Hijacking threads (was: Arranging icons on desktop)

[Patrick O'Callaghan]

On Tue, 2008-09-16 at 07:08 -0400, Eric wrote:
> At 12:16 AM 9/16/2008, Tim wrote:
> 
>  >>>>>
> >Such as replying to someone's
> >message instead of starting a *new* thread for a "new" message (thread
> >hijacking).  Or, not doing a proper reply when you reply to someone's
> >message, like replying to someone else's message and responding to a
> >prior quote, or starting a new message and cutting and pasting between
> >them, or using a client that destroys the in-reply-to and references
> >headers (breaking a thread).
> <<<<<
> 
> Just out of curiosity, isn't taking a thread off in a direction 
> totally unrelated to its Subject: line also considered a form of 
> thread hijacking?
> 
> Don't you guys also object to that??
> 
> This thread hasn't had anything remotely to do with "Arranging icons 
> on a desktop" since about the third post.  Yet, no one seems to care, 
> and no one has changed the Subject: to match what is being discussed.

This is true, but since the thread is now about hijacking threads and
was provoked by a thread being hijacked I guess people want to keep it
in the same place. This illustrates perfectly the whole issue about
hijacking.

Changing the Subject wouldn't affect the threading, but I take your
point so I changed it.

poc