On 2 Jul, 02:57, Woody Wordpecker <exw6...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 16:55:46 +0100, Chuck Riggs
> <chri...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> said:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 03:24:51 -0700, Woody Wordpecker
> > <exw6...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > >On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 22:40:58 +0200, "minimus"
> > ><t24...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> said:
>
> > >> Which one is correct?
> > >> Alternate between three things
> > >> Alternate among three things
>
> > >You have posted this query separately to three newsgroups
> > >that I know of. =A0That's considered a no-no by some people.
> > >It's said to be wasteful of Internet resources compared with
> > >crossposting.
>
> > >On the other hand, given that some spam filters reject
> > >crosspostings to a number of groups greater than some
> > >specified number, I suppose it's a way to sneak around that
> > >potential obstacle.
>
> > Internet resources are cheap, but our time isn't.
>
> Crossposting instead of separate posting would have saved at
> least my time. =A0When a message is crossposted, my
> newsreader, Agent, displays it in only one of the
> newsgroups. =A0I found it in three because it was separately
> posted in each.
>
> I took the time to read the extra two to see if they were
> different from the first one. =A0They weren't.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well, this is the scenario if you are a regular at a few different
language news groups. What if one fails to get a satisfactory answer /
explanation from a single news group? Does successive postings to
different news groups then stand vindicated? Can successive postings
done out of necessity be treated differently from cross postings?
|
