Re: A proposal on how to deal with Inger's posts ...

"Peter Alaca" <P.Alaca@xxxxxx> wrote in news:43caa528$0$87830$dbd49001
@news.wanadoo.nl:

> Stein R wrote:
>> "Peter Alaca" wrote
>>> Stein R wrote:
>>>> Tom McDonald wrote
>>>>> Stein R wrote:
>
>>>>>> Posted to soc.culture.nordic *only*:
>
>>>>> Erm, no.
>>
>>>> Woops. Cancel sent to previous message crossposted to s.c.n,
>>>> sci.a and s.h.m.
>>>>
>>>> (*This* followup is posted to sci.arch only)
>>>>
>>>> I guess I accidentally illustrated a point there -
>
>>> Yes indeed. If I post something like
>>> "Yep - people like Stein R is a big part of the problem."
>>> in seperate posts to different goups without letting know
>>> I did so, then Stein R has a problem if he feels the need
>>> to 'defend' himself.
>
>> Nope. Feel free to post that wherever you like. I was just
>> testing your claim that "some of us" were reading all three
>> newsgroups so it really was appropriate to post to all three
>> of them at the same time.
>
> And what is the outcome of your test?
>
>>> *I* am temporarily reading s.h.m and sci.arch since I posted
>> separate messages to those two groups.
>>
>> The fact that you apparently feel that it would be a hardship
>> to have to take the trouble to follow up independent threads
>> in three different newsgroups indicate that posting to three
>> newsgroups at the same time is not a brilliant plan.
>
> But you don't know who posts from where. If you feel the need
> to limit your reply to the group of origine, how do you do that?

*Why* should you limit your reply to "the group of origin" ? It
is not your responsibility to ensure that the original poster get
your reply.

If the original poster choses to crosspost to several groups and
you only replies to one of these groups, then it is the problem of
the original poster to keep track of the various threads that follow
in the various groups.

Which is why it is a bad idea to crosspost a *discussion*. What you
do is that you write *one* announcement saying "We are currently having
an interesting discussion about subject X in newsgroup s.h.m. If you
are interested, you find the debate in soc.history.medieval, under
subject line 'KRS bla-bla-bla'".

You set Followups-To: to soc.history.medieval, and post the announce-
ment separately to a few relevant newsgroups where you think you might¨
find people interested in the subject.

In the olden days I would have recommended crossposting the announce-
ment itself, but these days there are too many clueless idiots on the
Net, and these idiots will start following up on an announcement instead
of doing what it says to do, so separate posts are smarter.



>> You apparently read this stuff in sci.archeology.
>
> And in shm and in scn as far as you posted it there. Sometimes
> people respond only in one group, and if I am interested in the
> subject I like to see all the reactions.

Then you direct all who want to take part in the discussion to go to
one place to discuss.


> But I am in shm because I am interested in in the middelages.

By all means, stay there then.


>> You also claim (in another post) that the reason that you have
>> to crosspost your replies is "respecting the posting habits of
>> others".
>>
>> I submit that it is far more likely that the *true* reason
>> (whether you want to admit it or not) for you crossposting is
>> just plain old stupid vanity.
>
> Vanity? Why is that? What is there to be proud of? I defend
> my (and others) posting behaviour. Is that vanity? Is talking
> to Inger a sign of vanity?

Thinking that it is important to anyone else but yourself to see
your replies in all three groups is vanity. Thinking that three
different newsgroups were created so it would be easier for you
to follow discussions on irrelevant topics is vanity.

Or at least egoism. Might be news to you, but the world does not
always revolve around what might be convenient for you.


> But sometimes I am a bit careless and stupid enough
> to reply to megamultiposted messages. That's why I
> end up in very strange newsgroups now and then.
>
>> - you apparently cannot stomach the fact that some
>> of the people who read the article you are replying to
>> might not get to read your replying words of divine
>> wisdom.
>
> No one is forced to read anything posted on the Usenet.
> I read or ignore your posts voluntarily.
> How is it possible to know what some other likes to read
> or not? Do you know what I like to read or not?

I know that if I want to discuss say binge drinking (which is
part of Nordic culture), then that subject is not relevant to
*most* people who are interested in archaelogy or most people
who are interested in general medieval history.

Even though binge drinking in the Nordic countries might have
historic roots in medieval times, and even though we might find
stuff during archaeological excavations that show that people
in say SW Sweden probably were fond of their drinking bowls back
in the 1200s.

I also know that if I want to discuss the specifics of a parti-
cular excavation - like "Does anyone have access to the report on
this excavation and can tell me how many drinking bowls dated to
the 1200s were found at this site ?", then I take *that* question
to sci.archaeology (or better yet - to google or my library).

A subject in its *widest* form can touch in on many newsgroups.
Does not mean that *everything* posted about the subject needs to
go to all the newsgroups it could probably touch on.

Be specific when chosing an audience, and summarize what you have
learned in other places in the newsgroup where you think the *main*
thread(s) belongs.


> If you have problems with Inger's threads and the replies by others
> on scn, ignore them or killfile them.

I do that too. I chose to ignore most of Ingers drivel. And most of
the followups that people crosspost. But I am also giving you a basic
class in how the Usenet is supposed to work, since it seems like you
have not understood the difference between crossposting an invitation
to take part in a debate and crossposting the debate itself.

Smile,
Stein
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: A proposal on how to deal with Ingers posts ...
    ... Stein R wrote: Xns974CDB185E3C9steinjr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, ... testing your claim that "some of us" were reading all three newsgroups so it really was appropriate to post to all three of them at the same time. ... for you crossposting is just plain old stupid vanity. ... between crossposting an invitation to take part in a debate and crossposting the debate itself. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: A proposal on how to deal with Ingers posts ...
    ... then Stein R has a problem if he feels the need ... >> newsgroups so it really was appropriate to post to all three ... You can pretty much guess Doug, tk isn't posting from s.c.n. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: A proposal on how to deal with Ingers posts ...
    ... "Yep - people like Stein R is a big part of the problem." ... testing your claim that "some of us" were reading all three newsgroups so it really was appropriate to post to all three of them at the same time. ... for you crossposting is just plain old stupid vanity. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: A proposal on how to deal with Ingers posts ...
    ... > Stein R wrote: Xns974CDB185E3C9steinjr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, ... Except I forgot to edit the Newsgroups: ... newsservers anymore - idiots like to forge cancels of articles written ... crosspost, but instead posted three different separate articles. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Runaway Global Warming Possible!
    ... > All I am saying is, when you crosspost, ... > newsgroups in the header, it's your responsibility. ... Peace George, you win. ...
    (sci.geo.geology)