BS: Opening threads - a debate.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 25 Sep 05 - 08:07 AM

Awa an' bile yer heid ya wee nyaff, ye're like a christmas caird; ye're aye greetin'.
G.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 Sep 05 - 07:22 AM

Most people don't put quite so much effort into missing the point.

Those who post almost as many times as they complain that I do - to refresh threads to only say they do not care - are perhaps the ones who are putting the most effort into missing the point?

Is the point something like - why worry as long as long as it always happens to someone else?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Joe Offer
Date: 24 Sep 05 - 02:54 PM

Hi, Jeri -
That won't work in our current configuration of SuperSearch, which searches just the message text. I'm sure Jeff could design something that searches just message titles.
If I ask for something like that, he usually seems to be able to come up with a perfect solution in about twenty minutes. The guy's phenomenal.
-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Jeri
Date: 24 Sep 05 - 01:33 PM

Joe, can't you UN-select "Re:" in a supersearch?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Joe Offer
Date: 24 Sep 05 - 01:13 PM

Well, Wolfgang, I gotta tell you - the "Lyr Add" prefix for threads drives me crazy, and I've tried for years to get Max to remove it. Trouble is, with that tag on the thread, every message in the thread comes up on a search as an ADD. Jim and I try to tag messages with the song titles, and that's more helpful.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Sep 05 - 12:43 PM

HOSPITAL BULITIN
Usual procedures were followed. I reviewed the action, found it to be an unnecessary amputation, and countermanded it. I didn't find out who cut the patient's arm off and why until yesterday, but that's neither here nor there and they still have one good arm remaining. I think that's all you need to know, and I fail to see how you could use additional information for anything other than causing a Big Stink about it. Big Stinks are usually counterproductive, not to mention the fact that they're downright unfriendly

What's important here
I wish to make clear
Is although I can't put back the arm
Is that it could have been worse
It could have come off a nurse
That would have been cause for alarm

For the important thing now
Is not the why or the how
Or how we prevent it again
But how to convey
That everything is OK
And the fault is in those who complain

They may have lost some bits
But don't it get on your tits
When they want to know too
If it was taken with intent
Or simply just went
When really I haven't a clue

However it ends
We should shake hands as friends
I'm sure it will work out fine
Although shaking that hand
May not go as planned
It may all go better – next time.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: JennyO
Date: 24 Sep 05 - 11:24 AM

$900 (bet you thought I'd forgotten ;-))

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Jeri
Date: 24 Sep 05 - 09:09 AM

Don, I think he's pretty much shot his reputation with regards to honest, genuine concern with anyone who's been posting to or reading his crusade threads. If anyone disagrees and trusts him or what he says, you're free to disagree. Frankly, I'd be interested in posts from anyone who trusts him to represent their point of view.

Most people don't put quite so much effort into missing the point.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 24 Sep 05 - 09:08 AM

BTW Roger,

Last time I looked, additional was an adjective, not a noun.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 24 Sep 05 - 08:48 AM

And on........and on....... and on.............Give us a break. We DON@T care.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Sep 05 - 06:44 AM

Usual procedures were followed. I reviewed the action, found it to be an unnecessary closing, and countermanded it. I didn't find out who did it and why until yesterday, but that's neither here nor there. I think that's all you need to know, and I fail to see how you could use additional information for anything other than causing a Big Stink about it. Big Stinks are usually counterproductive, not to mention the fact that they're downright unfriendly.
-Joe Offer-

Perhaps it can be explained what is so friendly and productive about the now usual procedure of anonymous volunteer fellow posters selectively judging and imposing their personal judgement upon the words of their fellow posters and of fellow posters intentionally witholding additional from our forum?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 24 Sep 05 - 06:35 AM

No need to say thank you,
Me old merchant banker,
The king of the old cut and paste.
You do really well with the html,
But mostly your words are a waste

About one little item,
You rant ad infinitum,
And acres of bandwidth abuse.
You really should try, to ask yourself why,
Not many agree with your views.

Your raves and your rants,
Your cans and your can'ts,
Your ifs, and your ands, and your but,
Give me indigestion, leaving only one question.
Is he either half paste, or half cut?

Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Sep 05 - 06:32 AM

You may have missed this editing comment inserted into an existing post and not refreshing this thread.

Roger, Roger, roger - the editing actions are not anonymous - I take the responsibility for ALL of them. If you want to blame somebody, blame me. I'm your personal scapegoat. And while thread name changes may be made without your permission, they are never, never made without your knowledge. Boy, do I know that for a fact....
-Joe Offer-

Our forum is fast becoming like a hospital where the only remedy for every problem - is surgery. No matter what the problem may be on our forum - the only solution from our volunteer fellow posters - is imposition.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 24 Sep 05 - 05:53 AM

The most prolific, and immoderate, poster of cut & paste nonsense on the site, talks about moderation.

Get with it mate. NOBODY cares what you think of the actions of Joe and the clones, except you.

For the rest of us, MAX's forum is running just fine.

That's the bottom line. WE DON'T GIVE A DAMN.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Sep 05 - 05:22 AM

This is strictly taboo
And the outcome for you
Is the change of your title by force
We will not falter
In leading horses to water
Even when drowning the horse.

For these days
We have our ways
Of making you do the right thing
Humans only need guiding
Not a damn good hiding
Moderation's a jolly good thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Sep 05 - 05:40 PM

You can call people names
And post only flames
Abusing is now - merely amusing
And they say around here
You can post without fear
But don't make your titles confusing.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Wolfgang
Date: 23 Sep 05 - 05:21 PM

In the beginning, there were no prefixes and that was the time of the many uninformative thread titles.

Jim Dixon does a very good job in tracking all the newly added lyrics. His job would be much more difficult without the lyr add prefix. Several people are on record to have said they sometimes only load the threads with 'lyr' in the title line. I don't want the old MC times back in that respect even if someone thinks the use of prefixes puts us on the slippery slopes leading directly to the concentration camps.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Sep 05 - 05:20 PM

Jon whatever I and our forum are being told - it is as clear as mud.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 23 Sep 05 - 05:13 PM

Am I being told that in order for a three letter prefix to be chosen for a thread title - 10 spaces have to be reserved for it?

You are being told that the space reserved for the prefix has to be the space that the longest prefix occupies.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Big Mick
Date: 23 Sep 05 - 05:11 PM

How's about them Cubbies??????

Philly speak; "Jeet?" "No, djou?"

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Wolfgang
Date: 23 Sep 05 - 05:10 PM

And I am still interested to understand, Shambles, why you use the expression 'our forum' when there is no evidence yet that anyone else but you claims to want to know.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Wolfgang
Date: 23 Sep 05 - 05:08 PM

Yet another pointless personal judgement of a named fellow poster (Shambles)

Shambles,

Another untrue statement. Could you please start doing what you pretend to do and read the posts. I have very carefully not made a judgement of you, the person, but a judgement of one particular expression used by you.

I expect you to know the difference between "you have used a stupid argument" and "you are a stupid person".

Your posts give me the impression that in this particular situation (was that clear enough???) you do not understand what you read.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Sep 05 - 05:03 PM

When I post something that is thought to be too difficult to understand - the fault is mine.

When I do not understand something - the fault is again mine.

Am I being told that in order for a three letter prefix to be chosen for a thread title - 10 spaces have to be reserved for it? If I am - could not these 10 spaces be better utilised by being used for the title? Perhaps then the titles would be clearer and there would be no need to anonymously impose any changes in order to clarify them?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Wolfgang
Date: 23 Sep 05 - 04:55 PM

It is only your judgement - posted publicly - that this is "pompous sounding". (Shambles)

My, my, Shambles, did you really not realise that I was using your own words on you? You did start this time with -posting publicly- what was only your own judgement that one argument from me was 'sinister sounding' when I was posting a serious argument which you pretend to read.

You are the one to tell us ad nauseam that we should not pass judgement upon others' posts. And what are you doing? You pass judgement. You are not doing what you are preaching. You behave here in a most hypocritical way.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Jeri
Date: 23 Sep 05 - 04:23 PM

What I've said is fact. Anybody who would 'know more' is someone who could change the code, and I believe you're attempting to bait me. I think what you're up to is pretty clear to 'our forum, because your pretense at not understanding is a bit beyond believable.

In any case, Max would be the one you want to talk to. I'd hazard a guess that the feeling wouldn't be mutual.

Oh well. I've answered your question and that's all I really needed to do. Let me know if you have further incincere questions that you intend to disregard the answers to. I'll ignore them and wait for someone honest and reputable to ask. *smiles*

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: MMario
Date: 23 Sep 05 - 03:43 PM

yes - there were prefixes in the beginning - or shortly thereafter - and then people asked for more prefixes - because they do help in the searches - I know one *I* asked for was the Tune request and the tune add

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Sep 05 - 03:39 PM

In the beginning - there was the prefix......Before those who are supposed to have asked for this?

jeri said.
Shambles, are you trying to say you know better than those who asked for the other prefixes and now use them?

Perhaps someone who knows can inform our forum?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: MMario
Date: 23 Sep 05 - 03:13 PM

?? As far as I can remember there were prefixes here the first time I ever visited - which wasn't all that long after inaguration of the board.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Sep 05 - 03:11 PM

As far as I know, there is no way to say write code to "make the type-in block 10 spaces longer if a prefix is not selected."

Perhaps there is someone who does know enough to inform our forum? If I and our forum understand correctly - it would appear that the introduction of the so-called optional prefix seemed to have caused the discrepancy between the number of spaces available for title creation for anonymous volunteer fellow posters and us ordinary posters - in the first place.

So it must be possible to also now include the prefix block for in the editing screen which will result in all posters having an equal ammount of spaces available for thread title creation?

Or indeed to remove the prefix block from us ordinary posters - which would also have the end result of all posters having an equal ammount of spaces available for thread title creation. The concern - after all is only for clearer thread titles and for all posters to be seen to be treated equally on our forum.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Jeri
Date: 23 Sep 05 - 02:34 PM

"It's not possible to have an equal number of spaces unless the prefixes most people seem to want and use are done away with."

I am just getting more confused by these explanations - perhaps I am not alone? The fault may well be mine but I will try again.

Can it be clearly explained to our forum how - when in a case where there was no prefix involved - how it was possible for our named volunteer to add the words 'Bob Dylan' to the thread's title - when the originator was not able to fit these words in and why the same ammount of spaces available for title creation cannot be equally provided to ordinary posters and our anonymous volunteer fellow posters?

If the forum asks, I'll expain to it, but just now I prefer to explain to you, because you're the one who asked. It's probably hopeless, but I can try:

The 10 spaces are reserved for a prefix. You have the option of selecting a prefix or not, but the 10 spaces are reserved anyway. The prefix block is assigned 10 and the type-in-the-title is assigned 40. The page is written that way and if you do a 'view source', you can see where it says 'SIZE="40" MAXLENGTH="40"'. It's the code. As far as I know, there is no way to say write code to "make the type-in block 10 spaces longer if a prefix is not selected."

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 23 Sep 05 - 01:43 PM

And a comfort blanket.
G.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: SINSULL
Date: 23 Sep 05 - 01:27 PM

Yeah, Joe! What he said!

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Sep 05 - 01:26 PM

You're still using the pompous sounding 'our forum' instead of a simple 'me'.

It is only your judgement - posted publicly - that this is "pompous sounding". Yet another pointless personal judgement of a named fellow poster - that will change nothing. To my mind - the use of this term is just recognition that all of our forum can read everything that is posted on our forum. And which can be retrieved at any time......

I tend to view the introduction of prefixes as some Governments are now beginning to see the introduction of yet more rules and laws - as opportunities to create yet more rulebreakers and criminals for society in general to pass yet more pointless judgements upon.


Can anononymously imposing a change without the originator's knowledge or permission on our forum really be described as "a tiny bit of guidance"?

---

Roger, Roger, roger - the editing actions are not anonymous - I take the responsibility for ALL of them. If you want to blame somebody, blame me. I'm your personal scapegoat. And while thread name changes may be made without your permission, they are never, never made without your knowledge. Boy, do I know that for a fact....
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: catspaw49
Date: 23 Sep 05 - 01:05 PM

SHAMBLES SAYS:

If the way you achieve - what some may judge to be more useful thread titles - is by volunteer fellow posters anonymously and selectively imposing changes to some of them (mainly it would appear - those titles created by me) without the originator's knowledge or permission - becomes purely a matter of morals.

For as has been pointed out here - the lack of such routine imposed judgement and pedantry was to some contributors - the aspect that attracted them to our forum and this freedom of expression was what separated our forum from the other ordinary sites.

Those sites where those posters who now wish to see such judgement and pedantry imposed upon some of their fellow posters here - would surely be more at home?

Congratulations Shambo......Not only is there not a single sentence in the entire post, it's authentic gibberish as well.

Well Done!

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: catspaw49
Date: 23 Sep 05 - 01:00 PM

EXACTLY SINS!!!!!

..........I think...........

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Sep 05 - 12:58 PM

It's purely a matter of function, not morals.

If the way you achieve - what some may judge to be more useful thread titles - is by volunteer fellow posters anonymously and selectively imposing changes to some of them (mainly it would appear - those titles created by me) without the originator's knowledge or permission - becomes purely a matter of morals.

For as has been pointed out here - the lack of such routine imposed judgement and pedantry was to some contributors - the aspect that attracted them to our forum and this freedom of expression was what separated our forum from the other ordinary sites.

Those sites where those posters who now wish to see such judgement and pedantry imposed upon some of their fellow posters here - would surely be more at home?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: SINSULL
Date: 23 Sep 05 - 12:53 PM

And now he's tampering with the validity of my threads when I post them where I want to post them but he thinks that he knows better where to post them when he probably does not but he will never admit he does not because he thinks he is Max or that he representa all that Max wants when even Max isn't sure what he wants when he thinks about wanting anything.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: catspaw49
Date: 23 Sep 05 - 12:50 PM

Hey Joe....YOU JUST DON'T GET IT!!!

Here at our forum we need an unlimited supply of everything and access to everything not just what you want to give us. Only God is allowed that. For instance, only God gave Shambles a half-inch willie, YOU could not......well maybe if you had a big knife.

We want it all. We want spaces! We want names....DO you hear me? WE WANT NAMES! And don't pretend to hide behind your 5th amendment privilege.....Who are the clones and why do they keep fucking over poor Shambles? And who are you to take a knife to his tallywhacker?

We're all sick and tired of reason and common sense and things like logic. Give us the real dope for our forum.....er,uh.....I mean the real truth.....Shambles already is a dope and we only need one of him. I'm sure his wife thinks that is one too many and I would agree but we seem to be stuck with one and sorrowfully so is that poor woman. C'mon Joe.......No more truth and logic. Give us lies and complete bullshit!!!

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Joe Offer
Date: 23 Sep 05 - 12:08 PM

200

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Joe Offer
Date: 23 Sep 05 - 12:06 PM

199

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Joe Offer
Date: 23 Sep 05 - 11:49 AM

You're right, Shambles.
Thread titles are neither right nor wrong.

However, they can be misleading.
And if they're misleading, we try to make them more useful.

Gig thread titles are more useful if they include name, date, and place.

Song thread titles are more useful if they include song name and songwriter name (if applicable).

PEL thread titles are more useful if people know they're about PEL's.

Obituary threads are more useful if they include the "Obit" tag, the person's name, and date of death.

Titles in general are more useful if they contain complete, correctly-spelled words. Search engines have a hard time finding incorrectly-spelled words.

And so forth.

It's purely a matter of function, not morals.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 23 Sep 05 - 11:42 AM

My grandson has an imaginary friend.
G

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Wolfgang
Date: 23 Sep 05 - 11:33 AM

Was that quote from some alien like Mr Spock? Why does it now sound so sinister?

We have ways of making you do the right thing. (Shambles)

Nonsense, Shambles. That's only sinister in your ears. That comes from my background in software ergonomics. Sometimes tiny changes like a prefix or a different positioning or a colour make people do things differently than they would do without. The mere introduction of the prefixes even without other interference has changed the way people title the threads to the better in my eyes. That's why I want them to stay.

You're still using the pompous sounding 'our forum' instead of a simple 'me'.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: catspaw49
Date: 23 Sep 05 - 11:29 AM

Why of course we can explain it Dumbfuck!!! It's a commie plot! There's a space gap!!! We had the missle gap and now it's this!!! Quick Sham, go blitz the Ruskies with your unending and idiotic questions!

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Sep 05 - 11:08 AM

It's not possible to have an equal number of spaces unless the prefixes most people seem to want and use are done away with.

I am just getting more confused by these explanations - perhaps I am not alone? The fault may well be mine but I will try again.

Can it be clearly explained to our forum how - when in a case where there was no prefix involved - how it was possible for our named volunteer to add the words 'Bob Dylan' to the thread's title - when the originator was not able to fit these words in and why the same ammount of spaces available for title creation cannot be equally provided to ordinary posters and our anonymous volunteer fellow posters?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Sep 05 - 10:53 AM

Humans sometimes need a tiny bit of guidance to do the correct thing.

Was that quote from some alien like Mr Spock? Why does it now sound so sinister?

We have ways of making you do the right thing.

Can anononymously imposing a change without the originator's knowledge or permission on our forum really be described as "a tiny bit of guidance"?

If five posters were asked to come-up the most informative thread title for the same subject - there would probably be five different suggestions. Given enough prefixes to choose from - they may even disagree on the choice of these....?

The matter-of-taste argument is completely wrong here.

There is no right thing in the respect of thread titles no more than there is in the contents of a post. The fact that must be faced - is that whatever you may think - is that it will always remain a matter of personal taste. Perhaps the thread's title can now also be left to personal tastes of the thread's originator and only changed - with their agreement?

What other posters choose to post and in what form they choose to post it - no matter how unhelpful or irritating you may find it - is not a matter for any other poster to judge, try to control or for you to 'guide' them to do what you consider to be the right thing. The choice is only for ALL fellow posters to respond to what they are trying to say - or just ignore it.

Those of us who may judge others wanting (the the choice of titles or anything else) but always judge that they do the right thing - are able to exert the only control they have on our forum - over their own postings and thread titles. Hopefully others may agree and choose freely to follow this example.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Jeri
Date: 23 Sep 05 - 10:26 AM

There are 50 spaces available for titles - period.
~ The 'edit' space has 50 in one block.
~ The 'create thread' has 50 in the form of up to 10 for the prefix. I belive 'Tune Req: " has 10.

Perhaps this can be translated and the following clearly explained to our forum? [You mean YOU, don't you? Our forum isn't asking - you are.]

The volunteer fellow poster who contacted me - was able to fit the words 'Bob Dylan' into the title creation box and create a far longer thread title than I was. Is it really not possible for the same ammount of characters for thread title creation - to be given equally to all posters?

There are 50 spaces available for titles - period.
~ The 'edit' space has 50 in one block.
~ The 'create thread' has 50 in the form of up to 10 for the prefix. I belive 'Tune Req: " has 10. These 10 spaces are reserved for the prefix, should you choose one. You didn't, so you got the 40 reserved for the part of the title you have to type in.

It's not possible to have an equal number of spaces unless the prefixes most people seem to want and use are done away with.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Sep 05 - 09:21 AM

There are 50 spaces available for titles - period.
~ The 'edit' space has 50 in one block.
~ The 'create thread' has 50 in the form of up to 10 for the prefix. I belive 'Tune Req: " has 10.

Perhaps this can be translated and the following clearly explained to our forum?

The volunteer fellow poster who contacted me - was able to fit the words 'Bob Dylan' into the title creation box and create a far longer thread title than I was. Is it really not possible for the same ammount of characters for thread title creation - to be given equally to all posters?

There was no prefix in this case but what seems to be suggested here is that the (so-called optional) use of prefix (which is used to clarify what the thread's subject) limits the ammount of letters that can be used in the threads title.....is this the case?

How much imposed 'clarifcation' is required - when even with a prefix and original title - the title is still judged to be unclear?

But even at this point - is it really proportionate on our forum to anonymously judge a title wanting in some way and impose any change to a fellow poster's contribution - without their knowledge or permission.

Why should the obvious repect, concern and consideration given by our anonymous volunteer fellow posters - to their fellow posters - when these posters are reading threads - not extend to these same individuals when they are creating them?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Joe Offer
Date: 22 Sep 05 - 07:12 PM

Generally, we leave non-music thread titles alone because threads like that are of a temporal nature. (The "In the UK...." threads was an exception, because it gave no clue of the thread contents whatsoever). And since non-music threads are of a temporal nature, they sometimes get closed.

The music threads are a different matter. They have become a valuable library of music information, so it is important to index that information in a consistent manner so it can be found - and so it isn't duplicated over and over again. And sometimes that means that music threads get closed so discussions don't get repeated.

So, yeah, we index music threads by title changes and cross-indexing, so people can tell at a glance which threads contain which information. If people can't find the information here with reasonable ease, they ask for it again.
And again.
And again.
And so forth.

So, we index.

And yes, we realize that Shambles doesn't like it, but we truly hope that one day he will see and acknowledge and embrace the the Purity of our Hearts and the Wisdom of our Ways.

So far, Shambles shows no sign whatsoever of being converted.
Such is life.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Wolfgang
Date: 22 Sep 05 - 04:47 PM

One for non-music related subjects will be probably all the prefixes that will ever be required (Shambles)

Shambles, that's an uninformed and ill thought suggestion. I remember the bad old times with thread titles like

Desparate! (nearly exclusively spelled this way)
Please help
Lyrics?
Irish song needed
Do you know this?
lyrics needed
Looking for song.

Humans sometimes need a tiny bit of guidance to do the correct thing. The introduction of the simple lyr req prefix has helped tremendously to reduce uninformative thread titles. The matter-of-taste argument is completely wrong here. 'Desparate!' is a worse thread title in many respects than 'Lyr req: Daintee Davie'. Usability is the word here and not just personal taste.

Wolfgang