Google| Subject | Re: nospam still not admitting to an error (was: The closest we'll get to nospam admitting to an err |
| From | Sandman |
| Date | 01/24/2016 10:48 (01/24/2016 10:48) |
| Message-ID | <sandman-399a559d43e555a169f4c11ebb9029c8@individual.net> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
| Follows | Eric Stevens |
| Followups | Eric Stevens (11h & 38m) > Sandman |
In article <jed8abthsp5obu1c85dc4f66b5idehgqi4@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens wrote:
No opinion included. You made an explicit statement back then that was disproven. No opinion needed, it was just factually incorrect.Eric StevensSandmanEric StevensnospamSandman
it has a different subject heading.
So?
As far as the reader is concerned, you have changed the subject and it's now a different thread.
This again, Eric? You got your ass handed to you last time via screen shots, RFC's and a multitude of links.
That's your opinion.
What was made clear was that there are two ways of looking at the subject and I use the conventional method of going by the header setting out the thread topic. You go by the chain of references which most people never see. You are welcome to your method just as 'we' are welcome to ours."I" don't have a "method". Threads are defined by the References header as per the RFC. This is why the vast vast VAST majority of news clients show it this way. You just happen to use the only known client that doesn't, and you have formed your own personal opinion based on its non-adherence behavior. Which is fine, you are free to your own opinions, but you shouldn't make explicit statements based upon them.
-- Sandman
01/06/2016-
