Subject | Re: Will Tony apologize?? (was: Re: Colonial Photo & Hobby) |
From | Sandman |
Date | 05/03/2014 16:43 (05/03/2014 16:43) |
Message-ID | <slrnlma09g.f0u.mr@irc.sandman.net> |
Client | |
Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
Follows | Eric Stevens |
Followups | Eric Stevens (6h & 52m) > Sandman |
What data are you basing your claim upon? "Those" isn't specific. Show me the data.Eric StevensSandmanSandmanEric Stevens
It does so by default.
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?
Those who want to keep their subjects separate.
If you reply to one of my posts, don't alter the references header, and change the subject and all quoted material and start talking about something completely different, I'd call you weird.SandmanEric Stevens
Not "mixed", and certainly not "mixed up". In a logical and straight-up hierarchical view.
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?
Because the RFC defines what is a thread.Eric StevensSandmanSandmanEric Stevens
No. A lot of hand waving from you, and no actual "definitions" other than the ones I've provided.
At the moment what makes a thread is in the eye of the beholder.
No.
Why not?
The RFC is not "my opinion".Eric StevensI've already given you my view.Sandman
I've never asked for it.
Well, so what? Is this discussion you ramming your opinion down the throat of others while steadfastly ignoring what they say?
All of which I have found, and shown you.Eric StevensIt is likely that there is no single source definition.Sandman
Single, no. Multiple.
None of which you have been able to find.
Exactly so.Eric StevensWe are talking about display, not sequencing.Sandman
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.
Not so.
But that wasn't the claim. And they're not chronological within the thread either, since subthreads can disturb that.Eric StevensWhat you are seeing are small branch threads.Sandman
I.e. *not* in chronological order.
They are, within the threads.
I didn't say "list of threads". I said "the list". Why can't you read?Eric StevensSandmanSandman
<>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.
Of course the list of threads is sorted chronologically, in reverse order.
Which is my point. And a threaded view is not a list of chronologically sorted articles. Every top-level and then every branch in it is (hopefully) sorted, and usually descending on the top level and ascending in the tree.Eric StevensThere is no indication of threading and subjects are all mixed up.Sandman
Since it's chronologically sorted.
Which is why a strict chronological sort of all messages is no use to the ordinary reader.
It's still quoted above: "People who read them".Eric StevensSandmanPeople 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.Eric Stevens
You know my opinion.
No one has asked for your opinion, Eric. You made a claim about OTHER people here, not yourself.
That's bullshit, as you know very well.