Proper Use of Subject Lines

James Wynn · 21 May 2010, 14:59 · from 2010-May.txt.gz

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: crushtv at gmail.com (James Wynn)
Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 09:59:30 -0500
Subject: (urth) Proper Use of Subject Lines
In-Reply-To: <4BF69242.9090304 at io.com>
References: <mailman.7580.1274414864.5093.urth-urth.net at lists.urth.net>	<4BF67A69.6010706 at verizon.net>
	<4BF69242.9090304 at io.com>
Message-ID: <4BF69FD2.5060703 at gmail.com>

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.

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net