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

[Coda Highland <chighland@...>]

On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Sean Conner <sean@conman.org> wrote:
> It was thus said that the Great Andrew Starks once stated:
>> 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.
>
>   I don't know what email client Dirk uses, but I don't know of any that
> supports collapsible text like he describes.  I do believe he made a joke.
>

Wasn't entirely a joke. gmail collapses quoted replies into a button
labeled with an ellipsis. It's not hard to distinguish the appearance
of the button from a literal "[...]" so the comment is somewhat
humorous, but the intent is real.

/s/ Adam