From: rh@smds.com (Richard Harter)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Living in a State of Siege
Date: 24 Dec 92 08:17:39 GMT
Reply-To: rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter)
Organization: Software Maintenance & Development Systems, Inc.

In article <MUFFY.92Dec23072842@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>In article <1992Dec23.070715.10499@smds.com> rh@smds.com (Richard Harter) writes:
>
>   We don't get alt.feminism -- the only reason I saw this article was that
>   it was cross-posted to soc.men and soc.women which we do get.  I will
>   refrain from making the obvious cheap shots.  However I suspect that some
>   will miss the point so I will spell it out.  If you, muffy, cross post
>   then people will respond to your postings in the group that you cross
>   post to.  It scarcely makes sense for you to complain about cross posting
>   when you regularly do it yourself.

>You don't seem to understand.

Oh, I rather think that I do.  Quite well, as a matter of fact.

>I have *never* explicitly cross-posted an
>article to soc.men.  I have followed up to many such articles, since
>every new thread seems to be cross-posted.  Once a thread is
>cross-posted, I do not know which group the person I am responding to is
>reading, so I do not change the Newsgroups: line, since there would be
>no point in responding to someone who will not receive the response.

Which means you are part of the problem, not part of the solution.  Of
course it really doesn't matter what you or I do, because the usenet
population is what it is and our actions won't impact prevailing practice.

However your rationale is a cop out.  You can edit the newsgroups line;
you can even change the title if it doesn't match the thread.  It is a
courtesy to do so.  I do it regularly, even though many me that I am not
a particularly courteous person.

Re your point about responding to someone who won't receive the response:
So what.  Your words and mine are not engraved in gold.  It doesn't really
matter whether you respond or not.  Your criteria and mine for fools
may differ, but rest assured, the supply of fools and would be fool-killers
is nearly endless.  Your response is not needed; those to whom it is
addressed will almost certainly reject it out of hand (they are fools,
after all) and there will be no shortage of standard bearers to pick
up the fallen flag.

It is a dis-service to groups which are the targets of cross threading
to continue the cross posting when your response and your focus is within
a particular group.  If you are not interested in a group then don't
post to it.  Or do, if you want to anyway, or if you just don't care.
It's a free usenet after all.

>My exhortation was to the people who *begin* the threads cross-posted.  I
>realize that I did not make that clear, but it did seem obvious to me at
>the time - you certainly seem to understand this concept, but you do not
>seem to have thought out the consequences of the idea that "people will
>respond to your postings in the group that you cross-post to."

Has any one told you you're cute when you're being patronizing?

Actually, the original posters are only nominally at fault -- I
except the twits who post something to every newsgroup under the
sun.  Quite often the original posting that started the thread was
relevant to the cited groups.  [Quick -- what did the original
posting in this thread say?]  The problem is in the follow-ups.
People have all sorts of hot buttons that induce them to inflict their
deathless prose upon the net.  Their hot buttons set off other hot
buttons and the whole thing quickly evolves into a rattle of knee
jerk responses.  It's chaos theory in action with plenty of strange
attractors.

Anyway, no I didn't catch that you meant your exhortation to apply
to the originators of threads.
-- 
Richard Harter: SMDS Inc.  Net address: rh@smds.com Phone: 508-369-7398 
US Mail: SMDS Inc., PO Box 555, Concord MA 01742.    Fax: 508-369-8272
In the fields of Hell where the grass grows high
Are the graves of dreams allowed to die.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism