> >______________________________X-Message: #1 >Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 08:09:19 -0700 >From: Edward GAULIN <ehgaulin@worldnet.att.net> >To: PA-SUSQ-D <PASUSQUE-D@rootsweb.com> >Message-ID: <399AAE9F.E9306F54@worldnet.att.net> >Subject: The Subject Line >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > >Hi Folks -- > >I enjoy this list and I'm not usually one to be critical of format, >etc., but today the subjects shown for the list got to me. I subscribe >to the digest version so I get to see them all at once. Take a look: > >Today's Topics: {Tuesday) >#1 Re: PASUSQUE-D Digest V00 #207 [Tom Walters <Tom.Walters@grc.nasa.] >#2 Re: PASUSQUE-D Digest V00 #209 [BHolb9999@aol.com] >#3 Re: PASUSQUE-D Digest V00 #209 [Mary Jean <maryjean@stny.rr.com>] >#4 Re: PASUSQUE-D Digest V00 #207 [Mary Jean <maryjean@stny.rr.com>] >#5 Re: PASUSQUE-D Digest V00 #207 [Mary Jean <maryjean@stny.rr.com>] >#6 Re: PASUSQUE-D Digest V00 #209 CHA [Roger10288@cs.com] >#7 RE: PASUSQUE-D Digest V00 #209 CHA [Mike Jex <mcej@dcdi.net>] > >Now tell me, does anyone believe that any of the 7 subjects listed >above will help you in determining whether you will read this or not? >Those of us who have been on these mailing lists for awhile have all >seen folks that like to harp about spelling, grammar, AND putting a >meaningful subject on your message. I don't see that much anymore, >perhaps it's no longer important. RootsWeb archives all messages and I >think the only way they can be found in by the SUBJECT. That might be >important to some, but what I used to read most from the purists was "I >don't have time to open every message, so if the SUBJECT doesn't >interest me, I delete." Even if you are replying to a previous message, >I don't see why you can't make the subject meaningful. > >You might wish to consider this the next time you decide to post a >message, perhaps that's why you are not getting the responses you >expect. > >That's my $0.02 worth. > >Regards from the humid shores of Lake Ontario, > >Ed Since reference to my post was on the first line, let me be the first to apologize to you for subjecting you to the abhorrent task of actually having to read, or otherwise skim my post. In the future (if there is one), I will certainly endeavor to provide a sufficiently terse synopsis in the subject line to motivate you to behold the literary feats which follow. One the other hand, there are a number of people who merely need to see my name on the post to have sufficient cause to delete (or otherwise ignore) my message, regardless of the content of the subject line. I can certainly understand and sympathize, however. Why, I myself am so busy with the rigors of life that when I don't like the cover of a book, I throw it away. In fact, why read the book, when I can simply read the crib notes. If I don't like the headline of the newspaper, toss!. If I don't like the first 5 words of a newscast, it's over to Jerry Springer! If the guy can't express his 25 years of varied experience in 6 sentences or less, then he's history. I guess that's what is implicit in that old saw about getting to the "the bottom line". One of the problems yet to be solved is that when one "clicks on" REPLY, the email program usually takes the existing subject and sticks the characters: "RE:" in front of it. Perhaps one day in the not-too-distant future, Qualcomm (the purveyors of Eudora), or some other great mastermind, will develop software which instead reads my mind (light reading though it may be), and presto!, an nice terse but "meaty" subject line will appear. One can only hope! In the meantime, it would help if everyone were to post a list of the words which we might use to make our subject lines "meaningful". And in your post, be sure to prepare a subject line sufficient to tell use whether or not we should delete or ignore it. Regards from the polluted shores of Lake Erie. Tom