Sandman
In article <6n38m9h8tl8vjqu9fglk80i1q9122mi9rj@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens wrote:

It 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.

Sandman
Most sense... according to whom?

Eric Stevens
Those who want to keep their subjects separate.

Sandman
What data are you basing your claim upon? "Those" isn't specific. Show me the data.

Not "mixed", and certainly not "mixed up". In a logical and straight-up hierarchical view.

Eric Stevens
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?

Sandman
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.

But if the thread is about travel photography, and the subthread has drifted to many different topics, and you hit reply, keep the quoted material and edit the subject line to reflect the current subject of this sub thread, I would most certainly want it kept as per the RFC.

In the first scenario, it would be in the same thread, and it would be weird, but fortunately, people aren't usually that stupid to make what they themselves consider a new thread as a reply and thus a part of an old thread.

No. 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.

Sandman
No.

Eric Stevens
Why not?

Sandman
Because the RFC defines what is a thread.

Eric Stevens
I've already given you my view.

Sandman
I've never asked for it.

Eric Stevens
Well, so what? Is this discussion you ramming your opinion down the throat of others while steadfastly ignoring what they say?

Sandman
The RFC is not "my opinion".

Eric Stevens
It is likely that there is no single source definition.

Sandman
Single, no. Multiple.

Eric Stevens
None of which you have been able to find.

Sandman
All of which I have found, and shown you.

Eric Stevens
We 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.

Eric Stevens
Not so.

Sandman
Exactly so.

Eric Stevens
What you are seeing are small branch threads.

Sandman
I.e. *not* in chronological order.

Eric Stevens
They are, within the threads.

Sandman
But that wasn't the claim. And they're not chronological within the thread either, since subthreads can disturb that.

<>

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.

Sandman
Which means that the list is NOT sorted chronologically. Most newsreaders work this way, few sort them chronologically.

Eric Stevens
Of course the list of threads is sorted chronologically, in reverse order.

Sandman
I didn't say "list of threads". I said "the list". Why can't you read?

Eric Stevens
There is no indication of threading and subjects are all mixed up.

Sandman
Since it's chronologically sorted.

Eric Stevens
Which is why a strict chronological sort of all messages is no use to the ordinary reader.

Sandman
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 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.

Eric Stevens
You know my opinion.

Sandman
No one has asked for your opinion, Eric. You made a claim about OTHER people here, not yourself.

Eric Stevens
That's bullshit, as you know very well.

Sandman
It's still quoted above: "People who read them".

Stop referring to some imaginary "people" and show me some real data instead. You know, like I have.