On Wed, 2005-01-26 at 09:26 -0700, Josef Lowder wrote:
> Yesterday, I was criticized for submitting to the PLUG list
> an inquiry about a problem that I had with my wife's XP ...
> even though I labeled the subject "OT." So, I then wrote
> a note to apologize for this breach of etiquette using the
> revised subject line: Re: OT re my wife's XP - - - I apologize
>
> To my surprise and dismay, this was followed by a dozen or
> so messages that veered _very_ much farther afield than my
> original message ... and then that was followed by a new
> subject labeled "Re: OT as long as we are digressing tonight"
> which meandered even farther afield.
>
> All of this prompted me to think about a possible remedy
> to help us all keep this valuable PLUG list better focused
> yet still allow for "OT" inquiries in a controlled way that
> can be blocked by everyone who wants to avoid them.
>
> Here are my two ideas/suggestions:
>
> #1. Rename subjects when applicable rather than
> perpetuating non-fitting subjects.
>
> Is it not true that anyone responding to any subject can,
> at any time, simply change the subject line to one that
> is more appropriate to the topic? While there could be
> a few additional responses that might come through with
> the old, inappropriate subject line, changing the subject
> line to a more appropriate one would put an end to most
> of the commonly long-running discussions that seem now
> to be occurring with increasing frequency.
>
> #2. Use "Off Topic" instead of just "OT" in subjects that
> are known to be such.
>
> If this convention were to be adopted, then, all who wish
> to avoid a flood of such email could simply put in a filter for
> any and all emails that carry the words "Off Topic" in the
> subject line. Then, at any time, anyone could change the
> subject line, as needed, to include the label "Off Topic".
>
> Does this make sense, or is my logic flawed?
>
> ----------------------------------------------------
> Three examples of coments from three separate
> PLUG messages that resulted from my inquiry
> about my wife's XP problem:
>
> > > > Has anyone been brave enough to shower?
> > > > I'm starting to feel ripe (I skipped shower today).
>
> > > There seems to be a very high amount of scare mongering
> > > . . . you MIGHT get a minor sore stomach or the trots.
>
> > The tiniest bit of e coli can go a long way.
----
1 - I thought I gave the shortest answer to your problem as I could yet
still provide all the info you needed.
2 - The drift towards F-Protect vs. Norton Internet Security was inane
and an indication of why Windows usage questions shouldn't be covered
here.
3 - OT is generally accepted. I have no problems with your renaming or
even, simply if you decide to use it yourself and no one else does.
4 - Yes I am guilty for that very thread of 'as long as we are
digressing' but think it is far more relevant to the users of this list
(at least the ones that reside in the valley) than Windows usage - and
of course, there are hundreds if not thousands of Windows message bases
that will undoubtedly provide a deeper analytical process to your needs
than plug-discuss. Of course, this is my opinion and my opinion only.
The simple fact is that anyone can post and if you have identified in
the subject line that it is off-topic, someone offended can merely
delete without any further inspection whatsoever.
So in the end, your logic isn't flawed, it just seems that it calls for
a bunch of rules that in the end, will get broken and then there's those
who will want to enforce these rules. Let's have respect for each other
instead of rules. I know that I asked please to refrain from evaluating
whether F-Protect vs. Norton Internet Security be an ongoing topic and
left it at that.
Craig
---------------------------------------------------
PLUG-discuss mailing list -
PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change you mail settings:
http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
(text/plain)