Etiquette and changing of threads

[Bill Davidsen]

Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
> Am 15.07.2013 20:10, schrieb Robert Holtzman:
>> On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 10:55:15PM -0300, Fernando Lozano wrote:
>>> Hi Reindl,
>>>> first: my intention is *not* to start another epic thread
>>>>
>>>> since i am always the unholy prick here after i lose patience
>>>> maybe others should also reconsider *not* hijacking threads by
>>>
>>> Thanks for clarification. Changing the subject (and keeping the original
>>> one with a [Re:]) is standard procedures in many mailing lists, I didn't
>>> know it was not accepted here. My apologies.
>>
>> "Re:" means the message is a reply to a previous post. If the subject
>> line on the same thread is changed then [was......] is appended.
>>
>> What lists are you referring to?
>
> the real problem is thread-view
>
> you have to open a growing tree-structure and look if there
> is something related to the topic you are interested in
>
> if it is a new thread you can have it in the archive but closed
> and only open the ones you are currently interested in
>
> and the next problem that over time it becomes unclear to what
> people responded - the original thread or subthreads, that feels
> like if you have a tech meeting with 10 people and then one
> marketing guy steps in the room and fire his statements

Well my reader has "delete subthread" so I can at least take a whack at it.


-- 
Bill Davidsen <davidsen at tmr.com>
   "We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from
the machinations of the wicked."  - from Slashdot