Bruce Cohen Damages the CALP and its Members

Discussion
1

Mike,

Cross-posting to multiple lists is considered poor net-ettiquette. From another list:

"Cross-posting to the xyz-List and to another list, is generally counter-productive. No list's archive will contain the complete thread; cross-posts from non-subscribers continuing the thread will bounce; and xyz-List subscribers who are not also on the other list will only see half the thread, as will those on the other list who are not also reading xyz- List. Subscribers to both lists may see two copies of the message, annoying them as well."

Norm is famous for doing this, as are a few others. Few announcements and even fewer discussion topics are so important and urgent that this informal proscription against cross-posting should be violated.

Let's say there is a CA list and a SF list. One should assume that everyone knows the existence of these lists and subscribes to one or more as their interests dictate. Then, a poster should decide if his topic is of more interest to the CA list subscribers or the SF list subscribers, based upon the mission statements of each.

It is rude and condescending to assume that there are a large number of SF list subscribers who are interested in CA messages, but are too ignorant to subscribe to the CA list. It is rude and arrogant to assume that one's message is so important that it is OK to bombard every list with your all-important polemic. One should assume that the people on the SF list do not subscribe to the CA list because they are not interested in receiving those messages. Therefore, sending messages of a CA-nature to SF-list subscribers is similar to spam.

If someone from the SF list responds, only SF list subscribers will see the response. If Norm responds to that, he will no doubt send to all the lists again. This puts the SF-list responder at an unfair disadvantage in the debate, and the CA list subscribers will only see one-half the traffic - that originated by Norm.

Rarely, there is a rational reason to post to mutiple lists, such as an announcement being made to largely non-overlapping lists where the topic is expected to be of interest to both. When done, this should include an apology to those that are receiving multiple copies. Norm's messages, including the one I responded to, don't fall into this category, and have never to my recollection ever included an any apology.

Some list moderators will delete any post they see cross-posted on another list in order to protect their subscribers from the irresponsible behavior of a few over-exhuberant participants.

Rich

2

*** reply ***
Mr. Newell,

You have made several incorrect "assumptions".
You know the old saying about assumptions.....

You stated, "No list's archive will contain the complete thread;
cross-posts from non-subscribers continuing the thread will bounce."

I post and reply individually to each group I am subscribed to.
My posts are not simply widely broadcast as you suggest. Subscribers
of each list will only see their threads, and will NEVER see the
threads of other groups.

You go on to state, "One should assume that everyone knows the
existence of these lists and subscribes to one or more as their
interests dictate." Mr. Newell, one should never ASSUME anything.
Using your position I can ASSUME you are always wrong and everyone is
only subscribed to one list! If you incur an over abundance of group
email, perhaps you should remove yourself from a few groups or change
your settings to digest. I have subscribed to many groups to discuss
issues with as many people as possible, not to cause your email
application grief.

This was your best statement:

"It is rude and condescending to assume".

It is odd that you have skipped the message and are attempting to slay
the messenger.

You SHOULD be asking yourself, Why have I not been receiving my
monthly California Freedom Newspaper entitlement and who is
responsible for my not receiving it?

And, what is the CALP going to do to reimburse members for the
contracted entitlement it has failed to provide?

Resolve these issues and you can be assured I will not bother you
further. I find these issues to be as unpleasant at least as much as
you do.

However, if you wish something to be done, you should talk about it.
If you don't talk about it, it is a certainty that nothing will be done.

Let's talk.

Firecracker

3

Dear Norm,

Thank you to you and Richard Newell for the useful information on
cross posting and e-mail threads. If your information is correct,
then I did not reach you when I posted my request for calm on the
LPSF lists; so, I would like to cut-and-paste my earlier message
below. BTW, Norm, thank you also for all the positive work you do on
behalf of the Libertarian party; it has not gone unappreciated.

Regards,

Marcy Berry

-- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Amarcy D. Berry" <amarcyb@...>
wrote:

Dear All,

A little while back we mentioned how the LPSF lists were unusually
respectful and civilized. Judging by the uncalled for vitriol that I
read in other lists, I heartily agree. As one of the list's
moderators, I would like to keep the LPSF lists free of personal
attacks. Respectful discourse regarding a problem, yes. News from
other counties, yes. Personal attacks, no. The multiple postings do
bother some of us, and proper behavior might suggest refraining from
them; but perhaps they are not as egregious as the negative content
that most times accompaies them.

Thank you all, and regards,

Marcy Berry

4

<snip>
<If your information is correct, then I did not reach you when I
posted <my request for calm on the LPSF lists;
<****>

*** reply ***

Dear Ms. Berry,

This is the only "LPSF" list I am aware of and the only "LPSF" list I
posted to. I did post to "ba-liberty".

Are there other "LPSF groups" I should be aware of?

Thank you.

P.S. The only reply I received from you was the one you posted to this
group "lpsf-discuss".

Warmest regards,

Firecracker

5

Dear Norm,

LPSF Discuss is our discussion list, and the one you are welcome to
post to. So, all is well. Thanks.

Marcy
P.S. but, next time I hope to hear some happy news about your county!

<snip>
<If your information is correct, then I did not reach you when I
posted <my request for calm on the LPSF lists;
<****>

*** reply ***

Dear Ms. Berry,

This is the only "LPSF" list I am aware of and the only "LPSF" list

I

posted to. I did post to "ba-liberty".

Are there other "LPSF groups" I should be aware of?

Thank you.

P.S. The only reply I received from you was the one you posted to

this

6

*** agreed ***

I am truly sorry for that so many are subjected to the negative issues
of late. Unfortunately, all other avenues have already been exhausted.
It would appear that our only recourse left is to inform the
membership and let them decide for themselves. I am unaware of any
positive method to effectively illuminate negative behavior for the
purpose of curtailing it.

All suggestions, positive & negative are welcomed.

Thank you for your comments.

P.S. You hear my lone voice simply because I have nothing to lose.
There are many more who remain silent for various reasons.
I look forward to the day when this issue has been resolved and work
to that end and realize this goal is not always apparent to all. My
apologies to those I have no doubt offended on this undesirable journey.

As with family, you sometimes must hurt the ones you love the most.

Lovingly,
Firecracker