On 8/30/04 5:09 AM, in article , "William
Black" wrote:


"Jack" wrote in message
m...

You should have known that, but then your egregious cross-posting tells
us even more about you than does your apparent naivete.

I didn't cross post anything, I didn't cut any groups either.

You must be new to Usenet...

(Awaits loud roar of anger that always erupts when someone is accused of
being a newby)


No WB, I'm not new to USENET, but still capable of newby mistakes. For
example, I wondered where that last paragraph went concerning "egregious
cross-posting". I had thought that I deleted it.

As to cross-posting or cutting previously cross-posted NGs from a response,
I believe (whether it is USENET convention or not) that the list of NGs to
which a post is sent, even in response, is the responsibility of the poster.
I had no wish to post to or hear from anyone on alt.music.bush so I deleted
that NG from the address line of my response.

According to Google, the original thread seems to have come from ArtKramer
in soc.history.medieval --

Subject: Why didn't Bush fight in Viet Nam?
Date: 2004-02-17 07:02:54 PST

-- with no change in NG through all 15 messages.

But it seems it was Bob Coe's post which was "egregiously] cross-posted",
though I haven't yet found how the message made the jump from s.h.m. to
r.a.m. It's probably in Google somewhere for some meticulous person with a
lot of time on his hands to find.

Subject: babble, was Why didn't Bush fight?

Newsgroups: alt.military.retired, alt.military.uk, alt.music.bush,
rec.aviation.military, sci.military.naval, soc.veterans,
us.military.army, us.military.national-guard
Date: 2004-08-29 13:59:09 PST

There have been several threads started with the word "Babble" in the title,
apparently as a follow-on not only to "Why didn't Bush fight in Viet Nam?"
and but also to others, so delving any further seems a waste of time. I'm
neither a proficient nor a determined miner of Google's USENET, so there is
more there than meets my eye no doubt, concerning the genealogy of the post
in question.

At worst, it seems to me that you only continued the cross-posting rather
than initiating it, and I suppose that including only one NG which I
considered inappropriate hardly makes it "egregious" anyway, so I apologize
to both you and Bob Cole for that.


--
Jack