Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site think.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!think!murali
From: murali@think.ARPA (Muralidhara Subbarao)
Newsgroups: net.nlang.india
Subject: Re: Bajwa's posting ("Oppression of Sikhs").
Message-ID: <4105@think.ARPA>
Date: Sun, 26-Jan-86 17:49:22 EST
Article-I.D.: think.4105
Posted: Sun Jan 26 17:49:22 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 27-Jan-86 03:01:03 EST
References: <556@decwrl.DEC.COM> <434@ur-helheim.UUCP>
Organization: Thinking Machines, Cambridge, MA
Lines: 21

> Of late, there has been a lot of talk (in other newsgroups) about the
> cost of transmitting an article. While I understand that this report
> may be of interest to many people, I think it is inappropriate to 
> put it on the net without finding out if it is indeed worth the cost.
> If the author's estimate is correct, the length of this article is
> about 100 pages! It might be better, in future, to inform netters about the
> availability of the document and then, depending on the response, put
> it on the net.


     In situations such as this, I think that it is a good idea
to first give the context and summary of the report and then
include some EXCERPTS from the original which the author thinks
are most effective (or important). It is not worth anyones
efforts to (compose and) type in an article that is more than about 
200 lines because few people are going to read letters longer 
than this (I mean at least 50% of the letter).

   Brevity is a courtesy which the authors owe the readers.

                                      murali.