Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: META: Longest threads?

From:Ray Brown <ray.brown@...>
Date:Monday, May 23, 2005, 18:12
On Sunday, May 22, 2005, at 10:55 , Amanda Babcock wrote:

> On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 01:53:57PM -0700, Sai Emrys wrote: > >> Looking at the NLF2DWS thread, I see ~105 responses (and that just on >> the main thread; add another 50 or so for the spinoffs or variants). >> >> That seems to be pretty high, compared to the rest I've seen here. >> What *have* been the highest-response threads, historically? What're >> the records? > > Erm. I don't know how to find that number, but I'm pretty sure the > average thread length was a lot longer back in the days that inspired > the current posts-a-day limit.
Oh yes - I remember those day when it was rare to get less a couple of hundred mails a day :=( There was no way most of us could read them all - so there was a lot skimming and simply just trashing uninteresting looking subject lines, just to keep up.
> Ok, just pulled out of a hat by bringing up quasi-randomly a larger-than- > usual monthly mailspool archive of my Conlang mail, and 4 days into the > month (May of 2003) found the thread "Weekly Vocab 6", which my threaded > mailer finds to contain 173 mails (no guarantees that they're all the same > subject, just that they were created via a "reply" command that uses the > References: header).
Quite so - there was a reluctance to change subject headers. Sometimes I would take a peek at a thread I had been trashing - simply because such an uninteresting topic seemed to be creating so much interest!! Quite often I would then discover the content of the mail had no relevance to the subject heading. Occasionally would find something interesting - but more likely what breakfast cereals were available in the local store, or some other way-off-topic trivia. At least the 5 mails per day limit has stopped that ;)
> If you want to get really really spooky, in my mailbox at least, the > thread immediately following that one was titled "Not linear written > forms?", > although that turns out to have been about something completely different.
That's the trouble with such ill-defined words as 'linear' ;) The 'linear' in 'Linear A' and 'Linear B' for example is not used with the same meaning as in the subject heading of the current NLF2DWS thread. Ray =============================================== =============================================== "A mind which thinks at its own expense will always interfere with language." J.G. Hamann, 1760