cross posting vs. multi posting ( both APPEAR to be widely accepted )

**Neal** · Jul 20 '05, 06:34 PM

Re: cross posting vs. multi posting ( both *APPEAR* to be widely accepted )

On 28 Apr 2004 07:34:42 -0700, * ProteanThread * <os65000@yahoo. com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>
> ...BUT if anyone didn't have the answer to my OP then simply say so or
> better, just ignore the post!!![/color]

We're not free to discuss tangentally? Is this your 24-hour help desk, or
Usenet?

**Mark Tranchant** · Jul 20 '05, 06:34 PM

Re: cross posting vs. multi posting ( both *APPEAR* to be widelyaccepted )

* ProteanThread * wrote:
[color=blue]
> ...after doing a google search for "cross posting vs. multi posting"
> it not only depends upon the group but upon the server? either way is
> *NOT* widely accepted it seems as some "claim" because both pro and
> con like to fly the "it is spam" banner to justify their position on
> cross posting and or multi posting (which either they prefer)...
>
> ...I stand corrected!!!
>
> ...BUT if anyone didn't have the answer to my OP then simply say so or
> better, just ignore the post!!![/color]

Please don't crosspost.

;-)

--
Mark.

http://tranchant.plus.com/

**Harlan Messinger** · Jul 20 '05, 06:34 PM

Re: cross posting vs. multi posting ( both *APPEAR* to be widely accepted )

"* ProteanThread *" <os65000@yahoo. com> wrote in message
news:de4e2e00.0 404280634.1d31c 5c@posting.goog le.com...[color=blue]
> but depends upon the clique:
>
>[/color]
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...TF-8%26hl%3Den[color=blue]
>[/color]

This one says that there are a number of people who prefer cross-posting to
multi-posting, and that some ISPs also don't like multi-posting.
[color=blue]
>
>[/color]

Error 500 (Server Error)!!1

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=3BE27A40.CAE4B2D6%40tesco.net&rnum=4&prev=/groups%3Fq%3D%2522cross%2Bposting%2Bversus%2Bmulti%2Bposting%2522%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26hl%3Den

This one is by a person who acknowledges that cross-posting can be
appropriate, and who acknowledges as well that multi-posting *exists*.
[color=blue]
>
>
>[/color]
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...TF-8%26hl%3Den[color=blue]
>[/color]

This one doesn't say anything about the relative merits of cross- versus
multi-posting. The person he was responding to felt that multi-posting was
justified if the poster changed the wording each time to "make them more
topical for each group", but that's specious reasoning: after all, sending
essentially the same advertisement to 5,000 newsgroups, with special topical
wording in each one, is still an abuse.
[color=blue]
>
>[/color]
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...TF-8%26hl%3Den[color=blue]
>[/color]

This one doesn't express the writer's own opinion, just the same perception
you have that some groups prefer one and some prefer the other. The mere
fact that a person has a particular perception about a situation shouldn't
lead you to have the same perception. After all, if the person is wrong,
then you will be too.
[color=blue]
>[/color]

Error 500 (Server Error)!!1

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=1060065142.402629%40teuthos&rnum=5&prev=/groups%3Fq%3D%2522cross%2Bposting%2Bversus%2Bmulti%2Bposting%2522%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26hl%3Den

This one acknowledges the existence of rules that cover the issues of both
kinds of posting, and says nothing about their respective merits or
deficits.
[color=blue]
>
> ...I'd post more examples but...
>
> ...after doing a google search for "cross posting vs. multi posting"
> it not only depends upon the group but upon the server? either way is
> *NOT* widely accepted it seems as some "claim" because both pro and
> con like to fly the "it is spam" banner to justify their position on
> cross posting and or multi posting (which either they prefer)...[/color]

Not one of the posts you cited indicates a preference by anyone for
multi-posting. Logic indicates that that wouldn't make sense.

**Christopher Benson-Manica** · Jul 20 '05, 06:35 PM

Re: cross posting vs. multi posting ( both *APPEAR* to be widely accepted )

In comp.infosystem s.www.authoring.html * ProteanThread * <os65000@yahoo. com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> ...after doing a google search for "cross posting vs. multi posting"
> it not only depends upon the group but upon the server? either way is
> *NOT* widely accepted it seems as some "claim" because both pro and
> con like to fly the "it is spam" banner to justify their position on
> cross posting and or multi posting (which either they prefer)...[/color]

FWIW, the majority of posters on the newsgroups I post to find
multiposting abhorrent. Gratuitous crossposting, as this post was, is
also frowned on. I can't think of a sane reason to multipost, so I
view the practice with disdain.
[color=blue]
> ...BUT if anyone didn't have the answer to my OP then simply say so or
> better, just ignore the post!!![/color]

Or plonk the poster.

--
Christopher Benson-Manica | I *should* know what I'm talking about - if I
ataru(at)cybers pace.org | don't, I need to know. Flames welcome.

**Eric Jarvis** · Jul 20 '05, 06:35 PM

Re: cross posting vs. multi posting ( both *APPEAR* to be widely accepted )

* ProteanThread * os65000@yahoo.c om wrote:[color=blue]
>
> ...after doing a google search for "cross posting vs. multi posting"
> it not only depends upon the group but upon the server? either way is
> *NOT* widely accepted it seems as some "claim" because both pro and
> con like to fly the "it is spam" banner to justify their position on
> cross posting and or multi posting (which either they prefer)...
>[/color]

no...it depends first on the post and the groups...someti mes it makes
sense to crosspost to a set of groups to allow a range of expertise to
discuss the subject...somet imes it makes sense to post different aspects
of a problem to different groups

what is always required is a bit of thought about how it will work for
everyone else before making the post...respecti ng other people is widely
accepted...maki ng rash assumptions and not thinking about other Usenauts
is generally considered harmful

--
eric

https://www.ericjarvis.co.uk

"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"

*** ProteanThread *** · Jul 20 '05, 06:35 PM

Re: cross posting vs. multi posting ( both *APPEAR* to be widely accepted )

"Harlan Messinger" <h.messinger@co mcast.net> wrote in message news:<c6ogpu$dk v7a$1@ID-114100.news.uni-berlin.de>...[color=blue]
> "* ProteanThread *" <os65000@yahoo. com> wrote in message
> news:de4e2e00.0 404280634.1d31c 5c@posting.goog le.com...[color=green]
> > but depends upon the clique:
> >
> >[/color]
>
> Not one of the posts you cited indicates a preference by anyone for
> multi-posting. Logic indicates that that wouldn't make sense.[/color]

You forgot to quote where I said "I stand corrected!" (idiot)

*** ProteanThread *** · Jul 20 '05, 06:35 PM

Re: cross posting vs. multi posting ( both *APPEAR* to be widely accepted )

Neal <neal413@yahoo. com> wrote in message news:<opr658brr 26v6656@news.in dividual.net>.. .[color=blue]
> On 28 Apr 2004 07:34:42 -0700, * ProteanThread * <os65000@yahoo. com> wrote:
>[color=green]
> >
> > ...BUT if anyone didn't have the answer to my OP then simply say so or
> > better, just ignore the post!!![/color]
>
>
> We're not free to discuss tangentally? Is this your 24-hour help desk, or
> Usenet?[/color]

I thought usenet *WAS* people helping people ? :-\

*** ProteanThread *** · Jul 20 '05, 06:35 PM

Re: cross posting vs. multi posting ( both *APPEAR* to be widely accepted )

Mark Tranchant <mark@tranchant .plus.com> wrote in message news:<JoPjc.356 41$h44.5285122@ stones.force9.n et>...[color=blue]
> * ProteanThread * wrote:
>[color=green]
> > ...after doing a google search for "cross posting vs. multi posting"
> > it not only depends upon the group but upon the server? either way is
> > *NOT* widely accepted it seems as some "claim" because both pro and
> > con like to fly the "it is spam" banner to justify their position on
> > cross posting and or multi posting (which either they prefer)...
> >
> > ...I stand corrected!!!
> >
> > ...BUT if anyone didn't have the answer to my OP then simply say so or
> > better, just ignore the post!!![/color]
>
> Please don't crosspost.
>
> ;-)[/color]

I didn't and got *NEEDLESSLY* flamed... ;-)))

**Gandalf Parker** · Jul 20 '05, 06:35 PM

Re: cross posting vs. multi posting ( both *APPEAR* to be widely accepted )

os65000@yahoo.c om (* ProteanThread *) wrote in
news:de4e2e00.0 404280634.1d31c 5c@posting.goog le.com:
[color=blue]
> but depends upon the clique:
>[/color]

Sounds like a conversation we had in our local newsgroups about top-
posting. And others I remember about binarys or language rules. I think the
answer I gave there would apply. Smaller and more "local" groups tend to
allow more leeway than larger international newsgroups.

Gandalf Parker

**Harlan Messinger** · Jul 20 '05, 06:35 PM

Re: cross posting vs. multi posting ( both *APPEAR* to be widely accepted )

"* ProteanThread *" <os65000@yahoo. com> wrote in message
news:de4e2e00.0 404281144.4f189 3f0@posting.goo gle.com...[color=blue]
> "Harlan Messinger" <h.messinger@co mcast.net> wrote in message[/color]
news:<c6ogpu$dk v7a$1@ID-114100.news.uni-berlin.de>...[color=blue][color=green]
> > "* ProteanThread *" <os65000@yahoo. com> wrote in message
> > news:de4e2e00.0 404280634.1d31c 5c@posting.goog le.com...[color=darkred]
> > > but depends upon the clique:
> > >
> > >[/color]
> >
> > Not one of the posts you cited indicates a preference by anyone for
> > multi-posting. Logic indicates that that wouldn't make sense.[/color]
>
>
> You forgot to quote where I said "I stand corrected!" (idiot)[/color]

Don't blame me for not doing a better job interpreting your gibberish.

*** ProteanThread *** · Jul 20 '05, 06:35 PM

Re: cross posting vs. multi posting ( both *APPEAR* to be widely accepted )

Eric Jarvis <web@ericjarvis .co.uk> wrote in message news:<MPG.1af9f 0d9df13543b98c9 b1@news.individ ual.net>...[color=blue]
> * ProteanThread * os65000@yahoo.c om wrote:[color=green]
> >
> > ...after doing a google search for "cross posting vs. multi posting"
> > it not only depends upon the group but upon the server? either way is
> > *NOT* widely accepted it seems as some "claim" because both pro and
> > con like to fly the "it is spam" banner to justify their position on
> > cross posting and or multi posting (which either they prefer)...
> >[/color]
>
> no...it depends first on the post and the groups...someti mes it makes
> sense to crosspost to a set of groups to allow a range of expertise to
> discuss the subject...somet imes it makes sense to post different aspects
> of a problem to different groups
>
> what is always required is a bit of thought about how it will work for
> everyone else before making the post...respecti ng other people is widely
> accepted...maki ng rash assumptions and not thinking about other Usenauts
> is generally considered harmful[/color]

Thanks for the clarification. Now thats the *MOST* thoughtful reply
(ok, 2nd.) I've seen so far...but the most explanatory.

**Eric Jarvis** · Jul 20 '05, 06:35 PM

Re: cross posting vs. multi posting ( both *APPEAR* to be widely accepted )

* ProteanThread * os65000@yahoo.c om wrote:[color=blue]
> Eric Jarvis <web@ericjarvis .co.uk> wrote in message news:<MPG.1af9f 0d9df13543b98c9 b1@news.individ ual.net>...[color=green]
> > * ProteanThread * os65000@yahoo.c om wrote:[color=darkred]
> > >
> > > ...after doing a google search for "cross posting vs. multi posting"
> > > it not only depends upon the group but upon the server? either way is
> > > *NOT* widely accepted it seems as some "claim" because both pro and
> > > con like to fly the "it is spam" banner to justify their position on
> > > cross posting and or multi posting (which either they prefer)...
> > >[/color]
> >
> > no...it depends first on the post and the groups...someti mes it makes
> > sense to crosspost to a set of groups to allow a range of expertise to
> > discuss the subject...somet imes it makes sense to post different aspects
> > of a problem to different groups
> >
> > what is always required is a bit of thought about how it will work for
> > everyone else before making the post...respecti ng other people is widely
> > accepted...maki ng rash assumptions and not thinking about other Usenauts
> > is generally considered harmful[/color]
>
> Thanks for the clarification. Now thats the *MOST* thoughtful reply
> (ok, 2nd.) I've seen so far...but the most explanatory.
>[/color]

most Netiquette is basically a matter of thinking ahead, paying attention
to other people's situation and concerns, and knowing a little about how
Usenet actually works...my experience is that if you get the first two
right you'll generally be allowed some leeway on the last...but you will
get follow ups that correct you, and sometimes they won't make total sense
until months or even years later...some of them will be posted by people
who have been using Usenet for decades...and who have been dealing with
the same newbie errors every few weeks...they may sometimes seem a tad
brusque...cf point two

--
eric

https://www.ericjarvis.co.uk

we don't need to make things idiot-proof,
we need to make idiots thing-proof

cross posting vs. multi posting ( both APPEAR to be widely accepted )

cross posting vs. multi posting ( both APPEAR to be widely accepted )

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment