Subject: (urth) Proper Use of Subject Lines

From: David Stockhoff <dstockhoff at verizon.net>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 12:19:53 +0000

Yes. Is it too much to ask that the subject line be used as intended to promote efficiency of communication and discussion? It has nothing to do with the value of a particular message or discussion.

------------------------------

Message: 8
Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 23:59:16 -0400
From: John Watkins <john.watkins04 at gmail.com>
To: The Urth Mailing List <urth at lists.urth.net>
Subject: Re: (urth) Gene Wolfe
Message-ID:
	<AANLkTilkTddQlipvBGMfMJrRjPDbECtV2-DHU0z6gdb- at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

I have to agree.

On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 11:49 PM, Craig Brewer <cnbrewer at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Talk about whatever you want. I don't even care if it ends up in my
> mailbox. I just want to know if I can delete it without having to read it
> first. I like to think that emails from a Gene Wolfe mailing list with
> "Wolfe" in the subject line might actually be about Wolfe rather than
> someone's own personal theology and other peoples' arguments about it.
>
>

---

From: Jeff Wilson <jwilson at io.com>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 14:01:38 +0000

On 5/21/2010 7:19 AM, David Stockhoff wrote:
> Yes. Is it too much to ask that the subject line be used as intended to
> promote efficiency of communication and discussion?

In my experience, it is unless you have a moderator with the ability and 
the will to enforce pertinent subject linces. People don't participate 
in discussions to compose and recompose subject lines, they do it to 
speak their piece.

-- 
Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com
IEEE Student Chapter Blog at
< http://ieeetamut.org >

---

From: James Wynn <crushtv at gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 14:59:30 +0000

On 5/21/2010 9:01 AM, Jeff Wilson wrote:
> n my experience, it is unless you have a moderator with the ability 
> and the will to enforce pertinent subject 
I have, in the past, attempted to change the subject lines of threads as 
they moved OT. Maybe half or less of the participants followed. If the 
particular email that prompted them to responded did not have a changed 
subject, they didn't change it. Probably, because they didn't care about 
it as much as me or Mr. Brewer. Or, in the respondents opinion, their 
response *did* have to do with the original subject line. Hopeless cause.

On the upside, it is generally easy to tell when a discussion's wagon 
train has moved on. If I've lost interest, I stop following it entirely. 
With that method --although it's not neat and orderly, the problem is 
mostly solved.

J.

---

From: Jeff Wilson <jwilson at io.com>
Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 08:56:17 +0000

> response *did* have to do with the original subject line. Hopeless cause.

it's not a hopeless cause, it just requires enforcement. I do it on 
playtest discussion lists all the time: I lay out the rules for subject 
lines, ask people nicely to follow them, warn them when they go astray, 
and if they persist in going astray, I send them to the land of 
postings-held-until-released-by-a-moderator to wander in the wilderness 
until they see the light.

---

From: brunians at brunians.org <brunians at brunians.org>
Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 09:22:49 +0000

Ve must haff DISCIPLINE!

.

> _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>

---

From: Craig Brewer <cnbrewer at yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 14:28:22 +0000

Or courtesy.

----- Original Message ----
From: "brunians at brunians.org" <brunians at brunians.org>
To: The Urth Mailing List <urth at lists.urth.net>
Sent: Mon, May 24, 2010 4:22:49 AM
Subject: Re: (urth) Improper Use of Subject Lines

Ve must haff DISCIPLINE!

.

---

From: brunians at brunians.org <brunians at brunians.org>
Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 14:43:01 +0000

Or a desire to control things not actually under our control.

.

---

From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 15:04:54 +0000

Discipline, voluntarily enforced, is a Good Thing.

-- 
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes

---

From: Rob Thornton <oblate777 at gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 15:06:39 +0000

Agreed.

On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 11:04 AM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 2:22 AM, ?<brunians at brunians.org> wrote:
>> Ve must haff DISCIPLINE!
>>
>> .
>>
>>
>>

---

From: James Wynn <crushtv at gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 15:15:46 +0000

But then we have to endure threads on the rules of good subject lines. I 
think it is better to keep the list in line by modeling good behavior 
rather having self-appointed cops. Ever live in a neighborhood with 
extensive homeowner codes and have to live next to the lady who 
memorized them? Ever had someone yell at you because your Yorkshire 
Terrier, walking at your feet, is not on a leash? ("It's the LAW!")

---

From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 15:17:47 +0000

You misunderstood what I mean by "voluntarily enforced." I do _not_
mean universal citizen policing (which is a Bad Thing). Rather, I mean
a situation in which people voluntarily act in a disciplined manner.

On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 8:15 AM, James Wynn <crushtv at gmail.com> wrote:
> think it is better to keep the list in line by modeling good behavior rather
> having self-appointed cops. Ever live in a neighborhood with extensive
> homeowner codes and have to live next to the lady who memorized them? Ever
> had someone yell at you because your Yorkshire Terrier, walking at your
> feet, is not on a leash? ("It's the LAW!")
>

-- 
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes

---

From: James Wynn <crushtv at gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 15:54:16 +0000

Well, it is true that a righteous society is a free society, but I guess 
I understood the issue to be what happens When Subject Lines Go Bad.

On 5/24/2010 10:17 AM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:
> On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 8:15 AM, James Wynn<crushtv at gmail.com>  wrote:
>

---

From: brunians at brunians.org <brunians at brunians.org>
Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 16:13:45 +0000

Explain to me how you can use the words 'voluntary' and 'enforced'
together and make sense.

.

---

From: brunians at brunians.org <brunians at brunians.org>
Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 16:15:30 +0000

L'audace! Encore l'audace!
Toujours l'audace!

-- Danton

.

>> rather

---

From: brunians at brunians.org <brunians at brunians.org>
Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 16:17:46 +0000

I think we should have regular self-criticism sessions.

.

---

From: John Watkins <john.watkins04 at gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 16:20:53 +0000

I think you should stop spamming the list.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20100524/47ba8a11/attachment.htm>

---

From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 16:21:28 +0000

Perhaps it would help if I explained that "voluntary enforcement" is a
fancy way of saying "civilized behavior."

Probably not, though.

--Dan'l

-- 
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes

---

From: brunians at brunians.org <brunians at brunians.org>
Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 16:26:16 +0000

If you don't want a thread to continue, don't follow it up.

It is the only way.

.

>> >>> But then we have to endure threads on the rules of good subject
>> lines.
>> >>> I
>> >>> homeowner codes and have to live next to the lady who memorized
>> them?
>> >>> Ever

---

From: brunians at brunians.org <brunians at brunians.org>
Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 16:29:15 +0000

It's not, though.

It is a contradiction in terms.

It verges on newspeak.

Something that is voluntary is done of one's free will.

Something that is enforced is done will ye or nil ye.

So what is something that is voluntarily enforced?

You either want something to be done voluntarily, or you want it to be
enforced.

You can't have it both ways.

.

---

From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 16:30:20 +0000

I'm sorry you're so trapped in semantics. Meditation might help.

On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 9:29 AM,  <brunians at brunians.org> wrote:
>> On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 9:15 AM, ?<brunians at brunians.org> wrote:

-- 
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes

---

From: Lane Haygood <lhaygood at gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 16:34:31 +0000

Something is enforced if there is a penalty for failure to comply.
You are still free (in terms of will and capacity) to not comply; you
must merely suffer the consequences.

Let me put it another way:  you are free to disobey the law, id est,
to commit a crime.  You must, however, "do the time" if you have "done
the crime," as the cliche goes.

You may voluntarily comport yourself with dignity and class.  You may
of course also fail to do so and be a boor.  That is your prerogative,
and none shall gainsay you your boorishness, for while it may be
against the mores of good taste, one may not enforce good manners.

One voluntarily enforces, therefore, a sense of good character in how
one comports onesself if one self-legislates a moraltiy consistent
with civility, pace Kant.  You must act at all times as if the maxim
of your actions could be willed as universal law.  Therefore, though
you may not be subject to compulsion to play nicely, it is eminently
rational and proper for you to compel yourself to do so, should some
base nature suggest otherwise.

yvt,
Lane

---

From: Fred Kiesche <godelescherbach at gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 16:36:13 +0000

It's either Monday or there is a full moon out...

-- 
F.P. Kiesche III  "Ah Mr. Gibbon, another damned, fat, square book. Always,
scribble, scribble, scribble, eh?" (The Duke of Gloucester, on being
presented with Volume 2 of The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.)
Blogging at The Lensman's Children (
http://theeternalgoldenbraid.blogspot.com/).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20100524/53c1a436/attachment-0001.htm>

---

From: brunians at brunians.org <brunians at brunians.org>
Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 16:36:40 +0000

Why do you feel that I am trapped? As far as I know I am just trying to
helpful, but I suppose I may be trapped without knowing it. Let us
investigate this question further.

Your second remark is curious.

Who do you feel that meditation may help?

And help with what? It is a puzzling comment. Could you expand upon it?

.

---

From: brunians at brunians.org <brunians at brunians.org>
Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 16:37:38 +0000

Lane, this doesn't make any sense to me.

I'm sorry.

.

---

From: Jeff Wilson <jwilson at io.com>
Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 16:39:48 +0000

On 5/24/2010 10:15 AM, James Wynn wrote:
> rather having self-appointed cops.

Ranjit-appointed cops would be ideal, avoiding numerous of the 
pathologies you mention.

---

From: brunians at brunians.org <brunians at brunians.org>
Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 16:39:54 +0000

Oh cool!

Now we're going to have cops!

.

---

From: Jeff Wilson <jwilson at io.com>
Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 16:42:49 +0000

> If you don't want a thread to continue, don't follow it up.

I must agree my experience bears this out; do not feed the energy creature.

---

From: Jeff Wilson <jwilson at io.com>
Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 16:44:30 +0000

> It is a contradiction in terms.
..

> You can't have it both ways.

Apparently you think you can, condemning voluntary enforcement while 
maintaining actual existence of the supernatural.

---

From: James Wynn <crushtv at gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 16:47:35 +0000

> Ranjit-appointed cops would be ideal, avoiding numerous of the 
I suppose it *might* be ideal. But ideal solutions, by definition, are 
usually impractical. You have cops, but then you have to have judges 
when someone says the cop reacted improperly. Unless you have Judge 
Dread for your cop I don't want to go there. I think Josh had the best 
solution:

If you want a thread to die, ignore it. Eventually, it will. They always 
do. These feral thread usually crank up when there is not a lot of 
interesting conversation on the list. So, there's really little harm in 
ignoring them.

In the meantime, I'll continue to use "OT" to designate off-topic 
conversations. Even though it is only blowing against the wind, at least 
it's not pissing against the wind.

J.

---

From: brunians at brunians.org <brunians at brunians.org>
Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 16:49:00 +0000

I can't make sense of this remark either.

As I have stated, I don't believe in anything supernatural. Everything
that is is natural. Some bits of nature are not well known or poorly
documented, or people don't believe the documentation anymore.

Also, I fail to see how condemning or approving of the mind-crackling
concept of voluntary enforcement has anything to do with maintaining
actual existence of the supernatural, and wish you would explain exactly
what you mean by that.

It seems to me that there is something missing from your second sentence.
Perhaps 'belief in' after 'maintaining'? If not, I really don't know what
to make of it.

.

---

From: Jeff Wilson <jwilson at io.com>
Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 16:50:09 +0000

> Now we're going to have cops!

Not the state force monopoly kind, more like the proprietory syndicalist 
kind.

---

From: brunians at brunians.org <brunians at brunians.org>
Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 16:50:59 +0000

Are these police going to be secret police or not so secret police?

.

---

From: Jeff Wilson <jwilson at io.com>
Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 16:54:28 +0000

> Perhaps 'belief in' after 'maintaining'? If not, I really don't know what

I was speaking of the usage of the phrases, not the concepts they 
purport to describe.