John Jay Smith wrote
(in article <43f90ade$0$4347$6d36acad@titian.nntpserver.com>):

> Things that distract me from my goals, or waste my time will be a thing of
> the past.

good point. since I agree, I am forced to...

*plonk*

--
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
"The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those
who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw

In article <43F9ED76.E754D6CD@yahoo.com>, cbfalconer@yahoo.com says...
> Gerry Quinn wrote:
> > cbfalconer@yahoo.com says...
> >>
> >> You have committed two gross errors. First, you cross-posted to
> >> several newsgroups without setting follow-ups to one.
> >
> > Complete drivel. There is nothing wrong with doing the above, in
> > most circumstances. Setting follow-ups is usually an ignorant and
> > disruptive act, as most people interested in the subject will not
> > want to have to subscribe to a newsgroup which they do not read to
> > continue the conversation. (And if none are interested, it was
> > the crosspost that was the error.)
>
> There is everything wrong with failing to set follow-ups.
> Primarily it avoids the generation of tedious never-ending
> off-topic threads infested with kooks from every corner.

Cross-posting to the appropriate newsgroups should prevent that.

> Secondarily it does not prevent any reply from cancelling the
> follow-up setting, if the responder is so bent on preserving the
> thread in his/her/its own newsgroup. If the originator does not
> monitor the cross-posted groups the odds are that the cross-post
> was off topic in the first place, and if he does so monitor he
> doesn't need the thread to appear in them all anyhow.

The originator doesn't matter particularly. Most threads are
conversations. Even those who do not respond to them may well take an
interested. This will be destroyed if they are chopped up and sent to
unsubscribed newsgroups by net-cops setting follow-ups.

> The newsgroups are separate in the first place for a reason.

And cross-posting exists for a reason.

> If
> you consider the possible reasons carefully you may see why
> cross-posting without setting follow-ups is wrong.

I have considered it, and I see that it is usually right.

- Gerry Quinn

On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 14:11:38 -0000, Gerry Quinn
wrote:

>> If
>> you consider the possible reasons carefully you may see why
>> cross-posting without setting follow-ups is wrong.
>
>I have considered it, and I see that it is usually right.

I agree. If the cross-post was legitimate, followups should go to all
the cross-posted groups.

I particularly hate it when someone not the OP takes it upon himself
to restrict replies to a particular group.

--
Al Balmer
Sun City, AZ

Al Balmer wrote:
....
> "What you say" causes an immediate break. What *did* he say? Why
> should I waste time to go looking for it?

[top vs bottom-posting]

John Jay Smith has a point. Top-posting *can* save time scrolling with
certain newsreaders (especially annoying when there is no mouse).

Anyway when following a thread you will often already have seen the
prior posts.

Perhaps the newsreader itself can have an option to reorder the message
so it need not be an issue.

bart.

"Bart" wrote in message
news:1140545645.616494.18940@g44g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...
>
> [top vs bottom-posting]
>
[...]
>
> Perhaps the newsreader itself can have an option to reorder the message
> so it need not be an issue.

This would only work if there were an agreed upon format for quoting
posts, among other things. A lot of people use '>' at the beginning of every
line, but other people might use ':' or some other characters. Also, some
newsreaders re-wrap messages that are quoted, but what if the quoted message
contains ASCII diagrams (e.g. UML diagrams)? Sometimes re-wrapping is not
desired.

Because we're essentially just sending around arbitrary text streams, a
newsreader would have to be extremely intelligent (boarding on AI sentient)
to be able to handle every case.

- Oliver

Al Balmer wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 14:11:38 -0000, Gerry Quinn
>
>>> If you consider the possible reasons carefully you may see why
>>> cross-posting without setting follow-ups is wrong.
>>
>> I have considered it, and I see that it is usually right.
>
> I agree. If the cross-post was legitimate, followups should go to
> all the cross-posted groups.

Not so. The original cross post may have been advisory, or
designed to attract attention from a wide group. At any rate there
is no need to continue inflicting the thread on all those innocent
bystanders.

>
> I particularly hate it when someone not the OP takes it upon
> himself to restrict replies to a particular group.

At least here I agree. That someone has no idea where the home
group should be. The exception being to truncate troll or obscene
takeovers.

--
"If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use
the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on
"show options" at the top of the article, then click on the
"Reply" at the bottom of the article headers." - Keith Thompson
More details at:
Also see

Bart wrote:
) [top vs bottom-posting]
)
) John Jay Smith has a point. Top-posting *can* save time scrolling with
) certain newsreaders (especially annoying when there is no mouse).

If you intersperse comments, and trim the context properly, you don't need
*any* scrolling. Quoting an entire article and replying at the bottom is
just as bad as top posting. Sheesh.

) Anyway when following a thread you will often already have seen the
) prior posts.

Usually most people will have seen the original post when it was posted,
and then after a while will see the reply. Are you asking everyone to
remember every post they read hours, even days ago ?


SaSW, Willem
--
Disclaimer: I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
made in the above text. For all I know I might be
drugged or something..
No I'm not paranoid. You all think I'm paranoid, don't you !
#EOT

On 21 Feb 2006 10:14:05 -0800, "Bart" wrote:

>Al Balmer wrote:
>...
>> "What you say" causes an immediate break. What *did* he say? Why
>> should I waste time to go looking for it?
>
>[top vs bottom-posting]
>
>John Jay Smith has a point. Top-posting *can* save time scrolling with
>certain newsreaders (especially annoying when there is no mouse).
>
Oh? How far did you have to scroll to read this?

>Anyway when following a thread you will often already have seen the
>prior posts.

Don't be silly. I've seen thousands of prior posts.
>
>Perhaps the newsreader itself can have an option to reorder the message
>so it need not be an issue.
>
>bart.

--
Al Balmer
Sun City, AZ

CBFalconer wrote:
> Al Balmer wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 14:11:38 -0000, Gerry Quinn
>>
>>
>>>>If you consider the possible reasons carefully you may see why
>>>>cross-posting without setting follow-ups is wrong.
>>>
>>>I have considered it, and I see that it is usually right.
>>
>>I agree. If the cross-post was legitimate, followups should go to
>>all the cross-posted groups.
>
>
> Not so. The original cross post may have been advisory, or
> designed to attract attention from a wide group. At any rate there
> is no need to continue inflicting the thread on all those innocent
> bystanders.
>
>
>>I particularly hate it when someone not the OP takes it upon
>>himself to restrict replies to a particular group.
>
>
> At least here I agree. That someone has no idea where the home
> group should be. The exception being to truncate troll or obscene
> takeovers.
>


Excaus me, sire, but j00 all are teh noobz, may I say.

On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 19:25:45 -0500, "Leo M. Cabrera"
wrote:

>Excaus me, sire, but j00 all are teh noobz, may I say.

Go back to your chat room.

--
Al Balmer
Sun City, AZ