From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_20,INVALID_MSGID,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,2cd8a69dc15ea49b
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: ncohen@watson.ibm.com (Norman H. Cohen)
Subject: "Subject:" (was: Re: Air Force study recommends ...)
Date: 1996/04/11
Message-ID: <4kjv92$139s@watnews1.watson.ibm.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 146989633
distribution: world
references: <316ac3c6.259805881@snews.zippo.com>
 <4kj19u$3ek@silver.ObjecTime.on.ca>
organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center
reply-to: ncohen@watson.ibm.com
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-04-11T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <4kj19u$3ek@silver.ObjecTime.on.ca>,
davew@ObjecTime.on.ca (Dave Williamson) writes: 

|> Like the recent posting regarding the 777 and Ada, I am confused at
|> how the quoted text below justifies the subject line.  I see
|> absolutely no correlation between the quoted text and the statement
|> that Mr. Paige has abdicated Ada.

Of course not, and nobody who has heard Mr. Paige's comments about the
study in person could ever come to such a conclusion.

The writer of the post in question has a history of posting messages with
unsupported subject lines.  Perhaps it is because he has observed the
tenacity with which subject lines live on, even when the thread moves to
other topics.  I imagine he enjoys the ensuing flood of refutations to
his unsupported claims, all repeating those claims in the subject line
and all creating the impression (among those who scan a news reader's
list of topics and select only a few to read) of widespread support for
his claims.

That is why I changed the subject in this message.

--
Norman H. Cohen    ncohen@watson.ibm.com