Re: OT: May I be your dowager? (Martians)

Steve Wertz <swertz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Moreover, it is you who do not know how to post properly and your posts
in this thread also prove this beyond doubt. Just check these two posts
of yours and tell me why the hell they lack any references and appear to
be out of thread, yet their subject begins with "Re:"? You and your
newsreader are the ones here violating Usenet technical standards and
social conventions.

Message-ID: <1n40tizbyuv24.dlg@xxxxxxxxxxx> or
<http://groups.google.com/group/rec.food.cooking/msg/1f72280d2a5d663>

Message-ID: <5lpezl9bwts1.dlg@xxxxxxxxxxx> or
<http://groups.google.com/group/rec.food.cooking/msg/510fba91c09ecb97>

You dumbass. I was doing that to prove the point. I purposely
erased the References: line to show people what it looks like to
those of us who have a newsreader capable of starting a new
thread on Subject: changes.

What a truly idiotic thing to do! First, anyone sorting by subjects can
do it. Second, who exactly in this newsgroup would even take notice?

Just another example of how powerful
this newsreader can be. Jealous?

It is not powerful, it is broken, as it violates Usenet technical
standards. And that anyone using MacSOUP could be jealous of any other
newsreader is ridiculous beyond belief.

So, are you *still* insisting my newsreader is "woefully
crippled",

"Wilfully"... learn to transcribe. But, yes, woefully, too.

and that it can't start a new thread when the subject
changes, but other thread by References:?

Here you go:
http://tinypic.com/fullsize.php?pic=6ahb51z

It violates Usenet technical standards.

The bullshitting, times ten, is all yours. You profess to have heard of
real threading, yet you deem it reasonable to publicly complain about
someone changing the subject header, failing to suit your wilfully
crippled settings. At the same time you post messages out of thread
because they are lacking the "References:" header. You do not even
realise how utterly beyond ridiculous you sound claiming any expertise
at all.

Vic, Vic, Vic, you truly are a complete ***. I know more
about newsgroups, servers, and NNTP than you ever will. This
attack of yours is really childish.

The *** is you. I am telling you yet again that you are violating
Usenet technical standards, obviously not knowing much about them. From
RFC 1036, still the official standard, but the current draft is no
different in this regard, either:

2.1.4. Subject

The "Subject" line (formerly "Title") tells what the message is
about. It should be suggestive enough of the contents of the
message to enable a reader to make a decision whether to read the
message based on the subject alone. If the message is submitted in
response to another message (e.g., is a follow-up) the default
subject should begin with the four characters "Re:", and the
"References" line is required. For follow-ups, the use of the
"Summary" line is encouraged.

If it's your opinion that a new threads should NOT be started
when the subject changes, then so be it. That's your opinion.
But to go off like this is really pathetic.

See above and stop being pathetic yourself. People are free to start
new threads at any time. *New* threads, not crippled followups to old
ones.

It also seems to be your opinion that all subjects should be in
one thread, is it not?

No, it may be your opinion, for all I care.

Every group should just have one thread
regardless of subject, right? Because that's what it boils down
to if you were to enforce your opinions - Heck, we wouldn't even
need subjects - they'd be totally insignificant.

Okay, you still do not understand what a thread is, just repeating
parrot-like that you already know everything under the sun. So, yet
another repetion of my own. What fun!

Usenet threading is defined by followups, represented by references,
which are message-ids of those followups. That is what allows a thread
tree to be built. A thread is a representation of people replying to
each other, carrying on a conversation, whether changing subjects or
not. The thread tree allows one to see who replied to whom, and a
newsreader without one is nearly worthless. A new subject header in the
same thread changes nothing in this regard - it is irrelevant to
threading. To change a thread, you have to start a new thread, not just
change a subject. In fact, you can even start a new thread with an old
subject (but, the way you set your newsreader, it will appear to be a
part of the old thread).

Really, Vic. Move on. There's nothing more to say here.

You have nothing more to say because you do not know what to say.

ObFood: Here's a recipe for another sorrel soup I'll be making next
week. The recipe is from _Twelve Months of Monastery Soups_ by Brother
Victor-Antoine d'Avila-Latourrette.

Victor

Saint Bertille Herb Soup

1 small head leaf lettuce
1 bunch sorrel
1 cup chopped parsley
10 scallions or 2 leeks
1 bunch watercress
butter
1 1/2 quarts water (or vegetable stock if served hot)
1 cup white wine
1/2 cup cream or half-and-half
1 egg yolk, beaten
1/2 cup chervil
salt and pepper to taste

1. Shred the lettuce and the sorrel. Chop the parsley, scallion and
watercress into small pieces.

2. Melt the butter in the soup pot, add the chopped greens, and cook
slowly for a few minutes over low heat. Stir continually. Add the
water (or stock) and the wine. Cover the pot and cook for about 40
minutes.

3. Remove the pot from the heat, add the cream, beaten egg, chervil,
salt, and pepper. Blend well in a blender. Reheat the soup for a few
minutes, but do not allow it to boil. Refrigerate the soup and serve
cold. Or it can be served hot with slices of French bread on the side.
.