From: Yossef Mendelssohn <ymendel@...>
Date: 2007-09-07T00:34:13+09:00
Subject: Re: subject line

On Sep 6, 9:17 am, Chad Perrin <per...@apotheon.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 06, 2007 at 07:08:23PM +0900, Stefan Rusterholz wrote:
> > Chad Perrin wrote:
> > >> >   3. trying to make up for personal shortcomings by changing the way the
> > >> >   list is managed
> > >> Right.
> > > There.  The statement is finished.  Thus, it as a whole described you
> > > accurately.
> > >> > . . . which is kind of a shitty attitude about your fellow list members.
> > >> Not about all members.
> > > So . . . as long as you only have a shitty attitude about *some* list
> > > members, you still have a good attitude.  Is that it?
> > > It might have helped if you didn't join the discussion in such a
> > > destructive manner, then.
>
> > I'm sorry but I feel the same as he does.
> > As far as I can see, nobody tried to force one way or another. We put
> > our vote in. I didn't see anybody against a [WHATEVER] tag tell you that
> > you were doing it wrong, a luttitude, or whatever else. I have seen many
> > pointing you (or before you, just generically) various ways out to
> > improve your situation if you don't have such a [WHATEVER] tag. Those
> > ways of course have also been used as arguments for why the tag would be
> > superfluous.
>
> I guess you would feel privileged to be told that to solve your problems
> you should change your software choices, without regard for any of the
> reasons you may have chosen the software you're using.  Next time someone
> tells you that a problem you've run into is the fault of your choice of
> text editor or IDE, the fact you're doing things wrong, or just in your
> head, keep in mind this response to me you've just given.
>
> As I've indicated already, I have no problem with votes that don't agree
> with my preferences.  I have a problem with some of the so-called
> reasoning behind the votes that simply dismiss differing preferences as
> someone else's problem without any concern for whether those differing
> preferences are based on real, valid concerns.  If a list tag in the
> subject line seems superfluous to *you*, that's fine, but it doesn't mean
> that those who find it useful are just not doing it "right" or using old,
> obsolete software and should drag themselves into the 21st century by
> using gmail.
>
> --
> CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [http://ccd.apotheon.org]
> Brian K. Reid: "In computer science, we stand on each other's feet."

>From what I've seen when skimming through this thread, I feel I may
regret this response.  This time I can't help myself.

Personally, I hardly care.  If pressed to vote, I would cast down my
lot against adding a tag.  I receive this list in my e-mail, filter it
to a separate folder, read what I want, and periodically delete the
entire contents of that folder.  I use Google Groops to reply and to
read any messages I don't have on hand.  That's the way I work, it
works well enough for me, and I'm not going to force it on anyone
else.

That's not the point of this response, though.  The point is what I've
observed:

 - You seem to be the most vocal proponent of including a tag in the
subject line.
 - You are vehemently opposed to filtering these messages to a
separate folder.
 - You have stated you use a set of tools (I believe it's mutt on BSD)
that allow you nigh-unlimited power over transforming your incoming
mail in any way you see fit.

I know it's been mentioned before, but it stands re-stating: couldn't
you include whichever tag you wish in the subject line without waiting
for a decision from the list maintainer?  Couldn't you do whatever you
want with your own personal copies of these messages?  Maybe you
can't.  I honestly don't know.  Or maybe you won't.

--
-yossef