svw (02/21/83)
I propose that when you post a followup to a pervious article, make sure that your title resembles the topic of YOUR article. As it stands now, someone will post an article entitled "Info wanted on toenail diseases," and twenty others will respond with articles entitled "Re: Info on toenail diseases." Only half of these will supply the requested information; the rest will recount various Indian tonail legends, discuss analogous problems with fingernails, or flame about the insipidity of talking about toenails when there are people dying of starvation in Africa. These are all valid topics, but why wade through them all if you are looking only for toenail info? And if you are interested in toenail legends but not disease, how would you react to "Re: Info on toenail diseases"? What's worse is the referencing of a "Re:" article by "Re: Re." This use is valid if the article is closly related to the original topic; but if it only refers to one of the many digressions that pop up, it multiplies the original problem. Which "Re:" does "re: Re:" refer to: toenail legends or starvation in Africa? Have some courtesy for those of us trying to properly use the "n" key. Be a little original (and accurate) in you titles. Crown Prince Burton