At 01:05 AM 10/14/2002 -0400, David A. Desrosiers wrote: >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >Hash: SHA1 > > > > For lurkers, what David is apparently abjectly incapable of expressing is > > that email includes a "References" header that lists previous message IDs > > (Header "Message-Id") such that the emails may be "threaded". > > Have you read anything I've been saying at all? The header >"References" is a news article posting header, not an email header. Email >replies carry an "In-Reply-To" header. Spend a bit less time trying to find >useless ways to insult me, and more time reading the links I provided, >fully, before responding with information which is misleading and incorrect.
David, you've been insulting the whole time. I've asked straight-forward questions, to which you prefer not to issue straight-forward answers. Try actually providing DATA instead of references to enormous documents if there's a specific bit in mind. For example, you pointed me to http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2822.html in your previous message, rather than simply answer the question as to why "reply" is so evil. That document is 105KB large. You wouldn't even answer a one-line question and yet you expected me to read 80 pages to get at why you hate reply?!? > > I generally don't see "threaded" email views (i.e. even if they were > > available to me, I never looked at them) and I presume more people are > > like me than like David... certainly his recent battles over this supports > > my surmise... so this is an important and new relevation to quite possibly > > more than a few of us. > > Again, you seem to indicate that this "threading" is a feature that >was never there before. David, nowhere did I imply it's new... I just said I never look at them if they exist. > If two people call your voice mail, one from your work asking you to >work late, and one from your girlfriend, asking you to pick up butter from >the store... would you "Reply" to the work one, and begin asking your >girlfriend what kind of butter she wants you to get? Would you "Reply" to >your girlfriend's message, telling work that you're not going to be able to >work late? No, you wouldn't. See my point? There's no point there, David. If my spouse asks me to get butter in an SMS message, I'm quite likely to hit "reply" and tell her I'll be late. If she calls and leaves a message, I'm quite likely to select "Reply" (which calls her back) and leave her a message on an arbitrary topic. We even do this on email. People aren't changing the address-list, which your example is based on. So no, I don't see your point. This religious fervor you have that, in general, one must completely separate two conversations or topics with the SAME group of people is bizarre. Do you really, upon discussing your vacation plans on the phone with your spouse, then hang up and call her/him right back to discuss dinner, and then again initiate a completely new call to determine what movie to rent? "No, you wouldn't. See my point?" If you would have confined your "point" to the email headers and explained them (which you eventually did do, but still embedded in a tangle of unrelated invective), probably everyone would nod their heads and say, "Oh! I get it!" Much simpler than turning it into a jihad on the concept of "reply" and rudeness of misusing it. >I suspect I am like the rest of the thousands upon thousands of >people who use email as a tool, and rely on the functions provided by that >tool, such as threading. Perhaps you need to revisit your selection of mail >clients, and choose one that supports the standards, or makes it easier and >more powerful to use the features "hidden" from you by your current one. Probably not, David. I use email as a tool too. Been doing so for more than 20 years. But I typically don't keep enough messages on-hand to NEED threading; I receive, process, and delete most of them because otherwise the sheer quantity gets too large. And again, off-topic from the point. Your point should be the headers, not your religious fervor. > Spend less time fighting with people and more time learning about >the technology you assert to know so well, and you may find yourself >enlightened at the wealth of power behind even the simplest of tools... >email. See, here's the basic problem. You believe that most people should CARE about these inner workings, and you rail endlessly against anyone who doesn't. If that most people use email as a tool... like they use their cars, phones, or televisions... they just use what they need and don't bother learning every little feature. You, on the other hand, do NOT "use email as a tool"; you care far too much about it for that. You probably have never reprogrammed the chip in your car and haven't a clue how to select and install a different crankshaft to change the torque curve (not that I do either), and yet you use your car "as a tool", no? Lots of tools have lots of features that most people never learn about. That doesn't make them dumb or bad people, and certainly shouldn't earn them insults for it. > > David, no matter how often and repeatedly you are rude and dogmatic to > > those not following your standards, it won't convey the reasons and change > > their behavior nearly as quickly as simply stating the above would. > > You're barking up the wrong tree. Your repeated insults and abuse of >the developers here since your very first message to the list, does not bode >well for your standing, being such a newcomer to the project and to the list >in general. You may actually earn the title of the second troll ever to >grace the lists, if present behavior continues to be the norm. Only because you're doing the defining, David. In my first few weeks I also submitted several bug fixes (to Desktop), a build environment (same), and the new-feature implementation (stayondomain), all of which have been accepted. I've answered questions here, doing research when needed, from other users on problems with specific sites, on Windows context menus, etc. Hardly a troll. > Your arrogance and lack of understanding of the basic issues at hand >is beginning to show. Well, I plead guilty to not having understood the header issue... and I tried to fix it. Which is why I proposed the addition to the lists sign-up pages. Arrogance isn't my problem... I think you're projecting here. But that's off-topic. > Any and all further messages from you on this topic that are sent to >this list will be automatically ignored. Take it off-list, or drop it. This >is not a discussion with a "winner" or a "loser". The points have been made, >the solutions have been suggested, and people are beginning to adhere to >them. Why do you feel it necessary to bring this back up again? I don't. Then please DON'T. And stop with the mischaracterizations and spurrious charges at the same time. I haven't been bringing it "back up". I've been trying to find a solution, and only for the past twelve hours. (12 hours 15 minutes actually since I jumped into this thread.) I proposed the text for a solution and the pages to put it on because I don't want this popping up regularly as it appears to have in the last month. Just put the bit about the "in reply to" header up on the list signup page (along with a sentence against top posting) and I bet most of these problem vanish overnight. But telling people "Hitting reply to initiate a thread is annoying and rude" won't help... unless you explain about the "in reply to" header, and once you've explained about the header, the bit about "annoying and rude" becomes unnecessary. Don't you agree? _______________________________________________ plucker-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.rubberchicken.org/mailman/listinfo/plucker-list
