Message-ID: <0098EDE4C6F08E80.00003133@tmar.com> Date: Fri, 14 Apr 1995 11:38:50 EST From: "Chuck B. at Ext. 214" <mailto:chuckb@TMAR.COM> Subject: Messages' length, deletion and subjects To: Multiple recipients of list DEVEL-L
On April 13, Glenn Tenney wrote (his Subject being "Re: LONG MESSAGES?")
about the need in many cases to receive and download a message in its entirety
just to get at its subject and decide whether to read or archive or delete it,
and then about the supposed inappropriateness of *all* my posting topics. We
all commit the same sin from time to time, both because it is hard to come up
with a concise subject line when we wish to cover a lot of ground, and because
we know we can rely on context: as you are following the thread of the
conversation, you know we have been discussing long messages all week. I am
sure my reference to "road hogs" in an earlier posting about advertising on
the 'net did not mislead many readers.
Let us be sticklers for precision when it is important, not for
stickling's sake. My "Telecom-related posting 2" was about a telematics
(the field where telecom and computing come together, I am told) symposium,
which may or may not be the same thing as a "net symposium," to borrow Glenn's
phrase. To a network engineer, the difference between telecom and telematics
may be crucial (I don't know, not being one); to users of telematics
technologies, it is not crucial, and "telecom" is just convenient shorthand.
Let us not go critiquing each other's writing styles, especially not
with sweeping, public charges which name names (I know, I just did, I hope for
the last time). It does not exactly further constructive discussion.
c.b.