tainted subject lines (was: Re: Quit Shopping For Fun

Liste des GroupesRevenir à c misc 
Sujet : tainted subject lines (was: Re: Quit Shopping For Fun
De : admin (at) *nospam* 127.0.0.1 (Kerr-Mudd, John)
Groupes : comp.misc alt.usage.english
Date : 21. May 2024, 13:55:02
Autres entêtes
Organisation : Dis
Message-ID : <20240521135502.c78acf82594d44399d4ffc94@127.0.0.1>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6
User-Agent : Sylpheed 3.7.0 (GTK+ 2.24.30; i686-pc-mingw32)
On 20 May 2024 17:24:28 -0300
Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote:

 
ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) writes:
 
Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote or quoted:
>
From the game-play description:
>
   Writing ideas on cards is openended but no opinions are allowed;
   no cards may have a question of truth or falseness. Personal
   statements are to be made only by relating ideas. Still, a
   theory is not an opinion. Thus the idea "cars as a vile public
   nuisance" is acceptable whereas "cars are a vile public
   nuisance" is not.
>
Wow.  That calls for disciplined thinking on the fly.
>
  Well, this is just what I call the distinction between
  a /noun phrase/ and a /verb phrase/.
 
  "Cars as a vile public nuisance" is a noun phrase,
  "Cars are a vile public nuisance." is a verb phrase (sentence,
  assertion).
 
  I'm of the opinion that Subject lines on Usenet should
  be noun phrases.
 
  Using verb phrases (sentences) as Usenet Subject lines is often
  abused to spread one-sided viewpoints.
 
  I'm talking about "poisoned" thread titles here, because
  people who respond critically are still spreading that message
  further.
 
  For example, a poisoned Subject line like that could be,
  "John Doe is an idiot."
 
You should repost this to alt.usage.english (on topic for an active
group not flooded with penc) along w/ my quote from the game-play
description.
 
I agree.  I sometimes hesitate to follow up to a post to avoid being
on record as having posted under the "poisoned" topic.
 
  If someone then responds with "No, John Doe is a very smart
  man!", they're still doing so under the Subject line
  "Re: John Doe is an idiot," so they're perpetuating that
  statement of the Subject line.
 
  A reasonable Subject line could go something like:
  "John Doe's mental bandwidth" (a noun phrase).
 
  To avoid poisoned Subject lines on Usenet, I start a brand
  new thread if I want to respond to something written under
  a poisoned Subject lines.
 
 ... if I become aware of it. "Quit Shopping For Fun" is also
  a poisoned subject line, because when people superficially
  see (maybe on a Web page where the Usenet is mirrored):
 
Stefan Ram - Quit Shopping For Fun
 
  ("Re:" might sometimes be omitted in such cases) it might
  sound as if /I/ want to tell people, "Quit shopping for fun!".
 
  So, a less "poisoned" Subject line might just be "Shopping For
  Fun" without the "Quit".
 
Good catch, interesting take. ()()()
 
...but was the touchdown completed correctly? - nope (I've tweaked the
subject line and xposted as was suggested). Tesponders please feel free to
set FU on reply.

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

Date Sujet#  Auteur
18 May 24 * Quit Shopping For Fun22Ben Collver
18 May 24 +- Re: Quit Shopping For Fun1yeti
18 May 24 +* Re: Quit Shopping For Fun5Stefan Ram
19 May 24 i+- Re: Quit Shopping For Fun1The Real Bev
19 May 24 i+- Re: Quit Shopping For Fun1Lawrence D'Oliveiro
19 May 24 i`* Re: Quit Shopping For Fun2Ben Collver
19 May 24 i `- Re: Quit Shopping For Fun1Johanne Fairchild
20 May 24 `* Re: Quit Shopping For Fun15Mike Spencer
20 May 24  +* Re: Quit Shopping For Fun9Ben Collver
20 May 24  i+* Re: Quit Shopping For Fun7Mike Spencer
20 May 24  ii+- Re: Quit Shopping For Fun1Ben Collver
20 May 24  ii`* Re: Quit Shopping For Fun5Stefan Ram
20 May 24  ii +* Re: Quit Shopping For Fun2Rich
20 May 24  ii i`- Re: Quit Shopping For Fun1Stefan Ram
20 May 24  ii `* Re: Quit Shopping For Fun2Mike Spencer
21 May 24  ii  `- tainted subject lines (was: Re: Quit Shopping For Fun1Kerr-Mudd, John
20 May 24  i`- Re: Quit Shopping For Fun1Johanne Fairchild
20 May 24  `* Re: Quit Shopping For Fun5Johanne Fairchild
20 May 24   +* Re: Quit Shopping For Fun2Stefan Ram
20 May 24   i`- Re: Quit Shopping For Fun1Rich
20 May 24   `* Re: Quit Shopping For Fun2Mike Spencer
21 May 24    `- Re: Quit Shopping For Fun1Johanne Fairchild

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal