RE: Subject Headings

[QSHIPQ@aol.com]

Huw writes:
>second the motion.  you couldn't even reply to Greg's request without
>changing the subject header.

Huw, I think if you looked at Greg's heading and content, you will find that 
quickly in a <Tors*n> archive search a year from now.  A good thing or 
'sheisbin'?  Secondly, content is also looked at, so the <edit/copy> of Gregs 
post alone (I'm just a guilty here) will get the search engine perked as 
well.  3 bads to the sheisbin, please, yours included.

>btw, Scott, I do a lot of reading... pretty much all in English.  I
>can't even figure out if you are saying anything above (I suspect not). 
>Makes me wonder what your content messages are like to read.
>please, to make daily use of the list easier on the rest of us, don't
>change the subject header unless you are actually changing the subject.

Hey, I'm all for Subject Line protocol, one of the earliest advocates of it 
here, documented.  This is a free list as far as subject heading, I publicly 
(and privately to Dan S) brought this very subject up over a year ago with 
little interest.  I'm also interested in better search engine success (which 
in turn will reduce the amount of new posts on old subjects).  Pardon me, if 
my Subject heading just might lead someone to a faster search a year from 
now, my unreadable english so noted. 

For all those advocating the above change, try the new archive search (in 
detail) sometime.  I charge that changing the subject might just be a good 
thing.  Better yet, forget deleting by Subject line, delete by sender, it's 
easier.  Huw, both your and Greg's intrinsic argument here is that *some* of 
my posts and subjects are readable.  That's a carpe diem argument, I say, 
let's not let Dan's new search engine find those undesireable ones quite as 
easily a year from now.  

Until Heading protocol, may I suggest the <delete> key.

My .02
Private comments welcome.

Scott Justusson