So, the thread exists in the archives at redfish, or where ever, and will continue to exist there for quite a while.
The first tool is one which given a mailing list archive and a thread "subject" extracts the messages posted on the "subject". The second tool would take the raw messages in the thread and arrange them as a tree of replies to the original posting. Both of these are part of every existing program that displays mailing list archives by threads. The third tool is one that identifies quoted material and replaces it with a reference to the original text or to the previous level of quotation. This is where it gets hairy, but for any section that's marked as quoted there either will be a successful identification of the source or there won't. At this point you can view the thread as a sequence or tree of original contributions with all quoted material represented as ellipses, which may render the original contributions unintelligible, but that's Nick's problem. -- rec -- On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 1:14 PM, Nicholas Thompson < [email protected]> wrote: > I don't think I ever said, "why cant we just...". Did I? > > I had forgotten about "noodles". I can't even remember how it worked. Or > where it is. > > N > > -----Original Message----- > From: Friam [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Steve Smith > Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2013 12:23 PM > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > Subject: [FRIAM] Preserving email correspondence > > All - > > In defense of Nick, I appreciate how he could come to "why cant we > just...". > > As a systems developer with a little experience around natural language > processing, I agree with Doug and Owen that it is a naive question with > only > extremely complex answers. I understand why Nick asks these questions and > value the naivete that he is willing to expose to us. > > I also appreciate Marcus' point. I've been on both ends of the system > development question around documentation and helping others understand > what I've done or trying to understand what others have done. I'm > often eclipsed by highly efficient and capable (usually) young programmers > who are (naturally) impatient with the rest of us for asking them to > explain > what the've done. > > I'm also often frustrated by others who want me to walk them through every > detail of something that is "obvious" to me, despite realizing it > wasn't obvious to me until I'd gone through the steps of creating it. > Their ignorance is often no greater than mine was when I started, and > asking > them to essentially re-develop the same algorithm or code is possibly the > only way they will come to my level of understanding. I can guide them > through the shortcuts, but ultimately there is hard work for them to do. > > As I remember it, Nick tried to coin a Wiki based conversational forum I > think he called "Noodles" a number of years ago. I don't remember the > details, I do remember being compelled by his conception of it. I do > remember trying to participate with him (and maybe a couple of others?) in > using it, following the conventions. I guess I could probably dig it out of > the archives, thanks to Owen, et al. who have made sure we even > *have* archives. > > Lacking brevity as usual, > - Steve > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
