Path: ...!news.nobody.at!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1>
Newsgroups: comp.misc,alt.usage.english
Subject: tainted subject lines (was: Re: Quit Shopping For Fun
Date: Tue, 21 May 2024 13:55:02 +0100
Organization: Dis
Lines: 78
Message-ID: <20240521135502.c78acf82594d44399d4ffc94@127.0.0.1>
References: <slrnv4i2ad.2h8.bencollver@svadhyaya.localdomain>
	<875xv9v1xk.fsf@enoch.nodomain.nowhere>
	<slrnv4l2gt.g03.bencollver@svadhyaya.localdomain>
	<871q5xufy9.fsf@enoch.nodomain.nowhere>
	<phrases-20240520151527@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de>
	<87wmnoteo3.fsf@enoch.nodomain.nowhere>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 21 May 2024 14:55:03 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="2ade96feb9ad83c27e99b69f92c69203";
	logging-data="643446"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/mZcaLWkeJ1+WRRbZcDj+aXErdn/oSGUw="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:nByr9oFbTJ1YXjSZfhHFWpf/EbE=
X-Face: 0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00
 0xBF,0x69,0x54,0x57,0xBA,0x38,0x01,0x89,0xD6,0xB4,0x3F,0xB5,0x52,0xCD,0x21,0x91
 0xE3,0x25,0xAC,0xD4,0x10,0x86,0xE0,0x27,0x04,0xF0,0x14,0x40,0xAA,0x43,0x84,0xF3
 0x75,0xF3,0x20,0xD3,0x75,0x04,0xB8,0x0D,0x0A,0xAB,0xE2,0xE6,0xB3,0x01,0x89,0xF9
 0x5A,0x29,0xD1,0xB4,0x40,0xCD,0x21,0xC3
 0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00
 0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00
 0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00
;X-no-Archive: Maybe
GNU: Terry Pratchett
X-Newsreader: Sylpheed 3.7.0 (GTK+ 2.24.30; i686-pc-mingw32)
SigSep: is ALWAYS dash dash space newline
Bytes: 4931

On 20 May 2024 17:24:28 -0300
Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote:

> 
> ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) writes:
> 
> > 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."
> 
> You should repost this to alt.usage.english (on topic for an active
> group not flooded with penc) along w/ my quote from the game-play
> description.
> 
> I agree.  I sometimes hesitate to follow up to a post to avoid being
> on record as having posted under the "poisoned" topic.
> 
> >   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".
> 
> Good catch, interesting take. ()()()
> 
....but was the touchdown completed correctly? - nope (I've tweaked the
subject line and xposted as was suggested). Tesponders please feel free to
set FU on reply.

-- 
Bah, and indeed Humbug.