M. Fioretti wrote: > On Wed, Jan 23, 2008 17:29:38 PM -0500, James Knott > ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > >> Well, if it's too much bother to fix the web site, it's too much >> bother for me to fix the subjects. >> > > All this has nothing to do with how much bother it is to fix the > website and for who. I have spent far too much time trying to make you > understand WHY fixing the website wouldn't really solve anything. > > You will keep answering tenths of messages every week, spending > minutes on each; but you won't bother to spend 5/10 extra seconds on > each message, continuing to fill subscribers inboxes and the archives > with information that takes much more time than necessary to find? OK. > > Thanks for making so clear that the real problem is your (and others, > of course) deliberate refusal to follow the OFFICIAL guidelines. > > Have a nice evening. > Marco > The problem here, is not the subject lines. It's the way you seem to think you run the list. Are you a moderator? Also, take a look at some of your posts.
Such as from Jan 5 > > And I am demanding that everybody who feels the need to do it anyway > stops... > Or when you claim the entire list agreed, even though I don't recall a poll and I do recall disagreements. Here's Harold Fuch's comment on that. > It isn't, obviously. I have made very clear that I was just reminding > > a practice that EVERYBODY on the list, just a few days ago, agreed on > > as the most sensible one, one much more useful than doing as today. > > > > Mr. Fioretti, > > At the last count there were around 2400 users subscribed to this list. I > don't remember any consensus on any subject. > Further, you mentioned "OFFICIAL guidelines". Well, I checked the guidelines here: http://www.openoffice.org/ml_guidelines.html Funny thing, I don't see anything resembling what you claim. I even checked the netiquette link and didn't see anything there either. While there is an issue with the subject lines, you don't get change by bullying people or getting all in a huff. The problem originates with the web site and yes, some users will not post a useful subject, but the way it's configured now, it invites such behaviour, by not attempting to correct it at source. What's wrong with a web page that when it detects an empty subject line, it pops up a message that says something like "Please include a brief description of your problem in the Subject box."? If you do that, then the user will not be able to send the message, without making at least some effort at a subject. We're here to help others with problems. Well, you can't solve a problem until you identify it's cause and the cause of this problem is not the people who contribute their time and effort to helping others. Now, compare what happen here, with what happened with the "Moderated" messages. Prior to your mentioning about the delivered to line, people were not checking for that. After that, I set up a filter to flag those messages with a different colour, so that I know to include the OP's address. Compare the results of those to situations and also your conduct in them and notice how differently things turned out. If you hadn't tried that nonsense, as described above, you might have had different results in this thread. -- Use OpenOffice.org <http://www.openoffice.org> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
