Re: Hijacking a thread: (Was: Why is implicit and explicit 'nil' treated differently?)

[Lorenzo Donati <lorenzodonatibz@...>]

On 19/04/2015 17:48, Andrew Starks wrote:
> On Sunday, April 19, 2015, Dirk Laurie <dirk.laurie@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 2015-04-19 14:27 GMT+02:00 Lorenzo Donati <lorenzodonatibz@tiscali.it
> > <javascript:;>>:
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > Please, don't highjack threads like this (it's not the first time you do
> > > it).
> > >
> > > 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
> > subject.
> >
> > 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.
>
> -Andrew
Sorry if my netiquette policing was misunderstood. I was replying to 
user tonyp@acm.org and my message shows up correctly in my mail client 
as I answered his post.

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 
hijacker.

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.

-- Lorenzo