On 9 May 2013 05:44, Felix Miata mrmazda@earthlink.net wrote:
On 2013-05-09 00:02 (GMT-0400) Adam Williamson composed:
On Wed, 2013-05-08 at 22:36 -0400, Felix Miata wrote:
On 2013-05-08 10:09 (GMT+0200) Pierre-Yves Chibon composed:
you are replying to a 4 days old email on a thread that is no
longer active?
A: The thread was started on a Friday night.
B: Some people don't get to read mail every day, or more than a few or
less times a week.
A + B = perfectly justified timing of reply.
C: the debate was taken to every place it could possibly go, and the
commit was reverted.
So what's the point of reviving it? Sometimes, if you don't get your
$0.02 posted in time, it's best to just sit on it.
So everyone who cannot maintain currency has to catch up 100% prior to writing a response coming to mind while reading, lest he be publicly chastised by temporal relevance police? Likely "revival" was not the primary objective of the late writer. The late arrival would much better have been left ignored than have the already too long thread be further extended by OT police commentary.
There is something of a difference between coming in late with a relevant and previously unconsidered point and coming in late to snipe.
-
Ian Malone