poll: How do you feel about threads being cross-posted between m.k and alt.childfree.bridgebuilding?

The suggestion of cross-posting came up in another thread and I'm wondering
how people here feel about it.

Some background for those who haven't been following:
Some people are trying to revive an inactive newgroup called
alt.childfree.bridgebuilding. Unlike alt.support.childfree, this group
welcomes posts from parents. Since a.c.b has been inactive for so long, it
is not carried by many news-servers. It would help in reviving a.c.b if we
cross-posted some threads to get things going. Once there is traffic more
servers will carry it.

So how do people feel about us cross-posting a few threads between m.k and
a.c.b? We can put X-post in the subject line so they are easily avoided by
those who don't wish to read them. Are there any other suggestions about
how to clearly mark these?

Jayne

Jayne Kulikauskas wrote:

It would help in reviving a.c.b if we
cross-posted some threads to get things going. Once there is traffic more
servers will carry it.

I have no interest in reviving this group. I'm not saying you shouldn't
but it holds no appeal for me.

So how do people feel about us cross-posting a few threads between m.k and
a.c.b? We can put X-post in the subject line so they are easily avoided by
those who don't wish to read them. Are there any other suggestions about
how to clearly mark these?

I would prefer not to have the cross-posts.

--
Brigitte aa #2145
edd #3 February 15, 2004
http://www.babiesonline.com/babies/j/joshuaandkaterina/

"Readers are plentiful; thinkers are rare."
~ Harriet Martineau

Jayne Kulikauskas wrote:
The suggestion of cross-posting came up in another thread and I'm wondering
how people here feel about it.


The a.c.b. doesn't really appeal to me. Since DS was born I notice
a strong tendency for us to get in touch with mainly other parents,
and although we still have quite a bunch of friends who are not, the
friendships are clearly on a different level than before. There is
simply no link. No offence intended, but IME couples without kids
just cannot imagine what life is like with kids, just like I can no
longer imagine my life without. Besides, I see no topics that I'd
like to discuss that are not covered by the other ng I visit.

I've already posted a few times to a x-posted thread and only noticed
the x-post after pushing send (actually, the original thread you refer
to was one of them). So unless it is clearly marked in the thread,
I'd rather not have x-posts.

--
-- Ilse
mom to Olaf (07/15/2002)
TTC #2
"What's the use of brains if you are a girl?"
Aletta Jacobs, first Dutch woman to receive a PhD

"Jayne Kulikauskas" wrote in message
...
So how do people feel about us cross-posting a few threads between m.k and
a.c.b? We can put X-post in the subject line so they are easily avoided
by
those who don't wish to read them. Are there any other suggestions about
how to clearly mark these?

I'm not interested. I don't feel I have much in common with my parentless
friends ATM. In fact, I'm hoping they have some kids so we could all be on
the same page.

"Sue" wrote in message
...
I'm sorry Jayne, I really don't understand the interest in this particular
newsgroup.Why is talking to other people who are not parents, who don't
have
the same interests in parenting and who wouldn't even have much to
contribute to a parenting newsgroup is even being considered. It's not
that
I don't talk to non-parents or wouldn't want to, but there is a reason I
subscribe to a parenting newsgroup. The biggest reason would be that I
need
and want the support from other parents. I look to the parenting
newsgroups
for disipline answers and other concerns that parents have. So for me, I
am
not interested. I don't wish to have my posts x-posted to a child-free
newsgroup.

I realize that subject is not going to be of interest to everybody. I was
not suggesting that people who are not interested participate in the
cross-posted threads. The idea was to cross-post a.c.b threads to this
group while people are waiting for their servers to start carrying acb and
to improve its propogation. I would have expected people who are not
interested to just ignore them.

Anyhow, it seems that most people hate this idea so I'll try to think of
something else. Thanks to everyone who answered.

Jayne

Jayne Kulikauskas wrote:


So how do people feel about us cross-posting a few threads between m.k and
a.c.b? We can put X-post in the subject line so they are easily avoided by
those who don't wish to read them. Are there any other suggestions about
how to clearly mark these?

Jayne


I'd rather not see it happen, since I feel trolls and flames would
sprout out of the woodwork. And since for some stupid reason netscape
7.0 has deficient filtering, I'd have to hand kills the threads.

Lesley

"Jayne Kulikauskas" wrote in message
...
The suggestion of cross-posting came up in another thread and I'm
wondering
how people here feel about it.

Some background for those who haven't been following:
Some people are trying to revive an inactive newgroup called
alt.childfree.bridgebuilding. Unlike alt.support.childfree, this group
welcomes posts from parents. Since a.c.b has been inactive for so long,
it
is not carried by many news-servers. It would help in reviving a.c.b if
we
cross-posted some threads to get things going. Once there is traffic more
servers will carry it.

So how do people feel about us cross-posting a few threads between m.k and
a.c.b? We can put X-post in the subject line so they are easily avoided
by
those who don't wish to read them. Are there any other suggestions about
how to clearly mark these?


MK has had a lot of trolls and xposted trollish threads lately. The
signal/noise ratio for mk regulars has been negatively impacted already.
The likelihood that the type of threads xposted from the group you are
trying to revitalize would be flamefest and prone to attracting trolls is
high. If those threads were xposted to mk it would continue to drag mk
down. A little over a year ago we had to work hard to change just that type
of profile on mk. The effort was successful. I, personally, do not wish to
try yet again to clean up mk because of an unfortunate series of xposts with
a group that increases the problems we try to hard to defeat. Therefore, my
vote is a resounding no. Your idea of a moderated group, if the team is
really certain that there is readership in usenet world, is more likely to
be workable.

-Aula


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.505 / Virus Database: 302 - Release Date: 7/30/03

"toto" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 13:22:06 -0700, "Sue"
wrote:

So for me, I am not interested. I don't wish to have my posts x-posted
to a child-free newsgroup.

And given mk's poor relationship with ascf, I suspect such a thread
would draw trolls.

You could x-post to groups where the topic you post about is
appropriate instead, not to a specificly non-parenting or parenting
group. Talk about something you want to talk about that doesn't
involve your *philosophies* at first.

That sounds like it could work. Thanks for the idea. The posts are
starting to trickle into a.c.b now, so maybe we won't even need to
cross-post anywhere.

Jayne

"just me" wrote in message
news
[]
MK has had a lot of trolls and xposted trollish threads lately. The
signal/noise ratio for mk regulars has been negatively impacted already.
The likelihood that the type of threads xposted from the group you are
trying to revitalize would be flamefest and prone to attracting trolls is
high. If those threads were xposted to mk it would continue to drag mk
down. A little over a year ago we had to work hard to change just that
type
of profile on mk. The effort was successful. I, personally, do not wish
to
try yet again to clean up mk because of an unfortunate series of xposts
with
a group that increases the problems we try to hard to defeat. Therefore,
my
vote is a resounding no.

That was very clear reasoning and you have completely convinced me. I'm
glad I asked first before I did it.

Your idea of a moderated group, if the team is
really certain that there is readership in usenet world, is more likely to
be workable.

Yes, I would like to see a moderated group eventually.

BTW, I saw your post on a.m. I'm praying for you.

Jayne

"lynn" wrote in message
...
In article omSXa.71396$Ho3.10264@sccrnsc03,
"toypup" wrote:
I'm not interested. I don't feel I have much in common with my
parentless
friends ATM. In fact, I'm hoping they have some kids so we could all be
on
the same page.

Several people have said this and I don't get it. I have lots in common
with my parentless friends. We enjoy the same hobbies, we live in the
same towns, we like books and movies, we travel, we like going to
restaurants, we diet, we have political opinions, we have pets, we have
religious commonalities, etc. I may not have as much time for those now,
but I still like talking/hearing about them.

My childless friends are also single. They like to go to the clubs to look
at guys. I can't really do that anymore and I'm really interested in it.
They also travel alot. I like travel, but I can't do it with them. When
they go, they are on the lookout for cute guys. They are not interested in
visiting me and DH, only me when DH is working, because they don't want to
feel like the third wheel, not that I try to do that, it's just that they
don't like being the singleton among couples. They are not very interested
in discussions about parenting, which I like to discuss, because it's a big
part of my life. I have pets, they don't. We aren't religious, but we do
have interesting discussions on that. We don't read many books. We try
exotic restaurants, but since moving here, there aren't many exotic
restaurants nearby and I find it difficult to haul DS long distances to such
places and have a nice meal when we're there. (DH wouldn't go, he doesn't
like exotic foods.) So basically, we've grown apart. Our lives are on
different pages. I hope we get back to the same page, because I think they
are really great friends and I would miss them greatly if we were to lose
contact.