ed@DAS.LLNL.GOV (Edward Suranyi) (02/26/90)
Is there some sort of conspiracy about not reading Chris'n'Vickie's postings? All I can say is, I'm not part of it. I find them generally very interesting. Ed ed@das.llnl.gov
Julian.West@MAC.DARTMOUTH.EDU (03/06/90)
Maybe I should take this outside, but enough people have involved themselves with my flippant comment that. Vickie posts a self-apology. I reply: The main reason I don't read many c'n'v postings is that you take a long time to say little. "I don't have the energy..." >> I threw away, as a matter of ad hoc policy, all >> volumes of love-hounds of over 128K. > Are you able to see how big the files are then > trash them if they're too big? Sort of. My mailserver only opens the first 32K. I used to forward longer digests to another machine. Now I usually just throw away the tail. (It's rarely over 32K by much.) My oxymoron, above, suggested that 128K had not been beaten often. Noone writes _that_much_. I threw away a week of digests because of the "eclectic music survey". > I don't feel as if I should take responsibility for your > pitching, because if my long post is first, then woj > posts a one-line and puts the Digest over 128K, then it > would be *his* fault. Better to apportion blame to all posters in proportion to length. But it comes out in the wash: it's the longest messages which are most likely cut off at 32K. > It could be Neil or Jenn or IED or Ed or *anyone* ... > You put me in a strange position. Do I continue with my An interesting catalogue of love-hounds luminaries! But if you are adamant that anyone could be at fault, why see _yourself_ as having been put in a distinguished position? I leave it open, Julian