As I said in my reply to swampyankee below, I knew what the node was about when I read the title. So, there's a little empirical evidence to counter your opinion that the title doesn't (didn't) say clearly what the node is about.
This kind of "empirical evidence" is 100% meaningless.
The node could be titled "Weird Problem", and
*somebody* would step forward to say he understood
what it was about, from the title. ("I mean, just
last week I had this thing happen to me, and I thought,
Wow, what a weird problem!")
Objectively, the title "program line" is ambiguous
in the extreme. Sure, *somebody* might immediately
understand it, either by being on the same perversely
obscure wavelength as the poster, or by pure chance,
but that does not make the title clear or good.
the fact that you think it is a poor node
title doesn't automatically indicate an absolute
quality about the title
He didn't reach the conclusion that the title is
"unarguably horrible" by subjectively thinking to
himself, "Hmmm... what images does this title
bring to me, personally, in a free association
framework?" Your suggestion that anyone
who claims a title is unclear is obviously making
this claim based solely on some touchy-feely
subjective personal experience is either
deliberately obtuse or just plain poorly thought
through; in either case, from a linguistics
standpoint, it's plain wrong.
Objectively speaking, the phrase
"program line" has a large
number of possible meanings in the context of
SOPW, and for every person who reads it and
immediately gets the right idea, somebody else
will read it and immediately get the wrong idea.
No amount of irrelevant "I think, you think,
works for me, works for you" subjectivist
drivel will change that.