Eric Stevens
Is 'breaking the thread' a new concept to you?

Sandman
Yep! I don't know how one "breaks" a thread.

No elaboration in this? How does one break a thread? It's an interesting claim from you, Eric. Because in one instance, changing the subject meant I "created a new thread" and in another instance where I did the exact same thing, I "broke the thread". What's the difference, according to you?

Eric Stevens
Apart from your devious detail twiddling, you maintained the subject in general but somehow changed it in detail.

Sandman
"Somehow"? I added a question mark, otherwise the subject was identical. No new meaning, nothing but one single character. Which according to you "breaks" the thread. I am wonder why.

Eric Stevens
You am wonder why. I am wondering at your wonder.

Sandman
And you can't explain it?

Eric Stevens
I can explain 'it' but I can't explain your grammar.

Sandman
So, why are they different Eric? Why did I "create a new thread" and "break a thread" using the exact same action? Why can't you answer this question?

Eric Stevens
Because you are trying to prove a point?

I can't answer the question because I can't be bothered chasing all over the news group to find the articles you are talking about. Give me a few message IDs or headers and I might be able to help you. But you had better hurry.

These primary keys must be unique. 'Subject', 'author', 'date of publication', etc are all secondary keys which need not be unique.

Sandman
Of those three, only one is an actual header field; "Subject".

Eric Stevens
What are all these things then?

"Path:forte-easynews!core-iad-easynews!news-in-02-iad.easynews.com!not-for-mail From: Sandman <mr@sandman.net>Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital Subject: Re: Will Tony apologize?? (was: Re: Colonial Photo & Hobby) Date: 30 Apr 2014 07:35:42 GMT Lines: 47 Message-ID: <slrnlm1a3t.gm8.mr@irc.sandman.net>References: <slrnllpor2.31b.mr@irc.sandman.net> <l7vql91mmotn5332a6jmusqdvuo1pdt3n3@4ax.com> <slrnllror5.6fl.mr@irc.sandman.net> <li4sl91vgbf1qp76fumql4e4fnulhj81ht@4ax.com> <slrnlls64k.772.mr@irc.sandman.net> <svetl95s103mp4piv61qgdck7qdckcogti@4ax.com> <slrnllth60.9ia.mr@irc.sandman.net> <a3ttl9hsvicda8d4efb2ids70vudgpcjr7@4ax.com> <slrnllufe6.b2u.mr@irc.sandman.net> <tqqul9tmv3qfb7k5ti4biibj1705shn47j@4ax.com> <slrnllv9tm.be5.mr@irc.sandman.net> <tcc0m9t9qb7arkg4q558f1bhmsvtejfq8c@4ax.com>X-Trace: individual.net fp+Of5O3G/RVaG5z2UihvQhXPSCmclRg7qyezkssaOn63gtvk Cancel-Lock: sha1:i2ybbo6tB31JkhxzFKYbE8WNbdM User-Agent: slrn/pre1.0.0-18 (Linux) X-Received-Bytes: 2742 X-Received-Body-CRC: 839833703"

Sandman
Every post that follows the NNTP standard contains information about the sequence of articles it belongs to - UNLESS it is a new post and thus a new thread.

Eric Stevens
Yes

An article bearing an existing subject line but with no list of references i.e. no list of prior articles can be treated as the begining of a new thread.

Sandman
How about an article that DOES have a list of references, then? Can that post be regarded as part of an OLD thread?

Eric Stevens
For display purposes - yes.