Sandman
In article <r1r2m9leqee0t88848qjfruorogjklgm8s@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens wrote:

Here is post #1: <slrnll8p8n.sun.mr@irc.sandman.net> Here is post #2: <slrnllpor2.31b.mr@irc.sandman.net>

Both contains content in the References header, both contain quoted material in the post, and a Message-ID of the post I am responding to.

And both have an edited subject line.

#1 is, according to you, me creating a new thread #2 is, according to you, me "breaking" the thread

Please explain.

Eric Stevens
Breaking a thread occurs when a new thread is started but with a new subject which is apparently the same subject as it's predecessor.

Sandman
New subject that apparently is the same subject? Both posts above had new subjects - i.e. they both contained the old subject in the Subject header, but with new content added to the subject.

Eric Stevens
Most people read for meaning and tend not to notice subtle changes in the text. Machines do it the other way around and, if suitably configured, think any change is a new thread. Does that answer your question?

Sandman
Not at all. We know your news clients breaks out new subjects as new threads, that's not in dispute.

I am questioning your description of the two very similar actions as one creating a new thread and one breaking the thread.

You have yet to successfully explain why they're different.

1. Both posts contained a full set of References 2. Both posts contained quoted text from the post they were in response to 3. Both posts had 100% of the old subject kept in the Subject line.

So, what makes them different?

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

Sandman
Ah, so now you admit that changing the subject line does not create a new thread. Progress.

Eric Stevens
Depends upon how you define a new thread.

Sandman
Apparently not - earlier you told me in no uncertain terms that I created a new thread, not "depending on how you define thread".

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

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

If your post had been "Well, according to some, changing the subject may be considered starting a new thread", we wouldn't have this discussion, because that's a perfectly valid claim, since it's subjective.

Eric Stevens
Humans aren't generally interested in reading a thread in strictly the sequence of the 'References:' list

Sandman
According to whom? If they aren't, why does the vast majority of news clients display them in sequence according to the RFC?

Eric Stevens
but they are interested in following particular subjects in chronological order.

Sandman
I would claim that this is false. Chronological order is probably the worst way to follow a discussion. You usually read it in a thread, hierarchically, where posts does not show up in a chronological order.

Eric Stevens
You should try and get a human to explain this to you, but don't ask me.

Sandman
I always suspected you weren't human.

Eric Stevens
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.

Sandman
So a thread is thus determined by the References header.

Eric Stevens
I know you find this difficult to understand but for the purposes of a useful display a thread is not determined solely by the 'References:' header.

Sandman
According to...?