How to get PAN newsreader to resize photos to fit in the b..

External Since: Oct 08, 2007 Posts: 4

[Subject: changed]

[Full quote of the relevant parts because (IMO) it was very well said.]

Floyd L. Davidson <floyd.RemoveThis@apaflo.com> wrote:
> "David J Taylor" <david-taylor.RemoveThis@blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote:
[...]

> >I try to post only to groups where I will read the posts.
>
> Where *you* read the post is of little concern. There
> may be others who are reading the thread who may or may
> not be reading the same newsgroups that you do. They
> are potentially just as interested in what gets posted.
>
> The point is that once a thread has been started in a
> set number of newsgroups *you* have no way to know who
> is reading it where. It is just plain *rude* to cut off
> others just because you aren't reading the other
> newsgroups.
>
> >I'm not subscribed to those other groups, and would not see any
> >responses posted there.
>
> That is not true. As long as they don't do the same
> rude thing that you've done, we will *all* see *all* of
> the responses, regardless of which newsgroup the poster
> is reading. Allowing that to happen efficiently is the
> very reason that the cross-posting mechanism exists. The
> opposite is when people multi-post the same article into
> different newsgroups; and when done that way it is not
> efficient and *that* is when you won't see replies made
> in other newsgroups.
>
> >The great majority of cross-posted stuff here in rec.photo.digital
> >either does not need the cross-posts or, sadly, is not relevant to the
> >group. Therefore I will not willingly contribute to cross-posting.
>
> Don't be *absurd*. What you want to avoid is starting
> threads that are posted to inappropriate newsgroups.
>
> Once a thread is started, assuming it actually is a
> valid topic for discussion at all, it is generally rude
> to remove any of the groups unless it has become wildly
> invalid and disruptive for a particular group. (In this
> case that is not a correct claim, so removing cross-posts
> is not valid.)

Hear, hear!

Some people will disagree and some will say that a Followup-To: a
single group should be set, but I fully agree with you.

As you say, once the thread has been *started*, the list of groups
should be left alone, unless there is a *very* good reason to change it
(for example some group(s) are/were totally off-topic from the start).
That may not be ideal, but forcing people to subscribe to (and later
again unsubscribe from) groups which they normally do not read, is
rather thoughtless, and hence worse. Just *cutting* (i.e. without
(first) a Followup-To:) groups - as was done in this case - is an even
bigger no-no.

Bottom line: The responsibility for selecting the 'right' newsgroups
lies with the *initial* poster ("OP"). If you want to blame anyone
(after the fact), blame *hir*, but (in principal) leave the Newsgroups:
line alone.

External Since: Jul 27, 2007 Posts: 604

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
> "David J Taylor"
[]
>> Fine, I did not intend to make such claims.
>
> You *did* suggest that Usenet was not designed to
> transport binaries, and that it was harmful.

I thought that I had already clarified what I meant to say. It was that
the support required to support binaries which was killing the useful part
of Usenet, the text discussions, at least at my ISP, and perhaps others as
well. There are other forms of electronic communication which are better
designed to support binaries, rather than having multiple copies of huge
volumes of data replicated world-wide. The word "better" was missing
before. Sorry!

David