On Apr 29, 4:24 pm, Dave > wrote:

> Did we ask you to spam all these NGs?

I'm not spamming. I am posting to all relevant NGs.

Radium wrote:
> On Apr 29, 4:24 pm, Dave > wrote:
>
>> Did we ask you to spam all these NGs?
>
> I'm not spamming. I am posting to all relevant NGs.

You are cross-posting, which is really frowned upon in Usenet. Plus,
you are even trying to post to a nonexistent newsgroup.

On Mon, 30 Apr 2007, limey wrote:

> Radium wrote:
>
>> On Apr 29, 4:24 pm, Dave > wrote:
>>
>>> Did we ask you to spam all these NGs?
>>
>> I'm not spamming. I am posting to all relevant NGs.
>
> You are cross-posting, which is really frowned upon in Usenet.

No it isn't. Cross-posting is fine (and strongly preferred to
multi-posting). Cross-posting excessively is frowned on; four groups is
not excessive.

> Plus, you are even trying to post to a nonexistent newsgroup.

Silly but harmless, at least on properly-configured news servers.

What *is* to be frowned on is that the post is nonsense. Although if we
were to ban nonsense from usenet, we might as well close it down.

tom

--
Operate all mechanisms!

Tom Anderson wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Apr 2007, limey wrote:
>
>> Radium wrote:
>>
>>> On Apr 29, 4:24 pm, Dave > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Did we ask you to spam all these NGs?
>>>
>>> I'm not spamming. I am posting to all relevant NGs.
>>
>> You are cross-posting, which is really frowned upon in Usenet.
>
> No it isn't. Cross-posting is fine (and strongly preferred to
> multi-posting). Cross-posting excessively is frowned on; four groups
> is not excessive.

So, add the nonexistent newsgroup and he started out with five.
>
> Silly but harmless, at least on properly-configured news servers.
>
> What *is* to be frowned on is that the post is nonsense. Although if
> we were to ban nonsense from usenet, we might as well close it down.

Yes, the post *is* nonsense, yet the PITA is that responses to that
nonsense from posters on all the groups will show up here. Note: I am
deliberately crossposting, to get my message across that crossposting
can result in indignant responses from many.

In article >,
Tom Anderson > wrote:

>No it isn't. Cross-posting is fine (and strongly preferred to
>multi-posting). Cross-posting excessively is frowned on; four groups is
>not excessive.

True.

But look at the Followup-To: line:

Followup-To: rec.food.cooking,uk.food+drink.misc,alt.cookies.yu m.yum.yum,rec.
+ food.equipment,sci.bio.food-science,rec.arts.movies.production.
+ sound, sci.chem, sci.electronics.basics, rec.audio.tech, rec.
+ photo.equipment.35mm

The article was clearly a troll.

-- Richard
--
"Consideration shall be given to the need for as many as 32 characters
in some alphabets" - X3.4, 1963.

On Tue, 1 May 2007, Richard Tobin wrote:

> In article >,
> Tom Anderson > wrote:
>
>> No it isn't. Cross-posting is fine (and strongly preferred to
>> multi-posting). Cross-posting excessively is frowned on; four groups is
>> not excessive.
>
> True.

And in response to limey, i wouldn't say five is either.

> But look at the Followup-To: line:
>
> Followup-To: rec.food.cooking,uk.food+drink.misc,alt.cookies.yu m.yum.yum,rec.
> + food.equipment,sci.bio.food-science,rec.arts.movies.production.
> + sound, sci.chem, sci.electronics.basics, rec.audio.tech, rec.
> + photo.equipment.35mm
>
> The article was clearly a troll.

Excellent point. I mean, the content marks it out as being either trolling
or kookery, but this is damning evidence.

tom

--
The major advances in civilization are processes that all but wreck the
societies in which they occur. -- Alfred North Whitehead

On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 17:46:03 +0100, Tom Anderson > wrote:

>No it isn't. Cross-posting is fine (and strongly preferred to
>multi-posting)....

Only if the groups are related in subject. Otherwise you end up with (for
example) a never-ending thread on gerontology annoying the readers of a
billiards group, just because one old person cross-posted to both.

-- Larry

pltrgyst wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 17:46:03 +0100, Tom Anderson > wrote:
>
>> No it isn't. Cross-posting is fine (and strongly preferred to
>> multi-posting)....
>
> Only if the groups are related in subject. Otherwise you end up with (for
> example) a never-ending thread on gerontology annoying the readers of a
> billiards group, just because one old person cross-posted to both.
>
> -- Larry

That takes balls.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com