Sandman
In article <3ibdabl0mnoo518ji5ejpfkfsk8vopv52f@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens wrote:

So why are you doing this all over again? You were proven wrong back then and I would have no problem proving you wrong again using the same facts. Why dig up arguments from the past like this?

Eric Stevens
Why don't you respond to what I wrote rather than almost completely clipping it and dumping a load of irrelevant verbiage?

Sandman
I didn't. What you "wrote" was the irrelevant verbiage that even agrees with me and the actual facts. As I showed, you made an incorrect statement and was proven incorrect. For reasons unknown you are now dragging that up again and insisting to make an issue out of it again, even though it was laid to rest almost two years ago.

Eric Stevens
I had hoped you had changed, but not apparently when your ego is on the line.

Sandman
Wtf? What supposed "ego" of mine is "on the line" here, Eric? Remember, I am not the one that came in to this thread trying to drag up a two year old argument from the past. That's you. For three posts I made it clear I thought it was inappropriate and refrained to join you. But since you insisted I showed clearly and unambiguously how the argument you brought up was concluded and how your statements were shown to be incorrect.

So as a summary, these are you incorrect statements that have been shown to be incorrect:

Eric Stevens 01/23/2016 <mig5abdjtuoep0eln74jdkmik4jr0v30l6@4ax.com>

"As far as the reader is concerned, you have changed the subject and it's now a different thread"

That is you making an explicit statement about what constitutes a "new thread" according to some supposed "reader". What you probably meant was "according to *me* this is a new thread" which would have been a correct but irrelevant statement.

Eric Stevens 04/25/2014 <fljll9djo3hrhstou6n1456s4c87qhntjp@4ax.com>

"But irrespective of how your news reader responds, you started a new thread."

This is you explicitly stating what constitutes a new thread, something you were unable to back up in any capacity, and something I countered with 100% efficiency using examples and links to RFC's, most of which you did not understand at the time, and also linked to yourself in spite of them not agreeing with your explicit claim but instead supporting me.

That "argument" was laid to rest, let it be. You are free to regard anything you want as a "new thread", just don't make explicit claims about what others regard as a new thread or what *every single news client except yours* regard as a new thread.