An Internet custom arose decades ago with UseNet news-groups
, which are the predecessors of modern Internet discussion forums, e.g. CathInfo
. According to that custom, it's proper to reply to any question or challenge in the same topic
in which it was posed. This can lead to perfectly worthwhile topics
before the on-topic
discussion has been plausibly exhausted.
I can't think of a remedy that would be broadly accepted as "fair" by CathInfo
members that would not require manual intervention
by Matthew or Mater D. Altho' I do have ideas about what ought to be the results of that intervention.
E.g., to remedy the "Why must the job fall to Protestants?" topic
] that was originated
• Create a new topic
in his ‘Computers and Technology
’ (sub)forum about searching for the misnamed "A
kins", e.g., by moving current Reply #15 by ‘Alligator Dicax’ to become its original posting
• insert a visible-&-clickable URL link from the Reply #9 by ‘hollingsworth’ to the new ‘C.&T.’ topic
to which the off-track replies will be removed;
• for logical continuity, insert a visible-&-clickable URL backlink
from original posting
of the new ‘C.&T.’ topic
to Reply #9 by ‘hollingsworth’;
• devise 2 distinctive rectangle-enclosed messages to be placed, eventually automatically, with more formal language expressing their significance(s):
• Text was yanked from here
to a new topic
by an admin
, to keep this existing topic on track
• Text yanked from an existing topic
elsewhere was moved to here
by an admin
, to keep that existing topic
(elsewhere) on track
Feel free to delete the troll-like Replies #16 and #19.
I believe that Matthew has already written a tool (PHP? PERL?) to simply his effort when stripping out postings that are unacceptable on CathInfo
. Enhancing its capabilities as indicated by the example above doesn't seem as if it would violate any assumptions that simplified coding his existing tool, but only he would know for certain.
>. It arguably went off-track in Reply #15: <https://www.cathinfo.com/general-discussion/why-must-the-job-fall-to-protestants/msg648302/#msg648302
> (yes, moi
), and certainly by Reply #17 (but see "Internet custom", above).