Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!helios.ee.lbl.gov!pasteur!ames!ncar!oddjob!mimsy!aplcen!aplcomm!stdc.jhuapl.edu!jwm
From: jwm@stdc.jhuapl.edu (Jim Meritt)
Newsgroups: news.misc
Subject: Re: I Wish I Were An ...
Message-ID: <676@aplcomm.UUCP>
Date: 6 Jun 88 17:14:26 GMT
References: <10228@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> <5643@chinet.UUCP> <10260@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>
Sender: news@aplcomm.UUCP
Reply-To: jwm@stdc.jhuapl.edu.UUCP (Jim Meritt)
Organization: The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory
Lines: 56

In article <10260@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> weemba@garnet.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) writes:
}I did cross-post into t.b.  Guilty!  I did not want to make a point;
}I wanted to get a discussion out of s.m.  However, most of the com-
}plaints have been about a gratuitous t.b inclusion, with no follow-
}up control, by people who have zilch conception of t.b.

And when I wanted views on a topic other than one narrow specific group
I cross-posted it at the locations that might know the information.

And for that YOU flamed!  For shame.

}I had originally cross-posted to alt.flame, and decided against it.

Sounds like a good idea.....

}Thank you and you're welcome.  In contrast, I do not appreciate this
}particular cross-posting of yours into s.m: that group could care less
}for a metadiscussion about t.b and cross-posting.  (My own article was
}borderline at best--but it was at least following the context of a pre-
}vious s.m discussion, in classic net.tradition.)

For those that care less, ignore.
Everyone else should edit their newsgroups line for follow-ups.
No problem.

}>		      But the next time certain people go into hys-
}>terics about cross-posting, I suggest that they look back at this
}>all too frequent example of someone cross-posting TO talk.bizarre
}>and not FROM it.
}
}Now wait a moment.  How can my one posting be "all too frequent"?
}I are confused.

Me, too.  One posting, and omgs went off line on me.
You seem to be lacking consistency.  Bad deal for a mathman.....

}I do look
}at t.b occasionally, but I don't think you look at s.m.  In particular,
}I strongly favor software restrictions that require a user subscribe
}to a newsgroup in order to post into it.

that sounds reasonable.  Unless someone is going to read it, why post?

}
}I would be more than happy to see more obnoxious rules made for articles
}--or perhaps just followups--posted to say 3 or more newsgroups.

Some serious restrictions on follow-ups does seem justified.
Like maybe only to the source group.  Someone is going to post to
a group, they should subscribe to it to see follow-ups!



Disclaimer: Individuals have opinions, organizations have policy.
            Therefore, these opinions are mine and not any organizations!
Q.E.D.
jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu 128.244.65.5  (James W. Meritt)