Re: [tlug] In Moderation [was "the philosophy of Subj."]

["Josh Glover" <jmglov@example.com>]

On 24/06/07, Roger Markus <rogermarku@example.com> wrote:

> (I will not however, use
> Jim's strange long string of dots to push the "was" part way off to
> the side - I don't want to insult you the way Jim insults everyone
> else.)

Roger: seriously, chill.

Jim is not insulting anyone, and I cannot but remember how quick you
were to take offence when I "censored" your anti-Microsoft post
because I am bought and paid for by Bill Gates, Esq.

Don't look so hard for offence and you won't find so much, mate.

> > Relation among different messages should be expressed by using threads.
>
> Also sounds reasonable (so long as you ignore real-world usage where
> some people's mail clients don't think that the Subject is
> meaningless).

Anyone's mail client that does not grok threads is frankly broken.
Some of us (myself included) choose to live with that broken-ness due
to other niceties offered by our clients.

Read the headers of this message if you want to know which broken client I like.

> I hasten to say here that I am not against Subject changes when they
> are called for - but with our good friend Jim, he does it nearly ALL
> THE TIME!  Sometimes his new Subject lines make more sense, sometimes
> they make less sense!  It should be done in moderation!

While I do agree basically with your sentiment (all things in
moderation), your tone is out of line, and I am officially warning you
to dial it back a notch, especially considering that the RFCs say you
are wrong here (along with me and the majority of this list).

--
Cheers,
Josh