Re: [SI] Doors - "The Words"

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by sid, Jun 5, 2012.

  1. sid

    sid Guest

    Savageduck wrote:

    > Mystery Shooter (Could this be Sid or Otter?):


    not me, never been one for subterfuge.
    --
    sid
    RLU 300284
    2010.2
     
    sid, Jun 5, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. sid

    sid Guest

    Savageduck wrote:

    > On 2012-06-05 08:03:47 -0700, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>
    > said:


    >
    > BTW: Resetting the "Followup-To" header to one group, when the X-post
    > is appropriate, can screw things up for an individual who might be
    > reading this in one of the excluded groups.


    Debating with you over our interpretations of good Usenet etiquette seems
    pointless, so I won't try. Lets just leave it at, I won't barrack you over
    needless cross posting and you won't barrack me over trimming follow ups to
    the group I'm reading in as I feel appropriate.

    cheers

    --
    sid
    RLU 300284
    2010.2
     
    sid, Jun 5, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. > These four groups represent overlapping groups of participants.
    >
    > This is why all [SI] postings go to the 4 groups. By editing that,
    > you're cutting off part of the audience when you reply to the comments -
    > including those that "originate" outside of rpd.slr-systems.
    >
    > --
    > The Committee


    Then why not get yourselves a separate group - USENET or Yahoo or Google -
    to which only those who are interested need subscribe? Many people tire
    of seeing these multiple posts cluttering up four USENET groups.

    Thanks,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Jun 6, 2012
    #3
  4. > So quit bitching and make your presence known in the SI
    > --
    > Regards,
    > Savageduck


    Like many, I have no interest in SI, and fail to see why it needs to be
    posted across multiple groups. Let those who are interested set up their
    own group - a simple answer.

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Jun 6, 2012
    #4
  5. > "What Is Considered Inappropriate: 

- Crossposting to any other
    > newsgroup except where the post is of direct 
relevance to each group in
    > the crosspost "
    >
    > Again the SI X-Posts are entirely appropriate within the guidelines of
    > the r.p.d.slr-s charter.
    > --
    > Regards,
    > Savageduck


    No, it's of indirect relevance at best. Let there be alt.photo.shoot-in
    or what ever, and all posts can be completely relevant. One advisory
    notice per shoot-in one this newsgroup (rec.photo.digital) would not be
    out of place.

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Jun 6, 2012
    #5
  6. > Get over it. The SI has been a part of the photo NGs for years, and if
    > it disturbs you that, much filter on [SI], or kill file any of the
    > obvious SI participants. That should result in a very clean NG
    > environment for you.
    > --
    > Regards,
    > Savageduck


    We are obviously going to disagree on this, but I see the cross-posting as
    unnecessary, and against the spirit and rules of the newsgroups. You
    previous personal questioning of my competency does not further your case,
    and I am disappointed that these posts cannot be confined to a single
    group. There appears to be no point in further discussions.
     
    David J Taylor, Jun 6, 2012
    #6
  7. sid

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 20:42:46 +1200, Eric Stevens <>
    wrote:
    : On Wed, 6 Jun 2012 07:14:35 +0100, "David J Taylor"
    : <> wrote:
    :
    : >> These four groups represent overlapping groups of participants.
    : >>
    : >> This is why all [SI] postings go to the 4 groups. By editing that,
    : >> you're cutting off part of the audience when you reply to the comments -
    : >> including those that "originate" outside of rpd.slr-systems.
    : >>
    : >> --
    : >> The Committee
    : >
    : >Then why not get yourselves a separate group - USENET or Yahoo or Google -
    : >to which only those who are interested need subscribe? Many people tire
    : >of seeing these multiple posts cluttering up four USENET groups.
    : >
    : Then why not get yourselves a separate group - USENET or Yahoo or
    : Google - to which only those who are interested need subscribe? Many
    : people tire of seeing these multiple posts cluttering up four USENET
    : groups and will be only too glad to get away from them. Then why not
    : get yourself a separate group and see how many people follow you?

    Er ... Didn't you mean to say "only those who are NOT interested need
    subscribe"? Your rejoinder to Mr Taylor doesn't make a lot of sense otherwise.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Jun 7, 2012
    #7
  8. sid

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Tue, 05 Jun 2012 16:53:35 -0400, SI Committee
    <> wrote:
    : On 2012-06-05 13:11 , sid wrote:
    : > Savageduck wrote:
    : >
    : >> On 2012-06-05 08:03:47 -0700, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>
    : >> said:
    : >
    : >>
    : >> BTW: Resetting the "Followup-To" header to one group, when the X-post
    : >> is appropriate, can screw things up for an individual who might be
    : >> reading this in one of the excluded groups.
    : >
    : > Debating with you over our interpretations of good Usenet etiquette
    :
    : In "usenet etiquette" one correct behaviour is to see how the group acts
    : - and in the case of the SI, x-posting in these 4 groups is the norm and
    : has been for several years.
    :
    : These four groups represent overlapping groups of participants.
    :
    : This is why all [SI] postings go to the 4 groups. By editing that,
    : you're cutting off part of the audience when you reply to the comments -
    : including those that "originate" outside of rpd.slr-systems.

    Historically, not all service providers have carried all groups. I've
    encountered providers that carried all or nearly all "rec" groups but no "alt"
    groups.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Jun 8, 2012
    #8
  9. sid

    tony cooper Guest

    On Fri, 8 Jun 2012 14:33:35 -0700, Savageduck
    <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    >On 2012-06-08 13:53:26 -0700, Alan Browne
    ><> said:
    >
    >> On 2012-06-08 12:43 , Robert Coe wrote:
    >>> On Tue, 05 Jun 2012 16:53:35 -0400, SI Committee
    >>> <> wrote:

    >>
    >>> : This is why all [SI] postings go to the 4 groups. By editing that,
    >>> : you're cutting off part of the audience when you reply to the comments -
    >>> : including those that "originate" outside of rpd.slr-systems.
    >>>
    >>> Historically, not all service providers have carried all groups. I've
    >>> encountered providers that carried all or nearly all "rec" groups but no "alt"
    >>> groups.

    >>
    >> To users who get and prefer alt.photography the SI is present. To
    >> those who don't get .alt it's a moot point.
    >>
    >> IAC this splinter is about all 2 of the people who bitch about the SI
    >> without taking advantage of a simple subject filter. They need an
    >> excuse to whine apparently.

    >
    >I get all four of the groups in question, and I am fortunate to have a
    >Usenet client which will, after I have read a message in one group,
    >mark the same message as "read" in the other three groups.
    >
    >So, if I am reading messages in a particular group, and then check the
    >next group, I only have to read those messages marked "Unread".
    >Neat.


    Agent, if that is not what you use, does that. I subscribe to all of
    the photo groups, but reading a cross-posted message makes it "read"
    in the other groups. I have Agent set to show only unread messages.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Jun 9, 2012
    #9
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. RichA

    Re: Doors - "The Words"

    RichA, Jun 5, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    359
    RichA
    Jun 5, 2012
  2. otter

    Re: Doors - "The Words"

    otter, Jun 5, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    365
    otter
    Jun 5, 2012
  3. watchmaker

    Re: [SI] Doors - "The Words"

    watchmaker, Jun 5, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    443
    Robert Coe
    Jun 9, 2012
  4. Robert Coe

    Re: [SI] Doors - "The Words"

    Robert Coe, Jun 6, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    383
    Robert Coe
    Jun 6, 2012
  5. Pablo

    Re: [SI] Doors - "The Words" (for the late comers)

    Pablo, Jun 6, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    335
    Pablo
    Jun 6, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page