🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <badger.804478697@phylo>, bad...@phylo.life.uiuc.edu (Jonathan Badger) writes:
> an29...@anon.penet.fi writes:
> 
> 
>>In article <3st4m9$4...@lynx.unm.edu> you wrote:
>>: l...@ld.nacamar.de wrote:
>>: [blah]
>>: just kill the string 'win'95' and you'll be set.
>>: much as I have 'macint' and 'pentium'
> 
> 
>>I tried this. Didn't help nuch cause those
>>badly educated OS flamers change their subjects 
>>every other day.
> 
> Well, some of us consider it appropriate to change subject lines to
> reflect the CONTENT of the message. This is a *service*. Nothing is
> worse than a misleading subject line. (Like this subject for example
> -- this message has nothing to do with OS/2 or Win 95)

Try reading the entire subject line. 
 
> And secondly, while some of the people involved, such as the juvenile
> "Big Bear" ARE flamers, using typical flamer's tactics such as foul
> language and insults, as a whole it would be hard to describe this
> debate as a "flame war" in any true sense.
> 
> Frankly I can't understand why anyone would have a problem with this
> thread -- if you don't want to read it, don't. There are many threads on
> this group that I don't read, yet I don't complain about them -- what's
> *your* problem?

The problem comes when subjects like this are in the WRONG group. What would
happen if we went into the os newsgroups and started posting about X-Com? It
does get real annoying weeding through all the subject lines that don't belong
anywhere actually, much less this group. Well, I just made the problem a little
bit worse by adding another message with this subject. Oh well, just trying to
set the record straight.

                                                      -Tony