In article >,
Bob Muncie > wrote:

> Default User wrote:
> > Michael "Dog3" wrote:
> >
> >> Bob Muncie > news:tFrcl.44873$Nv1.4716
> >> @newsfe03.iad: in rec.food.cooking
> >
> >>> Is there a reason why a post about a cook on food network should be
> >>> somewhere other then the alt.tv.food-network when it's about a cook
> >>> from that channel?
> >> Because it spans several different groups with cross topics. It is
> >> about television, FoodTV and cooking. Is there a reason it should not
> >> be posted in the other groups?
> >
> > And this way it might get read by more than 12 people.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Brian
> >
>
> If it's going to be read by more then twelve people, shouldn't they
> subscribe to the *right* USENET group? BTW, the SLOP derogatory reviews
> are *not* about cooking in my opinion. And yes, you are welcome to yours.
>
> This is my last reply to this stupid thread that's cross posted in
> appropriate groups.
>
> Michael - You can be fascinated by whatever amuses you. Obviously you
> are amused by most anything.
>
> Myself, I am not amused by people inappropriately posting in the groups
> I read if a better group exists for them. It wastes my time looking at
> those posts. I also don't want a gazillion filter rules as it wastes
> computing time.
>
> I have an idea! How about people post in groups that were created for
> them? Now there is an idea who's time has come.

You mean like Ubi has been doing, and you haven't?

--
Bad Reboot's 'Crap Trek' 2009: "No Shat, No Show"
Rated "least anticipated film of 2009" by ETOnline