Posted by GraB on 12/08/05 18:39

On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 13:44:57 GMT, kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 12:37:22 GMT, spam@uce.gov (Bob) wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 01:35:00 GMT, Bill G <niobrara969@none.invalid>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>>Why not? It's the way to get the largest discussion going.
>>
>>>In that case, why stop at 5 groups?
>>
>>Because I decided that these were the only relevant groups. If I
>>thought there were more, then I would have included them.
>>
>>>You've been around long enough to know better. :)
>>
>>Better than what? There is nothing wrong with crossposting as long as
>>the groups are all relevant.
>
>yes there is
>
>You want the luxury of doing something that will cause
>problems if everyone did it. The vast majority of people
>who read your post would not have spent the time sifting
>through the group till they got to it if all the (other)
>posts were put in every related group. There would be
>thousands of posts per group per day and few if any
>participants are willing to spend that much time wading
>through it all.

I think your pants are on fire. Not many posts are of the nature that
require crossposting so your scenario doesn't occur. Crossposting
doesn't cause me any prolblems so what's your problem?

[Back to original message]