Crosley IcyBall

[Harbin Osteen]

Crosley IcyBall
http://www.ggw.org/~cac/IcyBall/crosley_icyball.html
--

SeeYaa Harbin Osteen KG6URO

!sdohtem noitpyrcne devorppa-tnemnrevog troppus I
-

 

[daestrom]

Crosley IcyBall
http://www.ggw.org/~cac/IcyBall/crosley_icyball.html

You know, if you actually *did* cross-post this to the few relevent
newsgroups, instead of 'spamming' all of them with separate copies of the
same identical message, we wouldn't have to keep seeing the 'same' posts
over and over in so many newsgroups. Newsreaders (even OE) are smart enough
to recognize that since I didn't want to read about this in the first group,
a properly cross-posted message would just drop off the other groups.

Learn about cross-posting and when it *is* appropriate.

daestrom

 

[Vaughn Simon]

Learn about cross-posting and when it *is* appropriate.

And then please refrain from cross-posting and multiple posting altogether.
I place cross-posters and multiple posters just slightly above spammers on the
evolutionary scale.

Vaughn

 

[Derek Broughton]

And then please refrain from cross-posting and multiple posting
altogether.
I place cross-posters and multiple posters just slightly above spammers on
the evolutionary scale.

Daestrom's right. If you are having any kind of problem with cross-posting
you need a better newsreader. There are many situations where
cross-posting is absolutely appropriate. If people are cross-posting to
inappropriate groups, they _are_ spammers.

 

[daestrom]

And then please refrain from cross-posting and multiple posting
altogether. I place cross-posters and multiple posters just slightly above
spammers on the evolutionary scale.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but cross-posting *does* have it's place.
People that deny cross-posting deny the use of indexes in the back of
textbooks and the like. But the post should be on-topic for the groups it
is posted to.

And as I said before, proper cross-posting would allow news-readers to work
as they are designed.

Multiple-posting (what this OP did) is a waste of bandwidth and time.
Posting the same messsage repeatedly to a lot of different groups defeats
the features of news-readers 'marking conversation as read' and is just
annoying.

daestrom

 

[daestrom]

Sorry, I respectfully disagree. I visit a pretty wide cross
section of newsgroups and have been doing so for many years. It is my
firm opinion that there are very few situations "where cross-posting is
absolutely appropriate". X-posting is an option I wish they had never
invented, the Usenet could have been a far better place.

Nonsense. Using X-posting actually *reduces* the annoyance of individuals
looking for information/assistance. A good news-reader will show an X-post
to you *once* and then not bother you with the message again when you shift
to another group.

As to 'very few situations....', you apparently haven't been around as much
as you think. A message about nuclear power for example, could very well be
appropriate to 'alt.energy.nuclear', 'alt.engineering.nuclear', and perhaps
'sci.energy'. Someone asking about powering their home from non-grid
sources might post to 'alt.energy.homepower', 'alt.energy.renewable',
'alt.solar.photovoltaic' and probably some others.

If they used X-posting, I could read the message once, respond (if I'm so
inclined) and move on. Multiple-posting forces me to read the same
subject-line / message several times.

Maybe your news-reader doesn't respect X-posting and mark the conversation
in all groups as 'read' when you read it in the first group.

daestrom
P.S. But this OP was apparently just trolling for web-hits. Posted the
same message to many groups, no followups, just a "Hey, look at ME!!!"

 

[Vaughn Simon]

Sorry to burst your bubble,

And sorry to bust yours, but I respectfully disagree. In several years on
the Usenet, well over 99% of the crossposts I have seen are OT trash. We would
be far better off if there were no such option.

Vaughn

 

[Harbin Osteen]

daestrom:
I did not crosspost, and I believe that this group is a relevant
newsgroup.
I believe in self sufficiency, and alternative power, and I believe that
there are others
that may find this info useful, or at least thought provoking, I'm sorry you
think that it is just spam. I don't intend
to spam any group, but I may post some things that are on the fringe of a
group, but
may still have some relevance. I would suggest that you block my address,
and you
will not have this problem in the future.

--

SeeYaa Harbin Osteen KG6URO

!sdohtem noitpyrcne devorppa-tnemnrevog troppus I
-

 

[daestrom]

daestrom:
I did not crosspost,

And that is exactly my complaint. You didn't 'crosspost', you
'multiple-posted' instead. Learn what the difference is and then you'll
understand why crossposting to *relevant* groups is a *good* thing.

I'm not saying your project is *not* relevant to alt.energy.homepower,
merely that by using 'multiple-posting' instead of 'crossposting', you're
exact same message has popped up in my newsreader multiple times. I only
need to read it once. Almost any newsreader (even OE) will allow marking a
message that is crossposted as read the *first* time I read it, so I don't
have to keep-re-reading it again and again.

But by 'multiple-posting', newsreaders cannot tell that the message in
several groups is the exact same thing, so your *multiple-posted* message
just keeps popping up over, and over, and over, and over, and over again in
each of the groups you posted.

If you *had* crossposted, I still would have seen your message, but only
once. And not have to keep seeing the same subject-line/header downloaded
in each and every group that you multiple-posted it on.

Learn the difference, keep it relevant, and good luck.

daestrom

 

[daestrom]

Here is a header from a cross post (I hit send once) or what I think is a
cross post.

Path: newsspool2.news.pas.earthlink.net! <snip> not-for-mail
From: Dale Eastman
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4)
Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: us.taxes,misc.taxes

Message-ID: <%[email protected]>
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 21:24:11 GMT

Xref: news.earthlink.net us.taxes:85557 misc.taxes:291467

Netscape does not mark the duplicate message as read.

If I understand correctly, multiple posting would have two different
message ID's?

Multiple posting is two different messages, period. Each one will have its
own separate ID.

daestrom