Re: [tlug] Don't Hijack Threads/OO.org MIME types

["Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@example.com>]

>>>>> "jb" == Jonathan Byrne <jq@example.com> writes:

    jb> On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 10:51:43AM +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull
    jb> wrote:

    >>>>>>> "jb" == Jonathan Byrne <jq@example.com> writes:

    jb> you have instead hijacked a thread yourself.

    >> That's true but harshly stated.  He did change the subject.

    jb> Uhhh, isn't that how we usually define thread hijacking?

I'm referring to the stiff "you have instead ... yourself" phrasing.
In this particular case I would have put it, "Uh, you obviously don't
understand what 'thread hijacking' means.  Here netiquette is not just
a matter of changing the subject...."

    >> Nor did Martin hijack the thread.  He followed up to a specific
    >> comment that I made (which was apropos in its context of the
    >> self-introduction thread), and properly changed the subject.

    jb> I had to go back and look at the initial self-intro, and there
    jb> was nothing in it about Python or any other programming
    jb> language, so I have to disagree that it was apropos to the
    jb> self-intro.  By the time it became apropos, the thread had
    jb> already been hijacked into a linguistics thread.  Martin just
    jb> re-hijacked it by changing the subject again.

Taken strictly, your definition of thread hijacking would make the
References header useless (it would just be replaced by checking for
identical subject, which would be satisfactory since there would be no
reason to ever change the subject header within a thread), and to no
one's benefit.

I think it was Miss Manners herself who pointed out that it doesn't
matter what you _do_ as long as you do it in such a way that it
doesn't offend.  What Roy and Lyle did was fairly likely to offend,
because it inserted their posts in a thread where nobody is going to
say "I'd like to know the answer to that question, too" or even "good
thing you asked that _in this thread_ because I was about to ask it
myself".  Instead, it provokes a "what is this shit?!" response.
That's why we call it "hijacking".

But Lyle responded to criticism by being bewildered, then 'fessing up
and promising not to do it again, once he understood what the issue
is.  He didn't say anything about how the recent string of misfortunes
that dog him excuse his little misstep.  Why, AFAICT Lyle doesn't feel
unfortunate at all!  :^)

I can see why he rubs you the wrong way---I feel the same way myself
about many of his practices.  But *plonk* is an overreaction IMHO,
especially since Lyle is learning faster than the average bear.

    jb> Even Outhouse Excess does threading, does it not?

I wouldn't know.  However, from other comments it would seem that it
certainly doesn't expose or document the technology behind threading.


-- 
Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences     http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp
University of Tsukuba                    Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
               Ask not how you can "do" free software business;
              ask what your business can "do for" free software.