Google| Subject | Re: Will Tony apologize?? (was: Re: Colonial Photo & Hobby) |
| From | Sandman |
| Date | 05/04/2014 12:56 (05/04/2014 12:56) |
| Message-ID | <slrnlmc7d5.o2n.mr@irc.sandman.net> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
| Follows | Eric Stevens |
In article <i0nam9181q0a1o31bd8n6pq19vs1qqu75o@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens wrote:
I requested it above. You failed to deliver. Where's the data, Eric?Eric StevensSandmanEric 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.
What data are you basing your claim upon? "Those" isn't specific. Show me the data.
The form of my response was dictated by your question (" ... according to whom?") and and is a logical response. There was no request for data: hence none was given.
No, I answered it below:Eric StevensSandmanSandmanEric 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?
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.
Not only have you changed the form of my question, you have carefully evaded answering it.
To answer your question: Yes.SandmanEric Stevens
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.
Whatever you think that means. Another evasive answer.
As long as your post is in reply to another post in the same thread, it should be shown as part of that thread. As per the RFC.
No, I haven't. I haven't changed the subject, deleted the quoted content and started talking about something completely different. If you continue to claim this, you are lying.SandmanEric Stevens
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.
You write as though you don't have much experience of Usenet. You seem to have even forgotten you have done it yourself.
Now you're just flat out lying.Eric StevensSandmanEric 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?
Because the RFC defines what is a thread.
So you keep saying, even though you have never been able to find text to confirm that idea.
Yes, you are.Eric StevensSandmanEric StevensIt is likely that there is no single source definition.Sandman
Single, no. Multiple.
None of which you have been able to find.
All of which I have found, and shown you.
Liar.
Whether or not posts are chronologically sorted has no bearing on the existence of your brain, Eric.Eric StevensSandmanEric StevensWhat you are seeing are small branch threads.Sandman
I.e. *not* in chronological order.
They are, within the threads.
But that wasn't the claim. And they're not chronological within the thread either, since subthreads can disturb that.
Not if you have aany brains.
Eric StevensSandmanEric 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.
I didn't say "list of threads". I said "the list". Why can't you read?
What list are you talking about? It doesn't really matter: we were only two types of lists, threads and articles within threads. In either case they are both sorted chronologically.
Please don't waste time by trying to argue about the definition of 'chronologically'.I won't, it's clear you don't understand it, and don't want to understand it.
So you have no data, as expected. Thanks for trying to play, you finnished last.SandmanEric 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.
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.Eric Stevens
I'm sorry. I don't do squink and arm waving.
-- Sandman[.net]
04/14/2014-
