Microsoft Responds to the Evolution of Online Communities
in [Internet Explorer 6]
|
From: 98 Guy on 7 May 2010 21:48 Twayne wrote: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_posting Trying to make a point to an automated posting program makes you an idiot. Responding three times means that you're an idiot x 3. Microsoft was, more or less, correct in multiposting that announcement because each group must deal with it in their own way. It would have created an enormous amount of noise if it was cross-posted and people started to resond to it and maintain all the groups in their replies. There are hundreds of microsoft newsgroups, and cross-posting between them would have resulted in caos.
From: Twayne on 9 May 2010 13:51 In news:4BE4C2FE.38988FA9(a)Guy.com, 98 Guy <98(a)Guy.com> typed: > Twayne wrote: > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_posting > > Trying to make a point to an automated posting program > makes you an idiot. > > Responding three times means that you're an idiot x 3. > > Microsoft was, more or less, correct in multiposting that > announcement because each group must deal with it in their > own way. It would have created an enormous amount of noise > if it was cross-posted and people started to resond to it > and maintain all the groups in their replies. > > There are hundreds of microsoft newsgroups, and > cross-posting between them would have resulted in caos.
From: Twayne on 9 May 2010 13:54 In news:4BE4C2FE.38988FA9(a)Guy.com, 98 Guy <98(a)Guy.com> typed: > Twayne wrote: > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_posting > > Trying to make a point to an automated posting program > makes you an idiot. > > Responding three times means that you're an idiot x 3. > > Microsoft was, more or less, correct in multiposting that > announcement because each group must deal with it in their > own way. It would have created an enormous amount of noise > if it was cross-posted and people started to resond to it > and maintain all the groups in their replies. > > There are hundreds of microsoft newsgroups, and > cross-posting between them would have resulted in caos. It is their second posting of such, NOT originated at MS, and violates ALL newsgroup etiquette in existance anywhere. It is against any set rules for their own newsgroups and also per RCF and FYI on netiquette. In reality, it is spam. It is the wrong way to contact anyone about anything. I also wish to extend thanks to you for prolonging the life of this thread; the more MS's violations of their own rules get pointed out, the better. HTH, Twayne`
From: Twayne on 9 May 2010 13:58 In addition, this one, which actually DID come from MS or is a very good forgery, violates the multi-post vs x-post, which would have made ALL of the silliness of seeing the post over and over a moot point. Here's proof of their multipost from their spam headers: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Windows Mail 6.0.6001.18416 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.0.6001.18416 Message-ID: ONow________1316(a)TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl Newsgroups: microsoft.public.windows.inetexplorer.ie6.browser <---MULTIPOSTED!! NNTP-Posting-Host: tide532.microsoft.com 131.107.0.102 Path: TK2MSFTNGP01.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl Xref: TK2MSFTNGP01.phx.gbl microsoft.public.windows.inetexplorer.ie6.browser:404262
From: 98 Guy on 10 May 2010 22:53
I see that this was your second attempt to post this reply. Full-quoter Twayne wrote: > > Trying to make a point to an automated posting program > > makes you an idiot. > > > > Responding three times means that you're an idiot x 3. > > It is their second posting of such, NOT originated at MS, ? Of course it *was* originated "by" MS (not "at" MS). What evidence do you have that it was not posted by Microsoft? > and violates ALL newsgroup etiquette in existance anywhere. Explain what etiquette rules it violated. > It is against any set rules for their own newsgroups Again, please explain what rules were broken. Also note that the posts were to inform readers that the groups would soon be closing. A very important and very rare occassion for a usenet server. > and also per RCF and FYI on netiquette. I didn't think there were RFC's for message composition style (ie - netiquette). > In reality, it is spam. Uh, no. Those posts were messages from the system operators to the readers. > It is the wrong way to contact anyone about anything. If the sys-admins want to inform system users of a change to the servers they are using, what better way than to post a message informing them of the change? > I also wish to extend thanks to you for prolonging the life of > this thread; the more MS's violations of their own rules get > pointed out, the better. Do you have any idea what is going on? Do you know what is going to happen with these groups? |