I have created a new list that deals specifically with legal issues
pertaining
to our hobby

How about one dealing with SPAMMING? I think one post, on rec.radio.amateur
would have been sufficient.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
73! de Andy KC2SSB (ex: KF4KHC/HL9HCT)
Beachwood, NJ USA! Grid FM29vw
http://vhfradiobuff.tripod.com
Fight Spam! http://spamcop.net
National "Do Not Call" Registry: http://donotcall.gov

As far as I am concerned, this gentleman's posting could (should?) have been
posted in each and every user group that relates in any fashion to ham
radio.

Cross posting and off topic posting is a violation of many an ISP's TOS.

The fact is that every post has it's place. If that were not the case, we'd
eliminate every amateur radio newsgroup except for rec.radio.amateur.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
73! de Andy KC2SSB (ex: KF4KHC/HL9HCT)
Beachwood, NJ USA! Grid FM29vw
http://vhfradiobuff.tripod.com
Fight Spam! http://spamcop.net
National "Do Not Call" Registry: http://donotcall.gov

pamme (VHFRadioBuff) wrote:
As far as I am concerned, this gentleman's posting could (should?) have been
posted in each and every user group that relates in any fashion to ham
radio.

Cross posting and off topic posting is a violation of many an ISP's TOS.

No, it was *NOT* crossposted, and it *should* have been.
Instead the message was multiposted to at least 5 newsgroups
individually.

*Multiposting* is *never* appropriate. Crossposting _to_
_appropriate_ newsgroups is _always_ appropriate.

The fact is that every post has it's place. If that were not the case, we'd
eliminate every amateur radio newsgroup except for rec.radio.amateur.

Some posts have many places, and that is why crossposting is a
facility available on Usenet. And while abuse is relatively
common, that particular instance would have been perhaps
reasonable *if* it had been crossposted instead of multiposted.

And while we discuss Usenet protocols, your signature is

1) too long
2) lacks the appropriate delimiter line, "-- ", between
it and the text of your message.

It seems reasonable that if you are going to rant about the
way someone else posts, you might want to be a little more
correct yourself. :-)

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
73! de Andy KC2SSB (ex: KF4KHC/HL9HCT)
Beachwood, NJ USA! Grid FM29vw
http://vhfradiobuff.tripod.com
Fight Spam! http://spamcop.net
National "Do Not Call" Registry: http://donotcall.gov

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

Ya got to love those net gods! Unfortunately, they aren't as perfect as the
one who makes all this possible!
--
"Floyd Davidson" wrote in message
...
pamme (VHFRadioBuff) wrote:
As far as I am concerned, this gentleman's posting could (should?) have
been
posted in each and every user group that relates in any fashion to ham
radio.

Cross posting and off topic posting is a violation of many an ISP's TOS.

No, it was *NOT* crossposted, and it *should* have been.
Instead the message was multiposted to at least 5 newsgroups
individually.

*Multiposting* is *never* appropriate. Crossposting _to_
_appropriate_ newsgroups is _always_ appropriate.

The fact is that every post has it's place. If that were not the case,
we'd
eliminate every amateur radio newsgroup except for rec.radio.amateur.

Some posts have many places, and that is why crossposting is a
facility available on Usenet. And while abuse is relatively
common, that particular instance would have been perhaps
reasonable *if* it had been crossposted instead of multiposted.

And while we discuss Usenet protocols, your signature is

1) too long
2) lacks the appropriate delimiter line, "-- ", between
it and the text of your message.

It seems reasonable that if you are going to rant about the
way someone else posts, you might want to be a little more
correct yourself. :-)

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
73! de Andy KC2SSB (ex: KF4KHC/HL9HCT)
Beachwood, NJ USA! Grid FM29vw
http://vhfradiobuff.tripod.com
Fight Spam! http://spamcop.net
National "Do Not Call" Registry: http://donotcall.gov

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

Some posts have many places

Oh yeah. A post about a email reflector having to due with legal issues belongs
in a newsgroups for discussing amateur gear. Show me the logic in that!

And while we discuss Usenet protocols, your signature is

1) too long
2) lacks the appropriate delimiter line, "-- ", between
it and the text of your message.

By what standard? Yours?
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
73! de Andy KC2SSB (ex: KF4KHC/HL9HCT)
Beachwood, NJ USA! Grid FM29vw
http://vhfradiobuff.tripod.com
Fight Spam! http://spamcop.net
National "Do Not Call" Registry: http://donotcall.gov

pamme (VHFRadioBuff) wrote:
Some posts have many places

Oh yeah. A post about a email reflector having to due with legal issues belongs
in a newsgroups for discussing amateur gear. Show me the logic in that!

At no point did I say that the OP had posted appropriately. The
point I made was that what *you* said was even worse than what
the OP did.

And while we discuss Usenet protocols, your signature is

1) too long
2) lacks the appropriate delimiter line, "-- ", between
it and the text of your message.

By what standard? Yours?

Do you know anything at all about Usenet message formating?

"If you include a signature keep it short. Rule of thumb
is no longer than 4 lines."
rfc1855 "Netiquette Guidelines"

"signature
The three or four line message at the bottom of a piece of email
or a Usenet article which identifies the sender. Large signatures
(over five lines) are generally frowned upon. See also:
Electronic Mail, Usenet."
rfc1983 "Internet Users' Glossary"


"4.3. Usenet Signature Convention
There is a convention in Usenet news of using "-- " as the
separator line between the body and the signature of a
message."
rfc2646 "The Text/Plain Format Parameter"

Here is a more detailed explanation:

http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/http/signatur.html

You can go to google and find *thousands* of web sites
which explain signatures in detail.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
73! de Andy KC2SSB (ex: KF4KHC/HL9HCT)
Beachwood, NJ USA! Grid FM29vw
http://vhfradiobuff.tripod.com
Fight Spam! http://spamcop.net
National "Do Not Call" Registry: http://donotcall.gov

Drop that last two lines and put a proper separator in there.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

pamme (VHFRadioBuff) wrote:
Some posts have many places

Oh yeah. A post about a email reflector having to due with legal issues belongs
in a newsgroups for discussing amateur gear. Show me the logic in that!

At no point did I say that the OP had posted appropriately. The
point I made was that what *you* said was even worse than what
the OP did.

And while we discuss Usenet protocols, your signature is

1) too long
2) lacks the appropriate delimiter line, "-- ", between
it and the text of your message.

By what standard? Yours?

Do you know anything at all about Usenet message formating?

"If you include a signature keep it short. Rule of thumb
is no longer than 4 lines."
rfc1855 "Netiquette Guidelines"

"signature
The three or four line message at the bottom of a piece of email
or a Usenet article which identifies the sender. Large signatures
(over five lines) are generally frowned upon. See also:
Electronic Mail, Usenet."
rfc1983 "Internet Users' Glossary"


"4.3. Usenet Signature Convention
There is a convention in Usenet news of using "-- " as the
separator line between the body and the signature of a
message."
rfc2646 "The Text/Plain Format Parameter"

Here is a more detailed explanation:

http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/http/signatur.html

You can go to google and find *thousands* of web sites
which explain signatures in detail.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
73! de Andy KC2SSB (ex: KF4KHC/HL9HCT)
Beachwood, NJ USA! Grid FM29vw
http://vhfradiobuff.tripod.com
Fight Spam! http://spamcop.net
National "Do Not Call" Registry: http://donotcall.gov

Drop that last two lines and put a proper separator in there.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

Ya got to love those net gods! Unfortunately, they aren't as perfect as the
one who makes all this possible!
--
"Floyd Davidson" wrote in message
...
pamme (VHFRadioBuff) wrote:
As far as I am concerned, this gentleman's posting could (should?) have
been
posted in each and every user group that relates in any fashion to ham
radio.

Cross posting and off topic posting is a violation of many an ISP's TOS.

No, it was *NOT* crossposted, and it *should* have been.
Instead the message was multiposted to at least 5 newsgroups
individually.

*Multiposting* is *never* appropriate. Crossposting _to_
_appropriate_ newsgroups is _always_ appropriate.

The fact is that every post has it's place. If that were not the case,
we'd
eliminate every amateur radio newsgroup except for rec.radio.amateur.

Some posts have many places, and that is why crossposting is a
facility available on Usenet. And while abuse is relatively
common, that particular instance would have been perhaps
reasonable *if* it had been crossposted instead of multiposted.

And while we discuss Usenet protocols, your signature is

1) too long
2) lacks the appropriate delimiter line, "-- ", between
it and the text of your message.

It seems reasonable that if you are going to rant about the
way someone else posts, you might want to be a little more
correct yourself. :-)

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
73! de Andy KC2SSB (ex: KF4KHC/HL9HCT)
Beachwood, NJ USA! Grid FM29vw
http://vhfradiobuff.tripod.com
Fight Spam! http://spamcop.net
National "Do Not Call" Registry: http://donotcall.gov

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

Some posts have many places

Oh yeah. A post about a email reflector having to due with legal issues belongs
in a newsgroups for discussing amateur gear. Show me the logic in that!

And while we discuss Usenet protocols, your signature is

1) too long
2) lacks the appropriate delimiter line, "-- ", between
it and the text of your message.

By what standard? Yours?
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
73! de Andy KC2SSB (ex: KF4KHC/HL9HCT)
Beachwood, NJ USA! Grid FM29vw
http://vhfradiobuff.tripod.com
Fight Spam! http://spamcop.net
National "Do Not Call" Registry: http://donotcall.gov

pamme (VHFRadioBuff) wrote:
As far as I am concerned, this gentleman's posting could (should?) have been
posted in each and every user group that relates in any fashion to ham
radio.

Cross posting and off topic posting is a violation of many an ISP's TOS.

No, it was *NOT* crossposted, and it *should* have been.
Instead the message was multiposted to at least 5 newsgroups
individually.

*Multiposting* is *never* appropriate. Crossposting _to_
_appropriate_ newsgroups is _always_ appropriate.

The fact is that every post has it's place. If that were not the case, we'd
eliminate every amateur radio newsgroup except for rec.radio.amateur.

Some posts have many places, and that is why crossposting is a
facility available on Usenet. And while abuse is relatively
common, that particular instance would have been perhaps
reasonable *if* it had been crossposted instead of multiposted.

And while we discuss Usenet protocols, your signature is

1) too long
2) lacks the appropriate delimiter line, "-- ", between
it and the text of your message.

It seems reasonable that if you are going to rant about the
way someone else posts, you might want to be a little more
correct yourself. :-)

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
73! de Andy KC2SSB (ex: KF4KHC/HL9HCT)
Beachwood, NJ USA! Grid FM29vw
http://vhfradiobuff.tripod.com
Fight Spam! http://spamcop.net
National "Do Not Call" Registry: http://donotcall.gov

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)