixed up". In a logical and straight-up hierarchical view.
Why not?SandmanNo. A lot of hand waving from you, and no actual "definitions" other than the ones I've provided.Eric Stevens
At the moment what makes a thread is in the eye of the beholder.
No.
Well, so what? Is this discussion you ramming your opinion down the throat of others while steadfastly ignoring what they say?Eric StevensSandman
I've already given you my view.
I've never asked for it.
The only times the word 'thread' is used in that article it is because you have written it. That's not a source document, it doesn't define a thread, it's only your opinion.Eric StevensSandman
You say it's wrong but even after me asking you five times you have failed to produce a source document which defines a thread.
Yes I have. <slrnlm1mhf.h05.mr@irc.sandman.net>
None of which you have been able to find.Eric StevensSandman
It is likely that there is no single source definition.
Single, no. Multiple.
Garble in: garbage out.SandmanEric StevensSandmanEric 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.
So?
Make up your mind.
Broken news reader, valid *claim*. "Valid" and "broken" wasn't used for the same thing.
Not so.SandmanEric StevensEric StevensSandman
The selection of news readers which you posted the other day sequence the thread differently from each other.
No, they sequence it identically to each other, putting my post as a child to Andreas' post, as per the RFC.
We are talking about display, not sequencing.
In a hierarchy, it's the same thing. And we've never talked about display. Perhaps you have wanted to divert it into display, but I've always talked abotu what constitutes a thread, and provided suport for my claims.
They are, within the threads.SandmanSo 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.Eric Stevens
What you are seeing are small branch threads.
I.e. *not* in chronological order.
Of course the list of threads is sorted chronologically, in reverse order.SandmanCase 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"?Eric Stevens
Yes. The first message in a new thread goes to the top of the display, in reverse sequential order. That way I don't have to scan down through zillions of threads to find new ones. Messages within threads (once they have been expanded) are listed in sequential order so you can read them as a conversation, from beginning to end.
Which means that the list is NOT sorted chronologically. Most newsreaders work this way, few sort them chronologically.
Which is why a strict chronological sort of all messages is no use to the ordinary reader.Sandman<>
THAT is a chronologically sorted list of messages.Eric Stevens
I'm astonished that you should think anyone would want it that way.
When did I ever claim anyone would want it that way, Eric? I am showing you what a chronologically sorted list looks like.Eric StevensSandman
There is no indication of threading and subjects are all mixed up.
Since it's chronologically sorted.
That's bullshit, as you know very well. --SandmanSandmanEric StevensEric StevensSandman
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.
According to...?
People who read them. The 'References: ' header is fine until somebody branches off with a subthread.
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.Eric Stevens
You know my opinion.
No one has asked for your opinion, Eric. You made a claim about OTHER people here, not yourself.
Regards,
Eric Stevens
04/14/2014-
