🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4enrai$svh@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>, zando@ix.netcom.com(M.Grubor ) writes:
>In <DM012s.9BI@blaze.trentu.ca> sberry@ivory.trentu.ca (EVIL CABBAGE
>UNLIMITED) writes: 
>>
>>In article <4efdju$8fl@nntp.crl.com>, tzimon@crl.com (Tzimon Yliaster)
>writes:
>>
>>>
>>>All of Usenet is not a forum for Grubor et al's tempests-in-teapots
>and 
>>>responses to them.  What's going on isn't spam, and it isn't
>velveeta, 
>>>and I don't even know if it can be fit on some kind of index, but it 
>>>clearly constitutes some sort of abuse, as Usenet was never intended
>to 
>>>be a forum for rolling flamewars like this.
>>>
>>
>>This is exactly my argument against Grubor's 'home newsgroup' thing. I
>>hang around at tor.general and I am sure that no one there gives a 
>>rat's ass about what Grubor and Boursy are complaining about in this
>>newsgroup. It clutters the group up.
>>
>Look, Evil Cabbage/Shawn -- you missed the whole fucking point.
>Nobody here wants to post to your tor.general group, but if somebody
>involved in a thread lists the tor.general as their "home group" than
>you are obligated to leave his/her group in there.
>
>Now you did the right thing here and left my alt.is group in, so you
>are not reprehensible.  I never posted to any tor.general group anyway,
>so don't blame me.  But I apparently responded to an article that had
>tor.general in it, and I do not chop headers.


Fair enough. I guess the concern is that while someone, let's just say
for the moment, in one of the newsgroups listed in the header responds
to an article, they sometimes will get a note from someone else saying
a specific newsgroup should be removed. The whole header thing becomes
complicated if people, like myself for example, do not subscribe to 
certain newsgroups (eg., the alt.is.* hierarchy, nyc.general,misc.legal,
etc.) I could very well be pissing off people by responding to an article
which is inappropriately posted.

This is not to say that all your articles, or you in specific, are posted
inappropriately. But it seems to be an argument that a lot of people have
been using in trimming newsgroups, at least what I have seen in n.a.n-a.m,
whether rightly or wrongly. I wouldn't know if alt.is.* is appropriate
because I've never read or lurked there. Does a complete stranger leave
them in if they had no idea your home newsgroup belongs within that 
hierarchy, or do they remove them? Tim Skirvin's home page suggests that
the sum of the square-roots of the number of newsgroups posted to should
not exceed 20. That's fine, however, the intended audience of the message
should still remain intact if people remove what they feel are inappropriate
newsgroups. In fact, you'd even say they were just helping out.

The complications arise because no one seems to be operating completely
with the same set of guidelines, the way I see it, and perhaps that the
intended audience of a message can be ill-defined.

;)
Shawn

>
>Do you understand this now?
>
>Cheers,
>
>DrG
>