On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 22:03:49 -0700, you wrote:

>>If so, where is the "Re:" and/or "Was (..." in the Subject line?
>
>The thread to which Adrienne responded was "Re: What does it take to loose
>weight: was Re: sweet potatoes."  Since Adrienne's message addressed
>something very specific, I thought it might be better to respond to her post
>by way of a new thread name given both the topic and the already-long title.
>  But apparently that's a cardinal sin.

It's not only a problem for me, it's a problem for someone reading the
archives 1 year later or 12 years later.

There's a difference between a few people sending emails to each
other, and a Mailing List hosted by a University.

If you are posting a message in a public place, you need to take a
moment and look at the post through the eyes of everyone else.

There is an ever-increasing trend of people reading (and responding
to) too many messages, and so can't give them the attention they
deserve (such as reading the entire message and proof-reading
replies).

Lastly, some concrete suggestions:

 Subject: Rosedale/Atkins critic debate (Was Re: What does it take...)

and on the top of the message:

>On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 11:25:23 -0500, Adrienne Smith <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Those two things would have allowed someone who did not have time to
read the very lengthy "Loose Weight" thread, as well as those who did
an archive search, for example, for "Rosedale", to have some idea of
what you were talking about.


--
Cheers,

Ken