Re: Meaningful SUBJECT lines

On  Sun, 20 Apr 2008 21:58:12 -0400 fanoid <fanoid@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> carved
the following into the hard stone of rec.arts.sf.fandom 
>I recently subscribed to this group. I suspect I'll shortly
>unsubscribe.
>
>Haven't any of you been exposed to the concept of having a SUBJECT
>header that matches the discussion? In every other group I've
>followed, it's common to find a SUBJECT of the form 
>THIS (WAS THAT).
>
>BIG PURPLE DIGIT has traveled to: Gresham's Law; fiscal policy;
>coinage; broadcast vs. cable vs. satellite TV, complete with
>technical specs; air****t and supermarket carts; unicode;
>newsreaders and how they parse URLs; and several subthreads of
>humor and puns.
>
>I'VE SEEN THINGS YOU PEOPLE WOULDN'T BELIEVE is an even longer
>thread and at least as diverse.
>
>That said, I'll apologize in advance of being asked to. Netiquette
>clearly states that newcomers are supposed to accept the existing
>standards. In general, I agree. But I don't agree strongly enough
>to keep me from sending this post.
>
>I'm sorry to have interrupted. You can to back to discussing ...
>whatever it was you were discussing.

So if an Orthodox Jew is at a con on Friday, and needs to use the
elevator...
--

Douglas E. Berry  Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail

"Where is the prince who can afford so to cover
his country with troops for its defense, as that
ten thousand men descending from the clouds, might 
not,in many places, do an infinite deal of mischief
before a force could be brought together to repel 
them?" - BENJAMIN FRANKLIN-1784