>From: Reed Altemus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>There is a reason for this. It saves time. Rewriting or paraphrasing
>takes time, time some of us (I'll only speak for myself at this point)
>don't have. While I agree with you that new subjects should be made for
This argument has appeared on ALL the lists I've subcribed to. I'm thinking
that commerce/industry teaches at least one thing - presentation counts. If
your intended audience complains it can't SEE your message properly, is
that 'intolerance', and whose intolerance is it ?
no offense intended, but the time / speed argument cuts at least two ways.
One seemingly gains immediacy, but if you don't have 'time' to present
ideas to your readers carefully, in a manner they can decipher, they too
can argue they don't have time to read thru poorly presented items. no ?
Additionaly there's the real increased risk of being misunderstood, because
the message can't be found.
Some day for me FLUXDigest, it's like sitting in a movie house, behind
someone with a big hat, next to a couple who can't stop talking to the
screen, the projector is out of focus, and someone else eating chips. You
can still see the film, but what strain !
>an evolving conversation, I think it's unfortunate that you're tolerance
>for what might be called "text noise" is so low. However, I, even as
>hairy chested and dense as I am, will try to be more attentive to this
>particular problem.
and then you included the WHOLE of Ken's post below your reply :-)
Which tells me you maybe don't understand what the problem Ken and I are
talking about is - precisely I believe because so many of you are on
broadcast.
I don't think Ken has asked to paraphrase, so much as to ERASE the
unneccessary material before subscribers send out replies.
Does erasing take SO much time ?
I suggest, as an experiment, we switch the whole of FLUXLIST to
Digest-mode ONLY, for a few days, so you can all experience what our
problem is.
Richard
