[tlug] But why so excessively?! [Was "the philosophy of Subj."]

["Roger Markus" <rogermarku@example.com>]

On 6/24/07, Josh Glover <jmglov@example.com> wrote:
> The last time this came up (I'm not having much luck in coaxing
> ht://Dig to give me the correct thread; maybe Jim has it?), we
> basically agreed that:

"Maybe Jim has it?"  Precisely my point!  He nearly ALWAYS mutates the
Subject line, whether it's called for or not, damaging both the
continuity and searchability of topics under discussion.  If he hadn't
mutated the Subject lines, maybe you could have found what you were
looking for!

> 1) Jim is free to do what he wants, as he is exactly biding by the RFCs, but

Following the letter of the convention while ignoring the spirit of
it.  Maybe he's a lawyer or something?

> 2) We'd appreciate if he honoured the de-facto convention of not
> changing Subject lines unless absolutely necessary, and then leaving a
> (was: Foo) trail.

That would be nice - but why does he have to do it so often?  Even
when it's not called for?

> Jim agreed, and this topic died until now.
> So why you gotta troll, bro? ;)

Because his method clearly is not in line with the way everyone else
on the list responds!  It's excessive!  But I guess I'll just have to
take the daily irritation of his irrational behavior, since
everyone(??) seems to like it so much.

RM

PS - Just to get in the spirit of things, I'll change the Subject of
this message too - ala Jim's method.