Group: news.software.readers
From: Frank Slootweg
Date: Tuesday, October 09, 2007 12:35 PM
Subject: Re: Leave the Newsgroups: line alone!

?Q? wrote:
> Frank Slootweg wrote:
>
> > Mike Easter wrote:
> >
> > [anti-crossposting diatribe]
> >
> > And Floyd L. Davidson is supposed to see/read your response *how*?
>
> By reading the groups to which he's posted. If he's crossposted and
> isn't checking all the groups to which he's posted, that's his choice.

I think that's a reasonable expectation of a cross*poster*, . the
*OP*. IMO it's a (very) unreasonable expectation of a cross*replier*,
. someone who is *not* the OP, and *that* is what we are talking
about here.

In many (but not all) cases, such a crossreplier is *helping* people
with hir response. Why should (s)he jump through hoops, just because
some people can't be bothered to crosspost (and optionally set a
followup)? Sorry, but such behaviour is not sensible, not needed and
it's rude.

> > If OTOH you *want* to respond to a crossposted article, but, as you
> > say, do not want your actual response/comments in the other groups,
> > then you could crosspost a *pointer*
>
> Crossposters should accept that they have to read all the groups if
> they want to be sure to see all replies and they shouldn't be
> provided nudges to go check out the groups they might not be reading.
>
> Lurkers may want to follow the thread in all groups or not; again, up
> to them.

See above.

Anyway, can you give me one good reason *why* people 'have' to behave
so audience-unfriendly? . what's wrong with a crosspost (possibly of
only a pointer, see above) with followup set?

> > and set a Followup-To:. *That* would be responsible posting.
>
> It looks like you forgot the F-T when you crossposted your pointer.

Why? I'm not a "anti-crossposter", so for me there's no need to set a
F-T. However I consider it (somewhat) wrong to drag (my quotes of)
Mike's comments against his (declared) wishes to the other groups. Hence
I did not crosspost my real response, but did crosspost my pointer
(which, for the same reasons, did not even mention Mike's name).

So I think I'm being courteous, probably more than can reasonably be
expected, It would be nice if others were as well.