Topic: cr0 revolutions

[Peripatetic Phil]

George wrote :  "I agree with you about the use of the 'at' symbol but I disagree that you should be able to modify a thread title part-way through. It's misleading, and a weakness of the forum software as far as I'm concerned. Why do it?"

Because it is a reply (hence in-thread) but off-topic (nothing to do with CR0 revolutions) and hence deserves a new title (IMHO) so that those interested only in CR0 revolutions know that they can safely ignore this particular contribution.

** Phil.

[George]

those interested only in CR0 revolutions know that they can safely ignore this particular contribution.

It's not so easy to ignore, though, is it? i.e. being right in the middle of a thread. So not only did you go off topic (no bad thing, really) but you spoiled the the thread by changing the title. I've never noticed anyone else do that, on any other forum. I suggest it's bad practice and out of order.

[Peripatetic Phil]

George wrote : "It's not so easy to ignore, though, is it? i.e. being right in the middle of a thread. So not only did you go off topic (no bad thing, really) but you spoiled the the thread by changing the title."

With respect, I do not accept that I have "spoiled" the thread at all; rather, I have added value, by ensuring that those who read it can see which messages (of mine) refer to the original thread topic, and which form a related digression.

George also wrote :   "I suggest it's bad practice and out of order."

Yes, you have made that observation before.  I respectfully disagree.  If (in the opinion of the authors of the board's infrastructure), it were a Bad Thing^[TM], then I would suggest that they would never have offered the facility in the first place.  Since they do offer it, and since Stew (as Board owner) has seen fit to allow it to remain, I would argue that its use is completely acceptable.  Furthermore, I have adduced what is now termed a "use case" in my preceding message, and I have seen no rebuttal from you of this use case; rather, all I see is your personal opinion without supporting argument or facts.

** Phil.

[Onions]

Yes, you have made that observation before.  I respectfully disagree.  If (in the opinion of the authors of the board's infrastructure), it were a Bad Thing^[TM], then I would suggest that they would never have offered the facility in the first place.  Since they do offer it, and since Stew (as Board owner) has seen fit to allow it to remain, I would argue that its use is completely acceptable.

Ironically just like quoting and recycling preceding messages

[Peripatetic Phil]

Ironically just like quoting and recycling preceding messages

I have explained why I choose to occasionally change the subject within a thread, DO, in a preceding message.  Would you care to explain why, other than for reasons of laziness or pure ignorance, someone might choose to recycle not just the contribution of the previous contributor but also his/her previously recycled contributions to a depth of three, four or more ?

** Phil.

[George]

Ironically just like quoting and recycling preceding messages

Exactly.

Does anyone else appreciate Phil's habit of amending thread titles in the middle of a thread?

[Onions]

Phill. If it shouldn't be done, then... "they would never have offered the facility in the first place.  Since they do offer it, and since Stew (as Board owner) has seen fit to allow it to remain, I would argue that its use is completely acceptable."

[mickdabass]

ha ha ha. nice one guys. could some clever so and so please re-rename the thread

"pointless bickering and bitching"

Cheers

Mick

[Garp]

Nae bother 

[Peripatetic Phil]

Phill. If it shouldn't be done, then... "they would never have offered the facility in the first place.  Since they do offer it, and since Stew (as Board owner) has seen fit to allow it to remain, I would argue that its use is completely acceptable."

DOO, I have already explained why I believe that changing a thread title is justified; I am still waiting for you to explain why re-citing recycled material to a depth of three, four or more is anything other than sheer laziness or ignorance.  Changing a thread title is a conscious decision, requiring thought and action; recycling previously cited material without trimming is simply a demonstration of laziness and/or ignorance.

** Phil.