Ian Mac <[email protected]> wrote: >George Pearson wrote: >> We are suggesting this new posting rule on technical grounds. Please >> note that virtually all of you have already been following this rule >> implicitly. However some recent postings have revealed this as an >> issue. >> >> Here is the text: >> >> "Each of your posted replies should be to a SINGLE canals-list posting. >> Doing otherwise (i.e. responding to multiple posts in the same reply) >> causes a problem for subscribers whose software allows them to display >> messages in hierarchical threads, like the yahoo groups website allows >> and like some email/news readers allow. Replies branch out from the >> original posting, and further branches from those replies, and so on. >> The problem is that a multiple-post-reply message destroys this useful >> view, while providing little, if any, benefit." >> >> Comments welcomed. >> >Yes please, as I use Thunderbird as my mail tool, and this supports >thread viewing. >It is sometimes really useful to see a whole thread view of things.
IMHO, this suggestion reveals a serious misunderstanding. Threading is *not* posting-related; it is topic-related. The purpose of threading (which is very useful) is to group all postings on a single topic together. That topic is WHAT IS STATED IN THE THREAD'S SUBJECT LINE. If you want sub-topics treated grouped separately, then change the subject line when replying and thus start a new thread. Copying text from more than one posting into a single reply posting does not interfere with the way *any* forum (list, ng, web-page discussion) software works. This suggestion would outlaw much of the current (and normal) quoting in discussion. Such copying allows a significant reduction in the number of postings (which improves readability and usability) and allows various (often-related) aspects of a thread discussion to be related (which improves the discussion, and indeed is often vital for it). Think of the converse. If there are two on-topic postings within a thread, one making point A, another point B, and A and B are related, then the suggestion would apparently require three replies -- one to A, one to B, and a third with the discussion of the inter-relatedness. That's just goofy. In other words, this suggestion is inappropriate, is inconsistent with the concept of a discussion, and would degrade this forum. BTW the correct response to whining is usually for nanny to say "Stop whining", not to give the whiner(s) a lollipop. Adrian PS For some reason, I never received George's original posting. Adrian Stott 07956-299966
