chenr@tilt.FUN (Ray Chen) (02/10/85)
On reading net.politics.theory, I notice that over 50% of the average article is usually included text. I thought that net.politics.theory implied that people who read and post to this group should have a smattering of the intellect necessary to both understand and debate political theory in a rational manner. If this is indeed the case, then could you bozos out there do a better job of summarizing? I, for one, am getting tired of wading through 60 lines of included crap just to see the one line "Some people don't recognize sarcasm when they read it." Summarizing shouldn't be that hard. Paragraphs are generally reducible to a single idea (called the thesis, guys). And if you can't do a decent job of compressing somebody's article then what the hell are you doing replying to it anyway? Unless every single line contains an essential idea, all you're proving is that you don't really understand what it is you're replying to. Ray Chen princeton!tilt!chenr
cliff@unmvax.UUCP (02/12/85)
Ray Chen complains that there is not enough summarizing done in this newsgroup.
Furthermore he claims that the people who don't summarize should not be
replying, for they don't know what they are reading.
Sorry, but there is too much straw man building and beating going on as it is.
Sometimes I find that not only do I have to include parts of the letter I am
replying to, but I also need to reproduce parts of previous articles (ussually
points that were not addressed). The propogation delay of the net requires
some sort of summary and people have a hard enough time reproducting what was
said in an unbiased conversation, much less adequately representing a fellow
netters statement or opinion when it does not conform to one's political
philosophy.
--Cliff [Matthews]
{purdue, cmcl2, ihnp4}!lanl!unmvax!cliff
{csu-cs, pur-ee, convex, gatech, ucbvax}!unmvax!cliff
4744 Trumbull S.E. - Albuquerque NM 87108 - (505) 265-9143srm@nsc.UUCP (Richard Mateosian) (02/15/85)
In article <234@tilt.FUN> chenr@tilt.FUN (Ray Chen) writes: >On reading net.politics.theory, I notice that over 50% of the average article >is usually included text. > >Unless every single line contains an essential idea, all you're proving >is that you don't really understand what it is you're replying to. > I second this wholeheartedly, and while you're exercising your new-found editing skills, how about editing net.politics out of the header. About half of the articles in net.politics are cross-posted from net.politics.theory. No doubt a few articles belong in both groups. Most don't. -- Richard Mateosian {allegra,cbosgd,decwrl,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!srm nsc!srm@decwrl.ARPA
srm@nsc.UUCP (Richard Mateosian) (02/15/85)
In article <675@unmvax.UUCP> cliff@unmvax.UUCP writes: >Sometimes I find that not only do I have to include parts of the letter I am >replying to, but I also need to reproduce parts of previous articles (usually >points that were not addressed). If the point wasn't addressed, why reply to it? Besides, you know perfectly well that people often quote an entire article, including signatures, just out of laziness or ignorance. >People have a hard time adequately representing a fellow netters statement >or opinion when it does not conform to one's political philosophy. If you don't have the time to understand the opinion adequately, then why waste your time replying to it? Why not simply post your own opinion, rather than billing it as a response to a statement you didn't understand well enough to represent adequately in summary or paraphrase? -- Richard Mateosian {allegra,cbosgd,decwrl,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!srm nsc!srm@decwrl.ARPA
laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (02/16/85)
The reason I took to quoting whole lengths of articles was not that I didn't understand the original. I understood it only too well. So I summarized it - and the original poster said ``but I didn't say that!''. That required reposting the original. 2 articles! I got sick of this. Now people are going to have to either point out what I didn't understand, post anotehr defense of their words, or eat them. Laura Creighton utzoo!laura