authfriend wrote: >--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>It morphed into a thread about FISA having nothing to do with the >>Jonbenet case. Why? Because some people start a new topic by >>replying to an old one and changing the subject. >> >> > >Actually, the original JonBenet subject line >is still going strong, but it hasn't been about >JonBenet for many days. > >Nobody "started" the new topic (FISA). It morphed >over the course of several posts. Somebody commented >on how the media were spending much more time on the >JonBenet case than the wiretapping case, then somebody >said something just about the wiretapping case, and >it went on from there, leaving the JonBenet topic >in the dust. > > > That was me who commented on how the media was spending more time on JonBenet than wiretapping giving credence to burying the wiretapping story. However that mention was still in keeping with the topic.
>At least on this forum we have the good sense to >find the wiretapping case more important and >interesting than the JonBenet case! > > That does not actually start a > > >>new topic in the YahooGroup database. So if you are reading by >>date then you will see all these subject lines that are about >>Jonbenet that aren't. :) But people get pretty uptight around >>here when I bring "thread hijacking" up which is interesting of >>itself. >> >> > >I think the reason people get annoyed is the term >you use, "hijacking," which implies somebody was >trying to steal something from somebody else. > > > Hijacking is the term used on the Internet for that process. I didn't make it up and why should I make up some new term? >If you don't want to get folks' backs up, find a more >neutral term. Threads morph naturally, the way >ordinary conversation does, not because somebody had >evil intent. We don't stop to announce that we're >starting a new topic when we're having a live >conversation, and it feels artificial to do the >equivalent here. > >Plus which, I couldn't have traced the thread back >to find out exactly where it started to morph if a >new topic had been started; the connection to the old >thread would have been lost completely. Sometimes >it's important to preserve it. > >You seem to be the only one who finds it inconvenient, >Bhairitu. Why shouldn't you be the one to adapt >rather than everybody else? > > No, I just have fun ribbing people here about it. This is the only Yahoo Group I'm on that people do it all the time. What does that say? Well to me as someone pointed out some time back it is due to many using the web site and not an email program. And as I mentioned only having a superficial idea of how to use the site's features. I was a tech manager for many years. I had to really restrain myself from breaking out in laughter one time watching our art director use a program jumping back and forth from the mouse to the keyboard (never bothering to learn the keyboard equivalents even over many years of using that program). And she had been using computers longer than I! Sometimes it pays to just stop for a minute and think, "is there a better way to do this?" >(Hamilton got it wrong only because he didn't actually >bother to read any of the thread, he just picked the >subject heading because he thought it would enhance his >point. Since the JonBenet case is such a relatively >trivial issue, it was easier for him to make it sound >stupid and dump on the people who were participating.) > > > > > > > > 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/
