On September 17, 2004 07:36 am, Jeffrey Clement wrote: > I can't believe how much of an argument everyone is giving for this. > Thread hijacking screws up people who do know how to use their mail > client. It does not make the "hijackers" lives any easier. Memorize > the address, use your contacts, make an alias for it, click the link > on the web page, whatever... and post your messages that way. Seems > like common courtesy would say don't do something that ruins the > experience for others because you are too lazy to create a contact. >
I agree 120% or more. If you can remember "click reply, tab, tab, ctrl-a blah blah" [forgot already] and you can't remember "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" ........hmmmm... > On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 02:33:49 -0600, Andrew J. Kopciuch > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > One example - say someone is using MS Outlook (I do at work, and know > > > others do), and can't remember the email address for the mailing list. > > > Outlook may only show "CLUG-Talk" as the sender, without the email > > > address. Hitting Reply allows me to send a message to the list. > > > Granted, I'm technically capable enough to find the address from such > > > little information, but a LARGE number of non-technical people don't > > > know how to do this. We have at least a couple such people on the > > > list, I think. > > > > I don't think that is much of an argument. I would suggest a better > > approach would be to help such users to learn how to properly configure > > said software. Or suggest ways to maintain such addresses (like placing > > them in your contacts). > > > > I don't think encouraging what is deemed as bad behavior, just because > > they don't seem to know how to avoid it is a good idea. Maybe teaching > > them how to avoid that behavior would be better? > > > > > > It is not dictating how to use tools. I would say it is helping > > > > others to properly use them. > > > > > > Isn't this just rationalizing a dictated usage? > > > > Call it what you want. As others have given examples ... just because > > you _can_ do something doesn't mean you _should_. > > > > > 1. Easier usage for non-technical people. > > > > Why encourage bad habits? That does not help them become more > > technically knowledgeable. > > > > > 2. Increased membership by not requiring members to be technically > > > savvy. > > > > Thread hijacking in no way increases membership. It's a simple action to > > not steal a thread. > > > > > 3. Increased productivity, by having to do fewer steps to get the job > > > done (i.e send a message to the list) > > > > It's not fewer steps. It's actually more. > > > > > 4. Friendlier community because people don't get slapped (figuratively) > > > for a minor transgression they may not even be aware of. > > > > You can make them aware and still be friendly. I wouldn't consider a > > great deal of well know communities with similar guidelines as > > "unfriendly". > > > > > The choice to use any tool I choose, in any manner I choose. The > > > choice to use a tool to do what I need without having to be an expert > > > on "general accepted behavior". Free as in speech. > > > > I think that's getting out of scope on the topic. The topic was to not > > hijack threads on a mail list. You are free (as in speech), to choose to > > learn the manner in which to do that, with as many tools as are > > available. ;-) > > > > > That all said, I'm not meaning to be offensive. I simply stated my > > > opinion, and your response seemed to challenge it. Thats fine with me, > > > I don't mind when I get challenged, it forces me to clearly think about > > > the position I was trying to have an opinion on and sometimes realize I > > > was wrong. In this case, my opinion was simply that "what is right for > > > you or me, may not be right for everyone". Also, I will intentionally > > > play devil's advocate sometimes to try and explore both sides of an > > > issue. I've yet to hear a compelling argument WHY we need a > > > guideline/policy other than one or two members find this inconvenient. > > > (Kevin Anderson - this is one point I will respectfully disagree with > > > you on. I do not consider email hierarchal in nature unless it is by > > > who it's from and when it arrived. Trying to build a hierarchy on a > > > subject line or discussion thread is a dicey call in my eyes.) > > > > I don't think it's a matter of what's right for one person ... etc. I > > think it is a matter of acceptable guidelines. > > > > Not hijacking a thread is : > > > > 1. Common courtesy, and generally accepted as proper mail list behavior. > > 2. A common guideline adopted by many other communities. > > 3. A way to encourage good mail list behavior else where. > > > > As for your hierarchal argument ... I guess we should remove email > > subjects from the SMTP protocol then? No titles ... just who and when. > > ;-) > > > > > As mentioned in my original post, I DO agree that hijacking a thread > > > can be thought of as bad form. But I also realize it WILL happen, and > > > don't sweat about it. If it bothers anyone enough, then a gentle, > > > polite, and private suggestion to the perpetrator may be in order, and > > > it will probably happen less frequently. But it WILL still happen. > > > > It is not thought of ... it is bad form. > > > > So what's the objection to a gentle, polite suggestion in the mail list > > guidelines? You seem to be O.K. with waiting until it happens to let it > > be known as improper, as opposed to prior to the event happening. I > > don't understand why? > > > > Andy > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > clug-talk mailing list > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://clug.ca/mailman/listinfo/clug-talk_clug.ca _______________________________________________ clug-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://clug.ca/mailman/listinfo/clug-talk_clug.ca
