From: Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz (Shmuel+gen@patriot.net)
Date: Mon Aug 09 2004 - 19:48:38 CDT
In <Pine.LNX.4.53.0408090928150.13125@a.shell.peak.org>, on 08/09/2004
at 09:33 AM, John Stanley <stanley@peak.org> said:
>Were that true, then there would be none of this long-winded "copy"
>vs. "taken from" discussion concerning things that are put into the
>article. It starts with nothing. The "followup agent" "takes" things
>from the parent. But if there is no References header, then it isn't
>a followup according to this goofy new proposed definition, and thus
>no need for a References header.
If there isn't a References header line in the precursor than the
precursor isn't a followup. That does not mean that the reply to it
isn't a followup.
>Then we need not tell the followup agent that is it supposed to add
>this header to the article. Yet, we do.
Wrong. It is the fact that the followup agent adds the References
header line that makes the new article a followup.
>Excuse me for thinking you were here for some serious reason. Did
>you miss the point
I noted your contrary-to-fact claim in the matter. I noted that you
have failed to demonstrate the alleged circularity.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
Atid/2 <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)