If I have a question that can be answered in more than one newsgroup, should
I:

A. post it to each newsgroup separately so it is not filtered by those who
have the ";" as a filter to avoid crossposted posts?

B. do the Cc: thing above, and list all the newsgroups I want the question
to go to.

It seems that no matter what way one goes, you get called a crossposter.

Is there a "proper" way to do it, or is this just a non matter followed up
only by Net Nannies?

Steve

Steve B wrote:
If I have a question that can be answered in more than one newsgroup,
should I:

A. post it to each newsgroup separately so it is not filtered by
those who have the ";" as a filter to avoid crossposted posts?

B. do the Cc: thing above, and list all the newsgroups I want the
question to go to.

It seems that no matter what way one goes, you get called a
crossposter.
Is there a "proper" way to do it, or is this just a non matter
followed up only by Net Nannies?

Steve

A is Multi-Posting (always bad)

B is Crossposting.

Ignorant people will tell you this is frowned upon, but knowledgable people will
tell you that it is only *excessive* crossposting that is bad. As long as you
keep the list of groups to three (maybe four) or less and all the groups are
relevant then crossposting is fine and MUCH preferred to Multi-Posting.

Steve B wrote:
If I have a question that can be answered in more than one newsgroup, should
I:

A. post it to each newsgroup separately so it is not filtered by those who
have the ";" as a filter to avoid crossposted posts?

B. do the Cc: thing above, and list all the newsgroups I want the question
to go to.

It seems that no matter what way one goes, you get called a crossposter.

Is there a "proper" way to do it, or is this just a non matter followed up
only by Net Nannies?

Steve


Being called a crossposter is not necessarily a bad thing,
As long as you limit your crossposts to two or three relevant
groups, there should be no problem. Its pretty easy to filter out
those non relevant groups that trolls like to include. But
otherwise, how would you ever find out about alt.concrete? ;-)

--
Grandpa

"Grandpa" wrote in message
news:ermKh.16454$mh7.8142@trnddc04...
Steve B wrote:
If I have a question that can be answered in more than one newsgroup,
should I:

A. post it to each newsgroup separately so it is not filtered by those
who have the ";" as a filter to avoid crossposted posts?

B. do the Cc: thing above, and list all the newsgroups I want the
question to go to.

It seems that no matter what way one goes, you get called a crossposter.

Is there a "proper" way to do it, or is this just a non matter followed
up only by Net Nannies?

Steve
Being called a crossposter is not necessarily a bad thing,
As long as you limit your crossposts to two or three relevant
groups, there should be no problem. Its pretty easy to filter out
those non relevant groups that trolls like to include. But
otherwise, how would you ever find out about alt.concrete? ;-)

--
Grandpa

Hey, Grandpa! Things thaw out in your neck of the woods yet? We're still
waiting for the snow to melt so we can make it to the cabin without
snowshoeing in.

Steve

In article ,
"Rick Brandt" wrote:

As long as you keep the list of groups to three (maybe four)
or less and all the groups are relevant then crossposting
is fine and MUCH preferred to Multi-Posting.

Agreed.

My newsreader will mark as READ an article that I have already read in one
group but is crossposted to another group I read. (No point in reading the
same article twice. That is where the annoyance factor comes in.)

Posting the same article individually to each of several groups circumvents
the above feature/aid. That is when the annoyance factor REALLY soars.

On those rare occasions when I crosspost an article, I try to include
"[Crossposted]" in the first line of the body. I consider this a courtesy to
those that might reply but do NOT want their newsreader to automatically
crosspost their reply. (This alerts the replier(?) that they may wish to edit
OUT the additional newsgroups before posting.)
--

JR

"Jim Redelfs" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Rick Brandt" wrote:

As long as you keep the list of groups to three (maybe four)
or less and all the groups are relevant then crossposting
is fine and MUCH preferred to Multi-Posting.

Agreed.

My newsreader will mark as READ an article that I have already read in one
group but is crossposted to another group I read. (No point in reading
the
same article twice. That is where the annoyance factor comes in.)

Posting the same article individually to each of several groups
circumvents
the above feature/aid. That is when the annoyance factor REALLY soars.

On those rare occasions when I crosspost an article, I try to include
"[Crossposted]" in the first line of the body. I consider this a courtesy
to
those that might reply but do NOT want their newsreader to automatically
crosspost their reply. (This alerts the replier(?) that they may wish to
edit
OUT the additional newsgroups before posting.)
--

JR

Thanks, JR. It helps me to understand this. It seemed that no matter which
way you go, someone bitched. Now I have an insight as to what's right.

Steve

Steve B wrote:
"Grandpa" wrote in message
[...]
Being called a crossposter is not necessarily a bad thing,
As long as you limit your crossposts to two or three relevant
groups, there should be no problem. Its pretty easy to filter out
those non relevant groups that trolls like to include. But
otherwise, how would you ever find out about alt.concrete? ;-)

Hey, Grandpa! Things thaw out in your neck of the woods yet? We're still
waiting for the snow to melt so we can make it to the cabin without
snowshoeing in.

Steve



I shouldn't tell you then that it was 80 degrees here today, but the
humidity was way high as we got over an inch of rain the day before.
;-)
--
Grandpa

Steve B wrote:
If I have a question that can be answered in more than one newsgroup, should
I:


It has been my experience that 99% of the off topic crap I used to read in
newsgroups comes from crossposted messages. You'll note I said "used to read".
That's because I filter crossposted stuff by using NewsProxy along with my
newsreader.

There usually is one group where your stuff is more on topic than any other.
Post it there and wait. If you don't get a useable answer within a reasonable
time, then I think you'd be within your rights to then post it in another group.
If anybody whines about it, just mention you tried the other group first but you
didn't get a reply.

I belong to a nursing newsgroup that has become all but useless because of the
crossposters. I seldom see a single message there but when I do it's highly
likely to be on topic. All the conspiracy crackpots, pharmaceutical haters,
anti-circumcision idiots, etc. all end up in the kill file; never to see the
light of day... at least on my computer. I trap them by nuking the
crossposters; they can't resist sending their crap to several groups at once.

Don't be like them.




--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

"Grandpa" wrote in message
news:qKnKh.6061$Bi2.352@trnddc01...
Steve B wrote:
"Grandpa" wrote in message [...]
Being called a crossposter is not necessarily a bad thing,
As long as you limit your crossposts to two or three relevant
groups, there should be no problem. Its pretty easy to filter out
those non relevant groups that trolls like to include. But
otherwise, how would you ever find out about alt.concrete? ;-)

Hey, Grandpa! Things thaw out in your neck of the woods yet? We're
still waiting for the snow to melt so we can make it to the cabin without
snowshoeing in.

Steve

I shouldn't tell you then that it was 80 degrees here today, but the
humidity was way high as we got over an inch of rain the day before.
;-)
--
Grandpa

Records here broken for the past couple of days, and predicted for the next
couple of days, in some cases by five degrees.

Scary thought: Gore is right..........

................... shudder ...................

Steve

On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 21:46:14 -0500, Jim Redelfs
wrote:

In article ,
"Rick Brandt" wrote:

As long as you keep the list of groups to three (maybe four)
or less and all the groups are relevant then crossposting
is fine and MUCH preferred to Multi-Posting.

Agreed.

My newsreader will mark as READ an article that I have already read in one
group but is crossposted to another group I read. (No point in reading the
same article twice. That is where the annoyance factor comes in.)

Posting the same article individually to each of several groups circumvents
the above feature/aid. That is when the annoyance factor REALLY soars.

On those rare occasions when I crosspost an article, I try to include
"[Crossposted]" in the first line of the body. I consider this a courtesy to
those that might reply but do NOT want their newsreader to automatically
crosspost their reply. (This alerts the replier(?) that they may wish to edit
OUT the additional newsgroups before posting.)

The trouble is that so few posters say what group they are actually
reading, that if one omits groups, the OP may never see the answer.

I usually read any group I'm cross-posting to, but not always.
Because I include the added group when I think they will have special
knowledge, but that doesn't mean I'm interested in their other topics.

I especially read the other group when the first group is this one,
because this is so busy, it can be hard to find my own thread after a
day or two. And I can retain headers in other groups for years but
not so long in groups where I retrieve most of the bodies.


Also, there are times when I post in a specialized group and get no
answer. After a day or three of waiting, I might post in another
group. That's multi-posting, but i don't think it is wrong under
these circumstances.

There is at least one Netscape group that gets a lot of traffic but
80-90% of questions go unanswered. I haven't found a better one.

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com wrote in message
...
Steve B wrote:
If I have a question that can be answered in more than one newsgroup,
should
I:


It has been my experience that 99% of the off topic crap I used to read in
newsgroups comes from crossposted messages. You'll note I said "used to
read". That's because I filter crossposted stuff by using NewsProxy along
with my newsreader.

There usually is one group where your stuff is more on topic than any
other. Post it there and wait. If you don't get a useable answer within a
reasonable time, then I think you'd be within your rights to then post it
in another group. If anybody whines about it, just mention you tried the
other group first but you didn't get a reply.

I belong to a nursing newsgroup that has become all but useless because of
the crossposters. I seldom see a single message there but when I do it's
highly likely to be on topic. All the conspiracy crackpots,
pharmaceutical haters, anti-circumcision idiots, etc. all end up in the
kill file; never to see the light of day... at least on my computer. I
trap them by nuking the crossposters; they can't resist sending their crap
to several groups at once.

Don't be like them.




--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com


Geez. Now I'm really confused, because I get two distinctly different
messages.

I regret that some people cannot simply ignore posts that they don't have a
response to, but yet have to kill the messenger. Like you say, I'm not
posting pro-circumcision tirades, or anti-pharmaceutical essays.

My main thing is time.

I like to post something, many times as I am working on it, as today with a
question about an outdoor lighting transformer. Well, three newsgroups I
frequent have information about that, home repair, metalworking, and
welding. Some people are nice and just say nothing. Others contribute
useful information. But, some self-appointed butthead Net Nannies take me
to task when they really need to concentrate on those who REALLY flood
newsgroups with real drivel. Bottom line, within two hours of posting, I
got my question answered. Yet, the ripples in the pond still resound
wildly.

Why can't this just be like real conversation? If you got something to
contribute, chime in. If you don't, shut up. AND, know the difference.

Anyway, I think I'll just go with what I think at the time, and not pay any
attention to the Net Nannies Brigade.

Poor poor people who need to correct other's etiquette and spelling.

Thank you for a new refreshing reinforcing slant on things.

BTW, RNs rock! I'm going in for another angioplasty in April. Total of 13
nights now in ICU. More than that in regular wards. Love dem RNs.

God bless you.

Steve

Steve B wrote:
If I have a question that can be answered in more than one newsgroup, should
I:

A. post it to each newsgroup separately so it is not filtered by those who
have the ";" as a filter to avoid crossposted posts?

B. do the Cc: thing above, and list all the newsgroups I want the question
to go to.

It seems that no matter what way one goes, you get called a crossposter.

Is there a "proper" way to do it, or is this just a non matter followed up
only by Net Nannies?

Think about what is most efficient and what is most important - yours
and your readers'/responders' time - and don't worry about etiquette.
If people are hung up on using the "right" fork at the expense of
consideration for other peoples' time and feelings...well, I don't
worry too much about offending them. They're going to be offended no
matter what you do. I also have no patience for people who insist you
do something in an inefficient way - that's just dumb.

Efficiency is obviously on the OP's side for crossposting the one
question to a _select_ number of groups in a single post.

From a reader's viewpoint, reading a message once and having it marked
read in all of the groups is also more efficient.

Most importantly, at least to me - from a responder's viewpoint - not
wasting my time answering a question that has already received pretty
much the exact same response in another newsgroup is important. There
is no point in me replying at all if the information has already been
conveyed by someone in another newsgroup.

In other words, if I can see all replies in a single thread, I will
save time. The OP will save time by not having to check multiple
threads and read redundant replies.

Separate posts mean that some of my replies, and replies to replies,
will not get shared. The entire point of Usenet is to share
information. It's obviously detrimental to the idea of sharing
information to have information on one specific question show up on
one newsgroup and not another.

If people filter you out for such "transgressions", they'll filter you
out for other meaningless transgressions. If people would read your
post in one group, they'd read it in another - but they _don't_ need
to see it a second time.

R

Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:
Steve B wrote:
If I have a question that can be answered in more than one
newsgroup, should I:


It has been my experience that 99% of the off topic crap I used to
read in newsgroups comes from crossposted messages. You'll note I
said "used to read". That's because I filter crossposted stuff by
using NewsProxy along with my newsreader.

There usually is one group where your stuff is more on topic than any
other. Post it there and wait. If you don't get a useable answer
within a reasonable time, then I think you'd be within your rights to
then post it in another group. If anybody whines about it, just
mention you tried the other group first but you didn't get a reply.

I belong to a nursing newsgroup that has become all but useless
because of the crossposters. I seldom see a single message there
but when I do it's highly likely to be on topic. All the conspiracy
crackpots, pharmaceutical haters, anti-circumcision idiots, etc. all
end up in the kill file; never to see the light of day... at least on
my computer. I trap them by nuking the crossposters; they can't
resist sending their crap to several groups at once.
Don't be like them.

Yes, but the evil they are committing is being off-topic and excessive with
their corssposting. Saying that all crossposting is bad because ass-holes use
it to clutter groups is like saying all phones are bad because there are
telemarketers.

Steve B wrote:
If I have a question that can be answered in more than one newsgroup, should
I:

A. post it to each newsgroup separately so it is not filtered by those who
have the ";" as a filter to avoid crossposted posts?

B. do the Cc: thing above, and list all the newsgroups I want the question
to go to.

It seems that no matter what way one goes, you get called a crossposter.

Is there a "proper" way to do it, or is this just a non matter followed up
only by Net Nannies?

Steve



There is nothing wrong with sensible crossposting. What ticks people off
is when people shotgun 10 groups at the same time.

"Steve B" wrote in message
...

"Jim Redelfs" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Rick Brandt" wrote:

As long as you keep the list of groups to three (maybe four)
or less and all the groups are relevant then crossposting
is fine and MUCH preferred to Multi-Posting.

Agreed.

My newsreader will mark as READ an article that I have already read in
one
group but is crossposted to another group I read. (No point in reading
the
same article twice. That is where the annoyance factor comes in.)

Posting the same article individually to each of several groups
circumvents
the above feature/aid. That is when the annoyance factor REALLY soars.

On those rare occasions when I crosspost an article, I try to include
"[Crossposted]" in the first line of the body. I consider this a
courtesy to
those that might reply but do NOT want their newsreader to automatically
crosspost their reply. (This alerts the replier(?) that they may wish to
edit
OUT the additional newsgroups before posting.)
--

JR

Thanks, JR. It helps me to understand this. It seemed that no matter
which way you go, someone bitched. Now I have an insight as to what's
right.

Steve

Ignore the idiots who bitch. Crossposting *correctly* can actually result in
*less* total messages.

George wrote:
There is nothing wrong with sensible crossposting. What ticks people off
is when people shotgun 10 groups at the same time.


No, what ****es people of is when the posted topic has nothing to do with your
group except in the most remote way.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
Ignore the idiots who bitch. Crossposting *correctly* can actually result in
*less* total messages.


It certainly has cut down on my total messages. I thank NewsProxy for the help.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 11:40:10 -0400, "Mortimer Schnerd, RN"
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com wrote:

George wrote:
There is nothing wrong with sensible crossposting. What ticks people off
is when people shotgun 10 groups at the same time.


No, what ****es people of is when the posted topic has nothing to do with your
group except in the most remote way.

You're both right. That's what George meant by shotgun.

Generally there are only 2 or 3 aspects to a post that relate to
groups with 3 different topics, but sometimes people add several
groups all on the same topic, like alt.english.usage,
alt.usage.english, alt.englishusage . Often only one or two of these
have much traffic and the others are empty, so there are no real
consequences.

Are there newsreaders that will filter out crossposted posts, and can
you set the maximum number of ngs that can be listed? If so, 3 is
generally a good number, maybe 4.

On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 17:47:53 -0700, "Steve B"
wrote:

If I have a question that can be answered in more than one newsgroup, should
I:

A. post it to each newsgroup separately so it is not filtered by those who
have the ";" as a filter to avoid crossposted posts?


Don't do that.

B. do the Cc: thing above, and list all the newsgroups I want the question
to go to.


This sends email, something you don't want.

It seems that no matter what way one goes, you get called a crossposter.


MOST of these are inappropriately crossposted spam.

Is there a "proper" way to do it, or is this just a non matter followed up
only by Net Nannies?

Steve


Crosspost to appropriate groups only (group names separated by commas
in the Newsgroups header), set the "Followup-To" header, and actually
READ that group to check for replies.
--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"How could you ask me to believe in God when there's
absolutely no evidence that I can see?" -- Jodie Foster

Steve B wrote:
If I have a question that can be answered in more than one newsgroup,
should I:

A. post it to each newsgroup separately so it is not filtered by
those who have the ";" as a filter to avoid crossposted posts?

B. do the Cc: thing above, and list all the newsgroups I want the
question to go to.

It seems that no matter what way one goes, you get called a
crossposter.
Is there a "proper" way to do it, or is this just a non matter
followed up only by Net Nannies?

Steve

A good discussion of cross-posting et al is he
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossposting

Pop`

Jim Redelfs wrote:
In article ,
"Rick Brandt" wrote:

As long as you keep the list of groups to three (maybe four)
or less and all the groups are relevant then crossposting
is fine and MUCH preferred to Multi-Posting.

Agreed.

My newsreader will mark as READ an article that I have already read
in one group but is crossposted to another group I read. (No point
in reading the same article twice. That is where the annoyance
factor comes in.)

Posting the same article individually to each of several groups
circumvents the above feature/aid. That is when the annoyance factor
REALLY soars.

On those rare occasions when I crosspost an article, I try to include
"[Crossposted]" in the first line of the body. I consider this a
courtesy to those that might reply but do NOT want their newsreader
to automatically crosspost their reply. (This alerts the replier(?)
that they may wish to edit OUT the additional newsgroups before
posting.)

Hmm, that's a little rude, and destroys the usefulness of crossposting, does
it not?

Pop`

....
I especially read the other group when the first group is this one,
because this is so busy, it can be hard to find my own thread after a
day or two. And I can retain headers in other groups for years but
not so long in groups where I retrieve most of the bodies.


....

One thing I do for that situation is to Mark All Read as I leave the group,
then come back in a minute or so, and reload the group; usually it'll
contain my post, or at least will in a few more minutes. Then I Flag My
post.
If anyone responds to my post, then the newsgroup list turns that group
to Red in the left pane, so I know I have a response in the list there. No
Red, no reponse. My post will also be Red in the newsgroup listing of
posts, so it's easy to spot there, too.

Takes a half minute or so to set up sometimes, but lots better than
searching. Takes longer on moderated groups, of course, especially if they
actually monitor and don't just claim to, or monitor after the fact.

Then there is always the Show Replies to My Messages, but that's not as
convenient, IMO.

Ymmv

Pop`

On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 16:28:45 GMT, "Pop`"
wrote:

Jim Redelfs wrote:
In article ,
"Rick Brandt" wrote:

As long as you keep the list of groups to three (maybe four)
or less and all the groups are relevant then crossposting
is fine and MUCH preferred to Multi-Posting.

Agreed.

My newsreader will mark as READ an article that I have already read
in one group but is crossposted to another group I read. (No point
in reading the same article twice. That is where the annoyance
factor comes in.)

Posting the same article individually to each of several groups
circumvents the above feature/aid. That is when the annoyance factor
REALLY soars.

On those rare occasions when I crosspost an article, I try to include
"[Crossposted]" in the first line of the body. I consider this a
courtesy to those that might reply but do NOT want their newsreader
to automatically crosspost their reply. (This alerts the replier(?)
that they may wish to edit OUT the additional newsgroups before
posting.)

Hmm, that's a little rude, and destroys the usefulness of crossposting, does
it not?

Some people put a reply-to line (No, I think it is called followup
in their posting, so that when I reply, it only will go to the groups
they picked, not what the OP picked, even when he's not overdone it.

So I put back some or all of the groups he tried to take out**.
Because I want the OP to see my answer, and probably the other groups
too.

**I think it's always been all, because I've never seen someone do
this in what I consider a reasonable manner.

Pop`

Someone is always bitching on newsgroups. IF you crosspost they
bitch, if you dont, they bitch. If you top post they want you to
bottom post, and vice versa. And dont you dare misspell anything.

The way I see it, when you enter a newsgroup, you enter with a loaded
shotgun, and you'll use that gun quite often, and others will shoot
you too. Of course there's always your kill filter in your software.
Add the bitches and the assholes to it. Also add the spammers that
somehow manage to crosspost to EVERY newsgroup, and deserve a real
shotgun blast in their face.

The way I see it, crosspost everything but never crosspost anything.
Always top post, middle post and bottom post, everything you say to
satisfy everyone.
And remember this. The faster you pull the trigger, the faster they
fall. Of course a nuclear bomb does far more damage, so if you
encounter one of those really nasty newsgroups, drop the bomb !!!

Official Newsgroup Netiquette Dept.
Pueblo, Colorado 81009

--------

On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 19:59:29 -0700, "Steve B"
wrote:


"Jim Redelfs" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Rick Brandt" wrote:

As long as you keep the list of groups to three (maybe four)
or less and all the groups are relevant then crossposting
is fine and MUCH preferred to Multi-Posting.

Agreed.

My newsreader will mark as READ an article that I have already read in one
group but is crossposted to another group I read. (No point in reading
the
same article twice. That is where the annoyance factor comes in.)

Posting the same article individually to each of several groups
circumvents
the above feature/aid. That is when the annoyance factor REALLY soars.


Someone is always bitching on newsgroups. IF you crosspost they
bitch, if you dont, they bitch. If you top post they want you to
bottom post, and vice versa. And dont you dare misspell anything.

The way I see it, when you enter a newsgroup, you enter with a loaded
shotgun, and you'll use that gun quite often, and others will shoot
you too. Of course there's always your kill filter in your software.
Add the bitches and the assholes to it. Also add the spammers that
somehow manage to crosspost to EVERY newsgroup, and deserve a real
shotgun blast in their face.

The way I see it, crosspost everything but never crosspost anything.
Always top post, middle post and bottom post, everything you say to
satisfy everyone.
And remember this. The faster you pull the trigger, the faster they
fall. Of course a nuclear bomb does far more damage, so if you
encounter one of those really nasty newsgroups, drop the bomb !!!

Official Newsgroup Netiquette Dept.
Pueblo, Colorado 81009

-------

On those rare occasions when I crosspost an article, I try to include
"[Crossposted]" in the first line of the body. I consider this a courtesy
to
those that might reply but do NOT want their newsreader to automatically
crosspost their reply. (This alerts the replier(?) that they may wish to
edit
OUT the additional newsgroups before posting.)
--

JR

Thanks, JR. It helps me to understand this. It seemed that no matter which
way you go, someone bitched. Now I have an insight as to what's right.

Steve


Someone is always bitching on newsgroups. IF you crosspost they
bitch, if you dont, they bitch. If you top post they want you to
bottom post, and vice versa. And dont you dare misspell anything.

The way I see it, when you enter a newsgroup, you enter with a loaded
shotgun, and you'll use that gun quite often, and others will shoot
you too. Of course there's always your kill filter in your software.
Add the bitches and the assholes to it. Also add the spammers that
somehow manage to crosspost to EVERY newsgroup, and deserve a real
shotgun blast in their face.

The way I see it, crosspost everything but never crosspost anything.
Always top post, middle post and bottom post, everything you say to
satisfy everyone.
And remember this. The faster you pull the trigger, the faster they
fall. Of course a nuclear bomb does far more damage, so if you
encounter one of those really nasty newsgroups, drop the bomb !!!

Official Newsgroup Netiquette Dept.
Pueblo, Colorado 81009

Someone is always bitching on newsgroups. IF you crosspost they
bitch, if you dont, they bitch. If you top post they want you to
bottom post, and vice versa. And dont you dare misspell anything.




The way I see it, when you enter a newsgroup, you enter with a loaded
shotgun, and you'll use that gun quite often, and others will shoot
you too. Of course there's always your kill filter in your software.
Add the bitches and the assholes to it. Also add the spammers that
somehow manage to crosspost to EVERY newsgroup, and deserve a real
shotgun blast in their face.



The way I see it, crosspost everything but never crosspost anything.
Always top post, middle post and bottom post, everything you say to
satisfy everyone.
And remember this. The faster you pull the trigger, the faster they
fall. Of course a nuclear bomb does far more damage, so if you
encounter one of those really nasty newsgroups, drop the bomb !!!




Official Newsgroup Netiquette Dept.
Pueblo, Colorado 81009

--------

On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 19:59:29 -0700, "Steve B"
wrote:


"Jim Redelfs" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Rick Brandt" wrote:

As long as you keep the list of groups to three (maybe four)
or less and all the groups are relevant then crossposting
is fine and MUCH preferred to Multi-Posting.

Agreed.

My newsreader will mark as READ an article that I have already read in one
group but is crossposted to another group I read. (No point in reading
the
same article twice. That is where the annoyance factor comes in.)

Posting the same article individually to each of several groups
circumvents
the above feature/aid. That is when the annoyance factor REALLY soars.


Someone is always bitching on newsgroups. IF you crosspost they
bitch, if you dont, they bitch. If you top post they want you to
bottom post, and vice versa. And dont you dare misspell anything.

The way I see it, when you enter a newsgroup, you enter with a loaded
shotgun, and you'll use that gun quite often, and others will shoot
you too. Of course there's always your kill filter in your software.
Add the bitches and the assholes to it. Also add the spammers that
somehow manage to crosspost to EVERY newsgroup, and deserve a real
shotgun blast in their face.

The way I see it, crosspost everything but never crosspost anything.
Always top post, middle post and bottom post, everything you say to
satisfy everyone.
And remember this. The faster you pull the trigger, the faster they
fall. Of course a nuclear bomb does far more damage, so if you
encounter one of those really nasty newsgroups, drop the bomb !!!

Official Newsgroup Netiquette Dept.
Pueblo, Colorado 81009

-------

On those rare occasions when I crosspost an article, I try to include
"[Crossposted]" in the first line of the body. I consider this a courtesy
to
those that might reply but do NOT want their newsreader to automatically
crosspost their reply. (This alerts the replier(?) that they may wish to
edit
OUT the additional newsgroups before posting.)
--

JR

Thanks, JR. It helps me to understand this. It seemed that no matter which
way you go, someone bitched. Now I have an insight as to what's right.

Steve


Someone is always bitching on newsgroups. IF you crosspost they
bitch, if you dont, they bitch. If you top post they want you to
bottom post, and vice versa. And dont you dare misspell anything.

The way I see it, when you enter a newsgroup, you enter with a loaded
shotgun, and you'll use that gun quite often, and others will shoot
you too. Of course there's always your kill filter in your software.
Add the bitches and the assholes to it. Also add the spammers that
somehow manage to crosspost to EVERY newsgroup, and deserve a real
shotgun blast in their face.

The way I see it, crosspost everything but never crosspost anything.
Always top post, middle post and bottom post, everything you say to
satisfy everyone.
And remember this. The faster you pull the trigger, the faster they
fall. Of course a nuclear bomb does far more damage, so if you
encounter one of those really nasty newsgroups, drop the bomb !!!

Official Newsgroup Netiquette Dept.
Pueblo, Colorado 81009

m wrote in message
...



Someone is always bitching on newsgroups. IF you crosspost they
bitch, if you dont, they bitch. If you top post they want you to
bottom post, and vice versa. And dont you dare misspell anything.




The way I see it, when you enter a newsgroup, you enter with a loaded
shotgun, and you'll use that gun quite often, and others will shoot
you too. Of course there's always your kill filter in your software.
Add the bitches and the assholes to it. Also add the spammers that
somehow manage to crosspost to EVERY newsgroup, and deserve a real
shotgun blast in their face.



The way I see it, crosspost everything but never crosspost anything.
Always top post, middle post and bottom post, everything you say to
satisfy everyone.
And remember this. The faster you pull the trigger, the faster they
fall. Of course a nuclear bomb does far more damage, so if you
encounter one of those really nasty newsgroups, drop the bomb !!!




Official Newsgroup Netiquette Dept.
Pueblo, Colorado 81009


By far the best advice of all.

Steve, the OP