Greetings Moderators loved the reference to the hitch hikers guide to
the galaxy will try my best to post only pertinent heartfelt non-
violent unjudgemented posts
Would also like to post,the damned are people to.Only we can damn
ourselves
noone can do it for us. love love keep your third eye open
> Greetings Moderators loved the reference to the hitch hikers guide to
> the galaxy will try my best to post only pertinent heartfelt non-
> violent unjudgemented posts
> Would also like to post,the damned are people to.Only we can damn
> ourselves
> noone can do it for us. love love keep your third eye open
> Greetings Moderators loved the reference to the hitch hikers guide to
> the galaxy will try my best to post only pertinent heartfelt non-
> violent unjudgemented posts
> Would also like to post,the damned are people to.Only we can damn
> ourselves
> noone can do it for us. love love keep your third eye open
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 3:37 AM, Junaid Tahir <mjunaidta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> even i sent an email to the group yesterday but havnt seen it to be
> delivered till now.
> Junaid Tahir
> http://mjunaidtahir.blogspot.com/
>> Greetings Moderators loved the reference to the hitch hikers guide to
>> the galaxy will try my best to post only pertinent heartfelt non-
>> violent unjudgemented posts
>> Would also like to post,the damned are people to.Only we can damn
>> ourselves
>> noone can do it for us. love love keep your third eye open
> That's because I dump out emails which contain blog links from new
> users. We sift spam that way.
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 3:37 AM, Junaid Tahir <mjunaidta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > even i sent an email to the group yesterday but havnt seen it to be
> > delivered till now.
> > Junaid Tahir
> >http://mjunaidtahir.blogspot.com/
> >> Greetings Moderators loved the reference to the hitch hikers guide to
> >> the galaxy will try my best to post only pertinent heartfelt non-
> >> violent unjudgemented posts
> >> Would also like to post,the damned are people to.Only we can damn
> >> ourselves
> >> noone can do it for us. love love keep your third eye open
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 7:47 PM, archytas <nwte...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> I see the sub-space link to Zarg is working well.
> On 30 Mar, 21:48, Chris Jenkins <digitalprecip...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> That's because I dump out emails which contain blog links from new
>> users. We sift spam that way.
>> On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 3:37 AM, Junaid Tahir <mjunaidta...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > even i sent an email to the group yesterday but havnt seen it to be
>> > delivered till now.
>> > Junaid Tahir
>> >http://mjunaidtahir.blogspot.com/
>> >> Greetings Moderators loved the reference to the hitch hikers guide to
>> >> the galaxy will try my best to post only pertinent heartfelt non-
>> >> violent unjudgemented posts
>> >> Would also like to post,the damned are people to.Only we can damn
>> >> ourselves
>> >> noone can do it for us. love love keep your third eye open
> Loud and clear. I've been a bit tied up with some personal issues, but
> still here.
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 7:47 PM, archytas <nwte...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > I see the sub-space link to Zarg is working well.
> > On 30 Mar, 21:48, Chris Jenkins <digitalprecip...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> That's because I dump out emails which contain blog links from new
> >> users. We sift spam that way.
> >> On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 3:37 AM, Junaid Tahir <mjunaidta...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> > even i sent an email to the group yesterday but havnt seen it to be
> >> > delivered till now.
> >> > Junaid Tahir
> >> >http://mjunaidtahir.blogspot.com/
> >> >> Greetings Moderators loved the reference to the hitch hikers guide to
> >> >> the galaxy will try my best to post only pertinent heartfelt non-
> >> >> violent unjudgemented posts
> >> >> Would also like to post,the damned are people to.Only we can damn
> >> >> ourselves
> >> >> noone can do it for us. love love keep your third eye open
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 2:04 AM, Chris Jenkins
> <digitalprecip...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > Loud and clear. I've been a bit tied up with some personal issues, but
> > still here.
> > On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 7:47 PM, archytas <nwte...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > I see the sub-space link to Zarg is working well.
> > > On 30 Mar, 21:48, Chris Jenkins <digitalprecip...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> That's because I dump out emails which contain blog links from new
> > >> users. We sift spam that way.
> > >> On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 3:37 AM, Junaid Tahir <mjunaidta...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >> > even i sent an email to the group yesterday but havnt seen it to be
> > >> > delivered till now.
> > >> > Junaid Tahir
> > >> >http://mjunaidtahir.blogspot.com/
> > >> >> Greetings Moderators loved the reference to the hitch hikers guide to
> > >> >> the galaxy will try my best to post only pertinent heartfelt non-
> > >> >> violent unjudgemented posts
> > >> >> Would also like to post,the damned are people to.Only we can damn
> > >> >> ourselves
> > >> >> noone can do it for us. love love keep your third eye open
* Added new section on Crossposting
* Updated list of moderators
* Changed list from bullets to numbers
* Cleaned up Etiquette & Principles
* Added #10 (ad hominem) to Etiquette & Principles
* Added #4 (reproducing Mind's Eye content) to Quoting / Citations
* Fixed a few typos
Wikipedia is generally not considered a valid source for information
because it can be changed by anyone at anytime. You may be bringing
the validity of the group into question by potential members by using
it.
In fact, cross posting, as in the case of twitter, uses
multifunctional software to allow a post to show up across different
social media accounts simultaneously, like a blog, flicker, facebook,
google or any other platform that twitter has agreements with. This
is only considered an annoyance when the posts are unrelated to the
platform or purpose of the social media. Cross posting is new and
widely accepted.
You are referring here, I think, the the practice of multi post, which
is posting the same post over and over in different discussions, often
in unrelated groups or threads. We have had that happen here, the guy
from the autism organization comes to mind. It might also include a
reference to cutting and pasting articles that are not topic related.
The point is, that including unrelated information in a post is
disruptive.
On Aug 6, 6:04 am, Ian <ian.poll...@gmail.com> wrote:
> * Added new section on Crossposting
> * Updated list of moderators
> * Changed list from bullets to numbers
> * Cleaned up Etiquette & Principles
> * Added #10 (ad hominem) to Etiquette & Principles
> * Added #4 (reproducing Mind's Eye content) to Quoting / Citations
> * Fixed a few typos
> Wikipedia is generally not considered a valid source for information > because it can be changed by anyone at anytime. You may be bringing > the validity of the group into question by potential members by using > it.
Given that we aren't carrying out academic research, and no lives aren't at risk, I think Wikipedia serves just fine for a casual discussion group. :) However, I do agree that Wikipedia is far from perfect. It's handy for definitions, but when it comes to comparing evidence it's easily trumped by better sources. In the case of scientific research, a peer-review article in a reputable journal should be given more weight. I think that's pretty much how we operate anyway, but thanks for your clarification on Wikipedia's limitations.
> In fact, cross posting, as in the case of twitter, uses > multifunctional software to allow a post to show up across different > social media accounts simultaneously, like a blog, flicker, facebook, > google or any other platform that twitter has agreements with. This > is only considered an annoyance when the posts are unrelated to the > platform or purpose of the social media. Cross posting is new and > widely accepted.
Crossposting is as old as Usenet, Molly. Which probably makes it about the same age as me. What you're describing is newer appropriation of the word, I think. However, I certainly bow down to your knowledge of how to promote one's blog, website, or indeed self, on the Internet. I'll make the appropriate amends to the guidelines.
> You are referring here, I think, the the practice of multi post, which > is posting the same post over and over in different discussions, often > in unrelated groups or threads.
What we have is posts to Mind's Eye being made by people who also post exactly the same thing to AvC, Epistimology, alt.philosophy, etc. So, whilst it might be related, the posts aren't intended to open a discussion -- only to promote something. The authors rarely hang around long enough to respond to follow-ups. So, in this sense, the posts are "relevant", but they are basically spam. And there's a lot of them. If I wake up and check the moderation queue and see an enormous post from a new member, I immediately do a search for their user name; invariably the same message is posted to half a dozen groups and so I junk it.
Given this clarification... is it still a multipost by your definition?
My opinion is that the use of multipost is more clear, given the new
applications for crossposting. However, both are acceptable if the
post is relevant and responsive. So I think inclusion of detail of
what is unacceptable such as spam posting across multiple google
forums, irrelevant posts to thread topic, etc., would go along way in
clarifying.
On Aug 6, 9:06 am, Ian Pollard <ian.poll...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Wikipedia is generally not considered a valid source for information
> > because it can be changed by anyone at anytime. You may be bringing
> > the validity of the group into question by potential members by using
> > it.
> Given that we aren't carrying out academic research, and no lives aren't at
> risk, I think Wikipedia serves just fine for a casual discussion group. :)
> However, I do agree that Wikipedia is far from perfect. It's handy for
> definitions, but when it comes to comparing evidence it's easily trumped by
> better sources. In the case of scientific research, a peer-review article in
> a reputable journal should be given more weight. I think that's pretty much
> how we operate anyway, but thanks for your clarification on Wikipedia's
> limitations.
> > In fact, cross posting, as in the case of twitter, uses
> > multifunctional software to allow a post to show up across different
> > social media accounts simultaneously, like a blog, flicker, facebook,
> > google or any other platform that twitter has agreements with. This
> > is only considered an annoyance when the posts are unrelated to the
> > platform or purpose of the social media. Cross posting is new and
> > widely accepted.
> Crossposting is as old as Usenet, Molly. Which probably makes it about the
> same age as me. What you're describing is newer appropriation of the word, I
> think. However, I certainly bow down to your knowledge of how to promote
> one's blog, website, or indeed self, on the Internet. I'll make the
> appropriate amends to the guidelines.
> > You are referring here, I think, the the practice of multi post, which
> > is posting the same post over and over in different discussions, often
> > in unrelated groups or threads.
> What we have is posts to Mind's Eye being made by people who also post
> exactly the same thing to AvC, Epistimology, alt.philosophy, etc. So, whilst
> it might be related, the posts aren't intended to open a discussion -- only
> to promote something. The authors rarely hang around long enough to respond
> to follow-ups. So, in this sense, the posts are "relevant", but they are
> basically spam. And there's a lot of them. If I wake up and check the
> moderation queue and see an enormous post from a new member, I immediately
> do a search for their user name; invariably the same message is posted to
> half a dozen groups and so I junk it.
> Given this clarification... is it still a multipost by your definition?
|
