Thread View: alt.is.too
2 messages
2 total messages
Started by DrG
Sat, 10 Feb 1996 00:00
NEW RULES about UseNet Complaints
Author: DrG
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 1996 00:00
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 1996 00:00
76 lines
4450 bytes
4450 bytes
On Fri, 9 Feb 1996, David Veal wrote: > On Fri, 9 Feb 1996, CyberLogician wrote: > > > In article <4fd6bo$rgn@gaia.ns.utk.edu>, > > veal@web.ce.utk.edu (David Veal) wrote: > > > Assume for a second I reac something like rec.autos. > > >There's a message cross-posted for which the only group I read in its > > >newsgroup line is rec.autos. Now, the message is about Giant Killer > > >Hamsters From Outer Space. > > > > > > Why should I have to read it even once? > > > > You don't have to. Just ignore the thread. > > I have to spend sufficient time with it to know that it isn't what > I'm interested in reading. Further, the thread subject often has little What needed investigated about the "Giant Killer Hamsters?" > or nothing to do with where the topic is going. (Even worse, it may have > spawned off into multiple threads with the same subject line). > > Wouldn't it be a lot easier on everyone if people made an effort > to route their postings to groups of the appropriate subject? > So what? -- all newsgroups are public property. That means nothing to you. You route messages to the intended viewer! > > > A little courtesy on people's parts when it comes to newsgroups > > >lines will make things a lot more pleasant on everybody. This whole And the courtesy is to stay the fuck out of peoples' mailboxes when talking about any Usenet stuff. Usenet is a joke. E-mail is for business. Get them straight. > > >concept of proudly cross-posting to every group that comes to mind or has > > >ever been in the thread is certainly not very appealing. > > > That is not my concept. I post to only the relevant groups. However, that may be over 20 groups sometimes. > > so, tell the poster that in his home-newsgroup. > > In the first place there's no real way to tell what somebody's > "home group" is, assuming it has any meaning. (Newsgroups are defined by BULLSHIT! You KNOW that MY home.newsgroup is alt.is.too And newsgroups are defined by POPULATION even more than subject. It is the PEOPLE who frequent those newsgroups that make the rules, not some old stupid charter or FAQ. > subject, not by population. If you want to read about X, subscribe to > the groups about X. There's no basis to demand people route messages you > want to read to where you already read.) > Yes there IS a basis for that demand! The person SAYS so! If you do not know a person's home.newsgroup, then ask them! That is the way it goes from NOW ON! If you break the rules, both you and your ISP get mailbombed and attacked with virus and worms, dig? Now you take any FURTHER discussion of this issue to the GROUPS, where it belongs! Now any further infraction on your part are considered e-mail harassment at this address, ans ANY response will be justified and legal. John M. Grubor Doctor Of Law CyberLawMaster alt.is.too > -- > David Veal veal@utk.edu / veal@web.ce.utk.edu >
Re: NEW RULES about UseNet Complaints (esp. "crossposting")
Author: J. La Rue
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 1996 00:00
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 1996 00:00
61 lines
3834 bytes
3834 bytes
In article <Pine.BSD.3.91.960210040634.4038C-100000@terrazzo.lm.com>, DrG
<manus@manus.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Feb 1996, David Veal whiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiined:
[...]
> > I have to spend sufficient time with it to know that it isn't what
> > I'm interested in reading. Further, the thread subject often has little
>
> What needed investigated about the "Giant Killer Hamsters?"
>
> > or nothing to do with where the topic is going. (Even worse, it may have
> > spawned off into multiple threads with the same subject line).
> >
> > Wouldn't it be a lot easier on everyone if people made an effort
> > to route their postings to groups of the appropriate subject?
> >
> So what? -- all newsgroups are public property.
> That means nothing to you. You route messages to the intended viewer!
>
> > > > A little courtesy on people's parts when it comes to newsgroups
> > > >lines will make things a lot more pleasant on everybody. This whole
>
> And the courtesy is to stay the fuck out of peoples' mailboxes when
> talking about any Usenet stuff. Usenet is a joke. E-mail is for business.
> Get them straight.
>
> > > >concept of proudly cross-posting to every group that comes to mind
or has
> > > >ever been in the thread is certainly not very appealing.
> > > >
>
> That is not my concept. I post to only the relevant groups.
> However, that may be over 20 groups sometimes.
>
> > > so, tell the poster that in his home-newsgroup.
> >
> > In the first place there's no real way to tell what somebody's
> > "home group" is, assuming it has any meaning. (Newsgroups are defined by
>
> BULLSHIT! You KNOW that MY home.newsgroup is alt.is.too
> And newsgroups are defined by POPULATION even more than subject.
> It is the PEOPLE who frequent those newsgroups that make the rules,
> not some old stupid charter or FAQ.
[...]
At the risk of agreeing with an apparent net.outlaw like Grubor, he is
absolutely right about the consensual nature of intra-newsgroup
"netiquette." Some newsgroups, for instance, welcome newcomers who barge
in, flaming away, but despise binaries. Other newsgroups want more
binaries and less talk. That's fair.
What pisses me off is when one newsgroup will attempt to "invade"
another and then whiiiiiiiiiiine about the evil nasty crossposters the
instant they realize that they are about to get their asses kicked from
one end of the Usenet to another. Treat others as you would like to be
treated yourself.
Johnny La Rue
Thread Navigation
This is a paginated view of messages in the thread with full content displayed inline.
Messages are displayed in chronological order, with the original post highlighted in green.
Use pagination controls to navigate through all messages in large threads.
Back to All Threads