Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!clyde!cuae2!ihnp4!chinet!rissa
From: rissa@chinet.UUCP (Garret and Trish)
Newsgroups: news.misc
Subject: Re: The 50% rule is in--now what?
Message-ID: <751@chinet.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 9-Nov-86 17:12:27 EST
Article-I.D.: chinet.751
Posted: Sun Nov  9 17:12:27 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 10-Nov-86 03:26:15 EST
References: <212@cartan.Berkeley.EDU>
Sender: news@chinet.UUCP
Reply-To: rissa@chinet.UUCP (Garret and Trish)
Organization: chi-net, Public Access UN*X, Chicago IL
Lines: 51

Matthew P Wiener writes:

>OK everybody, we've all seen the growing rash of people padding their
>postings with 50% rule killers.  I hate line-eaters, I hate **REPLACE
>THIS LINE WITH YOUR IDIOTISMS**, and I hate most big signatures (Bob
>Averack's is the major exception), but I positively cannot stand these
>deadwood 50% rule killers.

>Am I alone here?

>I propose that it be lowered to 40% new material, applied to longer
>postings only, and that the bounce message be more to the point, with
>strong encouragement to edit/paraphrase the original better.




I agree.



Many is the time I have wanted to reply to something really stupid



in soc.women with two or three carefully chosen words only to get



shot down by this rule.




I also hate hate hate elaborate signatures.  I remember someone



saying something about this a couple of years ago and pointing



what it means when your signature is larger than your posting.



Trisha 

O

Tuama