On Wednesday, June 1, 2016 at 5:19:48 PM UTC-4, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 6/1/2016 5:09 PM, Gordon Shumway wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jun 2016 11:54:27 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03 wrote:

On Wednesday, June 1, 2016 at 2:40:13 PM UTC-4, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 6/1/2016 9:19 AM, Gordon Shumway wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jun 2016 08:03:18 -0400, Stormin Mormon wrote:

I don't totally know what it is

Lots of drivel snipped

You still refuse to eliminate reference to a nonexistent original post don't you? Have you always been this stubborn?


Candidly, I have no clue what you are talking about.
I try to do a reasonable job of trimming text. Might
not meet your perfection, but I have no idea why.


I'll take a guess. This may be what he is complaining about...

The original subject line of this thread is "What is this?"

The subject line for your first response reads as follows:

" What is this? (golf tool of some kind)"

It appears as if you are referencing (via "") a thread entitled:

"What is this? (golf tool of some kind)"

There is no thread entitled "What is this? (golf tool of some kind)"
so Gordon is complaining that you are referencing a thread that
doesn't exist.

Gordon...do I have that right? Obviously I can't see what you are seeing,
so I may be misunderstanding your unhappiness with Stormy's methods.

You have it 100% correct!

I have explained it to him numerous times. You understand it perfectly, why can't stormy?


I've learned over the years to change the subject
line as the subject changes. This is common courtesy
and old world manners. Why can't Gordon understand
it perfectly?


Except that you are not doing it right, at least not in this case.

1 - The subject line of this thread was "What is it". The subject has not
changed, but the question has been answered. Why are you including the
answer in the subject line?

2 - Your use of is the main problem. That is what is screwing up some
newsreaders. Why can't you understand that perfectly.

That has been Gordon's complaint all along.