Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!newsfeed.fsmpi.rwth-aachen.de!news-1.dfn.de!news.dfn.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com>
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.system
Subject: Re: Is it OK/safe to put an entire news article in the subject...
Date: 13 Jan 2014 04:28:48 GMT
Organization: People for the Ethical Treatment of Pirates
Lines: 49
Message-ID: <bjh8bvFrmscU1@mid.individual.net>
References: <1oqdnf9Iu-cmEFTPnZ2dnUVZ_qidnZ2d@earthlink.com> <lafqo0$hle$1@reader2.panix.com> <lYadnd1x_OEjkVHPnZ2dnUVZ_jCdnZ2d@earthlink.com> <bj8ao3F9pcU2@mid.individual.net> <slrnlcvfam.2li6.g.kreme@amelia.local> <barmar-195649.10255410012014@news.eternal-september.org> <slrnld1sgu.144.g.kreme@amelia.local> <barmar-4B8C54.10500111012014@news.eternal-september.org> <2014011113571021872-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom> <110120142310229365%timstreater@greenbee.net> <2014011115124598603-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom> <slrnld4830.12iv.g.kreme@amelia.local> <bjemp6Fb0mgU1@mid.individual.net> <slrnld5o8n.14c4.g.kreme@amelia.local> <bjgi05FnaunU3@mid.individual.net> <barmar-D5D946.22282212012014@news.eternal-september.org>
X-Trace: individual.net 8lPbkVgOfBmpEEdXbwsCswEohpWc/vHM8uEgVoDQcGQp4isTmz
Cancel-Lock: sha1:C7oxoEx1sDzYFurxFR6PCWPB8BY=
X-Face: _.g>n!a$f3/H3jA]>9pN55*5<`}Tud57>1<n@LQ!aZ7vLO_nWbK~@T'XIS0,oAJcU.qLM dk/j8Udo?O"o9B9Jyx+ez2:B<nx(k3EdHnTvB]'eoVaR495,Rv~/vPa[e^JI+^h5Zk*i`Q;ezqDW< ZFs6kmAJWZjOH\8[$$7jm,Ogw3C_%QM'|H6nygNGhhl+@}n30Nz(^vWo@h>Y%b|b-Y~()~\t,LZ3e up1/bO{=-)
User-Agent: slrn/1.0.1 (Darwin)
Xref: csiph.com comp.sys.mac.system:54685

On 2014-01-13, Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> In article <bjgi05FnaunU3@mid.individual.net>,
>  Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2014-01-12, Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>> > In message <bjemp6Fb0mgU1@mid.individual.net> 
>> >   Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>> >> On 2014-01-12, Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Reading the subject is usually way more than I am willing to do. If the
>> >>> content is not clear from the body, I move on.
>> >
>> >> Huh? Your statment doesn't make much sense to me. You act as if you can
>> >> read a message without seeing the subject, which is certainly not the
>> >> case if you are using slrn, since slrn (like most news clients) display
>> >> a list of message subjects before you are allowed to see the bodies.
>> >
>> > As I explained up thread I generally just start reading the first
>> > message and move on to the next until the end. I don't look at the
>> > subjects first.
>> >
>> >> Now, you may choose to ignore the subject, but you can't unsee it once
>> >> you've seen it, and something tells me, whether you admit to it or not,
>> >> that you don't read every single message that is posted in every news
>> >> group without deciding first, based on the subjects, whether you want to
>> >> read them or not. 
>> >
>> > Again, as I said previously, the csm* hierarchy gets few enough posts and
>> > I have good enough filters that yes, I start at the first and read to
>> > the end. If a thread I am reading gets especially dull, then I may mark
>> > it read. But I'm still not paying the slightest attention to the
>> > subjects.
>> 
>> Ok. While that's great for you, the rest of us still care about the
>> length of subjects. : )
>
> I thought he was on your side, agreeing that the important information 
> should be in the post, not the subject. He wasn't saying that the length 
> of the subject is unimportant because he doesn't read them. He's saying 
> that if you put the point of your thread in the subject rather than the 
> message, it makes the post unintelligible.

Perhaps so. If so, great!  : )

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR