VanguardLH wrote:
> "Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries" wrote in
> <news:g2mnap$3d5$3@blackhelicopter.databasix.com >:
>
>> I'm using OE, and I can see the follow-ups just fine.
>
> It's been a couple months since I stopped using Outlook Express. I
> don't recall that it ever showed the FollowUp-To header, or allowing
> the user to configure which headers to show, in the preview pane
> "header" section. You have to view the raw source of the message to
> see the header. It might show more headers if you open (double-click
> on) a message to show in its own window but I never used it in that
> nuisance mode. Of course, if you are wary and watch what were the
> newsgroups to which the original post was submitted and then to which
> newsgroups you end up replying to by default then you'll notice there
> was a change in that list of newsgroups.
>
>> Well, then, write an RFD.
>
> And which RFD did you quote to substantiate your stance?

There's no such thing. It was a typo. RFC is the correct acronym.

And I don't recall quoting an RFC. I do recall posting two links about
netiquette.

Please to cite some support for your position.

>>> If someone told you that you needed their fantastic memory
>>> defragmentation program without explaining why, would you actually
>>> get it despite that memory access is random, anyway?
>>
>> And your point is?
>
> That you simply follows someone else's unsubstantiated and unexplained
> viewpoint and adopt it as your own which means your viewpoint is just
> as unsubstantiated and unexplained. So far, you have bothered to
> explain why YOU think using the FollowUp-To is valid and polite to
> those in the newsgroups from which the discussion is getting yanked.

Your viewpoint is an opinion. That's not how you presented it.

>>>> You're a control freak.
>>>
>>> I didn't realize that I had such a huge virtual gun pointed at his
>>> and your heads that you considered my replies as anything other
>>> than a strong suggestion regarding netiquette.
>>
>> It's your posting style, obviously.
>
> Based after analyzing what effects the uneducated use of the
> FollowUp-To has havoced upon the threads that have used it.

I didn't say "post," I said "posting style."

>> I didn't come up with what I wrote out of thin air, either.
>
> You didn't bother to walk through any logic or analysis on WHY that
> viewpoint was proffered, either. Someone said it, put "FAQ" on their
> web page, and you adopted it without investigating whether or not it
> should be adopted. So far, you have not disqualified my claim that
> the use of the FollowUp-To is deliterious to a discussion by yanking
> it away from the groups to which it was posted and also being rude to
> those visitors of the other groups from which the discussion is being
> yanked away.
>
> Of course, being rude has become prevalent on their anarchy known as
> Usenet; however, it really shouldn't be promoted, especially by "FAQs"
> which are, after all and by your own submission, their proselytization
> of what is proper netiquette. Yes, it is MY opinion that the use of
> FollowUp-To is degenerative to the purpose of cross-posting (so why
> cross-post at all?) and rude. At least I have some reasons to back up
> my opinion versus just spitting it out unsubstantiated.
>
> Do you disagree that the FollowUp-To results in disconnecting the
> users of the other cross-posted groups to which the message was
> originally posted? If not, just what do you think is the action of
> the FollowUp-Too header?
>
> Do you think it is polite to submit your post in a group but then yank
> away the discussion to another group that those respondents may not
> visit?
>
> Do you think it is polite to use the FollowUp-To header or alter the
> list of newsgroups (to which respondents will reply) without providing
> notification of such in the body of your post?
>
> In YOUR opinion, what is the purpose of cross-posting to multiple
> groups but attempt to force the discussion to continue in only one of
> them or perhaps in a totally different group? That is, why
> cross-post to the other groups if you don't want to actually elicit a
> discussion over there?
>
> Yes, I'm spouting MY opinion regarding the *lazy* use of this header,
> lazy in that users aren't considering the effect of using it. The
> point is to make users actually engage another brain cell and take
> some initiative to cogitate whether or not they comply with what
> someone regurgitated in a FAQ but failed to substantiate why.
> Without an impetus, people don't bother to learn, analysis, agree or
> disagree, debate, or substantiate their viewpoint(s).
>
> You've seen my arguments why the vast majority of use of the
> FollowUp-To header is inappropriate. Other than quoting someone
> else's FAQ, create your own WITH substantiation to your viewpoint.
> Let's hear your arguments for why its use is beneficial to the
> discussion, why yanking it out of the other groups is good, and why
> abandoning respondents in the other groups is considered polite.

Y'know, it's not just you're a control freak. It's that you're a a
control freak with way too much time on your hands.

Sheesh.

(I quit reading after my last response. It's not worth it.)

P.S. The only thing Max could have done better was to make note of the
fact that he had set follow-ups. That is the convention. You could've
made a better argument if you'd focused on that aspect rather than
trying to be a net-nanny.

--
Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries

If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will
scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will
refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something
which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he
will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is
explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell