Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cornell!uw-beaver!uw-entropy!mica!charlie
From: charlie@mica.stat.washington.edu (Charlie Geyer)
Newsgroups: news.newusers.questions
Subject: Re: Filler lines
Message-ID: <2204@uw-entropy.ms.washington.edu>
Date: 21 Aug 89 21:33:36 GMT
References: <21376@paris.ics.uci.edu>
Sender: news@uw-entropy.ms.washington.edu
Reply-To: charlie@mica.stat.washington.edu (Charlie Geyer)
Organization: UW Statistics, Seattle
Lines: 19
Summary:
Expires:
Sender:
Followup-To:


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.  Some netters say that adding
> filler lines to fake it is "bad", and that a better way is
> to change to > citation character to something that doesn't
> get counted as an included line.
>
> Why is adding filler lines so "bad"?

It's not.  The requirement is stupid.  Gigalines of garbage are posted
every year, but this often silly requirement is the only one enforced
by software.

It is quite all right to post a 10 line quote with a 1 line response.

You should, however, use filler that is blank lines (one character
per) rather than cute sayings.