Subject:
|
Re: This new subject doesn't reset the thread (Re: Lego Direct (was Re: Georgia LEGO Outlet is Cool!)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Thu, 30 Mar 2000 02:32:28 GMT
|
Highlighted:
|
(details)
|
Viewed:
|
2169 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Frank Filz writes:
> Another point, it's almost impossible to create a hypothetical scenario to
> debate some issue which is not in some way tied to real examples of the
> issue. You were attempting to debate how unfair it was that someone would be
> contacted by TLC and be given the opportunity to buy all of some set. Well,
> guess what, the whole conversation got started because Larry was given just
> this opportunity. How is he supposed to say "well, gee, Richard really isn't
> talking about me in his example"?
But you see, I was wrong, because I didn't notice that Richard changed the
subject, which in his world view starts a new thread, regardless of how all the
newsreaders in the world implement it, and regardless of how Lugnet itself in
the web interface implements it.
I think there's a good issue to discuss here, which is, how important are
conventions and implicit knowledge vs. intentions that were (or weren't)
explicitly stated about how something should be perceived
I think that most everyone would agree that someone who drove on the wrong side
of the road because they didn't want to honor the convention almost certainly
was in the wrong.
On the other hand, someone who used studs not on top in order to make something
neat would be applauded for their successful violation of convention.
So there's a grey area there.
Where is the line? Do we give Richard the benefit of the doubt on this?
I'd tend to say that this particular convention is pretty strong. To wit, if
you want to start a new thread, convention is that you go start a NEW one, not
just change the subject. Changing the subject merely shows that you feel the
thread has wandered. Of course that then begs the question of what is the
difference between "new" and "wandered off".
But there's something to be said for cutting slack especially when that slack
later turns a person around and makes them a valid member of society again...
OTOH it's also good to cut slack because of the "give them enough rope" effect.
Note that I know I'm not particularly good at cutting slack for the first of
those reasons...
++Lar
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
51 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
