From: Eivind Tagseth (eivindt@multinet.no)
Date: Mon Apr 12 2004 - 09:53:16 CDT
* Charles Lindsey <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> [2004-04-02 14:35:08 +0000]:
> In <Pine.LNX.4.53.0404011024280.30055@a.shell.peak.org> John Stanley <stanley@peak.org> writes:
>
> >Charles Lindsey (chl@clerew.man.ac.uk):
>
> >>Well it may be judging, and it may be guessing, but it is what you have
> >>been advocating by your repeated assertion that "no reference"
> >>automatically means "new thread".
>
> >What an amazing twist of language you went through to pretend that I said
> >something I did not.
>
> Oh Dear! You seem to think that "no reference" means "Re: ", when the
> document clearly states that "re" is not an abbreviation for "reference",
> as is sometimes erroneously supposed. Of course, "no reference" means "no
> References header".
You _have_ referred to "Re: " as a back-_reference_, which I guess is the
source of the misunderstandings... We'd better use "back-reference" and
"References" consistently to avoid further misunderstandings.
Eivind