__/ [John Bokma] on Friday 11 November 2005 07:43 \__
> David <seodave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> On 11 Nov 2005 02:37:55 GMT, John Bokma <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>>Carol W <from_you@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I am not a big fan of multiple spin off threads. Sometimes the title
>>>> change reflects where the new thread orignated at but sometimes it
>>>> doesn't.
>>>
>>>The latter is bad. Worse if people do it because they archive the
>>>messages and SEO the titles :-(
>>
>> I guess I wasn't the only person to notice Roy changing titles more
>> often that I change socks for SEO reasons.
>
> Yeah, it's annoying, but I am to nice to complain too much about it, but
> while we're at it, also the \______ bla bla, and the compiling replies
> into one message. Maybe it's because I haven't seen this before, but one
> problem is that I might miss out replies to my message if a reply is
> added to a reply to you, for example. (Newsclient I use does smart
> things, well, now and then).
Sorry about that. Since you mentioned this, I will be more cautious from now
on. I just prefer to avoid short replies like Bill's, which take as much
time to read it it takes to open them.
>>>Recommended is to do:
>>>
>>>new title (was: old title).
>>
>> Pretty obvious at the time he was doing it so his pages had SEO'd
>> titles though.
No point in having messages with an inappropriate title. Bad for the user to
search for SEO advice and find a discussion on socks.
> Yup. Sometimes I do agree with a subject change, but not 10 new ones in
> a thread :-D.
If the change of subject lines is quite consistent and is refelected by many
consecutive messages, I thought it ought to be projected... again, thanks
for pointing that out. I'll try to avoid it.
>> <snip>
>>>>>Which BTW isn't a good idea since they contain Tylenol
>>>>>(acetaminophen) which damages the liver. People who try to OD on
>>>>>acetaminophen and change their mind tend to end up on a liver
>>>>>transplant list!!
>>>
>>>That holds for quite a lot of meds, even paracetamol which is often
>>>claimed (yeah yeah) to be harmless (yeah, sure).
>>
>> You know acetaminophen is Paracetamol (Tylenol in the US)?
>
>
> No, I jumped just into the thread, and I only know it as paracetamol. I
> do know that some meds have 10-20 different names, sometimes very
> similar to non-related meds, to add to the confusion.
>
>> Because it's so dangerous you can't buy it in bulk in the UK anymore.
>>
>> Believe it or not there is a form of acetaminophen that's a lot less
>> harmful (possibly harmless, I forget the details) to the liver. If I
>> recall correctly it's a methylated version. It costs more to produce,
>> which is why it's not used. Pretty pathetic excuse when I can go into
>> ASDA and buy 16 basic Paracetamol tablets for less than 20p.
>
> Yup, but look at how much is sold, so a few p times a lot, is a lot of
> money.
>
> Yeah, I don't like it when people, like doctors, tell patients that meds
> are safe, harmless, you can't kill yourself with them. Paracetamol is
> very bad, because if one takes enough, it takes over a week to die, a
> very painful dead (so I've read).
>
>> The above works really well for headaches.
>
> I rarely have one, and when I do have one resting sometimes helps. If
> not, yeah, paracetamol.
I have no idea what path this thread has taken while I kept aside. *smile*
Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz | "Signature pending approval"
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
11:30am up 8 days 7:28, 5 users, load average: 0.40, 0.46, 0.51
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms
|
|
