Anton <anton.usenet@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> fell face-first on the keyboard. This was
the result: news:ftnmd7$b1q$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> If for some reason different topics aren't supposed to be discussed in
> their own groups then perhaps you can give us an enlightened answer to
> the question why then we have many newsgroup and not one single,
> universal newsgroup?
>
> Gary has yet to answer this simple question. It only is the very essence
> of the entire debate here.
Oh for heaven's sake.
In general, one posts to groups where the topic relates to it's name.
However, the author will often want opinions from other groups that (s)he
feels is relevant, or where (s)he knows others may be interested.
As Gary has pointed out, cross-posting is far, far preferential to multi-
posting. It's actually a more honest way to do it, since readers can see
instantly what audience the author is trying to reach.
Most decent newsreaders (Hint: Google groups is *not* a newsreader: It's a
website) have many filtering options: One of which is to auto-kill any
article cross-posted to more that $x groups. Another is to auto-kill any
article posted by $author or by $email_address.
In reference to Usenet being "self-policing" - As Gary said: Puh-lease.
The
closest that gets to being even remotely true is when people choose not to
reply to a given author. You, by replying constantly to Gary, are most
certainly not participating in this self-policing.
As has been pointed out many times in the past: Abuse *on* the 'net is not
abuse *of* the 'net: They are two very different beasties. Additionally,
someone posting content you disagree with or find objectionable is not
necessarily abuse *on* the 'net, either.
Ironically, this entire thread is off-topic for news.admin.net-
abuse.usenet.
(Newsgroups restored for the integrity of the debate)
--
Marc Bissonnette
Looking for a new ISP? http://www.canadianisp.com
Largest ISP comparison site across Canada.
|
