breaking the threads...
Johnny
candj01 at att.net
Wed Mar 14 20:38:44 UTC 2012
It's hard to kill a dead horse.
Johnny3 65++ I can still remember I forgot.
On 03/14/2012 04:05 PM, Kenny Martsolf wrote:
> 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 <mailto: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 at sbcglobal.net
> <mailto: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 at sbcglobal.net
> <mailto:woyciesjes at sbcglobal.net>
> <mailto:woyciesjes at sbcglobal.net
> <mailto: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/
> --- 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 <mailto:ubuntu-users at lists.ubuntu.com>
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-users/attachments/20120314/860bab3a/attachment.html>
More information about the ubuntu-users
mailing list