--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <noozguru@> wrote: > > authfriend wrote: > > >--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <noozguru@> wrote: > > ><snip> > > > > > >>Wrong. Thread hijacking is considered bad netiquette and you'll > > >>get bashed for it on other lists. I've been a programmer for > > >>over > > >>20 years and have been using email and online clients for that > > >>long. I think I might know a little about how these things work. > > > > > >I'm not a programmer, but I've been participating > > >in electronic forums, via BBSs, email, newsgroups, > > >and on the Web for over 20 years, and I've never > > >heard the term "thread hijacking" except from > > >you. I have no idea what it's supposed to mean. > > > > Here's more on the subject: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thread_Hijacking > > I don't really give a shit about threading, period, > since I've discovered that it's more fun for me to > read forums such as this one in strict chronological > order than it is to read them 'threaded.'
That's what I've always done (starting from my BBSing days, when there were no such things as threads anyway). It *is* useful to be able to trace a thread back, though, on occasion, so I'm all for threading, but in a "tree" structure where the subthreads branch off but you can trace them back to the main thread. > But, that said, doesn't the following definition > from Wikipedia... > > @ Thread hijacking is the act of taking a forum > @ discussion thread off topic by discussing a > @ subject entirely unrelated to the subject at hand. > @ > @ While this can be an intentional act of trolling, > @ it is often accidental - caused by other participants > @ in the discussion responding to a throwaway remark, > @ taking the thread off at a tangent to the original > @ subject matter. The results, whilst often humourous, > @ often extract a feeling of resentment from the author > @ of the post. > > ...sound a lot like EGO to you? :-) I agree with Barry here. Half the fun of these discussions is the odd directions they take. Sometimes a subthread that takes a small piece of the original discussion off on a tangent will turn out to be much more fascinating than the parent thread. Oh, now those are terms I'm familiar with--"parent" and "child" threads. That refers back to the "tree" structure--the "parent" is the trunk and the "children" are the branches. > I mean, somebody introduces a concept and then gets > uptight when someone takes the concept off in directions > he or she didn't intend? I'm picturing Aretha Franklin > singing, A T T A C H M E N T. > > :-) > > What you're complaining about with Thunderbird, by the > way, is a limitation of ITS software. It was designed > with certain protocols in mind, as if they were standards. > They weren't. I think that's correct. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Check out the new improvements in Yahoo! Groups email. http://us.click.yahoo.com/6pRQfA/fOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
