«

On Mon, 8 Dec 2003, CBFalconer wrote:
>
> Alan Balmer wrote:
> >
> > <> wrote:
> > > Discussions about the charter of
> > > comp.lang.c are topical on comp.lang.c and only there, so the
> > > follow-up should be set to comp.lang.c and not any other group.
> >
> > No. There is no assurance that the offending cross-poster will
> > even read the reply if it's posted only to c.l.c.
>
> Which, in turn, is why such a reply should set follow-ups.

Huh? Follow-ups to where? To c.l.c, a group the offender may
not even read, or to c.u.p, a group the offender may not even
read?
IMHO, it is the *slightly* lesser of two evils to leave the
follow-ups pointing to both groups. That's the default behavior,
and as such less objectionable to those who like to object about
things.

-Arthur

"Arthur J. O'Dwyer" wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Dec 2003, CBFalconer wrote:
> > Alan Balmer wrote:
> > > <> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Discussions about the charter of
> > > > comp.lang.c are topical on comp.lang.c and only there, so the
> > > > follow-up should be set to comp.lang.c and not any other group.
> > >
> > > No. There is no assurance that the offending cross-poster will
> > > even read the reply if it's posted only to c.l.c.
> >
> > Which, in turn, is why such a reply should set follow-ups.
>
> Huh? Follow-ups to where? To c.l.c, a group the offender may
> not even read, or to c.u.p, a group the offender may not even
> read?

In this case to c.u.p. The thread is OT on c.l.c, and not needed
there in the future. Other groups should be able to make their
own determinations. The thread is NOT about c.l.c topicality;
only the particular announcement message is. This particular
thread had degenerated into protocol for cutting off cross-posts.

--
Chuck F () ()
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net> USE worldnet address!

On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 05:44:12 GMT, CBFalconer <>
wrote:

>"Arthur J. O'Dwyer" wrote:
>> On Mon, 8 Dec 2003, CBFalconer wrote:
>> > Alan Balmer wrote:
>> > > <> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Discussions about the charter of
>> > > > comp.lang.c are topical on comp.lang.c and only there, so the
>> > > > follow-up should be set to comp.lang.c and not any other group.
>> > >
>> > > No. There is no assurance that the offending cross-poster will
>> > > even read the reply if it's posted only to c.l.c.
>> >
>> > Which, in turn, is why such a reply should set follow-ups.
>>
>> Huh? Follow-ups to where? To c.l.c, a group the offender may
>> not even read, or to c.u.p, a group the offender may not even
>> read?
>
>In this case to c.u.p. The thread is OT on c.l.c, and not needed
>there in the future. Other groups should be able to make their
>own determinations. The thread is NOT about c.l.c topicality;
>only the particular announcement message is. This particular
>thread had degenerated into protocol for cutting off cross-posts.

Ah. Your first post above seemed to be supporting "follow-up should be
set to comp.lang.c and not any other group." Much different. In
contrast to that statement, I'd say followups should be set to every
group addressed *except* c.l.c.

--
Al Balmer
Balmer Consulting

"Alan Balmer" <> wrote in message
news:...

> On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 17:02:08 +0100, "Bjorn Reese"
> <> wrote:

> >Discussions about the charter of
> >comp.lang.c are topical on comp.lang.c and only there, so the
> >follow-up should be set to comp.lang.c and not any other group.

> No. There is no assurance that the offending cross-poster will even
> read the reply if it's posted only to c.l.c.

I believe you have misunderstood what Bjorn Reese was saying. He said
the followups should be "set" to comp.lang.c, not "sent" to comp.lang.c.

When you post that the OP is off-topic, you don't want the original
poster to see any replies to your pos. Most of them will be people
complaining about your warning and you'd rather the OP think your position
is the only position. (Assuming the OP doesn't read c.l.c.) That way, you
confine continuation to the thread only to c.l.c readers and contain the
damage.

DS