The Importance of Terminology's Quality

[David Combs]

In article <68i6b5F2soauaU1 at mid.individual.net>,
Waylen Gumbal <wgumgfy at gmail.com> wrote:
>Sherman Pendley wrote:
>> kodifik at eurogaran.com writes:
>> >
>> > > PLEASE DO NOT | :.:\:\:/:/:.:
>> > > FEED THE TROLLS | :=.' - - '.=:
>> >
>> > I don't think Xah is trolling here (contrary to his/her habit)
>> > but posing an interesting matter of discussion.
>>
>> It might be interesting in the abstract, but any such discussion, when
>> cross-posted to multiple language groups on usenet, will inevitably
>> devolve into a flamewar as proponents of the various languages argue
>> about which language better expresses the ideas being talked about.
>> It's like a law of usenet or something.
>>
>> If Xah wanted an interesting discussion, he could have posted this to
>> one language-neutral group such as comp.programming. He doesn't want
>> that - he wants the multi-group flamefest.
>
>Not everyone follows language-neutral groups (such as comp,programming 
>as you pointed out), so you actually reach more people by cross posting. 
>This is what I don't understand - everyone seems to assume that by cross 
>posting, one intends on start a "flamefest", when in fact most such 
>"flamefests" are started by those who cannot bring themselves to 
>skipping over the topic that they so dislike.
>
>-- 
>wg 

Not one person on the planet agrees with me, I believe, but
it's always seemed to me that an *advantage* to posting to
multiple groups (especially ones generally "interested" in similar
subject matter but NOT subject to huge poster/lurker/answerer overlap,
er, without too many *people* getting multiple copies of the *same*
post) is that it would provide an opportunity of a widely-dispersed
bunch of people to have a *joint* discussion, with comments hopefully
coming in from a *variety* of viewpoints.

David