Re: U2 version 119

["Robert Holmgren" holmgren@xxxxxxxx]

** Reply to message from "Patricia M. Godfrey"  on Sat, 07
Jan 2006 15:40:00 -0500


> (NO WAY I'm Googling
> until this WMF mess is fixed)

M$ posted three days ago, and another today, fixes for the WMF exploit, which
(judging by their description of what they've done) looks like a fix. Windows
Update. 9x, though, was skipped over, I think...

> I've wondered about the proper way to address this. Suppose we have a
> thread, but the last few messages have branched off into another
> topic. Or X, in addressing something that Y has posted, makes a passing
> remark that Z wants to address, but that is strictly speaking on another
> topic. Should one acknowledge that fact by changing the subject? (IIRC
> knowledgeable people have sometimes done "Re: New Topic [was Old Topic]"
> to signal the changeover.) Or just leave it and let the extranous stuff
> stay in?

Doesn't it depend on whether you are responding to the "other" topic, or to the
original topic? If original, pick the relevant msg (earlier in the thread)
that you're responding to, and "Reply To" that. You'll find that the
indentation in the Thread list will clearly indicate the line of discussion
that you are pursuing. If they've changed the subject, however, and you're
responding to that changed Subject, probably the best thing to do is just go
with whatever the Subject is now declared to be -- I think constantly changing
the Subject, even if that seems to represent clarification, but staying within
(what the database recognizes as) a thread, is extremely confusing when viewed
weeks/months/years later.

-----------------------------
Robert Holmgren
holmgren@xxxxxxxx
-----------------------------