By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
435,584 Members | 3,447 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 435,584 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

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

P: n/a
but depends upon the clique:

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...TF-8%26hl%3Den
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...TF-8%26hl%3Den
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...TF-8%26hl%3Den
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...TF-8%26hl%3Den
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...TF-8%26hl%3Den

....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)...

....I stand corrected!!!

....BUT if anyone didn't have the answer to my OP then simply say so or
better, just ignore the post!!!
Jul 20 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
12 Replies


P: n/a
On 28 Apr 2004 07:34:42 -0700, * ProteanThread * <os*****@yahoo.com> wrote:

...BUT if anyone didn't have the answer to my OP then simply say so or
better, just ignore the post!!!

We're not free to discuss tangentally? Is this your 24-hour help desk, or
Usenet?
Jul 20 '05 #2

P: n/a
* ProteanThread * wrote:
...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!!!


Please don't crosspost.

;-)

--
Mark.
http://tranchant.plus.com/
Jul 20 '05 #3

P: n/a

"* ProteanThread *" <os*****@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:de*************************@posting.google.co m...
but depends upon the clique:

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...TF-8%26hl%3Den
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.

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...TF-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*.


http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...TF-8%26hl%3Den
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.

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...TF-8%26hl%3Den
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.
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...TF-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.

...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)...


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

Jul 20 '05 #4

P: n/a
In comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html * ProteanThread * <os*****@yahoo.com> wrote:
...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)...
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.
...BUT if anyone didn't have the answer to my OP then simply say so or
better, just ignore the post!!!


Or plonk the poster.

--
Christopher Benson-Manica | I *should* know what I'm talking about - if I
ataru(at)cyberspace.org | don't, I need to know. Flames welcome.
Jul 20 '05 #5

P: n/a
* ProteanThread * os*****@yahoo.com wrote:

...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)...


no...it depends first on the post and the groups...sometimes it makes
sense to crosspost to a set of groups to allow a range of expertise to
discuss the subject...sometimes 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...respecting other people is widely
accepted...making rash assumptions and not thinking about other Usenauts
is generally considered harmful

--
eric
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"
Jul 20 '05 #6

P: n/a
"Harlan Messinger" <h.*********@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<c6************@ID-114100.news.uni-berlin.de>...
"* ProteanThread *" <os*****@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:de*************************@posting.google.co m...
but depends upon the clique:


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

You forgot to quote where I said "I stand corrected!" (idiot)
Jul 20 '05 #7

P: n/a
Neal <ne*****@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<op**************@news.individual.net>...
On 28 Apr 2004 07:34:42 -0700, * ProteanThread * <os*****@yahoo.com> wrote:

...BUT if anyone didn't have the answer to my OP then simply say so or
better, just ignore the post!!!

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

I thought usenet *WAS* people helping people ? :-\
Jul 20 '05 #8

P: n/a
Mark Tranchant <ma**@tranchant.plus.com> wrote in message news:<Jo*********************@stones.force9.net>.. .
* ProteanThread * wrote:
...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!!!


Please don't crosspost.

;-)


I didn't and got *NEEDLESSLY* flamed... ;-)))
Jul 20 '05 #9

P: n/a
os*****@yahoo.com (* ProteanThread *) wrote in
news:de*************************@posting.google.co m:
but depends upon the clique:


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
Jul 20 '05 #10

P: n/a

"* ProteanThread *" <os*****@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:de**************************@posting.google.c om...
"Harlan Messinger" <h.*********@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:<c6************@ID-114100.news.uni-berlin.de>...
"* ProteanThread *" <os*****@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:de*************************@posting.google.co m...
but depends upon the clique:


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

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


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

Jul 20 '05 #11

P: n/a
Eric Jarvis <we*@ericjarvis.co.uk> wrote in message news:<MP************************@news.individual.n et>...
* ProteanThread * os*****@yahoo.com wrote:

...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)...


no...it depends first on the post and the groups...sometimes it makes
sense to crosspost to a set of groups to allow a range of expertise to
discuss the subject...sometimes 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...respecting other people is widely
accepted...making rash assumptions and not thinking about other Usenauts
is generally considered harmful


Thanks for the clarification. Now thats the *MOST* thoughtful reply
(ok, 2nd.) I've seen so far...but the most explanatory.
Jul 20 '05 #12

P: n/a
* ProteanThread * os*****@yahoo.com wrote:
Eric Jarvis <we*@ericjarvis.co.uk> wrote in message news:<MP************************@news.individual.n et>...
* ProteanThread * os*****@yahoo.com wrote:

...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)...


no...it depends first on the post and the groups...sometimes it makes
sense to crosspost to a set of groups to allow a range of expertise to
discuss the subject...sometimes 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...respecting other people is widely
accepted...making rash assumptions and not thinking about other Usenauts
is generally considered harmful


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


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
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
we don't need to make things idiot-proof,
we need to make idiots thing-proof
Jul 20 '05 #13

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.