Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84 chuqui version 1.7 9/23/84; site nsc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!nsc!srm
From: srm@nsc.UUCP (Richard Mateosian)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory,net.flame
Subject: Re: Summarizing
Message-ID: <2365@nsc.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 14-Feb-85 21:49:28 EST
Article-I.D.: nsc.2365
Posted: Thu Feb 14 21:49:28 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 16-Feb-85 05:43:49 EST
References: <234@tilt.FUN> <675@unmvax.UUCP>
Reply-To: srm@nsc.UUCP (Richard Mateosian)
Organization: National Semiconductor, Sunnyvale
Lines: 20
Xref: watmath net.politics.theory:128 net.flame:8360
Summary: 

In article <675@unmvax.UUCP> cliff@unmvax.UUCP writes:

>Sometimes I find that not only do I have to include parts of the letter I am
>replying to, but I also need to reproduce parts of previous articles (usually
>points that were not addressed).

If the point wasn't addressed, why reply to it?  Besides, you know perfectly
well that people often quote an entire article, including signatures, just
out of laziness or ignorance.

>People have a hard time adequately representing a fellow netters statement 
>or opinion when it does not conform to one's political philosophy.

If you don't have the time to understand the opinion adequately, then why
waste your time replying to it?  Why not simply post your own opinion, 
rather than billing it as a response to a statement you didn't understand
well enough to represent adequately in summary or paraphrase?
-- 
Richard Mateosian
{allegra,cbosgd,decwrl,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!srm    nsc!srm@decwrl.ARPA