[net.micro] Stop the mindless repitition of old articles !

cdshaw@watmum.UUCP (Chris Shaw) (06/14/85)

I just read an article that was 90 lines long... 84 lines were of this type:
>>>>
>>>> old article
>>> reply
>> reply to reply
> addition to reply

and the final 6 lines were as follows.

" Is it because the BASICA and BASIC on the AT still go to ROM for some of the
subroutines?

maxg@tekig5

PS has anybody got a good termcap for Crosstalk's vt100?	"

This type of nonsense I cannot stand... some guy wants to post an article
quickly, so he just hauls in the old one WITHOUT EDITING, and adds his 0.0001
cents worth to the end.

All I can say is...   STOP IT, GODDAMMIT !!!     I have more to do than just
sit here and wade through 4 articles that I've read 1,2,3 and 4 times before!
ANYBODY who reads this newsgroup MUST read it at least once a week and will NO
DOUBT remember old articles if you just make short reference to their contents.
QUOTING THE WHOLE COLLECTION OF PREVIOUS ARTICLES IS UNNECESSARY AND SHOULD BE
STOPPED !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

<flame off>

Did everyone hear that ??  Do we all understand ??  Good. 
Now back to work, everyone !

(thank-you for your indulgence)

Chris Shaw    watmath!watmum!cdshaw  or  cdshaw@watmath
University of Waterloo
In doubt?  Eat hot high-speed death -- the experts' choice in gastric vileness !

calway@ecsvax.UUCP (James Calloway) (06/16/85)

In some cases, the quoting of an entire article is appreciated, as when
the original never arrives, or as sometimes happens, arrives after
the followup. Appreciated, that is, when the followup adds something
to the discussion.
So, a modest proposal: Why not put the quoted article at the end of
a followup instead of at the beginning? Then those of us who have read
the original can skip it.
Of course, it doesn't hurt to edit the quoted material, even when it is at the
end.


In article <162@watmum.UUCP> cdshaw@watmum.UUCP (Chris Shaw) writes:
>I just read an article that was 90 lines long... 84 lines were of this type:
>>>>>
>>>>> old article
>>>> reply
>>> reply to reply
>> addition to reply
>
>and the final 6 lines were as follows.
>
>" Is it because the BASICA and BASIC on the AT still go to ROM for some of the
>subroutines?
etc., etc.

>This type of nonsense I cannot stand... some guy wants to post an article
>quickly, so he just hauls in the old one WITHOUT EDITING, and adds his 0.0001
>cents worth to the end.
>
>All I can say is...   STOP IT, GODDAMMIT !!!     I have more to do than just
>sit here and wade through 4 articles that I've read 1,2,3 and 4 times before!
etc., etc.

>Chris Shaw    watmath!watmum!cdshaw  or  cdshaw@watmath
>University of Waterloo


-- 

James  Calloway
The News and Observer
Box 191
Raleigh, N.C. 27602
(919) 829-4570
{akgua,decvax}!mcnc!ecsvax!calway

mff@wuphys.UUCP (Mark Flynn) (06/17/85)

> I just read an article that was 90 lines long... 84 lines were of this type:
> >>>>
> >>>> old article
> >>> reply
> >> reply to reply
> > addition to reply
> 
> and the final 6 lines were as follows.
> 
> " Is it because the BASICA and BASIC on the AT still go to ROM for some of the
> subroutines?
> 
> maxg@tekig5
> 
> PS has anybody got a good termcap for Crosstalk's vt100?	"
> 
> This type of nonsense I cannot stand... some guy wants to post an article
> quickly, so he just hauls in the old one WITHOUT EDITING, and adds his 0.0001
> cents worth to the end.
> 
> All I can say is...   STOP IT, GODDAMMIT !!!     I have more to do than just
> sit here and wade through 4 articles that I've read 1,2,3 and 4 times before!
> ANYBODY who reads this newsgroup MUST read it at least once a week and will NO
> DOUBT remember old articles if you just make short reference to their contents.
> QUOTING THE WHOLE COLLECTION OF PREVIOUS ARTICLES IS UNNECESSARY AND SHOULD BE
> STOPPED !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> <flame off>
> 
> Did everyone hear that ??  Do we all understand ??  Good. 
> Now back to work, everyone !
> 
> (thank-you for your indulgence)
> 
> Chris Shaw    watmath!watmum!cdshaw  or  cdshaw@watmath
> University of Waterloo
> In doubt?  Eat hot high-speed death -- the experts' choice in gastric vileness !

Right on! Couldn't agree more.





						Mark F. Flynn
						Department of Physics
						Washington University
						St. Louis, MO  63130
						ihnp4!wuphys!mff

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"There is no dark side of the moon, really.
 Matter of fact, it's all dark."

				P. Floyd

maxg@tekig.UUCP (Max Guernsey) (06/21/85)

In article <162@watmum.UUCP> cdshaw@watmum.UUCP (Chris Shaw) writes:
>I just read an article that was 90 lines long... 84 lines were of this type:
>>>>>
>>>>> old article
>>>> reply
>>> reply to reply
>> addition to reply
>
>and the final 6 lines were as follows.
>
>" Is it because the BASICA and BASIC on the AT still go to ROM for some of the
>subroutines?
>
>maxg@tekig5
>
>PS has anybody got a good termcap for Crosstalk's vt100?	"
>
>This type of nonsense I cannot stand... some guy wants to post an article
>quickly, so he just hauls in the old one WITHOUT EDITING, and adds his 0.0001
>cents worth to the end.
>
>All I can say is...   STOP IT, GODDAMMIT !!!     I have more to do than just
>sit here and wade through 4 articles that I've read 1,2,3 and 4 times before!
>ANYBODY who reads this newsgroup MUST read it at least once a week and will NO
>DOUBT remember old articles if you just make short reference to their contents.
>QUOTING THE WHOLE COLLECTION OF PREVIOUS ARTICLES IS UNNECESSARY AND SHOULD BE
>STOPPED !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
><flame off>
>
>Did everyone hear that ??  Do we all understand ??  Good. 
>Now back to work, everyone !
>
>(thank-you for your indulgence)
>
>Chris Shaw    watmath!watmum!cdshaw  or  cdshaw@watmath
>University of Waterloo
>In doubt?  Eat hot high-speed death -- the experts' choice in gastric vileness !

Boy are you testy!

maxg@tekig4