|
|
Posted by slebetman@yahoo.com on 10/07/56 11:55
Phat Bytestard wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 08:19:41 -0700, DaffyDuck
> <daffyduck@spammersdie.mac.dot.com> Gave us:
>
> >On 2006-08-13 06:15:27 -0700, "Hop-Frog" <Hop-Frog@asu.edu.spamfree> said:
> >
> >> For those with an interest in civil conversation and sufficient
> >> intellect *not* to have to resort to profanity at every turn: setting a
> >> Follow-Up To: header is good netiquette when the discussion is
> >> cross-posted to a half-dozen newsgroups and only germaine to one. Only
> >> trolls cross-post to more than two or three groups.
> >
> >Which is why trolls get plonked - why bother replying to him?
>
> Then I would suggest that you fucktards take it up with the ORIGINAL
> POSTER, you retarded twits.
>
> If you knew ANYTHING about Usenet, you would know that any
> additional postings on the thread need to be made to all the included
> groups because not everyone comes into your shit hole pirate fucktard
> group and reads your pirate fucktard baby bullshit.
If YOU knew anything about Usenet you would know that any irrelevant
additional postings on the thread must NOT be made on all the included
threads - they must only be included on the relavant thread because not
everyone wants to read everything. On some of the more flame-filled
newsgroups like comp.lang.c, NOT editing the follow-up is considered
being a fucktard and may open yourself up to flames and plonking.
Again, like Hop-Frog did, I'm only trying to educate noobs about good
behavior on Usenet (aka, how to avoid being flamed or ignored).
> So my response,
> since I am unaware of where the person I am responding to reads from,
> needs to carry the Group(s) the thread carries.
In this case though I'm inclined to agree with Fat Bastard, the post in
question was a generic reply and did not have a specific relevancy so
the followup should not have been modified and cross posting may be the
right thing to do.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|