Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!mhuxv!mhuxf!mhuxm!mhuxn!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!preece
From: preece@ccvaxa.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.news
Subject: Re: Digests (Actually using rn and
Message-ID: <95700001@ccvaxa>
Date: Mon, 16-Jun-86 15:10:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: ccvaxa.95700001
Posted: Mon Jun 16 15:10:00 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 19-Jun-86 07:40:11 EDT
References: <1988@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Lines: 24
Nf-ID: #R:umcp-cs.UUCP:1988:ccvaxa:95700001:000:914
Nf-From: ccvaxa.UUCP!preece    Jun 16 14:10:00 1986


> If you want that kind of analogy, then my rejoinder is that having
> digests in the news is like having a box whose top is held on with
> seven wood screws and a nail.  It's annoying to have to go looking for
> a hammer.

> C. Wingate
----------
The thing is, an intelligent, involved moderator can produce a digest
which is more than the sum of its parts.  Those who prefer to see the
digest as a stream or articles can easily take it part.  Those who
prefer to have the digest CANNOT build it from the parts.  Following
on with the analogy, banning digests to avoid using an undigestifier
would be like banning tops on boxes because some people might not
have the tools to take them off.

For what it's worth, we use notes on our machines and we undigestify
MOST (but not all) digests fed in from ARPA mailing lists.

-- 
scott preece
gould/csd - urbana
uucp:	ihnp4!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!preece
arpa:	preece@gswd-vms