[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: Hijacking a thread: (Was: Why is implicit and explicit 'nil' treated differently?)
- From: Lorenzo Donati <lorenzodonatibz@...>
- Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2015 20:07:18 +0200
On 19/04/2015 17:48, Andrew Starks wrote:
Sorry if my netiquette policing was misunderstood. I was replying to
user firstname.lastname@example.org and my message shows up correctly in my mail client
as I answered his post.
On Sunday, April 19, 2015, Dirk Laurie <email@example.com> wrote:
2015-04-19 14:27 GMT+02:00 Lorenzo Donati <firstname.lastname@example.org
Please, don't highjack threads like this (it's not the first time you do
If you want to begin a new thread send a new mail message to the mailing
list with a new subject, don't reply to another thread changing its
It is unfortunate when a post amounting to the policing of netiquette
itself commits a solecism. In this case, the post I have quoted contains
literally a pair of brackets enclosing three dots. Clicking on it dos not
reveal extra text, so it is not possible to tell from the post alone which
previous post is being criticised.
...nor was it possible to do so from reading the thread. I could only
guess that he meant me and my diversion into __index. It wasn't
disrespectful or *that* off topic.
I omitted all the previous messages as they weren't relevant to my
complaint, and I wanted to avoid adding noise to the thread (I didn't
want to make other people browse down to see I was just complaining
about netiquette and neither did want to top post).
Sorry if something went wrong. As I said, in my client (Thunderbird) my
message correctly shows up in the highjacked thread as a reply to the
BTW, I didn't wont to sound harsh to the hijacker, but I was in a hurry
and when browsing through past messages I noticed that user already did
it once, so I meant to be informative, not unwelcoming.