Thanks, Jackie these were clear word, no questions left unanswered. Seems I'm getting rid of my headaches <g> Tilman -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Jackie Wilson Goddard An: boards-admins@rootsweb.com Gesendet: Dienstag, 05. Dezember 2006 13:55 Betreff: Re: [BAd] Problem with taking apart a thread Tilman, I've renumbered the thread slightly for clarification. 1-5 are direct replies to the original message, while 1a and 1b are replies to 1. None of the others have "other messages attached". 1. Suhm & Reitzig : Kim Ranger -- 24 Mar 2001 1a. Re: Suhm & Reitzig : Lawrence Suhm -- 22 Jan 2002 1b. Re: Suhm & Reitzig : Mary Sims -- 5 Sep 2006 2. Ancesters : Nancy Idell -- 1 Apr 2001 3. Casper & Maria Augustin : Barb Peace -- 31 May 2001 4. Re: Austrian Geneology : Kathleen Lawson -- 28 Nov 2001 5. Re: Austrian Geneology : Kathleen Lawson-Schlosser -- 28 Feb 2002 At 11:00 PM 12/4/2006, you wrote: >#1. Suhm & Reitzig already was unrelated but is of course in answer >to #0. If I move it and make it a thread of it's own, it will >certainly go together with the #2. + #3. answers that follow. That'll be fine. Correct. These three will stay together and should be moved to a thread of their own as unrelated to Original Message. >#4. Ancesters - what about this one and all the rest? From the >indentation these (at least #4.) technically appear to be answers to >#0. so would stay where they are, climbing up the tree however, thus >becoming a new #1. etc., right? That same problem of before I guess >is that this one again has no relation to the original query, so >should be made standalone too. > >#5. Casper & Maria Augustin again is unrelated to the original query >#0. but technically again a direct answert to #0. if I'm not >mistaken. I would follow that same procedure here and make it a >seperate thread - unless other messages are attached, which again - >judging from missing indentation - is NOT the case. Move each of these messages out of the thread since they are unrelated. >#6. and #7. both are the only legitimate answers to the original >query, not indented and therefore a direct reply each, and should >stay with it. Right? Correct. The first time I broke a thread I remember being surprised "where" the new threads ended up in the Board view but now I can't tell you the details because it was a LONG time ago.... I want to say each new thread was in the appropriate place in the thread view *chronologically* but don't hold me to that! ;-) They *might* have been above the original message. (In "date view" they would still be in the same order, of course.) Okay, my tip: Mark the replies to #1 as "unread". Take a deep breath and move #1. (I promise the messages won't end up in Never-Never Land. :-)) You'll have to look at the board view to see where the messages are - but the "unread" replies will make them easier to find. Jackie