On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 13:38:34 -0500, "George Pearson" <[email protected]> wrote: >At best, just ignore his posts if you can't bear them. (And if you >have a reader that structures the messages in a hierarchy, you could >easily ignore any replies to Adrian's posts.) > This, I think is a principle that would override the need for this proposed new rule. I think adding a new rule to the group's charter just to try and bring one member into line is OTT, and the new rule would, in its current wording, frequently be ignored without offending many of the group.
The other new rule suggested in this thread (there I go, merging two subthreads in the way that happens all the time and doesn't generally cause offence), namely not using the Reply button to create an entirely new thread, would in my view be a good idea. But it would need careful wording so that people know when they should and should not use Reply. For example if a thread has drifted from its topic and someone changes the Subject to reflect this, you would expect the References header to point back to the previous post even though in many people's minds (and in many e-mail programs) it would appear as a new thread. David.
