On Mon, 19 May 2008, David Hobby wrote:
> 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? Yes. I'm quite willing to put up with it when it's a computer-illiterate mother of triplets (who also has a bad habit of posting to the list we're on when she means to just send something to *one* person *offlist*), but sheesh, if you've been getting something resembling enough sleep sometime in the past 7 or 8 years, learn to use your e-mail *properly*, especially when you have people actively offering to help you. (I don't use e-mail threading even where I have it as a feature, but Yahoo does it by default, so if I'm reading stuff from a Yahoo group at Yahoo, that ends up being a problem at times. And, the list I'm on with A. is, in fact, a Yahoo group, so I *see* the problem a lot of the time. (The client I'm having to use for that address forces me to top-post, which I don't like, so I log onto Yahoo to reply to stuff on a regular basis.)) So, yeah, I view the latter meaning of "thread hijacking" as a problem, and there are people I'll cut some slack for on that sort of thing, but they all have at least 2 children. Julia _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
