I made a totally awesome meal tonight and would like to share it with
rfc and alt.food.barbecue. It was mainly cooked on our outdoor grill
and used a smoking method so fits in with both groups. I thought I
would ask before just posting willy nilly. Does anyone mind if it do
this?

~patches~ wrote:

> I made a totally awesome meal tonight and would like to share it with
> rfc and alt.food.barbecue. It was mainly cooked on our outdoor grill
> and used a smoking method so fits in with both groups. I thought I
> would ask before just posting willy nilly. Does anyone mind if it do
> this?

I look in on both groups so I'd see it in any case, but I can't imagine
why anyone would concern themselves with how many groups you posted to.
Let us look!

Bubba

--
You wanna measure, or you wanna cook?

~patches~ wrote:
> I made a totally awesome meal tonight and would like to share it with
> rfc and alt.food.barbecue. It was mainly cooked on our outdoor grill
> and used a smoking method so fits in with both groups. I thought I
> would ask before just posting willy nilly. Does anyone mind if it do
> this?

The only time anyone here cares about cross-posting is if you're
cross-posting to every group on Usenet that doesn't have anything to do with
topics talked about here - e.g. political groups, religious groups, skiing
in Vermont groups... you get the drift And thank you for asking! That
was very nice of you!

Jill

Go for it!

In article >, ~patches~
> wrote:

> I made a totally awesome meal tonight and would like to share it with
> rfc and alt.food.barbecue. It was mainly cooked on our outdoor grill
> and used a smoking method so fits in with both groups. I thought I
> would ask before just posting willy nilly. Does anyone mind if it do
> this?

i don't know protocol but I'd rather see two separate posts (one in each
group) rather than one posted marked for two groups. That way the
follow-ups stay with the group in which they were posted.
--
-Barb, <http://www.jamlady.eboard.com> 6/6/05 Sam I Am!
June 25, 1945: Me and Carly Simon. I wonder if she makes jam.
(It's not too early to shop -- good chocolate and cheap gin.
Or is it cheap chocolate and good gin? I never
remember. No jam--coal to Newcastle and all that. "-)

Melba's Jammin' wrote:
> patches wrote:
>
> > I made a totally awesome meal tonight and would like to share it with
> > rfc and alt.food.barbecue. It was mainly cooked on our outdoor grill
> > and used a smoking method so fits in with both groups. I thought I
> > would ask before just posting willy nilly. Does anyone mind if it do
> > this?
>
> I'd rather see two separate posts (one in each
> group) rather than one posted marked for two groups. That way the
> follow-ups stay with the group in which they were posted.
>
> -Barb

'Zactly... crossposting is *never* acceptible.

Sheldon

Melba's Jammin' wrote:
> In article >, ~patches~
> > wrote:
>
> > I made a totally awesome meal tonight and would like to share it with
> > rfc and alt.food.barbecue. It was mainly cooked on our outdoor grill
> > and used a smoking method so fits in with both groups. I thought I
> > would ask before just posting willy nilly. Does anyone mind if it do
> > this?
>
> i don't know protocol but I'd rather see two separate posts (one in each
> group) rather than one posted marked for two groups. That way the
> follow-ups stay with the group in which they were posted.

That's the wrong way to do it. "Multi-posting" is usually frowned upon
as a violation of netiquette. A properly configured newsreader will
only show the messages once when they are cross-posted.

If the message is applicable to both groups, then cross-posting is
appropriate, but should be used with EXTREME discretion.



Brian

Default User wrote:
>
> Melba's Jammin' wrote:
>
>>In article >, ~patches~
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I made a totally awesome meal tonight and would like to share it with
>>>rfc and alt.food.barbecue. It was mainly cooked on our outdoor grill
>>>and used a smoking method so fits in with both groups. I thought I
>>>would ask before just posting willy nilly. Does anyone mind if it do
>>>this?
>>
>>i don't know protocol but I'd rather see two separate posts (one in each
>>group) rather than one posted marked for two groups. That way the
>>follow-ups stay with the group in which they were posted.
>
>
> That's the wrong way to do it. "Multi-posting" is usually frowned upon
> as a violation of netiquette. A properly configured newsreader will
> only show the messages once when they are cross-posted.
>
> If the message is applicable to both groups, then cross-posting is
> appropriate, but should be used with EXTREME discretion.
>
>
>
> Brian
>

But "frowning upon" others is some people's entire joy in life. You
wouldn't wanna deprive them of their only source of happiness?

Best regards,
Bob

"~patches~" > wrote in message
...
>I made a totally awesome meal tonight and would like to share it with rfc
>and alt.food.barbecue. It was mainly cooked on our outdoor grill and used
>a smoking method so fits in with both groups. I thought I would ask before
>just posting willy nilly. Does anyone mind if it do this?

Post to one group. Copy and paste the message to post it to the other
group. Takes less time than it took you to post this message.
--
Ed
http://pages.cthome.net/edhome/

In article >, "Edwin Pawlowski" > wrote:
>
>"~patches~" > wrote in message
...
>>I made a totally awesome meal tonight and would like to share it with rfc
>>and alt.food.barbecue. It was mainly cooked on our outdoor grill and used
>>a smoking method so fits in with both groups. I thought I would ask before
>>just posting willy nilly. Does anyone mind if it do this?
>
>Post to one group. Copy and paste the message to post it to the other
>group. Takes less time than it took you to post this message.

Absolute crap! Proper crossposting is *far* preferable to inanely
posting separately to individual groups. With the former, people
subscribed to the various groups concerned only have to deal with it
once; with the latter it turns up when you open each of such groups,
which is a proverbial PITFA!


Cheers, Phred.

--
LID

"Phred" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Edwin
> Pawlowski" > wrote:
>>
>>"~patches~" > wrote in message
...
>>>I made a totally awesome meal tonight and would like to share it with rfc
>>>and alt.food.barbecue. It was mainly cooked on our outdoor grill and
>>>used
>>>a smoking method so fits in with both groups. I thought I would ask
>>>before
>>>just posting willy nilly. Does anyone mind if it do this?
>>
>>Post to one group. Copy and paste the message to post it to the other
>>group. Takes less time than it took you to post this message.
>
> Absolute crap! Proper crossposting is *far* preferable to inanely
> posting separately to individual groups. With the former, people
> subscribed to the various groups concerned only have to deal with it
> once; with the latter it turns up when you open each of such groups,
> which is a proverbial PITFA!
>
>
> Cheers, Phred.
>

Not so. You will see a crossposted message in each and every group it was
crossposted to, just as if it had been posted separately to each group.
Perhaps some newsreaders have a feature to filter out crossposted messages
and that's what you are talking about, but most people will see them all.

Crossposting is convenient for the poster because they will see all replies
in one group no matter where they came from (assuming the responder
crossposted also which usually happens automatically when you hit "Reply to
Group." Individual posting is better for the groups because replies are not
crossposted to all the groups.


--
Peter Aitken
Visit my recipe and kitchen myths page at www.pgacon.com/cooking.htm

Peter Aitken wrote:

> Not so. You will see a crossposted message in each and every group it was
> crossposted to, just as if it had been posted separately to each group.
> Perhaps some newsreaders have a feature to filter out crossposted messages
> and that's what you are talking about, but most people will see them all.


Not if you have a decent newsreader. Even OE gets that right, I
believe. Cross-posted message should be marked as read in ALL
referenced groups.



Brian

Peter Aitken wrote:
> "Phred" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Edwin
> > Pawlowski" > wrote:
> >>
> >>"~patches~" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>I made a totally awesome meal tonight and would like to share it with rfc
> >>>and alt.food.barbecue. It was mainly cooked on our outdoor grill and
> >>>used
> >>>a smoking method so fits in with both groups. I thought I would ask
> >>>before
> >>>just posting willy nilly. Does anyone mind if it do this?
> >>
> >>Post to one group. Copy and paste the message to post it to the other
> >>group. Takes less time than it took you to post this message.
> >
> > Absolute crap! Proper crossposting is *far* preferable to inanely
> > posting separately to individual groups. With the former, people
> > subscribed to the various groups concerned only have to deal with it
> > once; with the latter it turns up when you open each of such groups,
> > which is a proverbial PITFA!
> >
> >
> > Cheers, Phred.
> >
>
> Not so. You will see a crossposted message in each and every group it was
> crossposted to, just as if it had been posted separately to each group.
> Perhaps some newsreaders have a feature to filter out crossposted messages
> and that's what you are talking about,....

but most people will see them all.

True.
>
> Crossposting is convenient for the poster because they will see all replies
> in one group no matter where they came from (assuming the responder
> crossposted also which usually happens automatically when you hit "Reply to
> Group." Individual posting is better for the groups because replies are not
> crossposted to all the groups.
>
>

Yep.

> --
> Peter Aitken
> Visit my recipe and kitchen myths page at www.pgacon.com/cooking.htm

Nice website, BTW

Josie.

In article .com>,
wrote:

> Peter Aitken wrote:
> > "Phred" > wrote in message
> > ...

> > > Absolute crap! Proper crossposting is *far* preferable to inanely
> > > posting separately to individual groups. With the former, people
> > > subscribed to the various groups concerned only have to deal with it
> > > once; with the latter it turns up when you open each of such groups,
> > > which is a proverbial PITFA!

> > Not so. You will see a crossposted message in each and every group it was
> > crossposted to, just as if it had been posted separately to each group.
> > Perhaps some newsreaders have a feature to filter out crossposted messages
> > and that's what you are talking about,....


> but most people will see them all.


> True.


You will *see* the unread message in every group that you are subscribed
to and that it was crossposted to. Once you read that *one* message, you
will no longer see it as an unread message in *any* group. There's only
one message, it is posted to multiple groups. It's possible that there
are seriously broken news clients that mark the posting of the message in
a group as read, rather than the message itself, but I've never met such a
news client and hope never to have its acquaintance.

--
Dan Abel
Sonoma State University
AIS

In article >, "Peter Aitken" > wrote:
>"Phred" > wrote in message
...
>> In article >, "Edwin
>> Pawlowski" > wrote:
>>>Post to one group. Copy and paste the message to post it to the other
>>>group. Takes less time than it took you to post this message.
>>
>> Absolute crap! Proper crossposting is *far* preferable to inanely
>> posting separately to individual groups. With the former, people
>> subscribed to the various groups concerned only have to deal with it
>> once; with the latter it turns up when you open each of such groups,
>> which is a proverbial PITFA!
>
>Not so. You will see a crossposted message in each and every group it was
>crossposted to, just as if it had been posted separately to each group.

Nonsense.

>Perhaps some newsreaders have a feature to filter out crossposted messages
>and that's what you are talking about, but most people will see them all.

What sort of friggin' broken newsreader are you using for chrissake?
Jesus! Even my 8-year-old News Xpress can get that right! They don't
"filter out" crossposted messages, they simply mark a message as Read
in *all* crossposted groups once you've seen it or "caught up" in one.

>Crossposting is convenient for the poster because they will see all replies
>in one group no matter where they came from (assuming the responder
>crossposted also which usually happens automatically when you hit "Reply to
>Group." Individual posting is better for the groups because replies are not
>crossposted to all the groups.

I have some sympathy for this point. It may be desirable to set
Followups in some cases so replies don't clutter other groups.

On the other hand, if a crossposted message is relevant to more than
one group (as in the case of the one which started this thread) it
could well be argued that people in those other groups would welcome
the chance to follow the full discussion without necessarily having to
subscribe to a group they don't normally scan.

Cheers, Phred.

--
LID

On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 12:47:47 GMT, Phred wrote:

> They don't
> "filter out" crossposted messages, they simply mark a message as Read
> in *all* crossposted groups once you've seen it or "caught up" in one.

I like the way Agent handles it. A popup appears to warn it's a
crossposted message. Then I can choose to read the message (or not)
and I have a choice to reply only to the group I'm reading - or to
all.

In article >,
(Phred) wrote:

> In article >, "Peter
> Aitken" > wrote:

> >Perhaps some newsreaders have a feature to filter out crossposted
> >messages and that's what you are talking about, but most people
> >will see them all.
>
> What sort of friggin' broken newsreader are you using for chrissake?
> Jesus! Even my 8-year-old News Xpress can get that right! They don't
> "filter out" crossposted messages, they simply mark a message as Read
> in *all* crossposted groups once you've seen it or "caught up" in
> one.

But the message header is still seen. In NewsWatcher (for Macintosh),
it's marked read in all the groups if it was read in one of the groups
-- but it's still seen. Maybe you guys are arguing because of semantics.

> Cheers, Phred.

OB Food:

* Exported from MasterCook Mac *

Mrs. Spooner¹s Fut Nudge

Recipe By : posted to r.f.cooking by Barb Schaller 6-12-05
Serving Size : 1 Preparation Time :0:00
Categories : Candy

Amount Measure Ingredient -- Preparation Method
-------- ------------ --------------------------------
2 buttlespoons of tabler
2 cups shanulated grugar
2 cuppers quart of crin theam or bop of the
tottle
2 chocks of squarklate
2 Spabletoons sorn kyrup
1 nut of kelled shuts
A vittle lanilla


Shook the hugar, the chilk, the mawklate, and sorn kyrup until the
mawklate chelts.

Stoil, without birring, to 234 dehees of great. Darefully crop a letter
of the mot hickture into a watt of cold cupper. If a little foft sol
forms in the cuttom of the bopp, the drudge is fun.

Remove the han from the peat. Batter the pun.. Let canned until stool
and then flad the avoring (a vittle lanilla). Speet with a boon until
gick and thooey. Nop in the druts. Empty into the battered pun and
squark in mares; you may marsh addmallows if you have a particularly
teeth swoot.

Serves a grozen downups or two bean-age toys!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
NOTES : Source: Judy Miller, Honeywell, in the 60¹s.
_____
--
-Barb, <http://www.jamlady.eboard.com> 6/6/05 Sam I Am!
June 25, 1945: Me and Carly Simon. I wonder if she makes jam.
(It's not too early to shop -- good chocolate and cheap gin.
Or is it cheap chocolate and good gin? I never
remember. No jam--coal to Newcastle and all that. "-)

Phred wrote:
> In article >, "Edwin Pawlowski" > wrote:
>
>>"~patches~" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>I made a totally awesome meal tonight and would like to share it with rfc
>>>and alt.food.barbecue. It was mainly cooked on our outdoor grill and used
>>>a smoking method so fits in with both groups. I thought I would ask before
>>>just posting willy nilly. Does anyone mind if it do this?
>>
>>Post to one group. Copy and paste the message to post it to the other
>>group. Takes less time than it took you to post this message.
>
>
> Absolute crap! Proper crossposting is *far* preferable to inanely
> posting separately to individual groups. With the former, people
> subscribed to the various groups concerned only have to deal with it
> once; with the latter it turns up when you open each of such groups,
> which is a proverbial PITFA!
>
>
> Cheers, Phred.
>
I tend to agree with Phred about *proper* crossposting. Although I don't
do it as a rule... the NGs that I read are not really related. The only
thing I try to watch for is replying to a thread that's been crossposted
already. Made the mistake of not deleting the other NGs out of the "To"
field, once or twice, and my reply must have gone to all of them... Ooops.
Cathy

--
I don't suffer from insanity - I enjoy every minute of it

cathyxyz wrote:
> Phred wrote:
> > In article >, "Edwin Pawlowski" > wrote:
> >
> >>"~patches~" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >>>I made a totally awesome meal tonight and would like to share it with rfc
> >>>and alt.food.barbecue. It was mainly cooked on our outdoor grill and used
> >>>a smoking method so fits in with both groups. I thought I would ask before
> >>>just posting willy nilly. Does anyone mind if it do this?
> >>
> >>Post to one group. Copy and paste the message to post it to the other
> >>group. Takes less time than it took you to post this message.
> >
> >
> > Absolute crap! Proper crossposting is *far* preferable to inanely
> > posting separately to individual groups. With the former, people
> > subscribed to the various groups concerned only have to deal with it
> > once; with the latter it turns up when you open each of such groups,
> > which is a proverbial PITFA!
> >
> >
> > Cheers, Phred.
> >
> I tend to agree with Phred about *proper* crossposting.

No such thing as proper crossposting... it's ALL BAD (anti-social
behavior)... BAD as in Whacko Jacko sleeping with boys.... do you think
it's okay to sleep with boys, probably.

Sheldon

Sheldon wrote:
>
> cathyxyz wrote:
>
>>Phred wrote:
>>
>>>In article >, "Edwin Pawlowski" > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"~patches~" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I made a totally awesome meal tonight and would like to share it with rfc
>>>>>and alt.food.barbecue. It was mainly cooked on our outdoor grill and used
>>>>>a smoking method so fits in with both groups. I thought I would ask before
>>>>>just posting willy nilly. Does anyone mind if it do this?
>>>>
>>>>Post to one group. Copy and paste the message to post it to the other
>>>>group. Takes less time than it took you to post this message.
>>>
>>>
>>>Absolute crap! Proper crossposting is *far* preferable to inanely
>>>posting separately to individual groups. With the former, people
>>>subscribed to the various groups concerned only have to deal with it
>>>once; with the latter it turns up when you open each of such groups,
>>>which is a proverbial PITFA!
>>>
>>>
>>>Cheers, Phred.
>>>
>>
>>I tend to agree with Phred about *proper* crossposting.
>
>
> No such thing as proper crossposting... it's ALL BAD (anti-social
> behavior)...

Sheldon has spoken, all hail Sheldon...

BAD as in Whacko Jacko sleeping with boys.... do you think
> it's okay to sleep with boys, probably.
>
> Sheldon
>

Dunno. Never tried it... you tell me.

Cathy


--
I don't suffer from insanity - I enjoy every minute of it

"Sheldon" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> No such thing as proper crossposting... it's ALL BAD (anti-social
> behavior)...

Oh, the irony.
--
Chris Lemon

http://fredsmythe.com
EFNet: FredSmyth

"Phred" > wrote in message
>
> Absolute crap! Proper crossposting is *far* preferable to inanely
> posting separately to individual groups. With the former, people
> subscribed to the various groups concerned only have to deal with it
> once; with the latter it turns up when you open each of such groups,
> which is a proverbial PITFA!

Bullshit. Most problems come from cross posting and replying to other
groups, even if they are related. Considering that this situation comes up
only a couple of times a day, who give a damn if you see it again? Many
threads evolve into off topic discussion further separating them and made
still worse by stupid cross posting.

In article > ,
"Edwin Pawlowski" > wrote:
>
>"Phred" > wrote in message
>>
>> Absolute crap! Proper crossposting is *far* preferable to inanely
>> posting separately to individual groups. With the former, people
>> subscribed to the various groups concerned only have to deal with it
>> once; with the latter it turns up when you open each of such groups,
>> which is a proverbial PITFA!
>
>Bullshit. Most problems come from cross posting and replying to other
>groups, even if they are related. Considering that this situation comes up
>only a couple of times a day, who give a damn if you see it again? Many
>threads evolve into off topic discussion further separating them and made
>still worse by stupid cross posting.

No one has been talking about "stupid cross posting" here. The theme
is proper crossposting versus inane multiposting. If a topic is
irrelevant to a particular group it shouldn't be posted there, period!
(Come to that, this whole discussion should probably have been in
news.groups.questions rather than r.f.c. ;-)

Cheers, Phred.

--
LID

On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 12:56:58 GMT, Phred wrote:

> (Come to that, this whole discussion should probably have been in
> news.groups.questions rather than r.f.c. ;-)

But who reads that group? Not me.

In article >,
(Phred) wrote:
> (Come to that, this whole discussion should probably have been in
> news.groups.questions rather than r.f.c. ;-)
>
> Cheers, Phred.

Absolutely spot on, Phred. But there are too many fools who'd rather
post OT crap here because "these are my friends and I'll ask them"
rather than go to a group where they "don't know anyone" or because they
don't read that group or have never heard of it. Lazy.

OB Food: I had three nearly rotten bananas to use the other day and
made a double batch of this. In retrospect, it was too much volume for
my food processor to handle well, but I made it work. Good banana
bread, and I used yogurt in place of the sour cream.

* Exported from MasterCook Mac *

Banana Bread

Recipe By : posted to r.f.cooking by Barb Schaller 6-12-05
Serving Size : 1 Preparation Time :0:00
Categories : Quick Breads

Amount Measure Ingredient -- Preparation Method
-------- ------------ --------------------------------
1/2 cup butter -- softened
1 cup sugar
1/4 cup sour cream
3 small or 2 large overripe (just this side of
fruit flies!) bananas
2 eggs
2 cups flour
1 tsp. baking soda
1 cup chopped nuts (optional)

In food processor bowl, process butter, sugar, sour cream, bananas, and
eggs until well mixed (maybe a minute?), stopping once or so to scrape
down mixture from side of workbowl. Dump flour, soda, and nuts, if
using, on top and pulse-process 5-8 times to incorporate into mixture.
Pour into a 9x5x3² greased loaf pan and bake till done (about 50-60
minutes) at 350 degrees, or use two smaller loaf pans, about 5x7x2-1/2²
and bake 45-55 minutes. Toothpick inserted into center of loaf should
come out clean (or almost). Cool in pan(s) 10 minutes then remove from
pan(s) and finish cooling on cooling rack.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
NOTES : Source: Adapted from a recipe in the Minneapolis Tribune, 19xx.
Won a blue ribbon at the State Fair in the mid-1980s.

_____
--
-Barb, <http://www.jamlady.eboard.com> 6/6/05 Sam I Am!
June 25, 1945: Me and Carly Simon. I wonder if she makes jam.
(It's not too early to shop -- good chocolate and cheap gin.
Or is it cheap chocolate and good gin? I never
remember. No jam--coal to Newcastle and all that. "-)

~patches~ wrote:
> I made a totally awesome meal tonight and would like to share it with
> rfc and alt.food.barbecue. It was mainly cooked on our outdoor grill
> and used a smoking method so fits in with both groups. I thought I
> would ask before just posting willy nilly. Does anyone mind if it do
> this?

Netiquette says cross-post is ok if related to each group, but point
follow-ups to only one group.

-L.

"~patches~" > wrote in message
...
>I made a totally awesome meal tonight and would like to share it with rfc
>and alt.food.barbecue. It was mainly cooked on our outdoor grill and used
>a smoking method so fits in with both groups. I thought I would ask before
>just posting willy nilly. Does anyone mind if it do this?

Am I the only one who would like to give this thoughtful person the
opportunity to share their yummie bbq recipe with us ? Or have we scared
them away with our (b)anal cross-posting commentary?
BP.

BottyPops wrote:

> Or have we scared
> them away with our (b)anal cross-posting commentary?

Of course, if it turns out to be spam, we'll remove
the poster's appendix with a flame thrower.

That may be factored into the posting decision, or not.

"~patches~" > wrote in message
...
>I made a totally awesome meal tonight and would like to share it with rfc
>and alt.food.barbecue. It was mainly cooked on our outdoor grill and used
>a smoking method so fits in with both groups. I thought I would ask before
>just posting willy nilly. Does anyone mind if it do this?
>

No, post separately. It's not that much more effort and wayyy more
courteous.

Jack IAin'tDoingDaSurnameThangUnlessIReallyFeelLikeIt