[conspire] Looking for updated netiquette advice

[Syeed Ali]

On Sat, 23 Oct 2021 21:43:07 -0700
Rick Moen <rick at linuxmafia.com> wrote:

> It occurs to me, though, that maybe what you need is a reasonably
> subtle and indirect paraphrase -- artfully used in a thread you
> create with no visible connection or reference to the older thread.

I thought about this for a bit, and maybe a paraphrase is a good idea
also for a second reason.  When paraphrasing, one is required to
understand something.  Then there is an opportunity for a kind of
parity check.  It becomes optional for the paraphrased to take the
opportunity, and because it's diluted by being paraphrased and not a
direct response, side-participants or lurkers also have an opportunity
to chime in on the topic without feeling they are butting in on a
conversation.

I've always had the impression that sub-threads are a sort of silo of
side-conversation that should be left to the pair, and paraphrasing
might fold a thread back into the ideas and away from individuals.


> Or, if you want to be less coy, just address the topic you're
> interested in afresh, and don't refer even indirectly to the other
> thread.

I suppose the "(was: original topic)" method of splitting a topic into a
fresh top-level thread would work.  This has precedent in "codified" or
cultural netiquette.  Hindsight makes that obvious.  I'd then have to
become comfortable with detaching from a thread that's a close relative
and stop using "(was: foo)".

Thanks for being a sounding board.