Adrian Stott wrote: > 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.
I think I have had enough of your twaddle, either amend your ways, George bans you from posting or I leave this list. Personally, I think George should ban you as you are too disruptive even if you amend your ways. -- Michael Clarke
