Re: posting - changing subject lines

[Guest guest]

Ah yes.. I see that has gmail. I just received my new gmail address

(thank you Todd!) and would be grateful for exactly what he requests:

> I would kindly ask that people be very judicious when changing the

> subject. If the topic has truly changed and gone off in some other

> direction then change it, followed by the original topic.

>

> If it hasn't or is still within the same general subject matter then

> its probably best that you leave it alone. It probably doesn't matter

> to those of you who don't group your messages by thread, but it would

> still be a nice convention to follow for those of us who do. Even a

> minor tweaking of the subject line throws thread filters off.

>

> Oh and don't hesitate using " POLITICS " when that is required as per

> the rules of this list (the tag encompasses both politics and

> religion).

>

>

[Guest guest]

On 7/21/05, Robin Reese <cerealslasher@...> wrote:

> Ah yes.. I see that has gmail. I just received my new gmail address

> (thank you Todd!) and would be grateful for exactly what he requests:

Yes I like it very much. But my desktop email client also has a thread

manager but lately a lot of this seems to be a lot more noticeable.

(I'm leaving my message below so people know what we are talking about)

>

> > I would kindly ask that people be very judicious when changing the

> > subject. If the topic has truly changed and gone off in some other

> > direction then change it, followed by the original topic.

> >

> > If it hasn't or is still within the same general subject matter then

> > its probably best that you leave it alone. It probably doesn't matter

> > to those of you who don't group your messages by thread, but it would

> > still be a nice convention to follow for those of us who do. Even a

> > minor tweaking of the subject line throws thread filters off.

> >

> > Oh and don't hesitate using " POLITICS " when that is required as per

> > the rules of this list (the tag encompasses both politics and

> > religion).

> >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Perhaps some have a penchant for over-analyzing things; I've changed

the subject line maybe 5 times since 1997, and only when taking the

discussion in a *completely* new direction--I even got criticized

for not starting a new thread on a couple of those occassions. I think

's comment about it being " within the same general subject

matter " is a nice way to put it. In that view, the infertility > butter

shift would have been unnecessary since it continued to relate to the

general subject of pregnancy. However, had JC just wanted to talk

about butter without any concern for infertility, that would have

warranted a whole new thread IMO.

Anyway, it seems this has been discussed enough on the list before I

even joined, so I'll stop talking about it. I talk about over

analyzing and now look at me . Well, I've long been fascinated by

the dynamics of online communities. I frequently save entire threads

that exemplify conflict and community response. The swarm around Gene's

comments are joining the archive!

BTW, maybe you gmail folks might be interested in using gmail for

remote file storage. Check out

http://www.xmailharddrive.com/beta/index.html. I have no economic

interest in the site, I just think it's cool.

Cheers,

Todd

On Thu, Jul 21, 2005 at 07:52:01PM -0700, Robin Reese wrote:

> Ah yes.. I see that has gmail. I just received my new gmail address

> (thank you Todd!) and would be grateful for exactly what he requests:

>

> > I would kindly ask that people be very judicious when changing the

> > subject. If the topic has truly changed and gone off in some other

> > direction then change it, followed by the original topic.

> >

> > If it hasn't or is still within the same general subject matter then

> > its probably best that you leave it alone. It probably doesn't matter

> > to those of you who don't group your messages by thread, but it would

> > still be a nice convention to follow for those of us who do. Even a

> > minor tweaking of the subject line throws thread filters off.

[Guest guest]

> > Ah yes.. I see that has gmail. I just received my new

gmail address

> > (thank you Todd!) and would be grateful for exactly what he

requests:

> >

> > > I would kindly ask that people be very judicious when changing

the

> > > subject. If the topic has truly changed and gone off in some

other

> > > direction then change it, followed by the original topic.

> > >

> > > If it hasn't or is still within the same general subject matter

then

> > > its probably best that you leave it alone. It probably doesn't

matter

> > > to those of you who don't group your messages by thread, but it

would

> > > still be a nice convention to follow for those of us who do.

Even a

> > > minor tweaking of the subject line throws thread filters off.

[Guest guest]

On 7/22/05, José- s Barbosa <jcmbarbosa52@...> wrote:

> * Oh, that hits home. I have often thought about transforming some of

> the spicy dialogues I have taken part in or been a witness to into a

> roman à clef, you know. With the necessary additions and suppressions

> so as to make it fictional. Oh isn't there a lot of interesting and

> thrilling stuff for that? But I won't do that, no. It may be

> unethical, according to my principles.

>

> Regards,

>

> José

Well the spiciest ones I have seen are over on the AV_Skeptics list.

Truly a joy to watch, LOL. His comments about Weston Price were so off

base you just had to laugh if you knew anything at all about Price.

The list owner seems to want to swing a sledgehammer quite frequently

and those who easily take offense need not apply. And in the midst of

that hammering he actually has some good nuggets.

NT_Politics has been quite spicy in the past and I'm sure will be

again in the future given my penchant for resurrecting old topics that

were never quite finished.

There are some other lists that used to be spicy but the list owners

became control freaks and so rarely is there any " entertaining "

interchange.