Laws@STRIPE.SRI.COM (Ken Laws) (07/02/87)
The "quotation problem" has become so prevalent across all of the Usenet newsgroups that the gateway now rejects any message with more quoted text than new text. If a message is rejected for this reason, I am unlikely to clean it up and resend. As I indicated last week, I think we could get along just fine with more "I say ..." and less "You said ...". Paraphrases are fine and even beneficial, but trying to reestablish the exact context of each comment is not worth the hassle to the general readership. Perhaps some of the hair splitting could be carried on through private mail, with occasional reports to the list on points of agreement and disagreement. Discussions of perception and categorization are appropriate for AIList, but we cannot give unlimited time and attention to any one topic. I've engaged in "interpolated debate" myself, and have enjoyed this characteristic mode of net discussions. I won't object to occasional use, but I do get very tired of seeing the same text quoted in message after message. I used to edit such repetitions out of the digest, but I can't manage it with this traffic volume. Please keep in mind that this is a broadcast channel and that many readers have slow terminals or have to pay intercontinental transmission fees. Words are money. It seems that a consistent philosophy cannot be put forth in less than a full book, or at least a BBS article, and that meaningful rebuttals require similar length. We have been trying to cram this through a linear channel, with swirls of debate spinning off from each paragraph [yes, I know that's a contradiction], and there is no evidence of convergence. Let's try to slow down for a while. I would also recommend that messages be kept to a single topic, even if that means (initially) that a full response to a previous message must be split into parts. Separate discussion of grounding, categorization, perception, etc., would be more palatable than the current indivisible stream. I would like to sort the discussions, if only for ease of meaningful retrieval, but can't do so if they all carry the same subject line and mix of topics. -- Ken -------