"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...


Ken Brod wrote:

And the person to whom I responded did *not* post exactly like the
cross-posting original poster; he cross-posted to every other group *but*
this one. He obviously thinks it's okay to clutter up other groups with
his
garbage, but not his own.

Peter cross-posted to all the other groups and not to this one because he
knows that the original poster does not frequent this one and would not
see
the message if it appeared here. Peter, on the other hand, does not
frequent
the others, so he doesn't know where the other poster is. It is also
highly
desireable that other posters in those groups see this complaint.

Peter cross-posted having no idea whether his message was relevant to the
groups to which he posted. That's wrong. In fact, that's the same criticism
Peter had for the original poster.

The conversation you and I are having right now is of no relevance to any
other group. That's I am not involving any other group.

And there's no difference to a reader whether a message is cross-posted or
individually posted to several groups. In fact, some browsers will mark a
message as read in all newgroups once someone reads it in one if it's
cross-posted, so cross-posting is preferable for this type of post.

There's a big difference: When people reply to a cross-post, they generally
repeat the sin of the original post. Again, my posts here are a good case in
point: We are not bothering any other groups with this exchange. Nor should
we.


Peter behaved exactly as he should have.

Again, no. Cross-posting material not relevant to a group is wrong. Period.
And that some knuckle-head (the original poster, not Peter) started it all
does not transform an irrelevant post into a relevant one. I.e., just
because the original idiot encroached on my group does not make it okay for
Peter to do the same.

k.