Etiquette and changing of threads

[lee]

Bill Davidsen <davidsen at tmr.com> writes:

>> lee wrote:
>>
>
>> Queue your posts before sending them.
>>
> I tried that, and wound up not remembering to post afterword. It
> sounds better than it works, at least for me.

It can happen --- since I got used to it, I don't forget it anymore.
Even if I do, nothing terrible happens.

>> Some threads happen to diverge into, sometimes multiple, different
>> directions, with many posters becoming inspired to come forward with
>> what they are interested in.  When this happens, it doesn't mean that
>> the thread has been hijacked.
>>
> That's your opinion, I can agree if the diversion is a subtopic of the
> original post, otherwise I disagree.

Let's take the 'Schrödingers' Cat' thread as an example.  Does it
constitute hijacking the thread when someone asks why it's
"Schrödingers'" rather than "Schrödingers"?

> Implementation details of a relevant answer are fine, too often a "How
> do I" question results in a "you want to do something less" answer,
> which is (a) often not helpful, and (b) comes with the assumption that
> the original poster asked the wrong question, or is using a wrong
> approach, usually without understanding the reason why an approach has
> been chosen.

That isn't hijacking, or is it?

> I have had some success with starting a post with a statement that I'm
> not seeking alternate solution, just information on how to make the
> chosen approach work. I don't do it unless I'm really closed to
> alternatives, I have had a fair number of good alternatives brought to
> my attention.

And you don't like it when alternatives are brought to your attention
because of (a) and (b)?


-- 
Fedora release 19 (Schrödinger’s Cat)