If you want (or not know) about GNKSA 2.0 Go to :
<news://news.comp.sys.mac.comm> (might be even on its pc counter Part)
and follow the group. Periodically there will be a Flurry of adnuasum
posts about GNKSA 2 and how it can save the world A thread on the
subject can go as many as 300-400 post deep.
Its so bad I have a rule setup in Communicator to automatically mark
anything associated with GNKSA 2.0 as read.
Basically its a bunch of MIT Ph.D types that sit around and decided if
you use a signature file with more than 64 caharacters in length
(including spaces) your breaking international Internet laws. Or if its
more than 5 lines long you breaking the same law.
Some of the threads go way off the deep-end and indicate the poster
hasn't seen day light in years.
Neil Nelson wrote:
>
> Holger Metzger wrote
>
> > Not sure, but I think this is a GNKSA requirement. When crossposting
> > excessively you have to set a follow-up to one single group. But you are
> > right, Mozilla should only /warn/ about excessive crossposting and
> > /recommend/ to set a follow-up to and not refuse to post.
>
> I do not know what a GNKSA requirement is, but cross-posting has
> been going on for the many years I have been posting to Usenet.
> I would agree that sometimes people post to newsgroups where the
> subject is off-the-wall for the newsgroup, but it seems that just
> as often people will post an off-the-wall subject to a single
> newsgroup. I do not care to read the majority of the posts in a
> newsgroup for a variety of reasons of which one in many cases is
> that the post does not make sense to me to have been posted, and
> then we have the spam posts. In my experience my level of
> irritation for cross-postings has been almost non-existent,
> whereas it has moderately occurred that I will reply to cross-
> posted posts. On balance I see no problem at all with cross-
> posting on Usenet and see it useful in some cases.
>
> In an effort to over-kill my point ... I expect that information
> theory will support the position that any topic organization method
> will be inefficient for some topics. This derives from the fact
> programming different language will have different efficiencies
> for different purposes. A particular information organization
> method such as the current Usenet topic hierarchy suggested by the
> title of the groups represents a language that becomes inefficient
> with respect to some possible alternate organizations. I expect
> it can be shown that some efficiencies can be reclaimed by
> regrouping (cross-posting) the detail groups for local purposes.
> The point here is that removing the ability to cross-post is likely
> against a provable, on-balance useful advantage.
>
> Regards,
>
> Neil Nelson
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip M. Jones, CET |MEMBER:VPEA (LIFE) ETA-I, NESDA,ISCET, Sterling
616 Liberty Street |Who's Who. PHONE:540-632-5045, FAX:540-632-0868
Martinsville Va 24112-1809|[EMAIL PROTECTED], ICQ11269732, AIM pjonescet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
If it's "fixed", don't "break it"!
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
