> There's a disturbingly common practice on other message forums to post message content in the subject line, append "(nt)", and leave the message body blank. That's a huge personal peeve of mine, for more reasons than one. It encourages shallow conversation, posts by people with nothing to say, and is frustrating to surfers. I've updated the Message Forum Policy page with this new rule, and I'll soon have the forum scripts trap occurrences of "(nt)" in the subject line.
>
> Mikey, please note I'm not picking on you so much as nipping a potential problem in the bud. Your "(nt)" message was an answer to a question and was hardly "insubstantial conversation." So the post was essentially ok -- it just would have been preferrable to leave the subject line alone and leave your answer in the message body.

Gonna have to disagree with you on this one. Although there are annoying uses of "(nt)", I don't think it use is completely bad, especially to answer questions. Whether the symbol is used or not, there are always some insubstantial messages that contain little more than a word or phrase. When I use message forums, especially ones with a lot of Q&A, it helps to know which posts contain detailed explanations and which are short. Sometimes, I can even find the answer to a question without reading the body of any messages.

Now, although that's how I feel in principle, in practice I realize that this forum isn't really meant for short Q&A; its purpose is somewhat more detailed discussion. So, I don't really have a problem with not using "(nt)"; just wanted to point out some of its potential usefulness.

Ramblingly,
Bal"(nt)"anthalus