🚀 go-pugleaf

>In article <123695@cup.portal.com>, Ted_Eugene_Viens@cup.portal.com writes:
>
>[polite request deleted in the interest of brevity.]
>
>> pandemic with the unimagined growth of the usenet.  Most cross-postings are
>> inadvertantly done when one person replies to an earlier posting.  I will ag
a
>in
>> ask the author of my automatic mailing software to change it so that a reply
>> automatically resets the groups field to only the group in which I am replyi
n
>g.
>> I would not be surprised if there is a growing movement to limit all replies
>> to usenet postings to the group in which the reply is made.
>
>I understand the problem.  I've even had to endure others doing such things in
>my newsgroups.  However, I also don't like letting certain statements go
>unanswered.  I consider answering in one newsgroup out of 10 inadequate in
>some cases.  (Essentially, that is what you suggested.)  However, sometimes
>I do edit the newsgroup lines.  In this case, isn't houston.news supposed
>to be a dead newsgroup anyway (i.e. try houston.usenet.config)?
>
>
>                                                Jim Pritchett
>
>
>UUCP:  rwsys.lonestar.org!caleb!jdp             "For with God nothing shall
>                                                be impossible."   Luke 1:37
>
>
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------------------Robert Pirsig---------------
>
Thanks Jim for your kind and well thought reply.  I understand your desire
not to let some statements go unanswered in any newsgroup.  Still, I ask you
to consider that the statement itself may be errantly posted in some groups.
I mean, do you really think this past string belonged in alt.pagan or a few
of the unrelated groups it fell into?
Bye...  Ted..