03.11.2002 18:59:51, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Proulx) wrote: > Michael Naumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-11-03 16:19:09 +0100]: > > 03.11.2002 04:29:40, Rob Weir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > [Please start a new thread for a new question, it makes it much easier > > > for people to follow the list and makes it more likely that you'll get > > > an answer.] > > > > I'm not sure I understand what you want to say with this. > > Didn't I start a new thread.? Or was there already an equal named thread ? > > I'm quiet new to this list, so maybe I didn't get it. > > This is not an uncommon confusion. Can I have your ear for a moment?
Sure you can. > Please let me explain. > > You message can be reviewed in the archive: > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2002/debian-user-200210/msg06497.html > > There you can see that you generated that message as a reply. > > In-reply-to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > References: <20021031024723.HJCG14348.tomts22-srv.bellnexxia.net@there> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > You replied to a message "Re: blank LCD monitor". Your message > referenced both it and the previous message in that thread. In the > archive the references are also links. If you click there you will go > to the referenced message. But that is not all that being threaded > does for you. Oh, I see. This was not done on purpose. I just picked a random message to have the 'TO:' - Field filled. I was not aware of the confusion that can arise. Shrugg..., how many times in the past did I do the same mistake ... ? > > Let's look at it from the threaded view. > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2002/debian-user-200210/thrd13.html#06491 > > You message is threaded by virtue of being a reply in the thread of > discussion about "blank LCD monitor". This is in the list archive. > But most mailers will show it the same way. Your message will be > displayed as being part of the thread and the thread will be > manipulated in one action. When I kill a thread in a mail reader it > kills the entire thread, your message as well, all at one time. So I probably unintentionally kicked myself in the ass. > > A little confusing in the archive, but not in mailers, is that the > archive splits over months and so the next month contains Rob's reply > and there is no archive threading across months. But mailers will > display it since all of the messages are in a mailbox until you delete > them. Normally in a mail reader the entire thread would be shown. > > Therefore you did not start a new thread. You replied to a previous > one and only changed the subject. Changing the subject does not start > a new thread. It just changes the subject. Threads are maintained by > the "References:" headers. Now I know. I'll take care of this in the future. > > If you want to start a new thread then you need to either 1) start a > new message and send it to the list, which is the preferred method. > Or 2) be sure to change the subject, delete the In-Reply-To: header, > delete the References: header. The first option certainly seems > easier then doing the second option. I think, I'll stick to method 1) > > In general what you did by replying to an existing thread is called > "thread stealing". That is considered a rudeness. It is like barging > into conversation between other people in the middle, interrupting > them, and then shooting off in a completely different direction. > Right there in the middle of a discussion is this other person trying > to start something up! How rude! You can see how that could be > viewed that way. Please everybody, take my apologies. > > Is it always rude to thread steal by changing the subject? No, and > many times changing the subject is the right thing to do. To be > specific just changing the subject is not the same as thread stealing. > When thread drift occurs this is frequently appropriate. A discussion > of one thing mutates into a discussion of something else but perhaps > not of interest to the original thread. Therefore the author will > change the subject to show this. This is not really thread stealing > because the flow was directly connected to the original thread. It is > just the drift of discussion. > > A real example from not too long ago was a thread titled "Make Debian > better" which drifted into a discussion about broken home and end > keys. csj correctly kept the same thread but politely changed the > subject to "Home and end keys (was Re: Make Debian better)" so that we > reading the discussion could see exactly how the discussion flowed. A > good illustration of when changing the subject was quite appropriate. > > I myself in this message am doing this. Since this message itself has > nothing to do with installing debian but only with a subtopic I have > changed the subject line. But it flowed out of the original thread of > discussion and I expect it to be threaded with it. But to give > readers a topic I have titled the subject with what I thought was most > appropriate. People not interested will skip it. Or perhaps people > that are interested will read it when they would not have read the > previous part of the thread of discussion. There is actually quite a > bit of order to the seeming chaos of a usenet discussion. > > Hope this helps. > > Bob Thanx, Bob, for the educated explanation. -- Michael -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
