Re: The ultimate luxury ?

From: Eric Gisse (fseggNOSPAM_at_uaf.edu)
Date: 07/28/04 

Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 03:55:30 -0800

On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 12:11:28 +0200, jesse@phiwumbda.org (Jesse F.
Hughes) wrote:

>Eric Gisse <fseggNOSPAM@uaf.edu> writes:
>
>> On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 18:39:39 +0100, Thomas Edison <tjd@privacy.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 03:05:20 -0800, Eric Gisse wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 26 Jul 2004 09:45:51 GMT, Jeff Relf
>>>> <Jeff_Relf_@_NCPlus.NET.Invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Idiot Relf.
>>>>
>>>> Can't format a post, insists on trolling a linux newsgroup, and can't
>>>> figure out how to reply without altering the subject for thread
>>>> continuity.
>>>
>>>I guess that you need to fix your reader.
>>
>> Google groups.
>> Forte Agent.
>>
>> How many must I get before Relfies idiocy stays in 1 thread?
>
>Not to defend Relf and his subject mangling, but Google Groups is to
>blame for the threads problem. Threads ought to be formed by checking
>reference headers. Google goes off of subject lines only. That's
>just plain stupid, almost Microsoft-stupid.

Before I used google groups, I used Agent. I finally dug out the
setting that sorts by id and not subject. It will be put back the way
it was because Relf is the one causing the problem and not me,
spawning a new thread is prefectly legitmate - BUT NOT THE WAY RELF
DOES IT.

I had no idea how long and how deep the idiocy of Retchier went until
I saw his posts going back 1,2,3,4 years with the exact same subject
and 99.9% similar content.

>
>> Why should I have to make so much effort when he could simply NOT
>> edit the subject header?
>
>No reason for Relf to mangle every subject he finds, but even if he
>does, it's not his fault that this screws up threading on Google.

Yes, it IS his fault. This is the crux of the matter, he spawns new
threads for NO REASON and its fucking annoying. Killfiling him just
scatters the replies to the winds. Im going to the source.

Quantcast