Rationale for my posting draft V7 C description

[Dan Bernstein]

Let's move this thread from comp.lang.c to this group.

In article <1990Nov22.064411.24247 at dg-rtp.dg.com> goudreau at gotham.rtp.dg.com (Bob Goudreau) writes:
> >I usually accept the
> >last poster's judgment about where a discussion belongs; if he thinks it
> >belongs in comp.lang.c, and then refers to ``this group'' without
> >further qualification or explanation, why shouldn't I assume he's
> >referring to comp.lang.c?
> I agree that he blew it as far as removing all possible ambiguity;

It's not a question of ambiguity. To me, ``this group'' above refers
unambiguously to alt.religion.computers, even though people in
comp.lang.c also see the article. This is how lots of other people use
the term. Of course, everyone in the minority who believe otherwise is
going to send a reply to this group saying how ``this group'' really is
ambiguous.

(Why is the majority right? Because in the default case, ``this group''
refers unambiguously to the single group where followups go. Apply
Occam's Razor to see that whenever followups go to a single group,
``this group'' must refer unambiguously to that group.%)

> he could have helped the situation out by saying something like
> "this discussion doesn't belong in the comp.std.c newsgroup" instead
> of just "this doesn't belong in this group" and having the reader
> figure out (and honest, it wasn't hard; I was able to do it!) from
> the context which of the two posted-to groups he meant.  But heck,
> that's why it *is* a good idea to look at the headers.

I addressed this argument before. Why should I waste time looking at
every header on every article just to accommodate a small number of
people who can't speak straight? Writing is the job of giving thoughts
to the reader. If you believe that most readers interpret ``this group''
as being ambiguous for a crossposted article with followups to a single
group, then you're failing your responsibility as a writer whenever you
use the phrase. There are thousands of readers, and they all have a
perfect right to assume that the writer has followed their default
assumptions.

> Just like it's
> a good idea to look at mail headers, to be able to distinguish between
> mail that was sent "To:" you from mail that was merely "Cc:"-ed to you,
> or mail that was "Bcc:"-ed to you.  That header information can make
> all the difference in the world when you receive mail containing the
> word "you", for instance; it lets you know who "you" is.

Perfect analogy! If my reply to a message goes to just one person plus
me, then I know ``you'' refers to me, and ``I'' refers to that person.
Similarly, if my followup to an article goes to just one group, then I
know ``this group'' refers to that group. That's how things work in the
default case; writers who disobey the conventions without explicitly
warning the reader are just asking for trouble. It's not the reader's
responsibility to detect the mistake.

---Dan

% It's also true that in the default case, ``this group'' refers to the
single newsgroup where the article was originally posted. So if the
article was originally posted to a single newsgroup, then ``this group''
must refer to that group. But if followups go to a single newsgroup,
then ``this group'' must, as we already know, refer to that group!
Therefore ``this group'' is ambiguous for an article that starts in a
single group and has followups to a single group. There you have it, a
metaphysical argument for making sure that Newsgroups: always includes
all the groups in Followup-To:.