GGC2005 Right Cruise Wrong Agent

Charles lid wrote:

In article , RTCReferee
ando wrote:

There isn't any reason that any thread has to expire, let alone just 8
days after the last comment was made.

On the contrary there are many reasons for a thread to die. If no
comments have been made in eight days that is a good reason. It is
already a dead thread.


I disagree with your comment, and I disagree even more with your lack of
quoting my reasons why a thread should not die after just 8 days. All you
quoted from what I wrote was two lines.

I listed the following reasons in my original topic:

People go on cruises and other vacations or get very involved in work or
other
things, and many do not read or post to newsgroups while they are gone,
recuperating or extremely busy. Many like to relax (on a cruise, for
example) without the intrusion of having to "stay in touch." Nevertheless,
they may read the newsgroup later and wish to make a comment, as Muffin
did.

Just because you may have a lot of time on your hands and choose to read RTC on
a daily basis does not mean that those who do not (by choice) or cannot (due to
circumstance) have no right to express their opinions or knowledge on subjects
when they return to reading. I think the newsgroup benefits most by the input
of all readers, regardless when or what they post to topics, excluding vicious
personal attackes, of course.

In article , RTCReferee
wrote:

I disagree with your comment, and I disagree even more with your lack of
quoting my reasons why a thread should not die after just 8 days. All you
quoted from what I wrote was two lines.

I quoted the part that was relevant to my reply.

Just because you may have a lot of time on your hands and choose to
read RTC on a daily basis does not mean that those who do not (by
choice) or cannot (due to circumstance) have no right to express
their opinions or knowledge on subjects when they return to reading.
I think the newsgroup benefits most by the input of all readers,
regardless when or what they post to topics, excluding vicious
personal attackes, of course.

It is best if someone who has been gone for a while to pick up reading
from the present, not the past, but in any case if someone who has been
gone returns and has an opinion or knowledge they want to express on a
topic, it would make more sense to start a new thread rather than
revive one that is over. If there are no posts for a period of time the
thread has ended. Eight days is a long time on Usenet. And some servers
only hold posts for a few days.

I don't see how the newsgroup benefits from reviving a flame that died
out 8 days ago. And that is from someone who agrees with the sentiment
in the subject line of said thread.

--
Charles

"Charles" wrote in message
d...
In article , RTCReferee
wrote:
It is best if someone who has been gone for a while to pick up reading
from the present, not the past, but in any case if someone who has been
gone returns and has an opinion or knowledge they want to express on a
topic, it would make more sense to start a new thread rather than
revive one that is over. If there are no posts for a period of time the
thread has ended. Eight days is a long time on Usenet. And some servers
only hold posts for a few days.


OptimumOnline (our cable service here in Central Jersey) holds them 24
hours. That's it.

--Tom

Charles lid wrote:

wrote:

I disagree with your comment, and I disagree even more with your lack
of quoting my reasons why a thread should not die after just 8 days. All
you quoted from what I wrote was two lines.

I quoted the part that was relevant to my reply.

Just because you may have a lot of time on your hands and choose to
read RTC on a daily basis does not mean that those who do not (by
choice) or cannot (due to circumstance) have no right to express
their opinions or knowledge on subjects when they return to reading.

I think the newsgroup benefits most by the input of all readers,
regardless when or what they post to topics, excluding vicious
personal attackes, of course.

It is best if someone who has been gone for a while to pick up reading
from the present, not the past, but in any case if someone who has been
gone returns and has an opinion or knowledge they want to express on a
topic, it would make more sense to start a new thread rather than
revive one that is over. If there are no posts for a period of time the
thread has ended. Eight days is a long time on Usenet. And some servers
only hold posts for a few days.

I don't see how the newsgroup benefits from reviving a flame that died
out 8 days ago. And that is from someone who agrees with the sentiment
in the subject line of said thread.


I see "the newsgroup" as being made up of many readers—not necessarily those
whose names we see most often—most who do not post at all, or lurk for awhile
until they feel they have something to say or have figured out a way to say it
which is innocuous. Some people are very shy or concerned how they will be
judged and take their time to get together the words they may want to add about
a topic.

Is your concern really the timing of the poster's reply to the topic or the
title of the subject line, which, by the way, some of us don't always read,
since so many threads wander away from the subject anyway?

What if the thread had been "In memory of ------insert name of person----
or - farewell to a grand ship--insert name of ship or something "positive"
(in your opinon), would you have said the same thing about the post being old
if someone just got back from a cruise (staying on topic) and they said
something like "Oh NO, I'm so saddened to hear that ________ died" Or in the
case of the ship, "she was a grand old ship, I'll miss her too". Would you say
"you can't offer your condolences because you are too late; this thread is
dead."

Why can't they link their new thoughts to the previous thread?

I have often seen "blah blah blah, WAS blah, blah." So if you want to change
the subject line when you post your comment, you can do that. Of course, if
someone wants to change it back, they can do that, too.

ando (RTCReferee) wrote:

Charles lid wrote:

wrote:

I disagree with your comment, and I disagree even more with your lack
of quoting my reasons why a thread should not die after just 8 days. All
you quoted from what I wrote was two lines.

I quoted the part that was relevant to my reply.

Just because you may have a lot of time on your hands and choose to
read RTC on a daily basis does not mean that those who do not (by
choice) or cannot (due to circumstance) have no right to express
their opinions or knowledge on subjects when they return to reading.

I think the newsgroup benefits most by the input of all readers,
regardless when or what they post to topics, excluding vicious
personal attackes, of course.

It is best if someone who has been gone for a while to pick up reading
from the present, not the past, but in any case if someone who has been
gone returns and has an opinion or knowledge they want to express on a
topic, it would make more sense to start a new thread rather than
revive one that is over. If there are no posts for a period of time the
thread has ended. Eight days is a long time on Usenet. And some servers
only hold posts for a few days.

I don't see how the newsgroup benefits from reviving a flame that died
out 8 days ago. And that is from someone who agrees with the sentiment
in the subject line of said thread.

I wasn't really following this very carefully having no experience
with any agent and never having been on a GGC cruise.

However, the subject line of the post that was objected to was not
really the subject of the post, and I think it is mean spirited to
castigate someone for posting to a thread where the subject has
wandered away from the topic line. Even if the topic line was a
flame, the actual post was not.

I have my groups threaded, but not everyone does. I do try not to
post anything to a thread where the most recent post is more than a
month old. (There's one newsgroup that has so many postings each day
that I can't keep up with it daily, and this one seems to be running a
close second.)

I see "the newsgroup" as being made up of many readers—not necessarily those
whose names we see most often—most who do not post at all, or lurk for awhile
until they feel they have something to say or have figured out a way to say it
which is innocuous. Some people are very shy or concerned how they will be
judged and take their time to get together the words they may want to add about
a topic.

Is your concern really the timing of the poster's reply to the topic or the
title of the subject line, which, by the way, some of us don't always read,
since so many threads wander away from the subject anyway?

What if the thread had been "In memory of ------insert name of person----
or - farewell to a grand ship--insert name of ship or something "positive"
(in your opinon), would you have said the same thing about the post being old
if someone just got back from a cruise (staying on topic) and they said
something like "Oh NO, I'm so saddened to hear that ________ died" Or in the
case of the ship, "she was a grand old ship, I'll miss her too". Would you say
"you can't offer your condolences because you are too late; this thread is
dead."

Why can't they link their new thoughts to the previous thread?

I have often seen "blah blah blah, WAS blah, blah." So if you want to change
the subject line when you post your comment, you can do that. Of course, if
someone wants to change it back, they can do that, too.


grandma Rosalie

Rosalie B. wrote in subject "Dead posts was
GGC2005 Right Cruise Wrong Agent":

I wasn't really following this very carefully having no experience
with any agent and never having been on a GGC cruise.

However, the subject line of the post that was objected to was not
really the subject of the post, and I think it is mean spirited to
castigate someone for posting to a thread where the subject has
wandered away from the topic line. Even if the topic line was a
flame, the actual post was not.

I have my groups threaded, but not everyone does. I do try not to
post anything to a thread where the most recent post is more than a
month old. (There's one newsgroup that has so many postings each day
that I can't keep up with it daily, and this one seems to be running a
close second.)

Precisely. Thanks for changing the subject line.

(Still looking forward to some of that properly cooked bacon ;-)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rosalie's entire post:

(RTCReferee) wrote:

Charles lid wrote:

wrote:

I disagree with your comment, and I disagree even more with your lack
of quoting my reasons why a thread should not die after just 8 days.
All
you quoted from what I wrote was two lines.

I quoted the part that was relevant to my reply.

Just because you may have a lot of time on your hands and choose to
read RTC on a daily basis does not mean that those who do not (by
choice) or cannot (due to circumstance) have no right to express
their opinions or knowledge on subjects when they return to reading.


I think the newsgroup benefits most by the input of all readers,
regardless when or what they post to topics, excluding vicious
personal attackes, of course.

It is best if someone who has been gone for a while to pick up reading
from the present, not the past, but in any case if someone who has been
gone returns and has an opinion or knowledge they want to express on a
topic, it would make more sense to start a new thread rather than
revive one that is over. If there are no posts for a period of time the
thread has ended. Eight days is a long time on Usenet. And some servers
only hold posts for a few days.

I don't see how the newsgroup benefits from reviving a flame that died
out 8 days ago. And that is from someone who agrees with the sentiment
in the subject line of said thread.

I wasn't really following this very carefully having no experience
with any agent and never having been on a GGC cruise.

However, the subject line of the post that was objected to was not
really the subject of the post, and I think it is mean spirited to
castigate someone for posting to a thread where the subject has
wandered away from the topic line. Even if the topic line was a
flame, the actual post was not.

I have my groups threaded, but not everyone does. I do try not to
post anything to a thread where the most recent post is more than a
month old. (There's one newsgroup that has so many postings each day
that I can't keep up with it daily, and this one seems to be running a
close second.)

I see "the newsgroup" as being made up of many readers—not necessarily
those
whose names we see most often—most who do not post at all, or lurk for
awhile
until they feel they have something to say or have figured out a way to
say it
which is innocuous. Some people are very shy or concerned how they will
be
judged and take their time to get together the words they may want to add
about
a topic.

Is your concern really the timing of the poster's reply to the topic or
the
title of the subject line, which, by the way, some of us don't always read,
since so many threads wander away from the subject anyway?

What if the thread had been "In memory of ------insert name of person----

or - farewell to a grand ship--insert name of ship or something "positive"
(in your opinon), would you have said the same thing about the post being
old
if someone just got back from a cruise (staying on topic) and they said
something like "Oh NO, I'm so saddened to hear that ________ died" Or in
the
case of the ship, "she was a grand old ship, I'll miss her too". Would
you say "you can't offer your condolences because you are too late; this
thread
isdead."

Why can't they link their new thoughts to the previous thread?

I have often seen "blah blah blah, WAS blah, blah." So if you want to
change
the subject line when you post your comment, you can do that. Of course,
if someone wants to change it back, they can do that, too.


grandma Rosalie