No comment. Just making this a proper thread. I break outin hives when there is such disorderliness. :)
Re: Being Condescending ... --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > authfriend wrote: <snip> > >I'm not a programmer, but I've been participating > >in electronic forums, via BBSs, email, newsgroups, > >and on the Web for over 20 years, and I've never > >heard the term "thread hijacking" except from > >you. I have no idea what it's supposed to mean. > > > Probably because it may not be possible much of anywhere else > except Yahoo Groups. But Vaj says it's a common phrase from "the earlier days on the net," and Yahoo Groups is quite recent. It may not be apparent unless you are using an email > client. What it means is trying to start a new thread by taking an > existing message and just changing the subject line. An entirely new thead, or a tangent of the original one, where the discussion has changed course and the heading no longer applies? Folks used to do this on Usenet all the time, putting the original thread title in parens preceded by "Was:" and nobody ever objected. It still happens now on Google Groups' Usenet newsgroups, and Google keeps all the subthreads together with the original (or Usenet does, and Google doesn't change that). When it's a *tangent* to the original, sometimes it's useful to be able to go back and see where it branched off. I don't understand why anybody would start a brand-new thread by replying to an old one, when it's so easy to start a new one, and you don't have to delete the text of the post you're replying to, since you're not replying to anything. > I've mentioned this before here particularly last year and got > mocked for bringing it up (anywhere else you may get mocked for > doing it). Starting a brand-new thread by replying to a post in an old thread and deleting the text of the post, perhaps. I've never seen anyone but you get exercised when a thread is retitled when it takes off in a new direction. Often the old part continues in parallel. And there can be quite a few branches off the old thread, all related on some level, but dealing with different aspects of the original topic. > But the person whom > I was responding to was asking why the subject changed and that > would be considered a thread hijacking. No, not when it's a branch off the old thread. That just doesn't make any sense. You *should* leave in the old title in parens, though. I think that doing that should actually > create a new thread in the database but apparently the Yahoo > database system can't handle that. Neither can Google's (or Usenet's, whichever one it is that handles the threads--I've never been sure). And personally, I don't think it should. Google calls a thread with subthreads a "tree," because the subthreads branch off. Yahoo apparently uses their message numbers > to keep the thread order. I'm sure there were many CF's in the Yahoo > boardroom over this. :) > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> See what's inside the new Yahoo! Groups email. http://us.click.yahoo.com/2pRQfA/bOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 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/
