Re: [tlug] [Was: Why Hollywood does break foreign films ?] Changing subject in thread.

[Bruno Raoult <braoult@example.com>]

On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 2:49 PM, Godwin Stewart <gstewart@example.com> wrote:

On 13/08/13 13:29, Benjamin Tayehanpour wrote:

>> Or simply restart a new thread, and copy parts of this discussion?
>
> I think the latter is more in line with rules and general etiquette.

And usually with '[OT]' in the subject so that people who want to can
filter out off-topic conversations.

Would not this only apply if we continue the current thread itself, changing its name ?
I mean, if we create a new thread from scratch, with no history (except some copies),
what would be the point of the OT magic word, as this thread would be "on-topic" by
default - at least at beginning ?

Or maybe I misunderstand your mail, or just the "OT" meaning. As I not the only one
to be puzzled about the "OT" term (after searching a little), I don't feel so shy about
never having used it :-)

And yes, I was wrong not writing "[off-topic]" (instead of ["not Linux related"]) in my initial post.
This just does not allow easy filtering, as you said.

Sorry for that.

But as we learn from mistakes, I will give my mistake also a positive sense. In French, we use sometimes
"Je vais me coucher moins con ce soir" (translation could be, even it is difficult usually to translate such
expressions, by: "I will go to bed less idiot tonight").

br.

PS. This mail is surely not really "on-topic" for main parts, but if I consider that if we diverge again and
have questions on how to continue a thread whose initial subject is considered as dead, this is also interesting.
I took some freedom to change the subject for this third discussion. My way. Maybe wrong :-)

--
2 + 2 = 5, for very large values of 2.