Michael Black wrote:

... If you don't get approved ... the reply won't land here.
It is a fault of the system...

It's no fault of the system, it's a fault of the sender: on usenet,
cross posting is *evil* and should be avoided

--
73 es 51 de i3hev, op. mario

Non è Radioamatore, se non gli fuma il saldatore!
- Campagna "Il Radioamatore non è uno che ascolta la radio"

it.hobby.radioamatori.moderato
http://digilander.libero.it/hamweb
http://digilander.libero.it/esperantovenezia

"i3HEV, mario" wrote in message
...
Michael Black wrote:

... If you don't get approved ... the reply won't land here. It is a fault
of the system...

It's no fault of the system, it's a fault of the sender: on usenet,
cross posting is *evil* and should be avoided

--
73 es 51 de i3hev, op. mario

Non è Radioamatore, se non gli fuma il saldatore!
- Campagna "Il Radioamatore non è uno che ascolta la radio"

it.hobby.radioamatori.moderato
http://digilander.libero.it/hamweb
http://digilander.libero.it/esperantovenezia
I don't see what cross posting has to do with the fact that
posting a reply to some messages here is useless .
My reaction was to ban the sender so that in the future
I can find other ways to loose my time.
May be I misunderstood your message and you were saying
that the messages I banned were cross posts.
I can't tell as they are banned :-)
Anyway my news reader is much clearer now
73's

On 8/16/2015 12:51 PM, i3HEV, mario wrote:
Michael Black wrote:

... If you don't get approved ... the reply won't land here. It is a
fault of the system...

It's no fault of the system, it's a fault of the sender: on usenet,
cross posting is *evil* and should be avoided


Wrong. On Usenet, cross-posting is much preferred to multi-posting, and
has been for the last 30+ years.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K

==================

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

On 8/16/2015 12:51 PM, i3HEV, mario wrote:
Michael Black wrote:

... If you don't get approved ... the reply won't land here. It is a
fault of the system...

It's no fault of the system, it's a fault of the sender: on usenet,
cross posting is *evil* and should be avoided


Wrong. On Usenet, cross-posting is much preferred to multi-posting, and
has been for the last 30+ years.

On a strictly logical basis, that does not necessarily mean he's wrong;
it could just be that multi-posting is even more evil.

--
Roger Hayter

On 8/16/2015 3:41 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:

On 8/16/2015 12:51 PM, i3HEV, mario wrote:
Michael Black wrote:

... If you don't get approved ... the reply won't land here. It is a
fault of the system...

It's no fault of the system, it's a fault of the sender: on usenet,
cross posting is *evil* and should be avoided


Wrong. On Usenet, cross-posting is much preferred to multi-posting, and
has been for the last 30+ years.

On a strictly logical basis, that does not necessarily mean he's wrong;
it could just be that multi-posting is even more evil.


No, cross-posting to a few *appropriate* newsgroups is not generally
considered evil by long-time usenet users, while multi-posting is.

There are times when posting to multiple newsgroups is appropriate.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K

==================

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

On 8/16/2015 3:41 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:

On 8/16/2015 12:51 PM, i3HEV, mario wrote:
Michael Black wrote:

... If you don't get approved ... the reply won't land here. It is a
fault of the system...

It's no fault of the system, it's a fault of the sender: on usenet,
cross posting is *evil* and should be avoided


Wrong. On Usenet, cross-posting is much preferred to multi-posting, and
has been for the last 30+ years.

On a strictly logical basis, that does not necessarily mean he's wrong;
it could just be that multi-posting is even more evil.


No, cross-posting to a few *appropriate* newsgroups is not generally
considered evil by long-time usenet users, while multi-posting is.

There are times when posting to multiple newsgroups is appropriate.

I don't disagree; I was only arguing with your logic!

--
Roger Hayter

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015, i3HEV, mario wrote:

Michael Black wrote:

... If you don't get approved ... the reply won't land here. It is a fault
of the system...

It's no fault of the system, it's a fault of the sender: on usenet, cross
posting is *evil* and should be avoided

The self appointed "administrators" are the ones issuing the cross-posted
messages. Yes, you should always consider when replying to a crossposted
message, but in this case, unless you get approval, the message is lost.
It's the self appointed "adminstrators" who are at fault. They failed with
their moderated newsgroup (virtually nobody posts there), so they inflict
themselves on the rest of the hierarchy.

Michael

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015, Jerry Stuckle wrote:

On 8/16/2015 12:51 PM, i3HEV, mario wrote:
Michael Black wrote:

... If you don't get approved ... the reply won't land here. It is a
fault of the system...

It's no fault of the system, it's a fault of the sender: on usenet,
cross posting is *evil* and should be avoided


Wrong. On Usenet, cross-posting is much preferred to multi-posting, and
has been for the last 30+ years.

That's only relative. Cross-posting is better than mult-posting, but not
by much.

ON the other hand, the self-appointed "admistrators" have their robot set
up wrong, we shouldn't lose replies just because they don't want it.

Michael

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015, Jerry Stuckle wrote:

On 8/16/2015 3:41 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:

On 8/16/2015 12:51 PM, i3HEV, mario wrote:
Michael Black wrote:

... If you don't get approved ... the reply won't land here. It is a
fault of the system...

It's no fault of the system, it's a fault of the sender: on usenet,
cross posting is *evil* and should be avoided


Wrong. On Usenet, cross-posting is much preferred to multi-posting, and
has been for the last 30+ years.

On a strictly logical basis, that does not necessarily mean he's wrong;
it could just be that multi-posting is even more evil.


No, cross-posting to a few *appropriate* newsgroups is not generally
considered evil by long-time usenet users, while multi-posting is.

There are times when posting to multiple newsgroups is appropriate.

Like when the self-appointed "administrators" can't get people to post to
their moderated newsgroup, so they cross post junk from elsewhere between
the free newsgroups and their moderated newsgroup?

They aren't even being selective, we get the teasers but most of the time
no real content. What does Boz Scaggs have to do with amateur radio?
ONe of these junk posts had no relationship to amateur radio, yet we had
to walk through it. They aren't even consistent, stuff goes to .equipment
better suited for another of the sub-groups, we see the same thing here in
..homebrew.

Michael

Michael Black wrote:

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015, i3HEV, mario wrote:

Michael Black wrote:

... If you don't get approved ... the reply won't land here. It is a fault
of the system...

It's no fault of the system, it's a fault of the sender: on usenet, cross
posting is *evil* and should be avoided

The self appointed "administrators" are the ones issuing the cross-posted
messages. Yes, you should always consider when replying to a crossposted
message, but in this case, unless you get approval, the message is lost.
It's the self appointed "adminstrators" who are at fault. They failed with
their moderated newsgroup (virtually nobody posts there), so they inflict
themselves on the rest of the hierarchy.

Michael

You only have to trim the newsgroup list to a subset you actually want
to post to, not including moderated groups, and there is then no
problem. Not that I am supporting the spam, but it is one's own fault
if one replies to all groups and the message is not propagated.


--
Roger Hayter