All other groups that I am subscribed to uses a different tactic
to handle off-topic postings; they ignore them. Only comp.lang.c
feels compelled to teach everybody about their charter.
No charter for c.l.c -- it's been around longer than the charter
system, apparently. We do have a FAQ or two, though.
As long as comp.lang.c uses their tactic within their own group
I am not going to object, but I have a problem when they
cross-post to other groups, and set the follow-up to all groups
except their own group.
The rationale for that is: This is off-topic on c.l.c, but not
c.u.p.
Suppose I (in c.l.c) do nothing. Then c.l.c is flooded with
off-topic posts cross-posted from c.u.p. That's bad.
Suppose I (in c.l.c) post a message to c.l.c only, telling the
OP it's off-topic. That might educate the OP, but probably not --
he doesn't read c.l.c. (If he did, he wouldn't post OT questions
here. QED.) And since nobody in c.u.p will see the message, it
won't stop the flood of OT posts either.
Suppose I (in c.l.c) post a message to c.u.p only, telling the
OP it's off-topic. That has a higher chance of educating the OP,
but it would be uncouth -- because without any post in c.l.c, the
members won't see that the OP has been re-directed, and *c.u.p*
will be flooded by c.l.c redirection messages!
Suppose I (in c.l.c) post a message to c.u.p and c.l.c both,
telling the OP it's off-topic. That will probably educate the
OP (since he must be reading *some* group), and if all goes well
it will be noticed by the folks in c.u.p too, and they will stop
posting OT stuff to c.l.c.
Setting the followups to exclude c.l.c keeps the OT (sub-)thread
from reappearing in the newsgroup in which it is OT. Unfortunately,
it *is* counter-productive, in that it tends to piss off people
in other groups, who then flood c.l.c with threads like this
one, complaining about how the followup list was pared.
Discussions about the charter of
comp.lang.c are topical on comp.lang.c and only there, so the
follow-up should be set to comp.lang.c and not any other group.
Reasonable. The central problem, the Catch-22, is that we
can't get rid of an annoying thread without re-directing the poster,
and we can't re-direct the poster without risking the start of
another annoying sub-thread like this one.
If only everyone would read the FAQs and some general guides
to Usenet etiquette, we would hardly ever have this problem. I
tend to agree with you -- c.l.c *is* a grumpy old man into whose
yard it is unwise to hit baseballs. But it's only gotten that way
because *every week* a new kid moves into the house next door and
the *first* thing he does is hit a baseball through our window.
*Every week.* It produces a bit of institutionalized grumpiness
after a while.
FWIW, many of the newbies who post *only* to c.l.c get redirected
in a more friendly manner. That may be due partly to the fact that
we know that after they get redirected, the thread will *die*, and
not be kept alive by some idjits in a whole 'nother group who have
The original poster will be educated about the comp.lang.c charter
by the replies that are sent exclusively to comp.lang.c.
No, he obviously *won't*. He doesn't *read* c.l.c -- if he ever
had, he'd have seen the kinds of questions that are topical here.
And if he ever *planned* to read c.l.c, he'd have Googled the FAQ
himself. Thus we can only conclude that he must be reading from
your side of the fence. Sorry.
Should any replies omit to remove comp.lang.c from the cross-
posting then I am sorry about the noise, but at least you have
the posibility to killfile the thread -- we don't because the
thread, apart from the postings about what is topical on
comp.lang.c, is topical on our groups.
Yes, I'm sorry about that too. Catch-23: If we added a
[TOPICALITY] tag to the thread, then c.u.p could killfile it.
But if we change the subject line, then Google Groups will
spawn a new thread and the OP might not see the sub-thread at
all -- and thus he'd keep doing it. :-(
I do not perceive the comp.lang.c charter cross-posting, nor your
refusal to respect the charters of other groups, as good
neighborship.
Please respect the fact that discussions about what is and is not
topical on comp.lang.c are not topical on other groups.
I highly doubt that the original topicality-policeman *intended*
to start a "discussion." We just want the things that are off-topic
on *our* group to stay *out*. Discussion is not necessary. (Catch-
24: I can't impart my information to you unless I join the
discussion. And the information I want to impart is that discussion
is counter-productive.)
Now please everyone let this thread die. And next time you see
an off-topic thread in c.u.p (or anywhere), just re-direct the OP
and then shut up. And remember, in your redirection, to tell the
OP to shut up too, lest we start another of *these*.
-Arthur
