1 |
Joe Menola wrote: |
2 |
> On Saturday 30 September 2006 3:38 pm, Bob Young wrote: |
3 |
> |
4 |
>> Uhhhh.....if you have some desire to discuss the "original topic" is |
5 |
>> there something that prevents you from either replying to a message |
6 |
>> without the OT warning in the subject line, or posting a new message |
7 |
>> with a subject indicating what you want to talk about? |
8 |
>> |
9 |
> |
10 |
> Uhhh, no there isn't. Nor is there anything preventing someone from attaching |
11 |
> a reply to your rambling. |
12 |
> |
13 |
Are you suggesting there should be something? |
14 |
|
15 |
It sounds like your a fan of censorship and prefer rules to always be |
16 |
strictly enforced with zero tolerance for any deviation. |
17 |
|
18 |
> This thread was high-jacked, and now the burden should move to those who post |
19 |
> according the rules? |
20 |
> |
21 |
Actually a more accurate description might be that it was forked, as the |
22 |
subject line was modified differentiating it from the original, and |
23 |
there was certainly nothing to prevent anyone from replying to the |
24 |
original message/thread and carrying on with a discussion of the |
25 |
original topic. |
26 |
|
27 |
> I'm finished contributing to the mess...feel free to break the rules, I'll |
28 |
> work around it. |
29 |
> |
30 |
Sorry, I just honestly don't see the any cause of major inconvenience or |
31 |
damage (aka "mess") here. I'm sure that there must be examples of |
32 |
threads that were completely "on topic" but you personally were not |
33 |
interested in, obviously you dealt with those threads in some fashion. |
34 |
Why is it so difficult to deal with the occasional OT thread the same |
35 |
way, especially when it's clearly marked? |
36 |
|
37 |
It's not like the list is overrun with OT threads, nor do I see any |
38 |
indication that the list is likely to be overrun with OT messages in the |
39 |
future. |
40 |
|
41 |
-- |
42 |
Regards |
43 |
Bob Young |
44 |
-- |
45 |
gentoo-amd64@g.o mailing list |