Difference between hijack and sub thread (was ... Re: OT: Sources.list Question)
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 01:09:54PM +0100, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> The main problem still is, that humans on this list count to much on all
> kinds of automatic selection. An id shouldn't be that important as a
> subject is. We had thousands of years of natural evolution and now we
> try to be better than nature and to select by smart inventions, e.g. by
> an id. Living beings should be able to select their self, instead of
> using machines that does sort by e.g. an id. On this list there never is
> a month without issues to "broken threads". Use a MUA and e.g. sort by
> the subject, or anything else that's "human readable".
The point is that by "hijacking" a thread (either innocently or
whatever) it detracts attention (takes all the limelight) from the
actual legitimate OP. Good software picks this up. :)
Unfortunately, my post, has detracted attention from the OP, although I
prefer to look on it as a sub thread. :)
Just as an aside, I googled "hijack thread" (just so I could point the
hijacker to some relevant documentation) and the responses seem to
confuse "starting a sub thread" with "hijacking a thread" whereas my
understanding of "hijacking a thread" is where the poster replies to a
post and changes the subject to what he/she pleases with the
understanding it is a completely new topic.
"starting a sub thread" is a deliberate action of starting a sub topic
(an aside if you like, like those shaded info¹ boxes in those for
dummies books) and entails altering the subject accordingly, normally
along the lines of "sub topic subject (was ... previous subject).
¹ Might be tech or extra.
--
"If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people
who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the
oppressing." --- Malcolm X
Reply to: