Re: Quit Shopping For Fun

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."

  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".