Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mcvax!ukc!stc!datlog!dlhpedg!cl
From: cl@datlog.co.uk (Charles Lambert)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: High Volume Calls For New Approach
Keywords: Signatures;long quotes
Message-ID: <952@dlhpedg.co.uk>
Date: 9 Dec 88 19:05:59 GMT
References: <26469@bu-cs.BU.EDU>
Sender: news@dlhpedg.co.uk
Reply-To: cl@datlog.co.uk (Charles Lambert)
Organization: FSD@Data Logic Ltd, Queens House, Greenhill Way, Harrow, London.
Lines: 42

Patrick Townson (ptownson@bu-cs.BU.EDU, article 26469@bu-cs.BU.EDU) rightly
prods our consciences when he reminds us how needlessly costly it is to
quote, verbatim, huge tracts of articles we respond to.  It's a lazy
habit.  Magazine correspondents manage quite well without it,  carrying on
long threads of discussion that may be punctuated by intervals of weeks
or months.  We only have to remember the substance of a discussion for
a few minutes or a couple of days at the worst.

A brief paraphrase,  preferably carried inside a substantive comment,  is
all that's needed.  For example:  in the first sentence of this posting I
believe I have established the context of this response in a 15 word
paraphrase (plus the formal reference, for those who want the original text).
And I've stated my feelings about it in the same sentence.  It may not be
Mark Twain,  but it's economical.

Mostly,  we use the included text because the followup function delivers it
on a plate.  I remember using "readnews" when it didn't have that built-in
convenience;  consequently,  almost never included quotes.  Perhaps cost-
conscious news administrators should modify all their news reading software
so that it doesn't give the prepacked inclusion,  or even an environment
reference to it (like $A in readnews).  If we really have to try to pull in
a quote,  we'll probably think harder and then use a short manual quote.

Now I should admit that I've got the automatically included text here while
I write this.  It's a handy memory jogger and I'm deleting each point as
I respond to it;  but I'd get by without it.

Patrick writes:
> Why not try writing creative replies
>incorporating as little as required of other people's text right in your
>own message? 

You're right, I didn't really need that quote but I couldn't put it better
myself.


Charles Lambert		cl@datlog.co.uk
LONDON, UK

P.S.  Instead of feeding us second-hand text,  perhaps the news readers
should put postings through spell(1) before accepting them - there are far
too many "responces" on this network.