On 8 Sep 2005 08:01:45 -0700, in rec.audio.pro
wrote:

The thread "Any questions or comments about the HE2005 debate" has been
returned to the Stereophile Forums. The troublesome post from
Xenophanes has been cleansed of both it's negative comments regarding
JA and it's reference to an article in a competing magazine. The post
is now acceptable. Let this be a lesson to all posters: posts negative
to Stereophile and/or JA, however polite and flame free, will not be
tolerated.
Hail Atkinson!

A bit like the Intelligent Design Vs Darwinism

see
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/featu...559743,00.html




martin

On 9/8/05 11:37 AM, in article ,
"martin griffith" wrote:

On 8 Sep 2005 08:01:45 -0700, in rec.audio.pro
wrote:

The thread "Any questions or comments about the HE2005 debate" has been
returned to the Stereophile Forums. The troublesome post from
Xenophanes has been cleansed of both it's negative comments regarding
JA and it's reference to an article in a competing magazine. The post
is now acceptable. Let this be a lesson to all posters: posts negative
to Stereophile and/or JA, however polite and flame free, will not be
tolerated.
Hail Atkinson!

A bit like the Intelligent Design Vs Darwinism

Yeah, well Lincoln's cow comes to mind there...

One's a 'Keen Idea" the other's a Scieintific Theory.

On 9/8/05 12:54 PM, in article , "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

What we'll never know is what would have happened without
all the adverse publicity.


Arny... Again... could you delete all but the MOST necessary crosspost
addresses? This rumored thread was apologised-about across a plethora of
NG's that
NEVER had seen (nor wanted to) anything about it at all...
Likely they don't care about the apologies and explanations about the
troll-sniping of the thread they never knew about to begin with either.
Let's go back to that quietude... Ok?
Thanks

SSJVCmag wrote:

On 9/8/05 12:54 PM, in article , "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

What we'll never know is what would have happened without
all the adverse publicity.

Arny... Again... could you delete all but the MOST necessary crosspost
addresses? This rumored thread was apologised-about across a plethora of
NG's that
NEVER had seen (nor wanted to) anything about it at all...
Likely they don't care about the apologies and explanations about the
troll-sniping of the thread they never knew about to begin with either.
Let's go back to that quietude... Ok?
Thanks

Usenet norms require that posters should *not* trim groups unless there is a
clear conflict of interest / content.

Since the x-posts were all audio - then there is no conflict. There is no
reason to trim groups.

Graham

Pooh Bear wrote:

Usenet norms require that posters should *not* trim groups unless there is a
clear conflict of interest / content.

Since the x-posts were all audio - then there is no conflict. There is no
reason to trim groups.

Common sense might suggest leaving RAO out of any picture is just smart.
One respected way to broadcast a message to several groups is to post to
them individually. That way we don't mix the Martins with the Coys.

--
ha

hank alrich wrote:

Pooh Bear wrote:

Usenet norms require that posters should *not* trim groups unless there is a
clear conflict of interest / content.

Since the x-posts were all audio - then there is no conflict. There is no
reason to trim groups.

Common sense might suggest leaving RAO out of any picture is just smart.
One respected way to broadcast a message to several groups is to post to
them individually. That way we don't mix the Martins with the Coys.

You'll be aware that cross-posting versus multi-posting is an issue ?

I've no doubt that x-posting is correct for an on-topic subject.

Graham

Pooh Bear wrote:


I've no doubt that x-posting is correct for an on-topic subject.

I try not to stick my dick in a rattlesnake pit. See: "RAO" g

--
ha