Re: [OT] Is "[OT] [AC]" a good idea?
- From: SINNER <arcade.master@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 21:03:18 GMT
* »Q« wrote in news.software.readers:
> Frank Slootweg <this@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
> <news:43a9bb06$0$292$dbd4b001@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>
>>> Subject: [OT] [AC] ...
>>
>> Folks,
>>
>> Is this ("[OT] [AC]") perhaps a good idea/'standard' for this
>> (and other?) group(s)?
>>
[...]
>
> I like it. I'll use it from now on, unless someone posts a better
> tagging idea in this thread.
>
Ditto.
> But please don't make him talk about his sister any more.
>
That was pretty nasty but speaks volumes.
--
David
.
- References:
- [slrn] regexp for scoring indirect replies
- From: DC
- Script is BROKEN (WAS: Yawn....No Text)
- From: SINNER
- Like I said, Script is BROKEN - Proof inside if you dare
- From: SINNER
- No, really, Script is BROKEN
- From: SINNER
- Re: No, really, Script is BROKEN
- From: »Q«
- Re: No, really, Script is BROKEN
- From: SINNER
- [OT] [AC] If it isn't broken, why does it list posts made in 1996 by a different person, kook?
- From: Peter J Ross
- [OT] Is "[OT] [AC]" a good idea? (was: If it isn't broken, why does it list posts made in 1996 by a different person, kook?)
- From: Frank Slootweg
- Re: [OT] Is "[OT] [AC]" a good idea?
- From: »Q«
- [slrn] regexp for scoring indirect replies
- Prev by Date: Re: [pan] Some posts boldface in headers pane
- Next by Date: Re: OE shortcomings - was Re: Aioe problems now...help is appreciated.
- Previous by thread: Re: [OT] Is "[OT] [AC]" a good idea?
- Next by thread: Re: [OT] Is "[OT] [AC]" a good idea?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
