"dennis@home" wrote:
"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...

Dennis carefully removes the proof that he posted to a thread he had
"killed" within hours of making his pompous declaration as well as the
proof that he changed the subject of that thread before continuing to post
to the same thread.

Dennis fails to mark the deletion in the hope that no one will notice.

And note how it clearly is *not* a different thread as acknowledged BT
dennis when he titled it "OT; geoffs an idiot, was: Windows 7 32 or 64
bit ?" surely even denbhoi can't claim that he thought it was a different
thread?

You know as well as I do that I can't kill a thread.

I certainly know that you are incapable of operating a newsreader or even
of understanding basic concepts of how net news works. So I suppose on that
point you are correct.

However if you are trying to claim that someone compos mentors and gifted
with a tiny amount of clue could not kill a thread then you are absolutely
wrong. It's a piece of cake and adding a rule to kill on:

^Subject: .*Windows 7 32 or 64 bit.*

As a rule will ensure that you kill the thread for all time or at least
until someone changes the subject line to remove the above reference.

Once its out there it stays out there.

Thank you for the proof that you don't understand the purpose of a kill
file.

If I could I would kill all your junk.

I haven't changed my "From" line in decades if you don't want to see my
posts, kill on that. Don't wibble on about needing to kill my posts by
subject because that will make you look like an even bigger idiot.

Maybe I should run a cancel bot and see if it will cancel you?

Maybe you should get a clue. You aren't capable of running a cancel bot.
You don't even understand how news works.

On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 13:35:31 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
-
september.org...


And note how it clearly is *not* a different thread as acknowledged BT
dennis when he titled it "OT; geoffs an idiot, was: Windows 7 32 or
64 bit ?" surely even denbhoi can't claim that he thought it was a
different thread?

You know as well as I do that I can't kill a thread. Once its out there
it stays out there. If I could I would kill all your junk. Maybe I
should run a cancel bot and see if it will cancel you?

Ah, that's the problem. You don't even understand the correct meaning of
'kill a thread'.



--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

*lightning protection* - a w_tom conductor

On 24/04/2012 13:35, dennis@home wrote:


"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...



And note how it clearly is *not* a different thread as acknowledged BT
dennis when he titled it "OT; geoffs an idiot, was: Windows 7 32
or 64
bit ?" surely even denbhoi can't claim that he thought it was a different
thread?

You know as well as I do that I can't kill a thread.

Wiggling again...

You really need to brush up up your usenet terminology. Killing the
thread has nothing to do with cancelling posts. In exactly the same wast
that killfilling a poster does not stop them posting or remove their
posts from the server - it simply stops you seeing their messages - and
possibly removes them from your computer.

On my software you press K to kill a whole thread, and shift K for a sub
thread. It then removes it from my view, and I won't see any further
posts to it, even if the name of them changes.

Since it is considered good practice to change the name of a thread when
the subject drifts to a dramatically new area, news readers *by design*
try to ensure that anything that is a reply rather than a new post, will
get correctly threaded.

Once its out there it stays out there.

True but not relevant.

If I could I would kill all your junk.

I doubt it, you only come here for the arguments.

Maybe I should run a cancel bot and see if it will cancel you?

Good luck with that one.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 24/04/2012 14:48, Bob Eager wrote:
On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 13:35:31 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

"Steve wrote in message
-
september.org...


And note how it clearly is *not* a different thread as acknowledged BT
dennis when he titled it "OT; geoffs an idiot, was: Windows 7 32 or
64 bit ?" surely even denbhoi can't claim that he thought it was a
different thread?

You know as well as I do that I can't kill a thread. Once its out there
it stays out there. If I could I would kill all your junk. Maybe I
should run a cancel bot and see if it will cancel you?

Ah, that's the problem. You don't even understand the correct meaning of
'kill a thread'.

Of course the alternative is that he knows full well, but since he likes
to morph the meaning of what he said in the past, so as to better suite
where he has moved the goal posts to now, he has to just pretend to be
ignorant...

Maybe I am being too kind?


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
"dennis@home" wrote:
"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...

Dennis carefully removes the proof that he posted to a thread he had
"killed" within hours of making his pompous declaration as well as the
proof that he changed the subject of that thread before continuing to post
to the same thread.

Dennis fails to mark the deletion in the hope that no one will notice.

Who cares what you claimed.
There was precisely one post after I said I was ignoring the thread and that
was "No!"
Its not as though I can hide it as its there for all to see, however I doubt
if the sensible ones care.


And note how it clearly is *not* a different thread as acknowledged BT
dennis when he titled it "OT; geoffs an idiot, was: Windows 7 32 or
64
bit ?" surely even denbhoi can't claim that he thought it was a
different
thread?

You know as well as I do that I can't kill a thread.

I certainly know that you are incapable of operating a newsreader or even
of understanding basic concepts of how net news works. So I suppose on
that
point you are correct.

However if you are trying to claim that someone compos mentors and gifted
with a tiny amount of clue could not kill a thread then you are absolutely
wrong. It's a piece of cake and adding a rule to kill on:

^Subject: .*Windows 7 32 or 64 bit.*

Doesn't work that way on all newsreaders, including mine.


As a rule will ensure that you kill the thread for all time or at least
until someone changes the subject line to remove the above reference.

So you are admitting that changing the title is a new thread.
Just like I said in the first place.

Of course you could kill on the header and remove the thread and all
subsequent threads referenced of it.


Once its out there it stays out there.

Thank you for the proof that you don't understand the purpose of a kill
file.

If I could I would kill all your junk.

I haven't changed my "From" line in decades if you don't want to see my
posts, kill on that. Don't wibble on about needing to kill my posts by
subject because that will make you look like an even bigger idiot.

Its easy enough to ignore your junk, I said kill as in remove it from the
internet.
I guess you just don't know how it all works.


Maybe I should run a cancel bot and see if it will cancel you?

Maybe you should get a clue. You aren't capable of running a cancel bot.
You don't even understand how news works.

Well I know about cancel bots and how most servers don't allow cancels
because of abuse by them.

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 13:35:31 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
-
september.org...


And note how it clearly is *not* a different thread as acknowledged BT
dennis when he titled it "OT; geoffs an idiot, was: Windows 7 32 or
64 bit ?" surely even denbhoi can't claim that he thought it was a
different thread?

You know as well as I do that I can't kill a thread. Once its out there
it stays out there. If I could I would kill all your junk. Maybe I
should run a cancel bot and see if it will cancel you?

Ah, that's the problem. You don't even understand the correct meaning of
'kill a thread'.

Go on then tell me what it means.

"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 24/04/2012 13:35, dennis@home wrote:


"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...



And note how it clearly is *not* a different thread as acknowledged BT
dennis when he titled it "OT; geoffs an idiot, was: Windows 7 32
or 64
bit ?" surely even denbhoi can't claim that he thought it was a
different
thread?

You know as well as I do that I can't kill a thread.

Wiggling again...

Balls.
Maybe I shouldn't assume he knows but that ain't wriggling like you do.


You really need to brush up up your usenet terminology. Killing the thread
has nothing to do with cancelling posts. In exactly the same wast that
killfilling a poster does not stop them posting or remove their posts from
the server - it simply stops you seeing their messages - and possibly
removes them from your computer.

I don't need to brush up on some archaic terminology that the majority don't
understand.
I don't even need to cater for people that like to thread by reference
rather than subject.
You know how to do either so live with it.


On my software you press K to kill a whole thread, and shift K for a sub
thread. It then removes it from my view, and I won't see any further posts
to it, even if the name of them changes.

And what does your reader think is a sub thread? How does it decide?


Since it is considered good practice to change the name of a thread when
the subject drifts to a dramatically new area, news readers *by design*
try to ensure that anything that is a reply rather than a new post, will
get correctly threaded.

Once its out there it stays out there.

True but not relevant.

If I could I would kill all your junk.

I doubt it, you only come here for the arguments.

You argue, in case you haven't noticed you are doing so now.
And you are doing it over a trivial point that most people would think you
were crazy for.

John Rumm wrote:


Since it is considered good practice to change the name of a thread when
the subject drifts to a dramatically new area,

says who? best practice is to start a new thread.

news readers *by design*
try to ensure that anything that is a reply rather than a new post, will
get correctly threaded.

which means a thread can have many titles but as long as there is one of
these - it will be threaded with the orignal

References:




Once its out there it stays out there.

True but not relevant.

If I could I would kill all your junk.

I doubt it, you only come here for the arguments.

Maybe I should run a cancel bot and see if it will cancel you?

Good luck with that one.


firth is a tosser. killfile him. I did years ago.




--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

In article ,
dennis@home wrote:

"John Rumm" wrote in message
news:bvmdnWOVxYNiKwvSnZ2dnUVZ7qqdnZ2d@brightview. co.uk...

On my software you press K to kill a whole thread, and shift K for a sub
thread. It then removes it from my view, and I won't see any further posts
to it, even if the name of them changes.

And what does your reader think is a sub thread? How does it decide?

It uses the references header - like any decent news reader does. It's why
changing the subject is irrelevant

Darren (been trying to avoid the D troll but...)

On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 19:58:36 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 13:35:31 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
-
september.org...


And note how it clearly is *not* a different thread as acknowledged
BT dennis when he titled it "OT; geoffs an idiot, was: Windows 7
32 or 64 bit ?" surely even denbhoi can't claim that he thought it
was a different thread?

You know as well as I do that I can't kill a thread. Once its out
there it stays out there. If I could I would kill all your junk. Maybe
I should run a cancel bot and see if it will cancel you?

Ah, that's the problem. You don't even understand the correct meaning
of 'kill a thread'.

Go on then tell me what it means.

I've seen people tell you, and you are still incapable of understanding.



--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

*lightning protection* - a w_tom conductor

"D.M.Chapman" dmc@puffin. wrote in message
...
In article ,
dennis@home wrote:

"John Rumm" wrote in message
news:bvmdnWOVxYNiKwvSnZ2dnUVZ7qqdnZ2d@brightview .co.uk...

On my software you press K to kill a whole thread, and shift K for a sub
thread. It then removes it from my view, and I won't see any further
posts
to it, even if the name of them changes.

And what does your reader think is a sub thread? How does it decide?

It uses the references header - like any decent news reader does. It's why
changing the subject is irrelevant

So you are saying it doesn't know what a sub thread is?
the reference is the same.
I wonder why they have a kill sub thread if it can't tell?


Darren (been trying to avoid the D troll but...)


Well don't post to my posts then, I don't care as I am not a troll unlike
some of the others here.
If I were a troll i would nymshift to avoid killfiles.

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...

8


Go on then tell me what it means.

I've seen people tell you, and you are still incapable of understanding.

No they haven't.
The pedants have said what their reader regards as a thread.
However they haven't responded to what is a sub thread.
this is because they will then have to admit that their reader does sub
threads by subject.
Thus proving that they are arguing over nothing.
And being pedantic a thread is a thread is a thread.

In message , "dennis@home"
writes

Who cares what you claimed.
There was precisely one post after I said I was ignoring the thread and
that was "No!"


That's all we need to know - you lied


--
geoff

On 24/04/2012 19:57, dennis@home wrote:


"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...

"dennis@home" wrote:
"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...


Dennis carefully removes the proof that he posted to a thread he had
"killed" within hours of making his pompous declaration as well as the
proof that he changed the subject of that thread before continuing to
post
to the same thread.

Dennis fails to mark the deletion in the hope that no one will notice.

Who cares what you claimed.
There was precisely one post after I said I was ignoring the thread and
that was "No!"

One? You lying toad... what about this one (and the half dozen before)
- all still in the same thread you know.



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 24/04/2012 20:05, dennis@home wrote:

"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 24/04/2012 13:35, dennis@home wrote:


"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...




And note how it clearly is *not* a different thread as acknowledged BT
dennis when he titled it "OT; geoffs an idiot, was: Windows 7 32
or 64
bit ?" surely even denbhoi can't claim that he thought it was a
different
thread?

You know as well as I do that I can't kill a thread.

Wiggling again...

Balls.

Playing with yourself?

Maybe I shouldn't assume he knows but that ain't wriggling like you do.

And again in English?

You really need to brush up up your usenet terminology. Killing the
thread has nothing to do with cancelling posts. In exactly the same
wast that killfilling a poster does not stop them posting or remove
their posts from the server - it simply stops you seeing their
messages - and possibly removes them from your computer.

I don't need to brush up on some archaic terminology that the majority
don't understand.

You do, if you want to claim to understand it. So far its not looking
promising.

I don't even need to cater for people that like to thread by reference
rather than subject.
You know how to do either so live with it.

Not causing me a problem old fruit...

On my software you press K to kill a whole thread, and shift K for a
sub thread. It then removes it from my view, and I won't see any
further posts to it, even if the name of them changes.

And what does your reader think is a sub thread? How does it decide?

A sub thread is the post you are reading, plus any followups to it, and
their descendants ad-infinitum.

So if I killed the sub thread starting with your post which I instead
chose to reply to here, I would lose your post, plus (at the time of
writing) Mr Chapmans, and your followup to him. However I would not lose
TNP's next post since that is not a descendent.

Since it is considered good practice to change the name of a thread
when the subject drifts to a dramatically new area, news readers *by
design* try to ensure that anything that is a reply rather than a new
post, will get correctly threaded.

Once its out there it stays out there.

True but not relevant.

If I could I would kill all your junk.

I doubt it, you only come here for the arguments.

You argue, in case you haven't noticed you are doing so now.

Just trying to educate you, and also highlighting that if you make bogus
claims in public, you can expect people to challenge you on them.

And you are doing it over a trivial point that most people would think
you were crazy for.

No I enjoy the irony, of you throwing toys out of the pram when they
behave like you normally do in a discussion.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 24/04/2012 20:21, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
John Rumm wrote:


Since it is considered good practice to change the name of a thread
when the subject drifts to a dramatically new area,

says who? best practice is to start a new thread.

Sometimes yes certainly. All menace needs to grasp is you can't start
one by hitting "reply"!

news readers *by design* try to ensure that anything that is a reply
rather than a new post, will get correctly threaded.

which means a thread can have many titles but as long as there is one of
these - it will be threaded with the orignal

Indeed.

References:




Once its out there it stays out there.

True but not relevant.

If I could I would kill all your junk.

I doubt it, you only come here for the arguments.

Maybe I should run a cancel bot and see if it will cancel you?

Good luck with that one.


firth is a tosser. killfile him. I did years ago.

Apparently he can't ;-)


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 24/04/2012 20:05, dennis@home wrote:

"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 24/04/2012 13:35, dennis@home wrote:


"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...




And note how it clearly is *not* a different thread as acknowledged BT
dennis when he titled it "OT; geoffs an idiot, was: Windows 7 32
or 64
bit ?" surely even denbhoi can't claim that he thought it was a
different
thread?

You know as well as I do that I can't kill a thread.

Wiggling again...

Balls.

Playing with yourself?

Sounds like you are the experienced one.


Maybe I shouldn't assume he knows but that ain't wriggling like you do.

And again in English?

You still wriggling?


You really need to brush up up your usenet terminology. Killing the
thread has nothing to do with cancelling posts. In exactly the same
wast that killfilling a poster does not stop them posting or remove
their posts from the server - it simply stops you seeing their
messages - and possibly removes them from your computer.

I don't need to brush up on some archaic terminology that the majority
don't understand.

You do, if you want to claim to understand it. So far its not looking
promising.

I don't even need to cater for people that like to thread by reference
rather than subject.
You know how to do either so live with it.

Not causing me a problem old fruit...

So why are you arguing.
Your reader does the same as everyone else's.
it threads on title.
A different title is a different thread end of story.


On my software you press K to kill a whole thread, and shift K for a
sub thread. It then removes it from my view, and I won't see any
further posts to it, even if the name of them changes.

And what does your reader think is a sub thread? How does it decide?

A sub thread is the post you are reading, plus any followups to it, and
their descendants ad-infinitum.

So if I killed the sub thread starting with your post which I instead
chose to reply to here, I would lose your post, plus (at the time of
writing) Mr Chapmans, and your followup to him. However I would not lose
TNP's next post since that is not a descendent.

How does it know, the thread reference is the same.


Since it is considered good practice to change the name of a thread
when the subject drifts to a dramatically new area, news readers *by
design* try to ensure that anything that is a reply rather than a new
post, will get correctly threaded.

Once its out there it stays out there.

True but not relevant.

If I could I would kill all your junk.

I doubt it, you only come here for the arguments.

You argue, in case you haven't noticed you are doing so now.

Just trying to educate you, and also highlighting that if you make bogus
claims in public, you can expect people to challenge you on them.

There is nothing bogus about what I claimed.


And you are doing it over a trivial point that most people would think
you were crazy for.

No I enjoy the irony, of you throwing toys out of the pram when they
behave like you normally do in a discussion.

Maybe I should be more like ARW and tell you to FO and stop being a ****.

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
On 24/04/2012 19:57, dennis@home wrote:


"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...

"dennis@home" wrote:
"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...


Dennis carefully removes the proof that he posted to a thread he had
"killed" within hours of making his pompous declaration as well as the
proof that he changed the subject of that thread before continuing to
post
to the same thread.

Dennis fails to mark the deletion in the hope that no one will notice.

Who cares what you claimed.
There was precisely one post after I said I was ignoring the thread and
that was "No!"

One? You lying toad... what about this one (and the half dozen before) -
all still in the same thread you know.

Balls again.
They are not under the same title and I don't give a toss about your machine
threading headers.
They have no meaning to normal people who read threads by title.

In message , "dennis@home"
writes
Dennis fails to mark the deletion in the hope that no one will notice.

Who cares what you claimed.
There was precisely one post after I said I was ignoring the thread and
that was "No!"

One? You lying toad... what about this one (and the half dozen
before) - all still in the same thread you know.

Balls again.
They are not under the same title and I don't give a toss about your
machine threading headers.
They have no meaning to normal people who read threads by title.


Dennis, was it this failure to tell the truth the reason you lost your
job at marconi?

--
geoff

geoff wrote:
In message , "dennis@home"
writes
Dennis fails to mark the deletion in the hope that no one will notice.

Who cares what you claimed.
There was precisely one post after I said I was ignoring the thread and
that was "No!"

One? You lying toad... what about this one (and the half dozen
before) - all still in the same thread you know.

Balls again.
They are not under the same title and I don't give a toss about your
machine threading headers.
They have no meaning to normal people who read threads by title.


Dennis, was it this failure to tell the truth the reason you lost your
job at marconi?

I think it was his personal habits actually.


--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

On 24/04/2012 23:52, dennis@home wrote:


"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
On 24/04/2012 19:57, dennis@home wrote:


"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...


"dennis@home" wrote:
"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...



Dennis carefully removes the proof that he posted to a thread he had
"killed" within hours of making his pompous declaration as well as the
proof that he changed the subject of that thread before continuing to
post
to the same thread.

Dennis fails to mark the deletion in the hope that no one will notice.

Who cares what you claimed.
There was precisely one post after I said I was ignoring the thread and
that was "No!"

One? You lying toad... what about this one (and the half dozen before)
- all still in the same thread you know.

Balls again.
They are not under the same title and I don't give a toss about your
machine threading headers.

Its really is very simple, if you don't want you message to appear in an
existing thread, don't use "reply".... how hard can that be for you to
understand? All replies must by definition be in a thread. Want a new
thread, start with Compose or Write or whatever your dimwitted software
uses.

You can wiggle all you like, but you can't squirm your way out of this
hole you have dug for yourself.

They have no meaning to normal people who read threads by title.

Probably better not try to speak on behalf of normal people - you ought
to let one of them do it.



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 24/04/2012 23:43, dennis@home wrote:


"John Rumm" wrote in message

I don't even need to cater for people that like to thread by reference
rather than subject.
You know how to do either so live with it.

Not causing me a problem old fruit...

So why are you arguing.
Your reader does the same as everyone else's.
it threads on title.

Well obviously not...

otherwise each of those name changes would result in a new thread, and
as you can see, they don't:

http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/images/9/90/AUsenetThread.png

A different title is a different thread end of story.

You may like it to be the case, but I suggest you go read the RFC and
understand how it actually works.

On my software you press K to kill a whole thread, and shift K for a
sub thread. It then removes it from my view, and I won't see any
further posts to it, even if the name of them changes.

And what does your reader think is a sub thread? How does it decide?

A sub thread is the post you are reading, plus any followups to it,
and their descendants ad-infinitum.

So if I killed the sub thread starting with your post which I instead
chose to reply to here, I would lose your post, plus (at the time of
writing) Mr Chapmans, and your followup to him. However I would not
lose TNP's next post since that is not a descendent.

How does it know, the thread reference is the same.

Perhaps its magic den, but it seems to get it right every time... fancy
that!

....or maybe its because it includes a whole series of references, not
just a pointer to one message, but the complete ancestry. So it can see
immediately which message was a response to which response to which
response and so on until you reach the root of the thread.

If you take the example pictured above. The references line in that
message is:

References:























This is also why decent software lets you click on the thread reference
breadcrumb trail to follow the sequence of a conversation back step by
step.

Since it is considered good practice to change the name of a thread
when the subject drifts to a dramatically new area, news readers *by
design* try to ensure that anything that is a reply rather than a new
post, will get correctly threaded.

Once its out there it stays out there.

True but not relevant.

If I could I would kill all your junk.

I doubt it, you only come here for the arguments.

You argue, in case you haven't noticed you are doing so now.

Just trying to educate you, and also highlighting that if you make
bogus claims in public, you can expect people to challenge you on them.

There is nothing bogus about what I claimed.

You mean apart from it being inaccurate and wrong?

And you are doing it over a trivial point that most people would think
you were crazy for.

No I enjoy the irony, of you throwing toys out of the pram when they
behave like you normally do in a discussion.

Maybe I should be more like ARW and tell you to FO and stop being a ****.

I don't think you have the required charm or finesse.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 24/04/2012 23:43, dennis@home wrote:


"John Rumm" wrote in message

I don't even need to cater for people that like to thread by reference
rather than subject.
You know how to do either so live with it.

Not causing me a problem old fruit...

So why are you arguing.
Your reader does the same as everyone else's.
it threads on title.

Well obviously not...

otherwise each of those name changes would result in a new thread, and as
you can see, they don't:

http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/images/9/90/AUsenetThread.png

A different title is a different thread end of story.

You may like it to be the case, but I suggest you go read the RFC and
understand how it actually works.

I don't care how it works, its how the majority use it that matters.
Lets face it SMS is a standard for the networks to send notifications to
users for things like voice mail, but that isn't how its used by the
majority.
Someone like you probably doesn't send SMS messages because that's not what
the standards said when it was designed.


On my software you press K to kill a whole thread, and shift K for a
sub thread. It then removes it from my view, and I won't see any
further posts to it, even if the name of them changes.

And what does your reader think is a sub thread? How does it decide?

A sub thread is the post you are reading, plus any followups to it,
and their descendants ad-infinitum.

So if I killed the sub thread starting with your post which I instead
chose to reply to here, I would lose your post, plus (at the time of
writing) Mr Chapmans, and your followup to him. However I would not
lose TNP's next post since that is not a descendent.

How does it know, the thread reference is the same.

Perhaps its magic den, but it seems to get it right every time... fancy
that!

...or maybe its because it includes a whole series of references, not just
a pointer to one message, but the complete ancestry. So it can see
immediately which message was a response to which response to which
response and so on until you reach the root of the thread.

If you take the example pictured above. The references line in that
message is:

References:























The thread reference is so you can get your reader to go back and fetch the
messages should you decide to read them.
Its a throwback to the days of limited bandwidth.
These days its quicker to just go and fetch all the headers.

As *most* people don't start new threads and just change the title when they
want a new thread and *most* people sort on the title then changing the
title is the same as starting a new thread to *most* people.

Even pedants like you sort on title or you would end up with reading one
post from sub-thread A followed by B followed by A followed by C, etc.


This is also why decent software lets you click on the thread reference
breadcrumb trail to follow the sequence of a conversation back step by
step.

But for no good reason, you just sort by title and click the one above.
the only use for the thread breadcrumb trail is to get the posts if they are
missing.


Since it is considered good practice to change the name of a thread
when the subject drifts to a dramatically new area, news readers *by
design* try to ensure that anything that is a reply rather than a new
post, will get correctly threaded.

Once its out there it stays out there.

True but not relevant.

If I could I would kill all your junk.

I doubt it, you only come here for the arguments.

You argue, in case you haven't noticed you are doing so now.

Just trying to educate you, and also highlighting that if you make
bogus claims in public, you can expect people to challenge you on them.

There is nothing bogus about what I claimed.

You mean apart from it being inaccurate and wrong?

Not from the POV of *most* people.
No more than using SMS in a different way to what the standard said.

On 25/04/2012 08:02, dennis@home wrote:


"John Rumm" wrote in message

A different title is a different thread end of story.

You may like it to be the case, but I suggest you go read the RFC and
understand how it actually works.

I don't care how it works,

Yes that is clear, and I think that is the crux of the issue...

You don't care (or know) how it works, and are quite happy to carry
regardless.

However, I suggest you carry on doing the same, since if you believe
that changing a thread title is going to start a new thread, then be my
guest. It does mean that many people will simply never see your "new
thread", since its buried in the bottom of a thread they gave up on
weeks ago, so winners all round huh?

its how the majority use it that matters.

Have you done a survey, or are you just superimposing your beliefs on
the rest of the world again?

Lets face it SMS is a standard for the networks to send notifications to
users for things like voice mail, but that isn't how its used by the
majority.
Someone like you probably doesn't send SMS messages because that's not
what the standards said when it was designed.

No you need to go next door for that argument...

On my software you press K to kill a whole thread, and shift K for a
sub thread. It then removes it from my view, and I won't see any
further posts to it, even if the name of them changes.

And what does your reader think is a sub thread? How does it decide?

A sub thread is the post you are reading, plus any followups to it,
and their descendants ad-infinitum.

So if I killed the sub thread starting with your post which I instead
chose to reply to here, I would lose your post, plus (at the time of
writing) Mr Chapmans, and your followup to him. However I would not
lose TNP's next post since that is not a descendent.

How does it know, the thread reference is the same.

Perhaps its magic den, but it seems to get it right every time...
fancy that!

...or maybe its because it includes a whole series of references, not
just a pointer to one message, but the complete ancestry. So it can
see immediately which message was a response to which response to
which response and so on until you reach the root of the thread.

If you take the example pictured above. The references line in that
message is:

References:


[snip]


The thread reference is so you can get your reader to go back and fetch
the messages should you decide to read them.

No **** Sherlock!

Its a throwback to the days of limited bandwidth.

Its there to make back tracking through conversations quick and easy.
Not everyone chooses to display a tree view of messages, and unpicking
what was said from whose attributions and quotations that others post,
is not always possible.

These days its quicker to just go and fetch all the headers.

Well since in order to backtrack in the first place you need to be
reading one of the later messages in a thread, there is a pretty good
chance you would already have those messages.

As *most* people don't start new threads and just change the title when
they want a new thread and *most* people sort on the title then changing
the title is the same as starting a new thread to *most* people.

Wow, now that is the biggest load of crap I have seen you post for ages.
Either this is "lying whopper day" and we have all missed it, or your
cluelessness has sunk to a new depth!

No I can say with great certainty that when the *vast majority* of
people start a new thread, they do not do it by replying to another
unrelated thread and changing the title. If that were the case, anyone
with a proper newsreader would see the *entire group* as one mother of
all threads that started back in 1994!

You see that Write / New / Compose button at the top of your screen?
That is what its there for!

I appreciate that you have probably never used it, since I don't recall
you ever starting a new thread. Mind you, I had always assumed that was
simply because you did not come here to actually contribute as such, and
just enjoyed heckling from the side lines. Perhaps I have misjudged you;
all along your interesting and thought provoking posts have been lost as
followups to Craig's request for information on Victorian light fittings...

(on the 5th Dec 1994)

Even pedants like you sort on title or you would end up with reading one
post from sub-thread A followed by B followed by A followed by C, etc.

No need to sort on title, there is a threading mechanism, remember?

Personally I sort on order received, with threading. New threads appear
at the bottom of the list as they are created, and replies to existing
threads are placed in the proper place in the thread to which they
relate. It works for me, others may chose to do it differently, but I
like to read through sub threads in conversational order rather than
jumping back and fourth between numerous loosely or even unrelated
conversations that just happen to be in the same main thread.

This is also why decent software lets you click on the thread
reference breadcrumb trail to follow the sequence of a conversation
back step by step.

But for no good reason, you just sort by title and click the one above.

I don't think you have really thought that through have you?

If you sort on title, what secondary ordering do you get?

In all likelihood they would be in the order in which the messages were
received - not much use for following a thread of conversation.

the only use for the thread breadcrumb trail is to get the posts if they
are missing.

You are of course mistaken, however your belief does explain a few things.



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 08:02:53 +0100, dennis@home wrote:



"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 24/04/2012 23:43, dennis@home wrote:


"John Rumm" wrote in message

I don't even need to cater for people that like to thread by
reference rather than subject.
You know how to do either so live with it.

Not causing me a problem old fruit...

So why are you arguing.
Your reader does the same as everyone else's. it threads on title.

Well obviously not...

otherwise each of those name changes would result in a new thread, and
as you can see, they don't:

http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/images/9/90/AUsenetThread.png

A different title is a different thread end of story.

You may like it to be the case, but I suggest you go read the RFC and
understand how it actually works.

I don't care how it works, its how the majority use it that matters.

And you appera to be in a majority of one. It's just another way to
wiggle on your part.



--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

*lightning protection* - a w_tom conductor

"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 25/04/2012 08:02, dennis@home wrote:


"John Rumm" wrote in message

A different title is a different thread end of story.

You may like it to be the case, but I suggest you go read the RFC and
understand how it actually works.

I don't care how it works,

Yes that is clear, and I think that is the crux of the issue...

You don't care (or know) how it works, and are quite happy to carry
regardless.

However, I suggest you carry on doing the same, since if you believe that
changing a thread title is going to start a new thread, then be my guest.
It does mean that many people will simply never see your "new thread",
since its buried in the bottom of a thread they gave up on weeks ago, so
winners all round huh?

You still don't understand, the majority of users don't use the thread
header at all.

Its people like you that stop linux taking over the world..
you don't actually care how people use things, just what the designer
decided it should be used by.
Very much like the programmers do for linux.

Meanwhile, Apple and M$ actually try to find out what users do and make the
tools work for them.

its how the majority use it that matters.

Have you done a survey, or are you just superimposing your beliefs on the
rest of the world again?

Do you really think *you* are in the majority?


Lets face it SMS is a standard for the networks to send notifications to
users for things like voice mail, but that isn't how its used by the
majority.
Someone like you probably doesn't send SMS messages because that's not
what the standards said when it was designed.

No you need to go next door for that argument...

On my software you press K to kill a whole thread, and shift K for a
sub thread. It then removes it from my view, and I won't see any
further posts to it, even if the name of them changes.

And what does your reader think is a sub thread? How does it decide?

A sub thread is the post you are reading, plus any followups to it,
and their descendants ad-infinitum.

So if I killed the sub thread starting with your post which I instead
chose to reply to here, I would lose your post, plus (at the time of
writing) Mr Chapmans, and your followup to him. However I would not
lose TNP's next post since that is not a descendent.

How does it know, the thread reference is the same.

Perhaps its magic den, but it seems to get it right every time...
fancy that!

...or maybe its because it includes a whole series of references, not
just a pointer to one message, but the complete ancestry. So it can
see immediately which message was a response to which response to
which response and so on until you reach the root of the thread.

If you take the example pictured above. The references line in that
message is:

References:


[snip]


The thread reference is so you can get your reader to go back and fetch
the messages should you decide to read them.

No **** Sherlock!

Its a throwback to the days of limited bandwidth.

Its there to make back tracking through conversations quick and easy. Not
everyone chooses to display a tree view of messages, and unpicking what
was said from whose attributions and quotations that others post, is not
always possible.

No some of them choose to ignore the title and claim that changing the title
doesn't mean changing the subject and hence the thread.


These days its quicker to just go and fetch all the headers.

Well since in order to backtrack in the first place you need to be reading
one of the later messages in a thread, there is a pretty good chance you
would already have those messages.

There is these days but not when the mechanism was invented, probably more
than a decade ago.


As *most* people don't start new threads and just change the title when
they want a new thread and *most* people sort on the title then changing
the title is the same as starting a new thread to *most* people.

Wow, now that is the biggest load of crap I have seen you post for ages.
Either this is "lying whopper day" and we have all missed it, or your
cluelessness has sunk to a new depth!

No I can say with great certainty that when the *vast majority* of people
start a new thread, they do not do it by replying to another unrelated
thread and changing the title. If that were the case, anyone with a proper
newsreader would see the *entire group* as one mother of all threads that
started back in 1994!

Now just look at how many people do just change the title.
You may well be surprised.


You see that Write / New / Compose button at the top of your screen? That
is what its there for!

I appreciate that you have probably never used it, since I don't recall
you ever starting a new thread. Mind you, I had always assumed that was
simply because you did not come here to actually contribute as such, and
just enjoyed heckling from the side lines. Perhaps I have misjudged you;
all along your interesting and thought provoking posts have been lost as
followups to Craig's request for information on Victorian light
fittings...

Balls, I come here to learn by reading posts.
The fact that I don't ask questions is because I don't usually need to ask
questions.
DIY is not a difficult subject.


(on the 5th Dec 1994)

Even pedants like you sort on title or you would end up with reading one
post from sub-thread A followed by B followed by A followed by C, etc.

No need to sort on title, there is a threading mechanism, remember?

There are several, some work better than others.
Subject and date appears to be by far the best.


Personally I sort on order received, with threading. New threads appear at
the bottom of the list as they are created, and replies to existing
threads are placed in the proper place in the thread to which they relate.
It works for me, others may chose to do it differently, but I like to read
through sub threads in conversational order rather than jumping back and
fourth between numerous loosely or even unrelated conversations that just
happen to be in the same main thread.

That is exactly how sorting by subject and title works, what a surprise.


This is also why decent software lets you click on the thread
reference breadcrumb trail to follow the sequence of a conversation
back step by step.

But for no good reason, you just sort by title and click the one above.

I don't think you have really thought that through have you?

If you sort on title, what secondary ordering do you get?

In all likelihood they would be in the order in which the messages were
received - not much use for following a thread of conversation.

the only use for the thread breadcrumb trail is to get the posts if they
are missing.

You are of course mistaken, however your belief does explain a few things.

You need to get out and try some different software.

In article ,
dennis@home wrote:

And what does your reader think is a sub thread? How does it decide?

It uses the references header - like any decent news reader does. It's why
changing the subject is irrelevant

So you are saying it doesn't know what a sub thread is?
the reference is the same.

No, it isn't the same.

I wonder why they have a kill sub thread if it can't tell?

They can tell...

My news reader is using referenced headers and is currently showing:

uk.d-i-y #256940 (8 + 197 more) |-(3)+-(3)
From: "dennis@home" - | \-(3)--(3)--(3)
+ ass.net \-(2)+-(2)+-(2)--(2)
[2] dennis needs to learn about usenet, | \-[2]--[2]--[2]--[2]+
+ (was OT; geoffs an idiot, was: Windows |
+ 7 32 or 64 bit ?) \-(2)--[2]
Date: Tue Apr 24 22:02:24 BST 2012

as the article header.

Not the structure of the conversation being shown. From references headers

Well don't post to my posts then, I don't care as I am not a troll unlike
some of the others here.

I'm guessing not a lot of real world experience of running usenet systems
either.

Darren

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
geoff wrote:
In message , "dennis@home"
writes
Dennis fails to mark the deletion in the hope that no one
will notice.

Who cares what you claimed.
There was precisely one post after I said I was ignoring the
thread and that was "No!"

One? You lying toad... what about this one (and the half dozen
before) - all still in the same thread you know.

Balls again.
They are not under the same title and I don't give a toss about
your machine threading headers.
They have no meaning to normal people who read threads by title.


Dennis, was it this failure to tell the truth the reason you lost
your job at marconi?

I think it was his personal habits actually.

Do you mean he is a fool that is unable to socially interact with others?

--
Adam

In article ,
dennis@home wrote:

The thread reference is so you can get your reader to go back and fetch the
messages should you decide to read them.

No, that the Message-ID: header and the article number.

#256998 and "Message-ID: " in the case
of your post.

Its a throwback to the days of limited bandwidth.

No, that's the Message-ID: header and the article number. They are used
(IIRC, it's been a few years) by the ARTICLE command issued by your
NNTP client.


These days its quicker to just go and fetch all the headers.

All the headers? So everytime you start your client it's downloading the
thousands (tens of?) of headers from the group? I think not...

Darren

On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 20:04:23 +0100, ARWadsworth wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
geoff wrote:
In message , "dennis@home"
writes
Dennis fails to mark the deletion in the hope that no one
will notice.

Who cares what you claimed.
There was precisely one post after I said I was ignoring the
thread and that was "No!"

One? You lying toad... what about this one (and the half dozen
before) - all still in the same thread you know.

Balls again.
They are not under the same title and I don't give a toss about
your machine threading headers.
They have no meaning to normal people who read threads by title.


Dennis, was it this failure to tell the truth the reason you lost
your job at marconi?

I think it was his personal habits actually.

Do you mean he is a fool that is unable to socially interact with
others?

That too.



--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

*lightning protection* - a w_tom conductor

In article ,
dennis@home wrote:

You still don't understand, the majority of users don't use the thread
header at all.

don't *knowingly* use it.


There is these days but not when the mechanism was invented, probably more
than a decade ago.

Probably? Heh.... RFC977 IIRC...


As *most* people don't start new threads and just change the title when
they want a new thread and *most* people sort on the title then changing
the title is the same as starting a new thread to *most* people.

Wow, now that is the biggest load of crap I have seen you post for ages.
Either this is "lying whopper day" and we have all missed it, or your
cluelessness has sunk to a new depth!

No I can say with great certainty that when the *vast majority* of people
start a new thread, they do not do it by replying to another unrelated
thread and changing the title. If that were the case, anyone with a proper
newsreader would see the *entire group* as one mother of all threads that
started back in 1994!

Now just look at how many people do just change the title.
You may well be surprised.

My (ancient) news reader (strn, I don't expect you to have heard of it)
displays everything by thread index. Nearly all new threads are correctly
identified as new threads. Occasionally someone changes the subject entirely
as you suggest *within* a thread (I've just done it with this post) but
it's rare. Maybe one or two a month in uk.d-i-y.

This article has a new subject. Does your client show it as an entirely
new thread?

Balls, I come here to learn by reading posts.

You seem reluctant to listen to people who clearly know what they are
talking about on some things...

The fact that I don't ask questions is because I don't usually need to ask
questions.

you don't ask questions, and you won't listen to answers. Why do you bother?

Personally I sort on order received, with threading. New threads appear at
the bottom of the list as they are created, and replies to existing
threads are placed in the proper place in the thread to which they relate.
It works for me, others may chose to do it differently, but I like to read
through sub threads in conversational order rather than jumping back and
fourth between numerous loosely or even unrelated conversations that just
happen to be in the same main thread.

That is exactly how sorting by subject and title works, what a surprise.

If you are only using subject and title, how does your client know about
subthreads? It can't...

You need to get out and try some different software.

In my $many years of running usenet news servers I think I've come across
most of them.

Darren

"D.M.Chapman" dmc@puffin. wrote in message
...
In article ,
dennis@home wrote:

The thread reference is so you can get your reader to go back and fetch
the
messages should you decide to read them.

No, that the Message-ID: header and the article number.

#256998 and "Message-ID: " in the case
of your post.

Its a throwback to the days of limited bandwidth.

No, that's the Message-ID: header and the article number. They are used
(IIRC, it's been a few years) by the ARTICLE command issued by your
NNTP client.


These days its quicker to just go and fetch all the headers.

All the headers? So everytime you start your client it's downloading the
thousands (tens of?) of headers from the group? I think not...

You think it goes and asks for them individually?
You don't think it uses the date to get new headers?

On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 21:45:16 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

"D.M.Chapman" dmc@puffin. wrote in message
...
In article , dennis@home
wrote:

The thread reference is so you can get your reader to go back and fetch
the
messages should you decide to read them.

No, that the Message-ID: header and the article number.

#256998 and "Message-ID: " in the case
of your post.

Its a throwback to the days of limited bandwidth.

No, that's the Message-ID: header and the article number. They are used
(IIRC, it's been a few years) by the ARTICLE command issued by your
NNTP client.


These days its quicker to just go and fetch all the headers.

All the headers? So everytime you start your client it's downloading
the thousands (tens of?) of headers from the group? I think not...

You think it goes and asks for them individually? You don't think it
uses the date to get new headers?

But you said *all* the headers.



--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

*lightning protection* - a w_tom conductor

"D.M.Chapman" dmc@puffin. wrote in message
...


This article has a new subject. Does your client show it as an entirely
new thread?

As it happens yes it does!
And if I ignore the thread it doesn't ignore all the other threads either.
Like I said most people don't thread by the header, most people use the same
(or based on the same) reader I am using. Unless you know otherwise.
It works how most users expect it to work and not how some odd person
decided it should work decades ago.

D.M.Chapman wrote:
Snip long post

Should we tell him about nyg.qri.ahyy? :-)

It's a shame NIN doesn't allow follow-ups there.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 21:51:18 +0100, John Williamson wrote:

D.M.Chapman wrote:
Snip long post

Should we tell him about nyg.qri.ahyy? :-)

It's a shame NIN doesn't allow follow-ups there.

+1



--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

*lightning protection* - a w_tom conductor

On 25/04/2012 19:13, dennis@home wrote:


"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 25/04/2012 08:02, dennis@home wrote:


"John Rumm" wrote in message

A different title is a different thread end of story.

You may like it to be the case, but I suggest you go read the RFC and
understand how it actually works.

I don't care how it works,

Yes that is clear, and I think that is the crux of the issue...

You don't care (or know) how it works, and are quite happy to carry
regardless.

However, I suggest you carry on doing the same, since if you believe
that changing a thread title is going to start a new thread, then be
my guest. It does mean that many people will simply never see your
"new thread", since its buried in the bottom of a thread they gave up
on weeks ago, so winners all round huh?

You still don't understand, the majority of users don't use the thread
header at all.

The detailed headers are not even visible to the user most of the time,
unless they examine the raw message text. They are inserted by your
software automatically. These days they are primarily there for the
*software* to use. So the majority of users *do* use them, because their
software does. Even microsoft's offerings use them, even if not always
perfectly.

Its people like you that stop linux taking over the world..

You say some profoundly weird stuff at times.

you don't actually care how people use things, just what the designer
decided it should be used by.

Now you see if you design stuff so that it is flexible, it can not only
adhere to accepted standards and hence interoperate with other products,
it can also allow the user to work they way they want rather than the
way the designer thinks they should.

As users we also have responsibility to do some things to account for
different preferences, and for variations in the capability of other
users platforms. Hence in usenet, by quoting selectively, leaving poster
attributions, and following the group norm for top posting.

That is why tools like Thunderbird (and many others) allow sorting on 14
different fields, in threads or unthreaded, forward or reverse, expanded
threads or collapsed. It can read all threads, all threads with new
unread messages, watched threads with unread messages etc. Then if you
want more flexibility it has filters to do your bidding, and finally
allows for user written extensions if that is not enough.

Obviously there will be difficulties when a user wants to do something
profoundly stupid - there it is a case of producing intuitive designs
that lead them toward the plausible choices.

(For example, I can't see anyway in my software to make a post that will
start a new thread using "reply". When I hit reply it will automatically
inject the correct headers into the message so that others
computers/software can place the message in the appropriate position
should they wish. This however does not strike me as at all strange or
limiting)

Very much like the programmers do for linux.

Meanwhile, Apple and M$ actually try to find out what users do and make
the tools work for them.

its how the majority use it that matters.

Have you done a survey, or are you just superimposing your beliefs on
the rest of the world again?

Do you really think *you* are in the majority?

On this topic, without doubt. There are simple technical ways you can
verify what I am telling you - a quick look at the raw message text will
soon confirm a lack of references headers, and a look at any followup
will confirm their presence. Failing that, you could listen to the range
of posters who can still be bothered to read your posts, that have also
posted to tell you the same thing.

The thread reference is so you can get your reader to go back and fetch
the messages should you decide to read them.

No **** Sherlock!

Its a throwback to the days of limited bandwidth.

Its there to make back tracking through conversations quick and easy.
Not everyone chooses to display a tree view of messages, and unpicking
what was said from whose attributions and quotations that others post,
is not always possible.

No some of them choose to ignore the title and claim that changing the
title doesn't mean changing the subject and hence the thread.

They make the claim, because its true.

No I can say with great certainty that when the *vast majority* of
people start a new thread, they do not do it by replying to another
unrelated thread and changing the title. If that were the case, anyone
with a proper newsreader would see the *entire group* as one mother of
all threads that started back in 1994!

Now just look at how many people do just change the title.
You may well be surprised.

Well for all those using working software, the answer is a nice round
number, i.e. none.

If you want to start a new thread, why would you start with a reply or a
followup? Its not in any way easier, either at a practical or conceptual
level.

You see that Write / New / Compose button at the top of your screen?
That is what its there for!

I appreciate that you have probably never used it, since I don't
recall you ever starting a new thread. Mind you, I had always assumed
that was simply because you did not come here to actually contribute
as such, and just enjoyed heckling from the side lines. Perhaps I have
misjudged you; all along your interesting and thought provoking posts
have been lost as followups to Craig's request for information on
Victorian light fittings...

Balls, I come here to learn by reading posts.
The fact that I don't ask questions is because I don't usually need to
ask questions.
DIY is not a difficult subject.

Perhaps you should do a search on "ignorant and unaware"...

(on the 5th Dec 1994)

Even pedants like you sort on title or you would end up with reading one
post from sub-thread A followed by B followed by A followed by C, etc.

No need to sort on title, there is a threading mechanism, remember?

There are several, some work better than others.
Subject and date appears to be by far the best.

Sorting by subject is pointless unless searching for a particular
message etc, since it won't cope with threads that change subject in the
middle, as this one has done several times.

Personally I sort on order received, with threading. New threads
appear at the bottom of the list as they are created, and replies to
existing threads are placed in the proper place in the thread to which
they relate. It works for me, others may chose to do it differently,
but I like to read through sub threads in conversational order rather
than jumping back and fourth between numerous loosely or even
unrelated conversations that just happen to be in the same main thread.

That is exactly how sorting by subject and title works, what a surprise.

Subject and title? I presume you mean subject and date... however if so,
then that is still not correct. Messages are unlikely to be written or
received in thread order, and the subjects in a single thread can and do
change.

This is also why decent software lets you click on the thread
reference breadcrumb trail to follow the sequence of a conversation
back step by step.

But for no good reason, you just sort by title and click the one above.

Which may be from elsewhere in the thread, and completely unrelated to
the current message.

I don't think you have really thought that through have you?

If you sort on title, what secondary ordering do you get?

In all likelihood they would be in the order in which the messages
were received - not much use for following a thread of conversation.

the only use for the thread breadcrumb trail is to get the posts if they
are missing.

You are of course mistaken, however your belief does explain a few
things.

You need to get out and try some different software.

I have used many, and on a variety of platforms, They all work in pretty
much the same way give or take some features. I appreciate that programs
like OE are broken in some respects, but even that can display and reply
to threads correctly most of the time.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

dennis@home wrote:


"D.M.Chapman" dmc@puffin. wrote in message
...


This article has a new subject. Does your client show it as an entirely
new thread?

As it happens yes it does!
And if I ignore the thread it doesn't ignore all the other threads either.
Like I said most people don't thread by the header, most people use the
same (or based on the same) reader I am using. Unless you know otherwise.
It works how most users expect it to work and not how some odd person
decided it should work decades ago.

It would be interesting to see how you can justify your claim that most
people use the same newsreader that you use.

The program you use (Windows Live Mail 14) is *not* a standards
compliant program, as the rest of the world understands it, either as an
e-mail program or a newsreader.

The version you use is only used by a minute percentage of Usenet users,
and is not based on the same code base as any other newsreader, except
maybe other versions of WLM, which are even worse piles of cr@p, or OE6,
which needed fixing before it was even remotely usable.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

In article ,
John Williamson wrote:
D.M.Chapman wrote:
Snip long post

Should we tell him about nyg.qri.ahyy? :-)

Lol

I think Dennis is more ROT26

Darren

D.M.Chapman wrote:
In article ,
John Williamson wrote:
D.M.Chapman wrote:
Snip long post

Should we tell him about nyg.qri.ahyy? :-)

Lol

I think Dennis is more ROT26

That was good coffee...

--
Tciao for Now!

John.