Saluton Teemu :) On Wed 10 Jun 2009 19:59 +0200, Teemu Likonen <[email protected]> dixit: > On 2009-06-10 12:58 (-0400), Charles Campbell wrote: > >> So, an unrelated topic, no semantics in transition, no acknowledgement >> of the original thread's subject == hijacked thread. > > Or perhaps more accurately, a hijacked _subthread_.
In fact, it is a much better definition ;) > On 2009-06-10 19:10 (+0200), Raúl Núñez de Arenas Coronado wrote: > >> If the change in the subject is not meant to adapt the subject for a >> "morphing" thread? Sometimes the themes in a conversation suffer a >> kind of "evolution", and in fact is better to change the subject in >> that case. >> >> If you change the subject to start a new thread, you're "hijacking". > > Thanks both. I agree with you. "Hijacking" just sound so negative to > me so I thought Charles meant it's something really bad. Well, yes, "hijacking" sounds way too negative. Right now I can't find a better word, probably because I've grown used to the term from using it in this thread. Objectively, the best term is maybe "break of threading" or something similar? If the term is ever making its way into the mailing "rules" (or whatever we call them), I think it is good to choose a good term so people can understand it without "side effects". "Hijacking" has those side effects, I'm afraid... -- Raúl "DervishD" Núñez de Arenas Coronado Linux Registered User 88736 | http://www.dervishd.net It's my PC and I'll cry if I want to... RAmen! --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message from the "vim_use" maillist. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
