limited budge / limited bandwidth looking for "free" webpage tools / plugins

limited budge / limited bandwidth looking for "free" webpage tools / plugins

Post by os6500 » Thu, 29 Apr 2004 01:57:17


for flash / java / javascript / templates / etc.

i'm also looking for a daily comics to add to or link to my webpage.
 
 
 

limited budge / limited bandwidth looking for "free" webpage tools / plugins

Post by Bria » Thu, 29 Apr 2004 02:39:05


You already posted this query in a different message.

http://www.yqcomputer.com/ ~jkorpela/usenet/xpost.html

--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me)
http://www.yqcomputer.com/

 
 
 

limited budge / limited bandwidth looking for "free" webpage tools / plugins

Post by os6500 » Thu, 29 Apr 2004 11:25:45


hey some people have a prob with cross posting. sheesh no keeping
people happy is there ?
 
 
 

limited budge / limited bandwidth looking for "free" webpage tools / plugins

Post by Bria » Thu, 29 Apr 2004 11:33:58


Oh, on the contrary, I have a big smile on my face as I add you to the
killfile.

Have a super day!

--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me)
http://www.yqcomputer.com/
 
 
 

limited budge / limited bandwidth looking for "free" webpage tools / plugins

Post by Beauregard » Thu, 29 Apr 2004 12:14:03

Quoth the raven named * ProteanThread *:




You are not cross-posting. You are multi-posting. There is a big
difference. This may be a better explanation:

http://www.yqcomputer.com/

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.
 
 
 

limited budge / limited bandwidth looking for "free" webpage tools / plugins

Post by Harlan Mes » Thu, 29 Apr 2004 22:33:54


You misunderstand. *If* you want to post to multiple groups, *then* you
should do it by cross-posting a single message. This lets people's
newsreaders recognize that it is a single message even if they subscribe to
more than one of the newsgroups to which you posted it, which means it will
be marked as read in all newsgroups after they've read it in one of them.
(This presupposes that their news client has this feature; if they hate to
see the same message twice, then let them *get* such a client.)

Now, some people don't even like cross-posting, because heaven forbid that
there be a whiff of a chance that they'll waste a precious fraction of a
second seeing the same posting twice--or that people in more than one
relevant newsgroup will benefit from your contribution. I think that's
ridiculous and just plain orneriness. If your question or comment falls
within the scope of more than one discipline and you really want an answer,
or your contribution might be of interest to more than one group of people,
then why shouldn't you post to more than one group? So, as far as I'm
concerned, you ought to ignore people who condemn cross-posting outright.

However, cross-posting *should* be done judiciously, because the more groups
you post to, the less marginal benefit you'll get from each additional one
anyway, and the more likely it is that you're just not taking the trouble to
target the best places to get a response. Unless all the relevant newsgroups
have really low orders of traffic, so that you'll be lucky to get even one
or two responses from all of them put together, stick to two or at most
three newsgroups.
 
 
 

limited budge / limited bandwidth looking for "free" webpage tools / plugins

Post by Bria » Fri, 30 Apr 2004 00:12:02


Well, call my ornery then.


If you want people to read your message and provide help, then you owe
it to them to figure which group it belongs in more than the others.


I find it extremely rare that a cross-posted message really belonged in
both groups. You may see it otherwise, naturally.


Sure, but note that some people will then ignore the message, or at
least its followups. So one should think about which method will get the
most people to read and rely to a message.



Didn't Jukka Korpela say that any message x-posted to more than 2 groups
is not worth reading? I'm not sure, but he does offer this:

http://www.yqcomputer.com/ ~jkorpela/usenet/xpost.html#why1

Note that you or others may feel differently about x-posting. I've said
my piece. Let's avoid a long meta discussion if we can.

all the best.
--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me)
http://www.yqcomputer.com/
 
 
 

limited budge / limited bandwidth looking for "free" webpage tools / plugins

Post by Harlan Mes » Fri, 30 Apr 2004 00:47:04


That's like saying I owe it to Merriam-Webster not to look up a word in
other dictionaries as well. How did I incur such an obligation? There's no
reason for it other than pure peevishness by some people who have seized on
this as a rule that must be followed because it's a rule. They--you--may
*imagine* that this is "owed" to them (as an unfortunate character on the
street might imagine that I "owe" it to him to pay him a dollar for
"protecting" my car while I'm shopping), and no one can do anything about
any choice they make to shun people who disregard them, but there's no
legitimate justification for it.


So we should all capitulate to blackmail. Sorry, I'm not buying it. I also
don't care for the implication that only those involved in the
anti-cross-posting cartel are sources of useful information, and that by not
catering to them I am cutting my own throat.


Do you mean to suggest that once Jukka has issued a decree, one should avoid
dissent at all costs? I respect much of what he has to say and appreciate
his scholarship immensely, as well as the time he has taken to posting
detailed educational material on his web site, but I don't worship at his
altar.