The center part of this jade stone pendant can be turnable--unbelieveable!!

We had two dozen of these a year ago in our costume jewellery
department. They were mass produced in Shezhen, China and were
bascially coloured glass. Have you tested the jade?

On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 05:23:12 GMT, "silverstall"
wrote:

We had two dozen of these a year ago in our costume jewellery
department. They were mass produced in Shezhen, China and were
bascially coloured glass. Have you tested the jade?

I think you're replying to the wrong person. Frosty and I were joking
about cellphones.
--
Marilee J. Layman
http://mjlayman.livejournal.com/

On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 08:17:22 -0800, in rec.crafts.jewelry "Marilee J. Layman"
wrote:

On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 05:23:12 GMT, "silverstall"
wrote:

We had two dozen of these a year ago in our costume jewellery
department. They were mass produced in Shezhen, China and were
bascially coloured glass. Have you tested the jade?

I think you're replying to the wrong person. Frosty and I were joking
about cellphones.

I would think, that although the post may show up at the end of that thread
after you and Frosty changed the subject, the recent post was referring back to
the original posting about a jade pendant. Especially since this recent reply
doesn't bother to quote any of that prior banter... Doesn't seem confusing to
me...

Peter

On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 16:21:25 +0000, Peter W.. Rowe, wrote:

On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 08:17:22 -0800, in rec.crafts.jewelry "Marilee J. Layman"
wrote:

On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 05:23:12 GMT, "silverstall"
wrote:

We had two dozen of these a year ago in our costume jewellery
department. They were mass produced in Shezhen, China and were
bascially coloured glass. Have you tested the jade?

I think you're replying to the wrong person. Frosty and I were joking
about cellphones.

I would think, that although the post may show up at the end of that thread
after you and Frosty changed the subject, the recent post was referring back to
the original posting about a jade pendant. Especially since this recent reply
doesn't bother to quote any of that prior banter... Doesn't seem confusing to
me...

Do you have a way of automating the correct placement within the thread of
individual posts after approval? I was unable to find one during my brief
stay as moderator. It gets a bit tedious, but does force you to read all
the threads!

On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 19:46:39 -0800, in rec.crafts.jewelry mbstevens
wrote:

Do you have a way of automating the correct placement within the thread of
individual posts after approval? I was unable to find one during my brief
stay as moderator. It gets a bit tedious, but does force you to read all
the threads!




It's already automatic. When someone posts a reply to an existing post, their
reply then includes a "references" header, which lists the message ID of the
message to which it's a reply. When you reply to a message that is already a
part of an existing thread, the message ID is added to the existing message IDs
in the already-there "references" header, so that header provides a trail
through the thread. Newsreaders, including Agent, use that header to construct
threaded displays of messages, but only if the user has that option chosen. For
me, I prefer to let Agent list messages according to date, most recent first,
rather than by thread, so all new messages are at the top of the message list.
Others may choose to organize their display accordiing to thread, or any of
several other display options.

In this most recent case, Silverstall did not go back to the original post to
send his reply, but tacked it on to the last post in the thread. Thus Marilee
figured it was a reply to her post. And technically, it was, since her's was
the post Silverstall chose to "reply" to. No newsreader can evaluate whether a
post should have been a reply to an earlier post in the thread, since that
requires reading and understanding both the text of the messages and the context
thereof. It's not my responsibility or really my authority to second guess
how posters send a message, beyond meeting the group requirements, and besides,
changing that would require manual editing of the references header, a royal
pain in the rear. . In this case, though, since each successive message in the
thread included the quoted text of prior messages back to the original post, it
seemed clear enough to me what the new message was really referring to.

Peter

On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 03:57:20 GMT, "Peter W.. Rowe,"
wrote:

In this most recent case, Silverstall did not go back to the original post to
send his reply, but tacked it on to the last post in the thread. Thus Marilee
figured it was a reply to her post. And technically, it was, since her's was
the post Silverstall chose to "reply" to.

No, I knew it was in the wrong place and pointed it out. Some folks
only read replies to them.
--
Marilee J. Layman
http://mjlayman.livejournal.com/

My post was referring to the jade pendant. When I post a message I
have a habit of looking at the last post and clicking 'reply' -
apologies for confusion