Re: digest 2453240

tholen_at_antispam.ham
Date: 09/04/04 

Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2004 22:50:16 GMT

Risto Karttunen writes:

>>>>> Short responses like this don't really waste the bandwith.

>>>> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

>>> *Classic*?

>> Still suffering from reading comprehension problems, Karttunen?

> No, I understand that you wrote "classic", but in what way was my
> comment a *classic* one?

In the same way that everybody else who makes a ridiculous and
obviously incorrect claim without offering any substantiation
does, Karttunen.

>>>>> BTW, what
>>>>> is the topic of this "digest" - OS/2, basketball, classical music...?

>>>> Ask bisectional, who chose the newsgroup distribution, Karttunen.

>>> I ask you, since 1. I am now discussing with you.

>> Illogical, given that I can't read bisectional's mind.

> But also you continue cross-posting your answers to those ng:s, why?

How ironic, coming from someone who continues cross-posting his
responses to those newsgroups. Ask yourself, Karttunen.

>>> 2. you have started the "digest"-threads,

>> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

> Who else then?

Multiple people, Karttunen; trace the thread of interest.

>>> 3. you keep posting into them,

>> Illogical; so do you, Karttunen, so why don't you ask yourself and
>> save the newsgroup some bandwidth?

> But I don't know what is the topic of this thread.

Irrelevant, given that the question isn't about knowing the topic of
the thread, but rather why someone cross-posts their responses,
Karttunen.

> I thought you might know.

Given that you are one of those cross-posting their responses, you
should know, Karttunen.

> If you do, then please tell me.

Unnecessary, given that you should already know, Karttunen.

> I cross-post just to make sure.

To make sure of what, Karttunen?

>>> and 4. the first
>>> posting, which I see in this thread, is one of your contributions,
>>> cross-posted into several ng:s by yourself.

>> What you saw first is irrelevant, Karttunen.

> Your posting is irrelevant?

Classic reading comprehension problem on your part, Karttunen.

> How on earth could that be possible?

Classic erroneous presupposition.

Relevant Pages

  • Cross-Posting (X-Posting) Preferable to Multi-Posting? - Re: An admission that CIA t
    ... Well, there are no actual *laws* in Usenet, are there? ... & in Usenet it's down to the people *reading* the Newsgroups, ... Cross-Posting is preferable to Multi-Posting. ...
    (uk.people.silversurfers)
  • Re: One for the MVPs?
    ... easily received WAG's or no responses at all. ... The Access newsgroups are fortunate in that there are enough experts to give ... devote to assisting with any particular database problem. ... The page layout and spacing of controls may look the same in both the report ...
    (microsoft.public.access.forms)
  • Re: Rule for Cross Posts?
    ... Cross-posting is good if used correctly. ... to multiple RELATED newsgroups then you should cross-post. ... You really need to hide their replies from each ... Worse than cross-posting are those that use the FollowUp-To header to ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.inetexplorer.ie6_outlookexpress)
  • (FAQ) Welcome to AOLM, read this first if youre new.
    ... you can get an answer a lot faster without posting your question ... A comprehensive overview of 159 Linux newsgroups: ... try to think of what will best help the reader when he ... called "cross-posting". ...
    (alt.os.linux)
  • A newbie? Welcome to comp.os.linux.setup, read this first if youre new here (FAQ)
    ... you can get an answer a lot faster without posting your question ... A comprehensive overview of 159 Linux newsgroups, ... try to think of what will best help the reader when he ... Anyway, to summarize, cross-posting is infinitely better than ...
    (comp.os.linux.setup)