[Coco] Message Threading

[Dave Philipsen]

On 8/9/2017 3:22 PM, John W. Linville wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 01:14:07PM -0500, Dave Philipsen wrote:
>> Just something interesting that I've seen:  It appears that the latest
>> version of Thunderbird acts a little differently (for me) than in the past.
>> In the past, if I were simply to reply to a message on this forum
>> Thunderbird would automatically know that I'm replying to the list and use
>> the list email address to send it. Now, it seems that I must specifically
>> click on 'Reply List' because 'Reply' simply replies to the sender.
> That actually sounds pretty reasonable to me. YMMV.
>   
>> Since I am used to just clicking on 'Reply' and letting the email client
>> figure it out for me, sometimes I do that and then realize that I am not
>> sending to the list and then I'll go and change the 'To:' line.  I don't
>> know if this ever affects the way the messages end up getting parsed as far
>> as threads are concerned.
> Changing To: is not really part of the issue.


That's good to know.


>   
>> Another thing to remember is there are guys (like me) who do not choose to
>> read their email with the thread-sorting turned on.  We just read each
>> message as it comes through to the list.  So to say that it's rude to change
>> the subject in the middle of a thread is perhaps a little extreme (since
>> many of us may care or know little about threads in general).  Also, it was
>> suggested that changing subjects in a 'real' eye-to-eye conversation is rude
>> too.  But in my experience that's not the case.  Casual conversations
>> regularly morph to different subjects as they progress and we think nothing
>> of it.  You could start talking about the weather and end up talking about
>> Kim Jung Un two or three minutes later.
> So as long as you don't cause a problem for yourself (e.g. you don't
> care about message threading), then you aren't being rude to those
> for whom you are causing a problem?

Well, Ricky Nelson said it pretty well in his song 'Garden Party'. He 
says, "You see you can't please everyone so you've got to please 
yourself".  I'm not advocating being selfish but frankly I don't like to 
see cars with bumper stickers all plastered over the back of them.  It's 
an eyesore.  But that doesn't mean I wish for a law to be passed that 
says it's illegal to plaster bumper stickers all over the back of your 
car.  Nor will I ask someone to remove bumper stickers from his car.  To 
each his own.


>
> As for changing the subject during a conversation, obviously there
> is a difference between casually changing the subject in a rambling
> conversation and intentionally changing the subject before your
> conversation partners are done with the issue.
>
>> So the way I see it is this:  The thread sorting/organizing is something
>> that is done automatically behind the scenes by some computer(s).  We as
>> humans normally converse in ways in which the subject continually changes.
>> To slap some guy's hand for innocently changing the subject (perhaps he even
>> thinks he is doing us a favor) because he has seen that the subject has
>> indeed changed could be construed as rude too.  After all, how is he to know
>> exactly what's going on behind the scenes?
> Changing the subject when the subject has actually _already_ changed
> is, in fact, a great thing to do. Starting a new topic is a great
> thing to do as well. But pretending to reply to a previous message
> (i.e. replying in the same thread) when you are actually changing
> the subject to start discussion of an unrelated topic is the offense
> causing the complaint. No one is asking for you to be arrested or
> for your house to be egged or whatever. We are merely pointing out an
> issue that can be avoided very simply and asking others to consider
> complying with that simple request -- use Reply when continuing a
> discussion, and send a New message when starting a new topic.
>
>> By the way, I'm not the one Tormod has counseled about this and I don't
>> believe I have changed subjects on a regular basis but I do remember one or
>> two times having done it in the past.
> So again, changing the subject in a post that actually relates to
> the message to which you are replying is perfectly fine. The problem
> is when someone is really trying to start a new thread, and all they
> end-up doing is adding replies to an old one. If you don't care about
> your messages being lost if someone isn't monitoring an unrelated
> thread, then feel free to do whatever you want.
>
> John


Good to know it.  I guess I'm fairly well on the right track then, 
socially speaking. :-)
Hey, can we talk about Kim Jong Un now?



Dave