breaking the threads...

Wed Mar 14 20:05:10 UTC 2012

Wow.... This is going to go on all day, isn't it?

On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 3:56 PM, Dave Woyciesjes
<woyciesjes at sbcglobal.net>wrote:

> On 03/14/2012 03:13 PM, Alexander Skwar wrote:
>
>> Hi.
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 17:38, Dave Woyciesjes<woyciesjes@**sbcglobal.net<woyciesjes at sbcglobal.net>>
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> On 03/14/2012 11:50 AM, Alexander Skwar wrote:
>>>
>>>> Am 14.03.2012 16:38 schrieb "Dave Woyciesjes"<woyciesjes@**
>>>> sbcglobal.net <woyciesjes at sbcglobal.net>
>>>> <mailto:woyciesjes at sbcglobal.**net <woyciesjes at sbcglobal.net>>>:
>>>>
>>>>  >
>>>>  >  On 03/14/2012 10:59 AM, Alexander Skwar (ML) wrote:
>>>>  >>
>>>>  >>  Am 14.03.2012 15:52, schrieb Robert P. J. Day:
>>>>  >>>
>>>>  >>>  On Wed, 14 Mar 2012, M.R. wrote:
>>>>  >>>
>>>>  >>>>  However, I *will change* my usage of the subject line if told so
>>>> by
>>>>  >>>>  the list owner/moderator, or if another participant points me to
>>>>  >>>>  where the list owner has a documented directive that the subject
>>>>  >>>>  lines must not be changed inside a thread. (This would be the
>>>> only
>>>>  >>>>  list with such rule I'm aware of, but I guess that's what a list
>>>>  >>>>  owner has the right to do).
>>>>  >>>>
>>>>  >>>>  M.R.
>>>>  >>>
>>>>  >>>
>>>>  >>>  first, you need to get out more often as everyone else is correct
>>>>  >>>  and you are wrong.
>>>>  >>
>>>>  >>
>>>>  >>  Actually, that's not a correct statement. At least Liam and Basil
>>>>  >>  are on a wrong track.
>>>>  >
>>>>  >
>>>>  >          Really? Where&  how?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You know perfectly well where.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>        No, I don't. That's why I'm asking.
>>>
>>
>> Sure.
>>
>>   >>>  second, and more critically, you seem to be taking an amazingly
>>>>  >>>  obstinate position on something that would be trivially easy to
>>>>  >>>  change. all people are asking you to do is use a new message to
>>>> start
>>>>  >>>  a new thread.
>>>>  >>
>>>>  >>
>>>>  >>  But, if you have a look, he didn't start a new thread! The subject
>>>>  >>  line is supposed to be a brief "overview" of what's in the mail.
>>>>  >>  If the topic (or, maybe we might even call it "subject") changes,
>>>>  >>  it's correct to change the subject contents.
>>>>  >
>>>>  >
>>>>  >          No, the correct method is: If you are wanting to reply to a
>>>>  >  message in a thread, and your reply is taking the discussion to a
>>>> new
>>>>  >  direction necessitating a Subject line change; then the polite&
>>>>  proper
>>>>
>>>>  >  this to do is open a new message window, copy the body contents of
>>>> what
>>>>  >  you are replying to, paste in to the new message window. Then add
>>>> your
>>>>  >  reply&  send.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, that is not correct.
>>>>
>>>> Correct procedure: Change the subject line, but do not produce a new
>>>> mail. This way, the threading stays intact. After all, the changed mail
>>>> used to have to do something with the previous mail.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>        The point of threading is to group messages that relate to a
>>> specific
>>> subject. Yes, the changed _used_ to have something to do with the
>>> original,
>>> but the key word/phrase there is 'used to'.
>>>
>>
>> Yep, "used to" is the key. That's why it's correct to change the
>> subject and that's why MUAs keep the threading intact, by not
>> removing the headers used for threading (In-Reply-To and/or
>> References).
>>
>>
>        So, then, pray tell, if a new message used to have something to do
> with a specific thread, but no longer does; Why would you want them to be
> connected?
>
>
>         Why would you want a message about KDE in your grouping of messages
>>> about Acrobat?
>>>
>>
>> If it relates, then that's exactly the reason.
>>
>
>        If it relates, then the Subject shouldn't (need) to be changed.
>
>
>  The way you suggested makes sure that threading brakes, which is bad.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>        Sounds like you have an uncommon definition of threading.
>>>
>>
>> If *you* say so…
>>
>
>        And just about everyone else here.
>
>   >>  What confuses me - why this "hate"? He's not doing anything
>>>>  >>  wrong! On the contrary, he's completely right!
>>>>  >>
>>>>  >>  Alexander
>>>>  >
>>>>  >
>>>>  >          Hate? I see no hate. Just people asking someone to follow
>>>> the
>>>> group's guidelines; and follow common&  long standing list-serve
>>>>
>>>> etiquette.
>>>>
>>>> Hate was the wrong word.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>        I didn't think that's the word you really wanted.
>>>
>>
>> Correct. I really do blame it on the fact, that english
>> isn't my mother tongue.
>>
>
>        International communication over text-based medium is always 'fun'.
>
>  Point is: people complain, although Mr follows common&  long standing
>>>>
>>>> list-serve etiquette. People even suggest to break this etiquette.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>        Hmmm, now this _is curious. You&  MR say he is following the
>>> common
>>>
>>> etiquette; yet pretty much everyone else here says our method is
>>> following
>>> the common etiquette....
>>>
>>
>> Indeed. This _is_ curious. Please also keep in mind, how
>> the mail clients actually act. They do *not* remove the
>> "threading headers". Especially for that reason.
>>
>
>        Yes, I've known for a while now that mail clients don't remove
> threading info. That's the whole reason behind the idea of starting a new
> thread for a different topic.
>
>  Quite simple: if the subject of a sub-thread changes, then change the
>>>> subject line. But do Not start a new thread!
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>        So, you're saying that this whole mailing list, and any messages
>>> coming after this; should all be part of one thread?
>>>
>>
>> If they relate to this thread - why, yes, of course!
>>
>>  He seems to follow this old rule. So please stop moaning.
>>>>
>>>
>>>        If you want to bolster your side of this argument, please provide
>>> everyone with references to articles&  such (hopefully they will have
>>>
>>> dates).
>>>        The only way to win an argument like this is to provide
>>> irrefutable
>>> proof that you are correct.
>>>
>>
>> Like you provided arguments… Up to now, you haven't provided
>> any proof either. I can just refer to how mailing lists always used
>> to behave, or, rather, what's the common way of dealing with this
>> "issue" was. It contradicts to what you seem to assume to be the
>> common way.
>>
>>
>        Yes, your are correct, I haven't provided any links about how this
> should be done. I will look for some.
>        In the meantime, you have yet to do the same.
>
>
> Is this what banging your head on a brick wall feels like?
>
>
> --
> --- Dave Woyciesjes
> --- ICQ# 905818
> --- AIM - woyciesjes
> --- CompTIA A+ Certified IT Tech - http://certification.comptia.**org/<http://certification.comptia.org/>
> --- HDI Certified Support Center Analyst - http://www.ThinkHDI.com/
>            Registered Linux user number 464583
>
> "Computers have lots of memory but no imagination."
> "The problem with troubleshooting is that trouble shoots back."
>  - from some guy on the internet.
>
> --
> ubuntu-users mailing list
> ubuntu-users at lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/**
> mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users<https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-users/attachments/20120314/ddac7560/attachment.html>