Theos-Talk Archives (April 1996 Message tl01430)

** comments at end

>Jerry S.
>>Kim, at one time we did keep the thread titles going.  Someone
>>complained, at some point, and so we changed.  Now we try to title each
>>post with a specific title.  If you want to go back to the old way, just
>say so.
>
>Jerry,
>
>  I remember it well, it was a complaint by Jim Meier that several threads
>kept the title which included the name "Bailey" or "AAB" long after the
>subject of the discussion had changed into something else.
>  It is certainly not for me to decide, but I would suggest certain
>changes. If we kept the thread title for replies, continuing discussions,
>etc. and had short remarks, jokes with specific titles, everything would be
>easier for someone like me. I do not have the time (and lately the wish) to
>read 50 messages a day - every day, it would be nice for the titles to
>convey some idea of the content of the post. Of course Jim was quite right
>but (sigh!) could we not find a middle path?
>In friendship,
>Kim

Hi guys--

More exactly, my post of 02/09 was a direct response to someone who asked
"what is this thread business"; I used the AAB/AB example (then current) to
show why just a little thought and courtesy can save time for a lot of
theos-l readers who do use titles as a qualifier.

As Kim points out, it is much easier to follow a thread if there is
*something* in the title which keeps a continuity; the present thread on
"bodies" is a good example.  If Jerry H-E had titled his last post "No,
you're wrong!!!" it might have been skipped over by someone trying to follow
that particular discussion. At the same time, using the *exact* title for
every reply soon becomes just as frustrating.

Theos-l is relatively unstructured.  So are most local TS branches, for that
matter, and I don't think it's possible to make everyone in such a diverse
group happy.  Just speaking for myself, I don't understand what all the fuss
about "filters" is about; I've been skipping chunks of theos-l posts for
quite a while because, like Kim, I just don't have time to read each
individual comment on every topic.  "Snappy one-liners," I believe someone
called them.  At the same time, I recognize that a fair number of posters
*like* that sort of thing, so odds are that's the way the board will stay.

Jim

PS: I'm not sure I'd like a steady diet of Sankrit scholarship either, but I
do wish people who post here would spend a few seconds considering how their
words will affect others before hitting the "send" key -- especially in a
group which at least pretends to work towards Brotherhood.  Nettiquette is
just a cyberword for civility, with a couple of special case rules tossed
in.  The best guide (which would be required reading in a perfect world :) is

http://rs6000.adm.fau.edu/rinaldi/net/dis.html