--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Janet Luise" <janluise@> wrote: > > > > > > I'm curious as why you linked this music with such a gut blue-y > > > number as the Stand By Me that started this thread? > > > > Nabby, after all these years, doesn't know > > how to start a new thread. > > Thanks for your concern but I don't understand what you are talking > about; in the subjectline on my screen it says "Re: Jan Garbarek > Group" - is that different from yours ?
Yes. On the detail page for this post, one sees your Subject line as a kind of sub-Subject line, while the post itself is still clearly within the thread called "Stand By Me - Playing for Change." This is what happens when you reply to an existing post. Your post is going to be *in that thread*, and will *not* start a new thread, even if you change the Subject line when you send it. This is the reason that when you fire off some new post by replying to the "UFC Goons" post you obviously stored somewhere, the new post always is part of the "UFC Goons" thread. It does NOT create a new thread. I understand that if you are viewing your posts in your own email reader that you probably can't see this. I'm just trying to explain it to you for the benefit of people who might read Fairfield Life "threaded," or by topic. If you really intend to create a new topic, the way to do it is to send your new post directly to the mailing list address, *not* by replying to an existing post. That will *never* create a new thread; it will always be part of the parent thread of the post you replied to. Generally, it is considered "nicer" to start all-new threads than to change the Subject line of an existing thread. Just FYI.
