mokhtar@ubc-vision.UUCP (02/03/84)
I still think that you could get your message across and be more concise,
Laura (Creighton). I am aware of the existence of the 'n' key on my keyboard
and I know what its function is but that is not the end of the story.
This is a changing world. People come and go all the time. You can not
expect the more recent ones to be aware of all the previously held discussions
on the newsgroup especially that no written record is kept and old news is
discarded. So I am not responsible for any old discussion I might have missed,
but let's assume that in such a discussion, the majority agreed that everyone
is free to submit messages as long as they wish them to be, after all each one
of us has that 'n' key on the keyboard. Makes sense?
I don't know if in that discussion, anybody mentioned the cost involved in
this whole process. (I mean cost in terms of real dollars). But I am going to,
since apparently it is worthwhile mentioning (again perhaps). Somebody must
pay for the cost of all the long and short messages that are transmitted all
over the world with such amazing speed and efficiency as though they are as
important as the first real words spoken by some outer space race in their
first encounter with humans. Individuals are not charged for that cost. It
usually comes from the operating grant for whatever computer you are using.
That should give us one reason to be "concerned" about the length of the
messages we send but it's not the only one.
I like to find out about your view as well as those of others. Your article
on a subject might start off a discussion that I wouldn't want to miss.
Therefore it is important to not miss any articles ( in order to be up to date).
An extra long article would require more of my limited time to extract the
important points. If the article consists only of important points, that's
wonderful. But are you willing to make that claim? I think if you are aware
that your article can be shortened and don't make an effort to do that you
are being selfish. Apparently you have acquired some kind of popularity here
(despite your "hate" mail). That's just fine but that does not justify
unnecessarily long articles. You speak of compassion but your reaction to
criticism is harsh. If one is compassionate, one is *always* compassionate
not just sometimes. It is easy for me to unleash angry, sarcastic, dis-
beleiving words (and have reason for them) but what good will that do?
You can go ahead and criticize me now but please assume that I am aware of
the obvious things around me such as the existence of 'n' keys on keyboards.
PS. I was informed by a supporter of Laura's article that I was 'bitchy' and
'destructive'. I wish I really deserved those nice words but unfortunately
I don't believe I do. Would you like to explain yourself more? That is a
reasonable expectation, don't you think? Believe it or not, I am not
angry but I feel I have been unfair to.
dmmartindale@watcgl.UUCP (Dave Martindale) (02/08/84)
Articles do indeed cost someone real money to transmit, and long articles cost more. But you also have to consider the content of articles, and how "worthwhile" they are. I find Laura's 110-line epistles worthwhile reading (usually) because she presents ideas which are often out of the ordinary, and thus cause me to stop and think about what she is saying. On the other hand, I find 45-line articles that complain about the writing of long articles more than just a bit silly. Ideally, all writers would be clear and succinct, and the length of an article would reflect its content. (Using that standard, the end of this article is now due.)