Subject:
|
Re: FUT, FUT, FUT....
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Tue, 23 May 2000 15:38:48 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
mattdm@mattdm.(Spamcake)org
|
Highlighted:
|
(details)
|
Viewed:
|
360 times
|
| |
|
|
Paul Baulch <paul@vic.bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> Now, more and more frequently, I will be reading a thread only to find that
> it has disappeared. Why? Because, although the thread of conversation took
> a completely logical progression, it happened to (oops!) change subject.
> Now, despite my complete interest in the conversation, and despite its (I
> state again) completely logical flow, it has gone. Where? To a newsgroup
> which I am not subscribed to.
I don't think this is a problem; it just takes some getting used to. It's
also nice for people to *note* when they are setting a followup -- something
like "[followups to lugnet.foo.group]" at the bottom of the message.
Of course, threads should be moved only when they're really off-topic, but
if a conversation in .castle drifts into digital imaging, it really *should*
be moved into .publish. This works both ways, of course -- I don't read
.castle regularly, and if the thread isn't moved, I'll miss out.
> will quickly become confused because this thread has begun in
> mid-conversation, and the participants are referring to things that I don't
> know about! Where is the rest of this thread? It is, of course, in a
> newsgroup which I am not subscribed to.
Again, when moving followups, it's a nice convention to provide context in
the new messages.
> From whence comes this "penchant" some people have for moving conversation
> threads around willy-nilly? Surely it's better to compartmentalise the
It shouldn't be willy-nilly.
> starting conversation rather than its momentary change of subject? Why on
> earth would I suddenly "switch off" just because someone wanted to mention
> something different in subject, but related to the conversation? Surely if
> we must compartmentalise, we should do it by _thread_ (i.e. _conversation_)
> rather than subject?
Threads often drift.
> grand use for them. But please leave the active threads alone! If someone
> feels that they want to change the subject and discuss it at length, then
> they can close the old discussion _properly_ in the old group and start a
> new discussion _properly_ in the new newsgroup. That way, both conversation
> threads make _sense_.
There's no way to close a discussion thread, really.
--
Matthew Miller ---> mattdm@mattdm.org
Quotes 'R' Us ---> http://quotes-r-us.org/
Boston University Linux ---> http://linux.bu.edu/
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | FUT, FUT, FUT....
|
| Hi all, I have a problem. It's not an earth-shattering problem, but it's a niggling problem that has gotten worse in the last couple of months, and it's to do with LUGNET, which is of course why I'm starting this thread here. This problem mostly (...) (25 years ago, 24-May-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
11 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
