Honda Car Forum

This is off subject, but is there a reason that people in this news
group don't reply to the original message so that there is a thread for
the original question rather that sending a new messafe each time with
an "Re:" subject.

In my experience it makes it much easier to follow the responses and
maintain continuity for each subject as opposed to having to search down
the list for ht enext"Re:" that concerns the thread you are trying to
follow.

John

The same reason they don't use spell check I guess.

John Smith wrote:
> This is off subject, but is there a reason that people in this news
> group don't reply to the original message so that there is a thread for
> the original question rather that sending a new messafe each time with
> an "Re:" subject.
>
> In my experience it makes it much easier to follow the responses and
> maintain continuity for each subject as opposed to having to search down
> the list for ht enext"Re:" that concerns the thread you are trying to
> follow.
>
> John

John Smith wrote:
> This is off subject, but is there a reason that people in this news
> group don't reply to the original message so that there is a thread for
> the original question rather that sending a new messafe each time with
> an "Re:" subject.
>
> In my experience it makes it much easier to follow the responses and
> maintain continuity for each subject as opposed to having to search down
> the list for ht enext"Re:" that concerns the thread you are trying to
> follow.

Not everyone's newsreader supports proper threading. Some newsservers may not
either. Deal with it.

In article <44C311D4.9B6BCE1A@aol.com>, John Smith <jsmith@aol.com>
wrote:

> This is off subject, but is there a reason that people in this news
> group don't reply to the original message so that there is a thread for
> the original question rather that sending a new messafe each time with
> an "Re:" subject.
>
> In my experience it makes it much easier to follow the responses and
> maintain continuity for each subject as opposed to having to search down
> the list for ht enext"Re:" that concerns the thread you are trying to
> follow.

Your newsreader may be configured to show everything "flat" instead of
threaded. check your preferences.

Sorry, 4 other news groups all show up threaded. Matt's reply makes sense
though.
John

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" wrote:

> In article <44C311D4.9B6BCE1A@aol.com>, John Smith <jsmith@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> > This is off subject, but is there a reason that people in this news
> > group don't reply to the original message so that there is a thread for
> > the original question rather that sending a new messafe each time with
> > an "Re:" subject.
> >
> > In my experience it makes it much easier to follow the responses and
> > maintain continuity for each subject as opposed to having to search down
> > the list for ht enext"Re:" that concerns the thread you are trying to
> > follow.
>
> Your newsreader may be configured to show everything "flat" instead of
> threaded. check your preferences.

Matt,
let's not get testy. In my sheltered experience with news readers they have always
shown up threaded so I assumed that was the norm. TX 4 the education.
John

Matt Ion wrote:

> John Smith wrote:
> > This is off subject, but is there a reason that people in this news
> > group don't reply to the original message so that there is a thread for
> > the original question rather that sending a new messafe each time with
> > an "Re:" subject.
> >
> > In my experience it makes it much easier to follow the responses and
> > maintain continuity for each subject as opposed to having to search down
> > the list for ht enext"Re:" that concerns the thread you are trying to
> > follow.
>
> Not everyone's newsreader supports proper threading. Some newsservers may not
> either. Deal with it.

One newsgroup I'm on is moderated and requires an email address be registered
with the moderation software before posts will be automatically accepted to the
group, or they must be hand-moderated. They can also be posted by emailing a
post to the moderation bot, if they're not being accepted normally. If done
that way, the threading is immediately broken as well.

There are tons of reasons threads can break, be split up, etc., most simply due
to differences or limitations in the technology.

John Smith wrote:
> Matt,
> let's not get testy. In my sheltered experience with news readers they have always
> shown up threaded so I assumed that was the norm. TX 4 the education.
> John
>
> Matt Ion wrote:
>
>
>>John Smith wrote:
>>
>>>This is off subject, but is there a reason that people in this news
>>>group don't reply to the original message so that there is a thread for
>>>the original question rather that sending a new messafe each time with
>>>an "Re:" subject.
>>>
>>>In my experience it makes it much easier to follow the responses and
>>>maintain continuity for each subject as opposed to having to search down
>>>the list for ht enext"Re:" that concerns the thread you are trying to
>>>follow.
>>
>>Not everyone's newsreader supports proper threading. Some newsservers may not
>>either. Deal with it.
>
>

I'm seeing them threaded.

--Nan

On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 21:44:17 -0700, John Smith <jsmith@aol.com> wrote:

>Sorry, 4 other news groups all show up threaded. Matt's reply makes sense
>though.
>John
>
>"Elmo P. Shagnasty" wrote:
>
>> In article <44C311D4.9B6BCE1A@aol.com>, John Smith <jsmith@aol.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > This is off subject, but is there a reason that people in this news
>> > group don't reply to the original message so that there is a thread for
>> > the original question rather that sending a new messafe each time with
>> > an "Re:" subject.
>> >
>> > In my experience it makes it much easier to follow the responses and
>> > maintain continuity for each subject as opposed to having to search down
>> > the list for ht enext"Re:" that concerns the thread you are trying to
>> > follow.
>>
>> Your newsreader may be configured to show everything "flat" instead of
>> threaded. check your preferences.