>I still disagree that raising issues from a different angle that do nothing to further the knowledge that the person starting the thread is trying to glean is useful in a technical discussion. In fact I think it is actually counter productive to the questioner. Starting another thread raising those questions probably would be the way to go imho.
>
>Maybe this is a matter of personal preference...I personally have never cared one way or the other, whether someone starts a new thread. (And I've had some of my initial posts go in crazy directions, and I never really cared if it started as a new thread or not).

Certainly we've all had that happen. Sometimes it's can be annoying, sometimes not. I guess it depends on what the agenda is. In John's case, often the interruptions seemed like he was simply pushing his own agenda with no regard for the original poster. It's hard for me to believe that John didn't know that his interruptions would end up making the thread useless regarding the technical point(s) that engendered it in the first place. It's that sort of disregard that bothered me more, I think, than anything else.

In the particular case I pointed to, I think David's comment was exactly on point. John's post was simply irrelevant, and there was really no need for it at all other than to push his own agenda.

>
>Aside from that...you hit on one key point....."that do nothing to further the knowledge that the person starting the thread is trying to glean".....I have to be honest Alan, this is a case of "selective prosecution". I've seen other people reply with statements that might initially seem out in left field, but the person was trying to raise an issue that the original poster didn't see. In the case of JVP, he was raising issues that were unpopular with some.

I don't disagree with that statement in general, but John was raising a point that simply stopped the thread from being useful to the original questioner. If a person raises a point that others didn't see but that actually has some connection to the discussion around the technical points in question, then that's one thing, but to jump into a thread just to point out that the tool is obsolete is, imho, truly pointless and only serves to further the agenda of one person.

>
>In the case of David Stevenson (who was involved in one of the threads with JVP)...I've met the man (briefly) and he seems like a good guy....but I'll be honest, David struggled to show any level of objectivity where JVP was concerned.

I don't know David at all. Never even met him, so any opinions I might have are pretty much useless.