VanguardLH

"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?

>> 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.

>>> 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 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.