Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.csd.uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!orion.cf.uci.edu!uci-ics!levine From: levine@ics.uci.edu (David Levine) Newsgroups: news.newusers.questions Subject: Re: Filler lines Message-ID: <21386@paris.ics.uci.edu> Date: 21 Aug 89 18:43:23 GMT References: <21376@paris.ics.uci.edu> Sender: news@paris.ics.uci.edu Reply-To: David Levine Organization: University of California, Irvine - Dept of ICS Lines: 22 In article J Greely writes: >In article <21376@paris.ics.uci.edu> levine@ics.uci.edu (David Levine) writes: >>Some mailers refuse to post an followup article that has fewer >>new lines that cited lines. > >This is a good thing. In general, if you don't have as much to say as >the person you're replying to, you haven't accomplished anything. > >>Why is adding filler lines so "bad"? > >Because you're adding padding to make up for having nothing to say. > I should have said this in my original posting to avoid this type of response: I KNOW that it is a good thing. But, there are unusual circumstances under which it is NOT a good thing. My question was why changing the citation character is better than adding filler lines. [filler filler filler filler filler filler] :-)