From: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/mul_crss.htm


================================================== ===================
Multiposting vs Crossposting
================================================== ===================


Multiposting vs Crossposting

by David Stevenson

The question was asked:
What's the difference between multi-posting and cross-posting?


Suppose you decide to post an article telling people of a useful cat
thing around the house. You might decide that people would like to read
that on rec.pets.cats.misc, also on alt.cats and alt.animals.felines.

If you prepare an article, and send it out three times, once to each
group, then people like myself who take each group will download it
three times, and come across it three times as an Unread article.
Annoying, and an unnecessary cost [outside the USA most of us pay per
second of downloading time]. That is multi-posting.

Alternatively, you could send it out once, and in the Newsgroups line
you could put: rec.pets.cats.misc,alt.cats,alt.animals.felines

It will now only be downloaded once [assuming reasonable software]. It
will appear in each group, and once it has been read any one group, it
will be marked as read in all of them. That is cross-posting.

Cross-posting is often wrong, because people tend to cross-post to
unsuitable groups. For example, if your cat has a medical problem, it
may be reasonable to cross-post to rec.pets.cats.health+behav and
alt.cats and alt.animals.felines because the latter two groups are
general cat groups, and someone there may be able to help: but it is not
reasonable to cross-post to rec.pets.cats.misc or
rec.pets.cats.anecdotes because these groups are for different things.

However cross-posting is right some of the time.

Multi-posting is a waste of bandwidth, money, and people's time, with no
advantages whatever, and should never be indulged in.

Please, only cross-post if you are sure your article is suitable for the
different newsgroups; never multi-post.

"Corey Richardson" > ha scritto nel messaggio news

Fine, you've found someone who lets you think your questions are important
to all of us around the world. OTH, many have asked you to desist. You
won't. So you will end up in everyone's killfile.

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 20:09:23 +0200, "Giusi" >
wrote:

>"Corey Richardson" > ha scritto nel messaggio news
>
>Fine, you've found someone who lets you think your questions are important
>to all of us around the world.

More nastiness from you.

My, or anyone else's, opinions and questions are as valid as yours are
Giusi.

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 20:09:23 +0200, "Giusi" >
wrote:

>"Corey Richardson" > ha scritto nel messaggio news
>
>Fine, you've found someone

Oh, and it wasn't difficult to find.

Here's another one:

http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/usenet/xpost.html

Giusi wrote:
> "Corey Richardson" > ha scritto nel
> messaggio news
> Fine, you've found someone who lets you think your questions are
> important to all of us around the world. OTH, many have asked you to
> desist. You won't. So you will end up in everyone's killfile.

Well, he is in mine.

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 20:04:06 +0100, "Ophelia" >
wrote:

>Giusi wrote:
>> "Corey Richardson" > ha scritto nel
>> messaggio news
>> Fine, you've found someone who lets you think your questions are
>> important to all of us around the world. OTH, many have asked you to
>> desist. You won't. So you will end up in everyone's killfile.
>
>Well, he is in mine.

As you wish Ophelia. I think I've posted on more on-topic subjects than
you in the past week though.

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 22:04:33 GMT, "Graham" > wrote:

>
>"Corey Richardson" > wrote in message
.. .
>> On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 20:39:42 +0100, June Hughes
>> > wrote:
>>
>> You want me to break usenet convention and my NSP's TOS and multi-post?
>>
>But you won't be!!
>Multi-posting on your scale is OK. The multi-posting that gets everyones
>knickers in a twist is called spamming!!

People *really* don't seem to realise just how bad multi-posting is and
that there's never a reason why it should *ever be done.

[and yes, this is crossposted to rec.food.cooking for clarity in both
groups]

Please *everyone* read this!

Quote http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/usenet/xpost.html

"You might compose a message, using your favorite program, and post it
to one group. Then you could, depending on the program you use, just
edit the line that contains the group name and repost, or use some other
method of sending messages with identical content as separate postings.
This means multiposting: several copies of the text are sent, as
separate messages, within different message identifiers and with no
connection to each other as far as the Usenet techniques and protocols
are considered. This is the completely wrong way. (Well, perhaps there
is no perfection in madness. You could also use different headings to
confuse things more, or you could type the message copies by hand so
that they use different formulations.) To begin with, it's more awkward
to you than crossposting. More seriously, it will disrupt the discussion
on Usenet, such as answers to your questions and comments on those
answers.

Let's assume that you post a question to two groups, say alt.html and
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html (c.i.w.a.h.), as separate postings.
Let's optimistically assume that the question is really on-topic for
both groups (in our example, that the question is about HTML authoring
for the WWW).

First, to see all answers, you need to check what will be posted to both
groups. More work for you.

Crossposting is easier than sending separate postings. You don't really
need any other reason. The following discusssion is here to tell you why
failure to crosspost really disturbs people.

Most readers of the two groups probably read only one of them. (This is
particularly true for very active groups like those I have chosen as
examples.) If I read c.i.w.a.h. only, I will see your question but not
those answers that have been sent to your identical message in alt.html.
This is especially harmful if the answers sent to the group I read are
all wrong but some answers in the other group aren't. And people will
spend their time in trying to find answers to your question, after
seeing that it still remains unanswered, without knowing that someone
took great effort and solved your problem - in another group.

Everyone who reads both groups will see your article twice, with no
obvious indication of seeing something they had already seen. If you
used crossposting, most newsreaders would show the article once only to
each reader (and even people using other newsreaders would be able to
easily see that it's a crossposted article). Don't you think such
repetition will make communication more effective!

And people who read both groups will get ****ed off when they see, after
taking the trouble of answering your question in one group, that an
identical question had been sent to another group. There's little one
can do then. One could post a followup message to the other group,
including a copy of the answer or a reference to it, but in addition to
being extra traffic that could have been avoided, it really does not
solve the problem. The two replies are distinct articles, and any
comments to them will go to the respective groups. Using Followup-To
fields referring to both groups could cause more harm than do any good.
In any case, there is no way to bring two threads together once the
mistake has been made by sending a message to several groups without
crossposting."

Corey Richardson wrote:

> On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 22:04:33 GMT, "Graham" > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Corey Richardson" > wrote in message
. ..
>>> On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 20:39:42 +0100, June Hughes
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>> You want me to break usenet convention and my NSP's TOS and multi-post?
>>>
>>But you won't be!!
>>Multi-posting on your scale is OK. The multi-posting that gets everyones
>>knickers in a twist is called spamming!!
>
> People *really* don't seem to realise just how bad multi-posting is and
> that there's never a reason why it should *ever be done.
>
> [and yes, this is crossposted to rec.food.cooking for clarity in both
> groups]

Many don't even understand that crossposting and multiposting are
different practices...


--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Need a new news feed? http://blinkynet.net/comp/newfeed.html

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 16:10:01 -0700, Blinky the Shark
> wrote:

>Corey Richardson wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 22:04:33 GMT, "Graham" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Corey Richardson" > wrote in message
...
>>>> On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 20:39:42 +0100, June Hughes
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> You want me to break usenet convention and my NSP's TOS and multi-post?
>>>>
>>>But you won't be!!
>>>Multi-posting on your scale is OK. The multi-posting that gets everyones
>>>knickers in a twist is called spamming!!
>>
>> People *really* don't seem to realise just how bad multi-posting is and
>> that there's never a reason why it should *ever be done.
>>
>> [and yes, this is crossposted to rec.food.cooking for clarity in both
>> groups]
>
>Many don't even understand that crossposting and multiposting are
>different practices...

Maybe if they took a little time out for usenet education...

It's no wonder usenet is dying, Blinky

Corey Richardson wrote:

> On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 16:10:01 -0700, Blinky the Shark
> > wrote:
>
>>Corey Richardson wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 22:04:33 GMT, "Graham" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Corey Richardson" > wrote in message
m...
>>>>> On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 20:39:42 +0100, June Hughes
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> You want me to break usenet convention and my NSP's TOS and multi-post?
>>>>>
>>>>But you won't be!!
>>>>Multi-posting on your scale is OK. The multi-posting that gets everyones
>>>>knickers in a twist is called spamming!!
>>>
>>> People *really* don't seem to realise just how bad multi-posting is and
>>> that there's never a reason why it should *ever be done.
>>>
>>> [and yes, this is crossposted to rec.food.cooking for clarity in both
>>> groups]
>>
>>Many don't even understand that crossposting and multiposting are
>>different practices...
>
> Maybe if they took a little time out for usenet education...
>
> It's no wonder usenet is dying, Blinky

The web interfaces contribute significantly to that.

http://howardk.freenix.org/msgid.cgi?ID=120829004500

And, of course, the first link in my sig (which also links to that page).


--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Need a new news feed? http://blinkynet.net/comp/newfeed.html

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 16:28:32 -0700, Blinky the Shark
> wrote:

>Corey Richardson wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 16:10:01 -0700, Blinky the Shark
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>Corey Richardson wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 22:04:33 GMT, "Graham" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"Corey Richardson" > wrote in message
om...
>>>>>> On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 20:39:42 +0100, June Hughes
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You want me to break usenet convention and my NSP's TOS and multi-post?
>>>>>>
>>>>>But you won't be!!
>>>>>Multi-posting on your scale is OK. The multi-posting that gets everyones
>>>>>knickers in a twist is called spamming!!
>>>>
>>>> People *really* don't seem to realise just how bad multi-posting is and
>>>> that there's never a reason why it should *ever be done.
>>>>
>>>> [and yes, this is crossposted to rec.food.cooking for clarity in both
>>>> groups]
>>>
>>>Many don't even understand that crossposting and multiposting are
>>>different practices...
>>
>> Maybe if they took a little time out for usenet education...
>>
>> It's no wonder usenet is dying, Blinky
>
>The web interfaces contribute significantly to that.
>
>http://howardk.freenix.org/msgid.cgi?ID=120829004500
>
>And, of course, the first link in my sig (which also links to that page).

I've read that many times before and I totally agree. Google groups are
yet another example of people who do not know how to use usenet
properly.

But, it's often amazing that many of those who demand multi-posting over
valid, on-topic, cross-posting aren't Google group users...

Whoever told them that multi-posting was preferable and that on-topic
x-posting was wrong should be shot for usenet misinformation, IMHO.

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 23:50:11 +0100, Corey Richardson
> wrote:

>Please *everyone* read this!

Compose your message and post it twice. If you really read those
newsgroups, you'll be able to see how the thread diverges in each
group.


--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

sf wrote:

> On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 23:50:11 +0100, Corey Richardson
> > wrote:
>
> > Please everyone read this!
>
> Compose your message and post it twice.

No, don't.



Brian

--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)

Default User > wrote:
> sf wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 23:50:11 +0100, Corey Richardson
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > Please everyone read this!
> >
> > Compose your message and post it twice.
>
> No, don't.
>
> Brian

No don't what?!

Jill

jmcquown wrote:

> Default User > wrote:
> > sf wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 23:50:11 +0100, Corey Richardson
> >> > wrote:
> >> > > Please everyone read this!
> >> > Compose your message and post it twice.
> >
> > No, don't.
> >
> > Brian
>
> No don't what?!

What was unclear? I responded directly to an imperative statement
countermanding it. Try reading it again.



Brian

--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)

Default User > wrote:
> jmcquown wrote:
>
> > Default User > wrote:
> > > sf wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 23:50:11 +0100, Corey Richardson
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > Please everyone read this!
> > > > > Compose your message and post it twice.
> > >
> > > No, don't.
> > >
> > > Brian
> >
> > No don't what?!
>
> What was unclear? I responded directly to an imperative statement
> countermanding it. Try reading it again.
>
>
>
> Brian

I read you seem to think it's a problem writing a post and then posting it
separately. Why, I don't know, but I gave you the benefit of the doubt by
asking before passing judgement. It's NOT difficult to compose something
then copy/paste to separate ngs in separate posts. Doing so will net the OP
much less aggravation and accusations of trolling. But of course he's
trolling so he's getting exactly what he hoped for when people like you
champion the cross-posting cause!

jmcquown wrote:

> Default User > wrote:
> > jmcquown wrote:
> >
> >> Default User > wrote:
> >> > sf wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 23:50:11 +0100, Corey Richardson
> >> > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > Please everyone read this!
> >> > > > Compose your message and post it twice.
> >> >
> >> > No, don't.

> >> No don't what?!
> >
> > What was unclear? I responded directly to an imperative statement
> > countermanding it. Try reading it again.

> I read you seem to think it's a problem writing a post and then
> posting it separately.

There you go. You got it in one.

> Why, I don't know, but I gave you the benefit
> of the doubt by asking before passing judgement. It's NOT difficult
> to compose something then copy/paste to separate ngs in separate
> posts.

Who said anything about difficulty? Multi-posting is wrong. It should
not be done. Clear now?

> Doing so will net the OP much less aggravation and
> accusations of trolling. But of course he's trolling so he's getting
> exactly what he hoped for when people like you champion the
> cross-posting cause!

If he's going to post to more than one group, then cross-posting is the
correct way.




Brian

--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)

On 15 Aug 2008 20:17:14 GMT, "Retard User" >
wrote:

>jmcquown wrote:

>> Doing so will net the OP much less aggravation and
>> accusations of trolling. But of course he's trolling so he's getting
>> exactly what he hoped for when people like you champion the
>> cross-posting cause!
>
>If he's going to post to more than one group, then cross-posting is the
>correct way.

Unless the readers of one, both, or all of the groups object to it.

Crossposting almost always results in a ****ing match. I and others
could care less what a UK food group or a fast food group has to say
about anything unless they are here of their own accord rather than
being dragged in by a crosspost.

Recently there was a query about Chicago deep dish pizza. Greg had
good intentions and crossposted it into two Chicago groups he is
familiar with. I'm familiar with them also but don't post there. The
goofs came in and he toned it down, but the OP was either a fly-by or
was scared off. I'm guessing the latter.

Bandwidth crap is a lame excuse or google would not exist.

The correct way to post involves common sense. I know you don't have
any or you wouldn't have me in your killfile.

Lou

On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 16:47:38 -0500, Lou Decruss > wrote:

>>jmcquown wrote:
>
>>> Doing so will net the OP much less aggravation and
>>> accusations of trolling. But of course he's trolling so he's getting
>>> exactly what he hoped for when people like you champion the
>>> cross-posting cause!
>>
>>If he's going to post to more than one group, then cross-posting is the
>>correct way.
>
>Unless the readers of one, both, or all of the groups object to it.

No. multi-posting is *never* the correct way regardless.

Please read up on Usenet FAQs and nettiquette.

On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 23:02:28 +0100, Corey Richardson
> wrote:

>On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 16:47:38 -0500, Lou Decruss > wrote:
>
>>>jmcquown wrote:
>>
>>>> Doing so will net the OP much less aggravation and
>>>> accusations of trolling. But of course he's trolling so he's getting
>>>> exactly what he hoped for when people like you champion the
>>>> cross-posting cause!
>>>
>>>If he's going to post to more than one group, then cross-posting is the
>>>correct way.
>>
>>Unless the readers of one, both, or all of the groups object to it.
>
>No. multi-posting is *never* the correct way regardless.

In your mind. LOL You read it on the internet so you ignore common
sense? Try x-posting neeked pictures of your ugly old lady to a few
relevant binary groups and see what happens.

>Please read up on Usenet FAQs and nettiquette.

Please don't tell me what to do. Especially when it's something I've
done long ago.

Lou

Lou Decruss wrote:

> On 15 Aug 2008 20:17:14 GMT, "Retard User" >
> wrote:
>
> >jmcquown wrote:
>
> >> Doing so will net the OP much less aggravation and
> >> accusations of trolling. But of course he's trolling so he's getting
> >> exactly what he hoped for when people like you champion the
> >> cross-posting cause!
> >
> >If he's going to post to more than one group, then cross-posting is the
> >correct way.
>
> Unless the readers of one, both, or all of the groups object to it.
>
> Crossposting almost always results in a ****ing match. I and others
> could care less what a UK food group or a fast food group has to say
> about anything unless they are here of their own accord rather than
> being dragged in by a crosspost.
>
> Recently there was a query about Chicago deep dish pizza. Greg had
> good intentions and crossposted it into two Chicago groups he is
> familiar with. I'm familiar with them also but don't post there. The
> goofs came in and he toned it down, but the OP was either a fly-by or
> was scared off. I'm guessing the latter.


Yup, I like this group and the chi. groups but I guess not together, that
will not happen again...

:-)


--
Best
Greg

On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 15:30:20 -0500, "Gregory Morrow"
> wrote:

>Yup, I like this group and the chi. groups but I guess not together, that
>will not happen again...

I'm sure both groups will be happier, thanks.


--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 14:50:05 -0500, Lou Decruss > wrote:

>On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 23:02:28 +0100, Corey Richardson
> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 16:47:38 -0500, Lou Decruss > wrote:
>>
>>>>jmcquown wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Doing so will net the OP much less aggravation and
>>>>> accusations of trolling. But of course he's trolling so he's getting
>>>>> exactly what he hoped for when people like you champion the
>>>>> cross-posting cause!
>>>>
>>>>If he's going to post to more than one group, then cross-posting is the
>>>>correct way.
>>>
>>>Unless the readers of one, both, or all of the groups object to it.
>>
>>No. multi-posting is *never* the correct way regardless.
>
>In your mind. LOL

Not just in my mind. It's just never correct and you can, and are
likely, to lose you account if you do it.

>You read it on the internet so you ignore common sense?

Yes, I read the many FAQs saying not to do it, so I don't.

>Try x-posting neeked pictures of your ugly old lady to a few
>relevant binary groups and see what happens.

I don't think I'll do that because:

A: My "ugly old lady" is young and beautiful

B: Why would anyone want to post pictures of their wife to Usenet?

>>Please read up on Usenet FAQs and nettiquette.
>
>Please don't tell me what to do. Especially when it's something I've
>done long ago.

So, you read them and then ignored them?

On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 23:01:54 +0100, Corey Richardson
> wrote:

>On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 14:50:05 -0500, Lou Decruss > wrote:

>>>Please read up on Usenet FAQs and nettiquette.
>>
>>Please don't tell me what to do. Especially when it's something I've
>>done long ago.
>
>So, you read them and then ignored them?

I ignore most things that either don't make sense or are outdated.
I'll probably be ignoring you too unless you stop dragging other
groups in here. If I wanted to read them I would. I had a bit of
time this morning so I went and got the headers from the UK group and
there's more kooks there than here.

Lou

On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 11:18:08 -0500, Lou Decruss wrote:

> On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 23:01:54 +0100, Corey Richardson
> > wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 14:50:05 -0500, Lou Decruss > wrote:
>
>>>>Please read up on Usenet FAQs and nettiquette.
>>>
>>>Please don't tell me what to do. Especially when it's something I've
>>>done long ago.
>>
>>So, you read them and then ignored them?
>
> I ignore most things that either don't make sense or are outdated.
> I'll probably be ignoring you too unless you stop dragging other
> groups in here. If I wanted to read them I would. I had a bit of
> time this morning so I went and got the headers from the UK group and
> there's more kooks there than here.
>
> Lou

by god, we can't have that. let's round up some of our kooks and send them
over there. u.s.a. number one! don't fire until you see the pink of their
spam!

your pal,
a concerned citizen

Corey Richardson > wrote in
:

> No. multi-posting is *never* the correct way regardless.
>
> Please read up on Usenet FAQs and nettiquette.

This was true years ago, when crossposting was used to ask a question of
the most possible number of users. And, THAT was when those FAQs were
written.

Today, crossposting is used almost exclusively by trolls to begin and fan
flame wars in any number of different groups.

The FAQs need to be rewritten, because the landscape has changed.

I have my newsreader set to ignore all crossposted threads.

On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 23:02:28 +0100, Corey Richardson
> wrote:

>On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 16:47:38 -0500, Lou Decruss > wrote:
>
>>>jmcquown wrote:
>>
>>>> Doing so will net the OP much less aggravation and
>>>> accusations of trolling. But of course he's trolling so he's getting
>>>> exactly what he hoped for when people like you champion the
>>>> cross-posting cause!
>>>
>>>If he's going to post to more than one group, then cross-posting is the
>>>correct way.
>>
>>Unless the readers of one, both, or all of the groups object to it.
>
>No. multi-posting is *never* the correct way regardless.

If I have a question I want to pose to several diverse groups whose
members would be unlikely to be interested in a crossposted thread,
multiposting is a simple and efficient way to ask that question.

If I want to ask the same question in, say, soc.women and soc.men, two
groups whose perspectives are drastically different, it would be
incendiary to crosspost, but potentially interesting to see how the
answers differed.

>Please read up on Usenet FAQs and nettiquette.

Where are you reading? Most of what I read refers to EXCESSIVE
multiposting, which would be considered spam.

Laurie

In article >,
Laurie S. > wrote:

> On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 23:02:28 +0100, Corey Richardson
> > wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 16:47:38 -0500, Lou Decruss > wrote:
> >
> >>>jmcquown wrote:
> >>
> >>>> Doing so will net the OP much less aggravation and
> >>>> accusations of trolling. But of course he's trolling so he's getting
> >>>> exactly what he hoped for when people like you champion the
> >>>> cross-posting cause!
> >>>
> >>>If he's going to post to more than one group, then cross-posting is the
> >>>correct way.
> >>
> >>Unless the readers of one, both, or all of the groups object to it.
> >
> >No. multi-posting is *never* the correct way regardless.
>
> If I have a question I want to pose to several diverse groups whose
> members would be unlikely to be interested in a crossposted thread,
> multiposting is a simple and efficient way to ask that question.
>
> If I want to ask the same question in, say, soc.women and soc.men, two
> groups whose perspectives are drastically different, it would be
> incendiary to crosspost, but potentially interesting to see how the
> answers differed.
>
> >Please read up on Usenet FAQs and nettiquette.
>
> Where are you reading? Most of what I read refers to EXCESSIVE
> multiposting, which would be considered spam.

I thought of a stupid story to post here, as an explanation, but it's
really stupid, and maybe you wouldn't get the point anyway.

The point is, many people dislike cross-posting, and don't want to see
it. Multi-posting is not the answer, because those people who dislike
cross-posting don't dislike multi-posting, THEY HATE IT WITH AN INTENSE
PASSION!

"EXCESSIVE multi-posting" is any post that is made identically to more
than one group.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 23:58:55 -0700, Dan Abel > wrote:

>In article >,
> Laurie S. > wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 23:02:28 +0100, Corey Richardson
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 16:47:38 -0500, Lou Decruss > wrote:
>> >
>> >>>jmcquown wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>> Doing so will net the OP much less aggravation and
>> >>>> accusations of trolling. But of course he's trolling so he's getting
>> >>>> exactly what he hoped for when people like you champion the
>> >>>> cross-posting cause!
>> >>>
>> >>>If he's going to post to more than one group, then cross-posting is the
>> >>>correct way.
>> >>
>> >>Unless the readers of one, both, or all of the groups object to it.
>> >
>> >No. multi-posting is *never* the correct way regardless.
>>
>> If I have a question I want to pose to several diverse groups whose
>> members would be unlikely to be interested in a crossposted thread,
>> multiposting is a simple and efficient way to ask that question.
>>
>> If I want to ask the same question in, say, soc.women and soc.men, two
>> groups whose perspectives are drastically different, it would be
>> incendiary to crosspost, but potentially interesting to see how the
>> answers differed.
>>
>> >Please read up on Usenet FAQs and nettiquette.
>>
>> Where are you reading? Most of what I read refers to EXCESSIVE
>> multiposting, which would be considered spam.
>
>I thought of a stupid story to post here, as an explanation, but it's
>really stupid, and maybe you wouldn't get the point anyway.

Well, maybe if there was a story that wasn't stupid, it would work
better.

>The point is, many people dislike cross-posting, and don't want to see
>it. Multi-posting is not the answer, because those people who dislike
>cross-posting don't dislike multi-posting, THEY HATE IT WITH AN INTENSE
>PASSION!

I see. We must travel in different circles. The posters I have known
over the past 12 years who have hated cross-posting hated it for
reasons that specifically relate to mixing groups together,
particularly those that are a bad mix. Such as the time someone in
soc.men (I believe that was the origin) decided to crosspost to
talk.rape and a pro-gun group the position that people who don't carry
guns are accepting to be raped. That thread was over a thousand posts
long. Although I wouldn't have chosen for it to be there, it ended up
being kind of interesting. (t.r. is a discussion group, so it's not
nearly so evil as crossposting offensive stuff to a support group.)

If the main reason to hate multiposting is bandwidth, then I think the
people who hate them would be those who also dislike top-posting and
quoting entire lengthy posts to say a line or two, rather than those
who complain about people crossposting to groups about shyness, crime
and painted turtles. The considerations are markedly different.

>"EXCESSIVE multi-posting" is any post that is made identically to more
>than one group.

Um, doesn't that make the word "excessive" useless?

Laurie

Laurie S. wrote:

> If the main reason to hate multiposting is bandwidth, then I think the
> people who hate them would be those who also dislike top-posting and
> quoting entire lengthy posts to say a line or two, rather than those
> who complain about people crossposting to groups about shyness, crime
> and painted turtles. The considerations are markedly different.

It's really not. The main reason multiposting is hated is that clued
users with decent news clients can - by default or configuration - have
crossposted posts killed in all groups they subscribe to, once read in
one. Thus, for someone that *also* subscribes to the Groups A and B and C
you crossposted to, they don't have to see those posts all over again in
the second and third groups, once read in one group. When they're
multiposted, this nice feature is circumvented. Naturally, the "I'll post
however I want, nyah, nyah, nyah!" children don't get this. And they join
the other ignorant posters who won't follow Usenet standards and
netiquette because they don't know, and don't care to know, How Stuff
They're Using Works.


--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Need a new news feed? http://blinkynet.net/comp/newfeed.html

Laurie S. wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 23:02:28 +0100, Corey Richardson
> > wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 16:47:38 -0500, Lou Decruss >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> jmcquown wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Doing so will net the OP much less aggravation and
>>>>> accusations of trolling. But of course he's trolling so he's
>>>>> getting exactly what he hoped for when people like you champion
>>>>> the cross-posting cause!
>>>>
>>>> If he's going to post to more than one group, then cross-posting
>>>> is the correct way.
>>>
>>> Unless the readers of one, both, or all of the groups object to it.
>>
>> No. multi-posting is *never* the correct way regardless.
>
> If I have a question I want to pose to several diverse groups whose
> members would be unlikely to be interested in a crossposted thread,
> multiposting is a simple and efficient way to ask that question.
>
> If I want to ask the same question in, say, soc.women and soc.men, two
> groups whose perspectives are drastically different, it would be
> incendiary to crosspost, but potentially interesting to see how the
> answers differed.
>
>> Please read up on Usenet FAQs and nettiquette.
>
> Where are you reading? Most of what I read refers to EXCESSIVE
> multiposting, which would be considered spam.
>
> Laurie


I don't know about the gazillion other newsgroups Corey crossposts to but
read the rfc FAQ at http://www.recfoodcooking.org/FAQ.html

Why are you dredging up a post I made before I killfiled him in August,
anyway?

Jill

Blinky the Shark wrote:

> Laurie S. wrote:
>
> > If the main reason to hate multiposting is bandwidth, then I think
> > the people who hate them would be those who also dislike
> > top-posting and quoting entire lengthy posts to say a line or two,
> > rather than those who complain about people crossposting to groups
> > about shyness, crime and painted turtles. The considerations are
> > markedly different.
>
> It's really not. The main reason multiposting is hated is that clued
> users with decent news clients can - by default or configuration -
> have crossposted posts killed in all groups they subscribe to, once
> read in one. Thus, for someone that also subscribes to the Groups A
> and B and C you crossposted to, they don't have to see those posts
> all over again in the second and third groups, once read in one
> group.

Another big advantage is that some of us can filter crossposted
messages.



Brian

--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)

In article >,
Laurie S. > wrote:

> On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 23:58:55 -0700, Dan Abel > wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> > Laurie S. > wrote:

> >> Where are you reading? Most of what I read refers to EXCESSIVE
> >> multiposting, which would be considered spam.

I think you have it backwards. Spammers *have* to multi-post, they have
no choice. It's not that excessive multi-posting is considered spam,
but that spam has to be multi-posted. No reasonable person, especially
after the first time, will scroll through several hundred screens of
header information showing the 10,000 groups that spam is cross-posted
to, so the spammers *have* to multi-post so that their spam appears on
the first screen.

> >I thought of a stupid story to post here, as an explanation, but it's
> >really stupid, and maybe you wouldn't get the point anyway.
>
> Well, maybe if there was a story that wasn't stupid, it would work
> better.

It wouldn't make the point then. Besides, I'm really terrible at
telling stories, and people often turn to me afterwards, and say that it
was a nice enough story, but what was the *point*?

> >The point is, many people dislike cross-posting, and don't want to see
> >it. Multi-posting is not the answer, because those people who dislike
> >cross-posting don't dislike multi-posting, THEY HATE IT WITH AN INTENSE
> >PASSION!
>
> I see. We must travel in different circles. The posters I have known
> over the past 12 years who have hated cross-posting hated it for
> reasons that specifically relate to mixing groups together,
> particularly those that are a bad mix. Such as the time someone in
> soc.men (I believe that was the origin) decided to crosspost to
> talk.rape and a pro-gun group the position that people who don't carry
> guns are accepting to be raped. That thread was over a thousand posts
> long. Although I wouldn't have chosen for it to be there, it ended up
> being kind of interesting. (t.r. is a discussion group, so it's not
> nearly so evil as crossposting offensive stuff to a support group.)

So if some (if not most) cross-posting is inappropriate, then you are
proposing doing the exact same thing (mixing groups together, especially
when inappropriate), but multi-posting instead, so anybody who happens
to read more than one of the groups is forced to see the post multiple
times. Two wrongs don't make a right. If it's inappropriate for
cross-posting, it is more inappropriate for multi-posting. The only
difference is that cross-posting shows in the header, which most news
clients display, and multi-posting doesn't show in the header, so if the
groups are inappropriate enough, you are less likely to get caught.

> If the main reason to hate multiposting is bandwidth,

A reason to hate spam is bandwidth. The main reason to hate non-spam
multi-posting is mixing groups together, especially those that are a bad
mix.


> then I think the
> people who hate them would be those who also dislike top-posting and
> quoting entire lengthy posts to say a line or two,

I can hate top posting and a failure to trim whether a post is
single-posted, cross-posted or multi-posted. It's a different problem.


> rather than those
> who complain about people crossposting to groups about shyness, crime
> and painted turtles. The considerations are markedly different.

In fact, they are unrelated.

> >"EXCESSIVE multi-posting" is any post that is made identically to more
> >than one group.
>
> Um, doesn't that make the word "excessive" useless?

I think it makes my point. There are two amounts of multi-posting: none
and excessive. I put it in quotes because I lifted it from your post in
the top paragraph above, that I was replying to, complete with the first
word in all caps.
>
> Laurie

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

In article >,
"Default User" > wrote:

> Blinky the Shark wrote:
>
> > Laurie S. wrote:
> >
> > > If the main reason to hate multiposting is bandwidth, then I think
> > > the people who hate them would be those who also dislike
> > > top-posting and quoting entire lengthy posts to say a line or two,
> > > rather than those who complain about people crossposting to groups
> > > about shyness, crime and painted turtles. The considerations are
> > > markedly different.
> >
> > It's really not. The main reason multiposting is hated is that clued
> > users with decent news clients can - by default or configuration -
> > have crossposted posts killed in all groups they subscribe to, once
> > read in one. Thus, for someone that also subscribes to the Groups A
> > and B and C you crossposted to, they don't have to see those posts
> > all over again in the second and third groups, once read in one
> > group.
>
> Another big advantage is that some of us can filter crossposted
> messages.

That's the only way I got rid of Chung on this group. He changed his
name or Email address or both every week or so, but he was always
cross-posting from sci.med.cardiology. He did it just to annoy one
person on this group. What a jerk!

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 23:04:50 -0700, Dan Abel > wrote:

>In article >,
> "Default User" > wrote:
>
>> Blinky the Shark wrote:
>>
>> > Laurie S. wrote:
>> >
>> > > If the main reason to hate multiposting is bandwidth, then I think
>> > > the people who hate them would be those who also dislike
>> > > top-posting and quoting entire lengthy posts to say a line or two,
>> > > rather than those who complain about people crossposting to groups
>> > > about shyness, crime and painted turtles. The considerations are
>> > > markedly different.
>> >
>> > It's really not. The main reason multiposting is hated is that clued
>> > users with decent news clients can - by default or configuration -
>> > have crossposted posts killed in all groups they subscribe to, once
>> > read in one. Thus, for someone that also subscribes to the Groups A
>> > and B and C you crossposted to, they don't have to see those posts
>> > all over again in the second and third groups, once read in one
>> > group.
>>
>> Another big advantage is that some of us can filter crossposted
>> messages.
>
>That's the only way I got rid of Chung on this group. He changed his
>name or Email address or both every week or so, but he was always
>cross-posting from sci.med.cardiology. He did it just to annoy one
>person on this group. What a jerk!

I can sorta filter xposted messages... my newsreader has a popup where
you choose to reply to all or just the group you're reading it in. It
works for me.


--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

sf wrote:

> On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 23:04:50 -0700, Dan Abel > wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > "Default User" > wrote:

> >> Another big advantage is that some of us can filter crossposted
> >> messages.
> >
> > That's the only way I got rid of Chung on this group. He changed
> > his name or Email address or both every week or so, but he was
> > always cross-posting from sci.med.cardiology. He did it just to
> > annoy one person on this group. What a jerk!
>
> I can sorta filter xposted messages... my newsreader has a popup where
> you choose to reply to all or just the group you're reading it in. It
> works for me.

That's not filtering. All that does is defeat those of us who do have
filters.




Brian

--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)

On Thu, 9 Oct 2008 08:13:35 -0400, "jmcquown" >
wrote:

>I don't know about the gazillion other newsgroups Corey crossposts to but
>read the rfc FAQ at http://www.recfoodcooking.org/FAQ.html

Pardon me? "Gazillion"? Could you kindly produce evidence of when I've
ever done that?

And if the RFC FAQ doesn't follow the correct Usenet convention, it's
wrong.

I only cross-posted it to two (maybe three?) very relevant food
newsgroups that had been insisting that multi-posting *must* be used
instead of cross-posting. Those people were *very* wrong and are killing
Usenet!

>Why are you dredging up a post I made before I killfiled him in August,
>anyway?

Why are you dictating what Laurie may do?

On 10 Oct 2008 15:48:18 GMT, "Default User" >
wrote:

>sf wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 23:04:50 -0700, Dan Abel > wrote:
>>
>> > In article >,
>> > "Default User" > wrote:
>
>> >> Another big advantage is that some of us can filter crossposted
>> >> messages.
>> >
>> > That's the only way I got rid of Chung on this group. He changed
>> > his name or Email address or both every week or so, but he was
>> > always cross-posting from sci.med.cardiology. He did it just to
>> > annoy one person on this group. What a jerk!
>>
>> I can sorta filter xposted messages... my newsreader has a popup where
>> you choose to reply to all or just the group you're reading it in. It
>> works for me.
>
>That's not filtering.

OK, I can agree although it's filtering AFAIC - it notifies me and
gives me a choice. I can modify the ngs I reply to - if I choose to
reply to more than rfc.

>All that does is defeat those of us who do have filters.
>
I don't understand. If someone from outside rfc replies, why can't
your filter take care of it?


--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

sf wrote:

> On 10 Oct 2008 15:48:18 GMT, "Default User" >
> wrote:
>
>>sf wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 23:04:50 -0700, Dan Abel > wrote:
>>>
>>> > In article >,
>>> > "Default User" > wrote:
>>
>>> >> Another big advantage is that some of us can filter crossposted
>>> >> messages.
>>> >
>>> > That's the only way I got rid of Chung on this group. He changed
>>> > his name or Email address or both every week or so, but he was
>>> > always cross-posting from sci.med.cardiology. He did it just to
>>> > annoy one person on this group. What a jerk!
>>>
>>> I can sorta filter xposted messages... my newsreader has a popup where
>>> you choose to reply to all or just the group you're reading it in. It
>>> works for me.
>>
>>That's not filtering.
>
> OK, I can agree although it's filtering AFAIC - it notifies me and
> gives me a choice. I can modify the ngs I reply to - if I choose to
> reply to more than rfc.

That's not filtering. It's choosing what group(s) to reply to.


--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Need a new news feed? http://blinkynet.net/comp/newfeed.html

On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 21:41:54 -0700, Blinky the Shark
> wrote:

>sf wrote:
>
>> On 10 Oct 2008 15:48:18 GMT, "Default User" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>sf wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 23:04:50 -0700, Dan Abel > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > In article >,
>>>> > "Default User" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> >> Another big advantage is that some of us can filter crossposted
>>>> >> messages.
>>>> >
>>>> > That's the only way I got rid of Chung on this group. He changed
>>>> > his name or Email address or both every week or so, but he was
>>>> > always cross-posting from sci.med.cardiology. He did it just to
>>>> > annoy one person on this group. What a jerk!
>>>>
>>>> I can sorta filter xposted messages... my newsreader has a popup where
>>>> you choose to reply to all or just the group you're reading it in. It
>>>> works for me.
>>>
>>>That's not filtering.
>>
>> OK, I can agree although it's filtering AFAIC - it notifies me and
>> gives me a choice. I can modify the ngs I reply to - if I choose to
>> reply to more than rfc.
>
>That's not filtering. It's choosing what group(s) to reply to.
>

It's a non issue here. Guess I'm not so concerned or controlling that
I care.



--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West