Re: IP Reservation/MAC

Somebody. wrote:
> "Ansgar -59cobalt- Wiechers" <usenet-2006@planetcobalt.net> wrote in message
> news:44uj86F42pk6U2@individual.net...
>> Actually there's *everything* wrong with multiposting. If something
>> really appears to be on-topic in more than one group: cross-post it
>> and set a f'up to the most fitting group, so the discussion can take
>> place in this one group. Anyone interested in the topic can subscribe
>> to that group (if they aren't anyway), anyone not interested won't be
>> bothered.
>
> If one crossposts, everybody still has to see it in both groups.
> However, people in one group are drawn into a discussion that occurs
> also inside another group, where the audience is not what they might
> expect, the frame of reference may be different, and the skilsets
> might be different.

Everybody sees the *OP* in both groups. The whole subsequent discussion
will continue in exactly *one* group. And after reading a posting in one
group, any decent newsreader will mark the same posting in every other
group as read.

> If one multiposts, people within a group see it, and their
> conversation is not replicated elsewhere.

The conversation isn't replicated at all. It takes place where it's
most on-topic. That's the whole point.

> For readers, people participating in both groups will see it in both
> groups either way, with most news readers.

Most definitely not. You obviously don't understand how Followup-To
works.

> People participating in one group, will see and discuss it only within
> the context of that group.

Which is exactly the problem.

> For the poster, the topic will be approached in two different ways
> based on the approach within the two different groups. Therefore,
> although he must maintain two separate threads, he may gain insights
> by seen two different approaches, rather than in some cases watching
> the two different camps argue about who is right.

That's woolly thinking. More likely is that he'll miss out on insights
he might have gained through synergy effects (person A making a comment
that inspires a subsequent comment of person B).

> Multi-posts may be a slight inconvenience to you,

They are a major inconvenience to most regulars.

> but I've seen crossposts erupt into incredible flame wars and off
> topic discussions *far* more often, which reduces the quality of the
> usenet experience for everyone in my opinion.

I usually see this happen only when people lack either basic skills of
netiquette or handling their killfiles or both.

> In many cases, a crossposted post simply becomes noise in the group
> it's not best suited for, going on forever to the inconvenience of all
> within that other group, while the main group it was posted in has a
> lively discussion on it.

It does not. It's a single posting that can be easily ignored and will
drop out of sight after a few days, because *each* subsequent posting
will be directed to the group given in the Followup-To.

> A multiposted post that isn't in the group it's best suited for will
> either live or die on it's own merits within the group, and if it
> sparks no discussion, then none must be endured by the group members
> that are clearly not interested in it.

IOW a multiposted post will become noise in almost every group it's
posted to. And since the discussion stays in that group, it will become
one hell of a lot more noise than a crossposting in those groups.

cu
59cobalt

-- 
"Der Computer ist da, um zu rechnen, nicht um Ausreden wie 'Kann nicht
durch Null teilen' auf den Bildschirm zu schreiben."
--Marco Haschka in de.org.ccc