I've asked Steve to publish a graphic illustration that clearly shows 
that what you thought was a new subject was, in fact, a reply to James 
Head's reply to Doug Pauls' reply to Louis Hart's new thread entitled 
'Re: [TN] NTC again [TN] Refreshment (NTC rant continues)'.

This is an example of how a thread is structured and how an embedded 
subject could be easily missed by hundreds of members. In this case, 
anyone not reading 'Re: [TN] NTC again [TN] Refreshment (NTC rant 
continues)' would never see '[TN] Fiber optic borescope'. At the same 
time, my example shows how a message is replied to in a logical order 
and how "subthreads" automatically organise themselves, without 
scratching one's head trying to work out that James Head replied to Doug 
Pauls' message and not one of the five messages that came in in the 
meanwhile.

Simple, isn't it?

Brian



On 17.08.2013 17:29, Bev Christian wrote:
> Brian,
> I am the one who started the thread "[TN] Fiber optic borescope", with no
> attachments, no thread, new e-mail title, so how can it be associated with
> the threads that we had mopping about the plight of our children?
>
> Second, I have no clue what a "threading layout" is!
>
> Third,
> All my e-mails come in to my inbox in chronological order and I don't have
> any problem figuring out who is replying to who.
>
> Bev
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Brian Ellis
> Sent: Saturday, August 17, 2013 6:58 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [TN] Technet organisation
>
> [rant]
>
> May I please make an appeal (once again) to Technet users to manage the
> way they use it?
>
> When a new subject is started, it should be the start of a new thread,
> by using the Write (or New Message etc.) button on your e-mail client.
>
> When replying or adding to any thread, please use Reply or Reply All, as
> appropriate. Do NOT start a new thread relative to the same subject.
>
> Above all, do not start a new thread by using either Reply button. This
> is a cardinal error because the ideal person to reply to your question
> may be ignoring the thread you have replied to, because it is not
> interesting to him.
>
> Some recent examples:
>
> On 13 August, the thread 'Refreshment' was started, with 11 correctly
> replied messages posted, nested 4 deep. On the same day, someone started
> a new thread, 'Re: [TN] Refreshment (NTC rant)' with 15 replies, of
> which the last 3 had the subject '[TN] Flux Type', probably largely
> unread as they were tacked on as a reply to an earlier thread. On 14
> Aug, four new threads were started on the same subject, by people not
> using the Reply buttons. 2 of these were isolated messages without
> replies. 2 of them were actually the start of new threads, one with a
> chain of 7 replies nested 5 deep. The other had 4 replies nested 2 deep.
> To add insult to injury, on the 15th Aug someone started a new thread
> 'Re: [TN] NTC again [TN] Refreshment (NTC rant continues)' which had
> only one reply. Then, on the same day, someone had the brilliant idea of
> starting yet another thread with the same title, instead of replying.
> This had 17 replies. nested 4 deep, of which 5 were entitled '[TN] Fiber
> optic borescope' which were totally irrelevant and wouldn't be  seen by
> anyone bored (no pun intended) reading the 'Refreshment' rants.
>
> I'm sorry, guys and gals, this is totally chaotic. If, as I strongly
> recommend, you use a threading layout in your e-mail client, you will
> see a plurality of threads on a given subject. If there are threads you
> don't read, you may miss new threads embedded in the old ones. OTOH, if
> you don't use a threading layout, all the messages will be visible in
> chronological order, with all the subjects mixed up willy-nilly. In this
> case, there is no way you can ascribe a response to a given message and
> not to one with several messages in between. This makes it contextually
> impossible to follow a Q&A series and it would often become gobbledegook.
>
> [/rant]
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
> For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask]
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
>

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask] 
______________________________________________________________________