Xref: utzoo rec.aquaria:418 alt.aquaria:6042 news.groups:17661
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!clyde.concordia.ca!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!lll-winken!sun-barr!newstop!sun!bari!briang
From: briang@bari.Sun.COM (Brian Gordon)
Newsgroups: rec.aquaria,alt.aquaria,news.groups
Subject: Re: sci.aquaria.birdfeed (was: Guppies)
Message-ID: <131673@sun.Eng.Sun.COM>
Date: 12 Feb 90 16:23:46 GMT
References: <##701$@rpi.edu> <10804@saturn.ADS.COM> <1990Feb12.091942.9791@agate.berkeley.edu>
Sender: news@sun.Eng.Sun.COM
Reply-To: briang@sun.UUCP (Brian Gordon)
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mountain View
Lines: 21

In article <1990Feb12.091942.9791@agate.berkeley.edu> link@stew.ssl.berkeley.edu (Richard Link) writes:
>
>OK. Now I *know* there are others who share my opinion.
>Rec.aquaria suffices.
>
>I'm sick of cross postings, Let's spare the taxpayers (remember them?)
>the cost, and me the time, of these unnecessary duplications in 3
>newsgroups. Consider the traffic in *.aquaria.*. compared to 
>rec.music.*, where the latter * is *any* single newsgroup.

Pardon my ignorance, but how does a cross-posted article (which is a SINGLE
text file with bits set (or whatever) to indicate that is is intended to be
visible in multiple groups) cost any more than the same article posted to a
single group.  For multiple identical postings, I can see the complaint, but
cross-postings?  Are other news readers THAT different from ``rn'' and its
relatives?

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Brian G. Gordon	briang@Corp.Sun.COM (if you trust exotic mailers)     |
|			...!sun!briangordon (if you route it yourself)	      |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+