rdz@ccice5.UUCP (Robert D. Zarcone) (09/06/85)
I am sometimes amazed at the length of some of the articles in these groups. None of the dozen or so others that I read ever has a size of an article in excess of 200 lines. And now I see one 500+ lines long here! I realize that disscusions of the subjects approached here can not be limited to one or two lines, but do we really need this many to get our ideas across? And what about these 100+ line follow-ups to original postings? I know the inter-system mail is bad, but it will usually work if you really try. This isn't really the flame that it's starting to sound like. It's just a call for some thought about: a. what we are saying b. how we are saying it c. whether anyone else besides the original poster cares This isn't meant to offend. It is only meant to alert those of you out there that are on the more "verbose" side that there are a lot of people who won't hear you. And that's a pity, because you may be saying something we really should hear! *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
laura@l5.uucp (Laura Creighton) (09/10/85)
Over in net.religion we have this little problem. Person A says something. Then person B misquotes person A and refutes his misquotation. Person A says ``I never said that!''. Then person C quotes person A and refutes him. Person A says ``I never said that!''. Now persons B and C both say ``yes you did!'' ``Did not!'' ``Did!''... Fairly early on I got into the habit of quoting exactly what was said by anyone with whom I was arguing so that nobody could deny sayign what they *had* said. I think that some of the quotes could be cut down, though and maybe it is better to post 5 refutations of parts of one article than one huge one. -- Laura Creighton (note new address!) sun!l5!laura (that is ell-five, not fifteen) l5!laura@lll-crg.arpa