I do agree that we should trim posts of older postings; but I also suggest
that some of us participate in many lists and are faced with responding to
more than 100 posts a day which can result in the rush to complete our
responses we may forget to trim the posts.  A little reminder like you gave
every now and then when it gets bad is all that is necessary usually.  In
the current case, the reminder reached me after I had sent the offending
post which appeared later than the message from you.

I am sorry but I read his complaint as being about my writing style, since
not trimming older posts from a current post is not a matter of verbosity
which is what he was complaining about.

As for the digest and its limitations, I think it is a matter of
compromises.  To get the digest, subscribers give up the ability to delete
individual posts in exchange for receiving all the messages in one large
posting.  I would think that if the size of the single posting that the
digest generates becomes too much of a burden, they could always switch to
individual emails.  Why should those of us who are not signed up to receive
digest posts change in order to accommodate digest users so as to make
things convenient for them at our expense rather than digest users switching
to individual emails?  I have to wonder what would happen to their
convenience or with respect to the other factors you have mentioned if
traffic became really heavy with long involved posts of new information
rather than previously posted untrimmed messages and/or when a large number
of the posts on such a digest happen to be of little interest and
consequence to the particular individual digest subscriber.

At any rate, I will attempt to remember to trim my posts of old messages.

> -----Original Message-----
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tony Sleep
> Sent: Friday, February 15, 2008 8:40 PM
> Subject: [filmscanners] Re: was: RE: SS4000 & mean people suck
> Personally I read George's complaint as being about untrimmed posting,
> not on Laurie's writing style as such.
> Art has a point that members of the list can skip messages, but that is
not true for 568 members of
> this list who are on a daily digest and receive the preceding 24hrs
traffic concatenated into one
> large message. That becomes quite impossible to read and grows
exponentially as a result of repeat unselective
> quoting. I won't even mention the needlessly slow distribution, wasted
> and the server brought to its knees ;)

Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 

Reply via email to