jon louis mann wrote: > // Thread hijacking is also considered bad form. > Comedy of errors Maru > Jon-- > // Hi. I like the '>' characters. All you have to do > is count them to see who wrote what. Maybe it's a ... > ---David > > okay if i dbl // so i don't have to use the shift key, and cut and past > the post with your name at the end, or is that what william means by > thread hijacking? i tried to download thunderbird once. i'm not that > computer literate. > jon
Jon-- So you're going to start your own convention, that everything after a '//' is a quote, until you get to the name at the end? Why? I mean, there's a perfectly good method which almost everybody else uses. My problem with your method is that my email reader is not familiar with your convention, so stuff you're trying to quote doesn't display indented and in a different color. Which is what quotes done with '>' do. (For me. Apparently not for you.) No, I'm not quite sure what William means by thread hijacking. The best I found on that is Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thread_hijacking It means one of two things. One is "talking about something else without changing the subject line". That seems to be pretty common here. : ) The other is "sending a new message by replying to an old one and changing the subject line". The complaint there is that most email readers will show the new message as being in the same thread as the old message on a different subject that was replied to. I'm probably guilty of this myself, since I seldom use threading when reading email discussions. (I tend to just go by the subject lines.) Does anyone view the latter meaning of "thread hijacking" as a problem? ---David _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
