Re: Is it ok for this crossposting?

In article said:

"~patches~" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I made a totally awesome meal tonight and would like to share it with rfc
and alt.food.barbecue. It was mainly cooked on our outdoor grill and used
a smoking method so fits in with both groups. I thought I would ask before
just posting [censored] nilly. Does anyone mind if it do this?

Post to one group. Copy and paste the message to post it to the other
group. Takes less time than it took you to post this message.

Absolute [censored]! Proper crossposting is *far* preferable to inanely
posting separately to individual groups. With the former, people
subscribed to the various groups concerned only have to deal with it
once; with the latter it turns up when you open each of such groups,
which is a proverbial PITFA!

Cheers, Phred.

--
[email hidden]

"Phred" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, "Edwin

Pawlowski said:

"~patches~" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I made a totally awesome meal tonight and would like to share it with rfc
and alt.food.barbecue. It was mainly cooked on our outdoor grill and
used
a smoking method so fits in with both groups. I thought I would ask
before
just posting [censored] nilly. Does anyone mind if it do this?

Post to one group. Copy and paste the message to post it to the other
group. Takes less time than it took you to post this message.

Absolute [censored]! Proper crossposting is *far* preferable to inanely
posting separately to individual groups. With the former, people
subscribed to the various groups concerned only have to deal with it
once; with the latter it turns up when you open each of such groups,
which is a proverbial PITFA!

Cheers, Phred.

Not so. You will see a crossposted message in each and every group it was
crossposted to, just as if it had been posted separately to each group.
Perhaps some newsreaders have a feature to filter out crossposted messages
and that's what you are talking about, but most people will see them all.

Crossposting is convenient for the poster because they will see all replies
in one group no matter where they came from (assuming the responder
crossposted also which usually happens automatically when you hit "Reply to
Group." Individual posting is better for the groups because replies are not
crossposted to all the groups.

--
Peter Aitken
Visit my recipe and kitchen myths page at www.pgacon.com/cooking.htm

Phred said:

In article said:

"~patches~" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I made a totally awesome meal tonight and would like to share it with rfc
and alt.food.barbecue. It was mainly cooked on our outdoor grill and used
a smoking method so fits in with both groups. I thought I would ask before
just posting [censored] nilly. Does anyone mind if it do this?

Post to one group. Copy and paste the message to post it to the other
group. Takes less time than it took you to post this message.

Absolute [censored]! Proper crossposting is *far* preferable to inanely
posting separately to individual groups. With the former, people
subscribed to the various groups concerned only have to deal with it
once; with the latter it turns up when you open each of such groups,
which is a proverbial PITFA!

Cheers, Phred.

I tend to agree with Phred about *proper* crossposting. Although I don't
do it as a rule... the NGs that I read are not really related. The only
thing I try to watch for is replying to a thread that's been crossposted
already. Made the mistake of not deleting the other NGs out of the "To"
field, once or twice, and my reply must have gone to all of them... Ooops.
Cathy

--
I don't suffer from insanity - I enjoy every minute of it

Peter Aitken said:

Not so. You will see a crossposted message in each and every group it was
crossposted to, just as if it had been posted separately to each group.
Perhaps some newsreaders have a feature to filter out crossposted messages
and that's what you are talking about, but most people will see them all.

Not if you have a decent newsreader. Even OE gets that right, I
believe. Cross-posted message should be marked as read in ALL
referenced groups.

Brian

Peter Aitken said:

"Phred" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, "Edwin

Pawlowski said:

"~patches~" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
>I made a totally awesome meal tonight and would like to share it with rfc
>and alt.food.barbecue. It was mainly cooked on our outdoor grill and
>used
>a smoking method so fits in with both groups. I thought I would ask
>before
>just posting [censored] nilly. Does anyone mind if it do this?

Post to one group. Copy and paste the message to post it to the other
group. Takes less time than it took you to post this message.

Absolute [censored]! Proper crossposting is *far* preferable to inanely
posting separately to individual groups. With the former, people
subscribed to the various groups concerned only have to deal with it
once; with the latter it turns up when you open each of such groups,
which is a proverbial PITFA!

Cheers, Phred.

Not so. You will see a crossposted message in each and every group it was
crossposted to, just as if it had been posted separately to each group.
Perhaps some newsreaders have a feature to filter out crossposted messages
and that's what you are talking about,....

but most people will see them all.

True.

Quoted message said:

Crossposting is convenient for the poster because they will see all replies
in one group no matter where they came from (assuming the responder
crossposted also which usually happens automatically when you hit "Reply to
Group." Individual posting is better for the groups because replies are not
crossposted to all the groups.

Yep.

Quoted message said:

--
Peter Aitken
Visit my recipe and kitchen myths page at www.pgacon.com/cooking.htm

Nice website, BTW

Josie.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

Peter Aitken said:

"Phred" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Absolute [censored]! Proper crossposting is *far* preferable to inanely
posting separately to individual groups. With the former, people
subscribed to the various groups concerned only have to deal with it
once; with the latter it turns up when you open each of such groups,
which is a proverbial PITFA!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Not so. You will see a crossposted message in each and every group it was
crossposted to, just as if it had been posted separately to each group.
Perhaps some newsreaders have a feature to filter out crossposted messages
and that's what you are talking about,....

Quoted message said:

but most people will see them all.

Quoted message said:

True.

You will *see* the unread message in every group that you are subscribed
to and that it was crossposted to. Once you read that *one* message, you
will no longer see it as an unread message in *any* group. There's only
one message, it is posted to multiple groups. It's possible that there
are seriously broken news clients that mark the posting of the message in
a group as read, rather than the message itself, but I've never met such a
news client and hope never to have its acquaintance.

--
Dan Abel
Sonoma State University
AIS
[email hidden]

cathyxyz said:

Phred said:

In article said:

"~patches~" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

>I made a totally awesome meal tonight and would like to share it with rfc
>and alt.food.barbecue. It was mainly cooked on our outdoor grill and used
>a smoking method so fits in with both groups. I thought I would ask before
>just posting [censored] nilly. Does anyone mind if it do this?

Post to one group. Copy and paste the message to post it to the other
group. Takes less time than it took you to post this message.

Absolute [censored]! Proper crossposting is *far* preferable to inanely
posting separately to individual groups. With the former, people
subscribed to the various groups concerned only have to deal with it
once; with the latter it turns up when you open each of such groups,
which is a proverbial PITFA!

Cheers, Phred.

I tend to agree with Phred about *proper* crossposting.

No such thing as proper crossposting... it's ALL BAD (anti-social
behavior)... BAD as in Whacko Jacko sleeping with boys.... do you think
it's okay to sleep with boys, probably.

Sheldon

Sheldon said:

cathyxyz said:

Phred said:

In article <[email hidden]>, "Edwin Pawlowski" <[email hidden]> wrote:

>"~patches~" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
>news:[email hidden]...
>
>
>>I made a totally awesome meal tonight and would like to share it with rfc
>>and alt.food.barbecue. It was mainly cooked on our outdoor grill and used
>>a smoking method so fits in with both groups. I thought I would ask before
>>just posting [censored] nilly. Does anyone mind if it do this?
>
>Post to one group. Copy and paste the message to post it to the other
>group. Takes less time than it took you to post this message.

Absolute [censored]! Proper crossposting is *far* preferable to inanely
posting separately to individual groups. With the former, people
subscribed to the various groups concerned only have to deal with it
once; with the latter it turns up when you open each of such groups,
which is a proverbial PITFA!

Cheers, Phred.

I tend to agree with Phred about *proper* crossposting.

No such thing as proper crossposting... it's ALL BAD (anti-social
behavior)...

Sheldon has spoken, all hail Sheldon...

BAD as in Whacko Jacko sleeping with boys.... do you think

Quoted message said:

it's okay to sleep with boys, probably.

Sheldon

Dunno. Never tried it... you tell me.

Cathy

--
I don't suffer from insanity - I enjoy every minute of it

"Phred" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Absolute [censored]! Proper crossposting is *far* preferable to inanely
posting separately to individual groups. With the former, people
subscribed to the various groups concerned only have to deal with it
once; with the latter it turns up when you open each of such groups,
which is a proverbial PITFA!

[censored]. Most problems come from cross posting and replying to other
groups, even if they are related. Considering that this situation comes up
only a couple of times a day, who give a damn if you see it again? Many
threads evolve into off topic discussion further separating them and made
still worse by stupid cross posting.

In article said:

"Phred" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, "Edwin

Pawlowski said:

Post to one group. Copy and paste the message to post it to the other
group. Takes less time than it took you to post this message.

Absolute [censored]! Proper crossposting is *far* preferable to inanely
posting separately to individual groups. With the former, people
subscribed to the various groups concerned only have to deal with it
once; with the latter it turns up when you open each of such groups,
which is a proverbial PITFA!

Not so. You will see a crossposted message in each and every group it was
crossposted to, just as if it had been posted separately to each group.

Nonsense.

Quoted message said:

Perhaps some newsreaders have a feature to filter out crossposted messages
and that's what you are talking about, but most people will see them all.

What sort of friggin' broken newsreader are you using for chrissake?
Jesus! Even my 8-year-old News Xpress can get that right! They don't
"filter out" crossposted messages, they simply mark a message as Read
in *all* crossposted groups once you've seen it or "caught up" in one.

Quoted message said:

Crossposting is convenient for the poster because they will see all replies
in one group no matter where they came from (assuming the responder
crossposted also which usually happens automatically when you hit "Reply to
Group." Individual posting is better for the groups because replies are not
crossposted to all the groups.

I have some sympathy for this point. It may be desirable to set
Followups in some cases so replies don't clutter other groups.

On the other hand, if a crossposted message is relevant to more than
one group (as in the case of the one which started this thread) it
could well be argued that people in those other groups would welcome
the chance to follow the full discussion without necessarily having to
subscribe to a group they don't normally scan.

Cheers, Phred.

--
[email hidden]

In article <[email hidden]>,

Edwin Pawlowski said:

"Phred" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Absolute [censored]! Proper crossposting is *far* preferable to inanely
posting separately to individual groups. With the former, people
subscribed to the various groups concerned only have to deal with it
once; with the latter it turns up when you open each of such groups,
which is a proverbial PITFA!

[censored]. Most problems come from cross posting and replying to other
groups, even if they are related. Considering that this situation comes up
only a couple of times a day, who give a damn if you see it again? Many
threads evolve into off topic discussion further separating them and made
still worse by stupid cross posting.

No one has been talking about "stupid cross posting" here. The theme
is proper crossposting versus inane multiposting. If a topic is
irrelevant to a particular group it shouldn't be posted there, period!
(Come to that, this whole discussion should probably have been in
news.groups.questions rather than r.f.c. ;-)

Cheers, Phred.

--
[email hidden]

Phred said:

They don't
"filter out" crossposted messages, they simply mark a message as Read
in *all* crossposted groups once you've seen it or "caught up" in one.

I like the way Agent handles it. A popup appears to warn it's a
crossposted message. Then I can choose to read the message (or not)
and I have a choice to reply only to the group I'm reading - or to
all.

Phred said:

(Come to that, this whole discussion should probably have been in
news.groups.questions rather than r.f.c. ;-)

But who reads that group? Not me.

"Sheldon" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

No such thing as proper crossposting... it's ALL BAD (anti-social
behavior)...

Oh, the irony.
--
Chris Lemon
[email hidden]
http://fredsmythe.com
EFNet: FredSmyth

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden]

(Phred) said:

(Come to that, this whole discussion should probably have been in
news.groups.questions rather than r.f.c. ;-)

Cheers, Phred.

Absolutely spot on, Phred. But there are too many fools who'd rather
post OT [censored] here because "these are my friends and I'll ask them"
rather than go to a group where they "don't know anyone" or because they
don't read that group or have never heard of it. Lazy.

OB Food: I had three nearly rotten bananas to use the other day and
made a double batch of this. In retrospect, it was too much volume for
my food processor to handle well, but I made it work. Good banana
bread, and I used yogurt in place of the sour cream.

* Exported from MasterCook Mac *

Banana Bread

Recipe By : posted to r.f.cooking by Barb Schaller 6-12-05
Serving Size : 1 Preparation Time :0:00
Categories : Quick Breads

Amount Measure Ingredient -- Preparation Method
-------- ------------ --------------------------------
1/2 cup butter -- softened
1 cup sugar
1/4 cup sour cream
3 small or 2 large overripe (just this side of
fruit flies!) bananas
2 eggs
2 cups flour
1 tsp. baking soda
1 cup chopped nuts (optional)

In food processor bowl, process butter, sugar, sour cream, bananas, and
eggs until well mixed (maybe a minute?), stopping once or so to scrape
down mixture from side of workbowl. Dump flour, soda, and nuts, if
using, on top and pulse-process 5-8 times to incorporate into mixture.
Pour into a 9x5x3² greased loaf pan and bake till done (about 50-60
minutes) at 350 degrees, or use two smaller loaf pans, about 5x7x2-1/2²
and bake 45-55 minutes. Toothpick inserted into center of loaf should
come out clean (or almost). Cool in pan(s) 10 minutes then remove from
pan(s) and finish cooling on cooling rack.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
NOTES : Source: Adapted from a recipe in the Minneapolis Tribune, 19xx.
Won a blue ribbon at the State Fair in the mid-1980s.

_____
--
-Barb, <http://www.jamlady.eboard.com> 6/6/05 Sam I Am!
June 25, 1945: Me and Carly Simon. I wonder if she makes jam.
(It's not too early to shop -- good chocolate and cheap gin.
Or is it cheap chocolate and good gin? I never
remember. No jam--coal to Newcastle and all that. "-)

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden]

(Phred) said:

In article <[email hidden]>, "Peter
Aitken" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Perhaps some newsreaders have a feature to filter out crossposted
messages and that's what you are talking about, but most people
will see them all.

What sort of friggin' broken newsreader are you using for chrissake?
Jesus! Even my 8-year-old News Xpress can get that right! They don't
"filter out" crossposted messages, they simply mark a message as Read
in *all* crossposted groups once you've seen it or "caught up" in
one.

But the message header is still seen. In NewsWatcher (for Macintosh),
it's marked read in all the groups if it was read in one of the groups
-- but it's still seen. Maybe you guys are arguing because of semantics.

Quoted message said:

Cheers, Phred.

OB Food:

* Exported from MasterCook Mac *

Mrs. Spooner¹s Fut Nudge

Recipe By : posted to r.f.cooking by Barb Schaller 6-12-05
Serving Size : 1 Preparation Time :0:00
Categories : Candy

Amount Measure Ingredient -- Preparation Method
-------- ------------ --------------------------------
2 buttlespoons of tabler
2 cups shanulated grugar
2 cuppers quart of crin theam or bop of the
tottle
2 chocks of squarklate
2 Spabletoons sorn kyrup
1 nut of kelled shuts
A vittle lanilla

Shook the hugar, the chilk, the mawklate, and sorn kyrup until the
mawklate chelts.

Stoil, without birring, to 234 dehees of great. Darefully crop a letter
of the mot hickture into a watt of cold cupper. If a little foft sol
forms in the cuttom of the bopp, the drudge is fun.

Remove the han from the peat. Batter the pun.. Let canned until stool
and then flad the avoring (a vittle lanilla). Speet with a boon until
gick and thooey. Nop in the druts. Empty into the battered pun and
squark in mares; you may marsh addmallows if you have a particularly
teeth swoot.

Serves a grozen downups or two bean-age toys!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
NOTES : Source: Judy Miller, Honeywell, in the 60¹s.
_____
--
-Barb, <http://www.jamlady.eboard.com> 6/6/05 Sam I Am!
June 25, 1945: Me and Carly Simon. I wonder if she makes jam.
(It's not too early to shop -- good chocolate and cheap gin.
Or is it cheap chocolate and good gin? I never
remember. No jam--coal to Newcastle and all that. "-)

On Sun 12 Jun 2005 07:39:42a, Melba's Jammin' wrote in rec.food.cooking:

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden]

(Phred) said:

In article <[email hidden]>, "Peter
Aitken" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Perhaps some newsreaders have a feature to filter out crossposted
messages and that's what you are talking about, but most people
will see them all.

What sort of friggin' broken newsreader are you using for chrissake?
Jesus! Even my 8-year-old News Xpress can get that right! They don't
"filter out" crossposted messages, they simply mark a message as Read
in *all* crossposted groups once you've seen it or "caught up" in
one.

But the message header is still seen. In NewsWatcher (for Macintosh),
it's marked read in all the groups if it was read in one of the groups
-- but it's still seen. Maybe you guys are arguing because of semantics.

Xnews can kill any messages that are crossposted. You never see them. You
can select how many groups a message is crossposted to before the message
is killed.

--
Wayne Boatwright *¿*
____________________________________________

Give me a smart idiot over a stupid genius any day.
Sam Goldwyn, 1882-1974

Thanks for this banana bread recipe Barb. I know someone who *always*
eats bananas at the stage of "maturity" you describe (and certifiably
organic too, judging by the assorted blemishes 🙂. I'll pass on your
recipe, it may help overcome periods of serious glut. [Thinking
further, it may have to wait for another variety to come into season.
The samples I've seen recently are small, very firm varieties which
never seem to really soften; but do keep exceptionally well compared
with the standard commercial Cavendish and Gold Finger around here.]

In article <[email hidden]>,

Melba's Jammin said:

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden]

(Phred) said:

(Come to that, this whole discussion should probably have been in
news.groups.questions rather than r.f.c. ;-)

Absolutely spot on, Phred. But there are too many fools who'd rather
post OT [censored] here because "these are my friends and I'll ask them"
rather than go to a group where they "don't know anyone" or because they
don't read that group or have never heard of it. Lazy.

OB Food: I had three nearly rotten bananas to use the other day and
made a double batch of this. In retrospect, it was too much volume for
my food processor to handle well, but I made it work. Good banana
bread, and I used yogurt in place of the sour cream.

* Exported from MasterCook Mac *

Banana Bread

Recipe By : posted to r.f.cooking by Barb Schaller 6-12-05
Serving Size : 1 Preparation Time :0:00
Categories : Quick Breads

Amount Measure Ingredient -- Preparation Method
-------- ------------ --------------------------------
1/2 cup butter -- softened
1 cup sugar
1/4 cup sour cream
3 small or 2 large overripe (just this side of
fruit flies!) bananas
2 eggs
2 cups flour
1 tsp. baking soda
1 cup chopped nuts (optional)

In food processor bowl, process butter, sugar, sour cream, bananas, and
eggs until well mixed (maybe a minute?), stopping once or so to scrape
down mixture from side of workbowl. Dump flour, soda, and nuts, if
using, on top and pulse-process 5-8 times to incorporate into mixture.
Pour into a 9x5x3² greased loaf pan and bake till done (about 50-60
minutes) at 350 degrees, or use two smaller loaf pans, about 5x7x2-1/2²
and bake 45-55 minutes. Toothpick inserted into center of loaf should
come out clean (or almost). Cool in pan(s) 10 minutes then remove from
pan(s) and finish cooling on cooling rack.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
NOTES : Source: Adapted from a recipe in the Minneapolis Tribune, 19xx.
Won a blue ribbon at the State Fair in the mid-1980s.

Cheers, Phred.

--
[email hidden]

Melba's Jammin said:

or because they
don't read that group

I don't read or post in certain groups because they don't have enought
volume for me.

Quoted message said:

or have never heard of it. Lazy.

If never heard of it is being lazy, then I am. I'm not wading through
150,000 news groups (even with the "find" function), testing to see if
they are active or have enough volume of legitimate posts for my
purposes.