Google| Subject | Re: Will Tony apologize? (was: Re: Colonial Photo & Hobby) |
| From | Sandman |
| Date | 2014-04-27 12:28 (2014-04-27 12:28) |
| Message-ID | <slrnllpn4a.31b.mr@irc.sandman.net> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
| Follows | Eric Stevens |
| Followups | Eric Stevens (13h & 11m) |
In article <erhol9d4lcfn8rehjjvsf5adudli48vjpn@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens wrote:
You may think it's logical, but I do not. The subject line doesn't change or create the thread it is in. Have you ever been in any web forums? Usually, you can change the subject line there as well, but the post will always appear nested with the rest of the ongoing thread.Eric StevensSandmanSandmanTony Cooper
Maybe you should get yourself a standards-compliant news client. I see you use ForteAgent, which is known as the worst news reader ever made in the history of mankind.
That's a claim, isn't it? That the Forte Agent newsreader is not standards-compliant and is one of the worst newsreaders ever made?
That it's one of the worst ever made is an opinion, and that it doesn't follow standards is supported by your claim that it puts messages with new subjects as new threads.
That was my claim about the way Agent treats articles with cahged subjects lines, and the setting is configurable. It is also logical.
Any sensible news reader will sort messages by subjectThis is false. To my knowledge, this non-standard behavious is only done by Agent.
and if there is a change of subject it will place that message and it's follow-ups in a new group all together. As far as the reader is concerned it is a new thread.Again, it's the same thread. You may consider it a new thread all you like, and Agent sure makes it appear as one, but it isn't. A thread on USENET is all posts that share the same OP (original post) and can be traced back to it in a hierarchical tree. My post contained all the references (as well as the original subject, mind you) to do just that, which means it was part of an already existing thread.
But you just said it DOESN'T do that, and instead show a message that CAN be traced back to an original post in a NEW thread. That's doing the exact opposite of the above.Tony CooperSandman
You brag that you always supply substantiation for your claims. Please supply substantiation for this claim.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet"In most newsgroups, the majority of the articles are responses to some other article. The set of articles which can be traced to one single non-reply article is called a thread. Most modern newsreaders display the articles arranged into threads and subthreads."Eric Stevens
Well, Agent does that. Do you really know so little about Agent that you didn't know that?
I've noted you to make adverse comment about Agent several months ago. It's beginning to sound more like bias than an informed judgement.No, I've used Agent in the past.
-- Sandman[.net]
2014-04-14-
