--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 <no_reply@> 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.
OK, thanks
