Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!rutgers!seismo!mcvax!ukc!stl!dww From: dww@stl.UUCP Newsgroups: news.misc Subject: Re: The 50% rule is in--now what? Message-ID: <326@stl.UUCP> Date: Mon, 24-Nov-86 19:12:50 EST Article-I.D.: stl.326 Posted: Mon Nov 24 19:12:50 1986 Date-Received: Sun, 14-Dec-86 11:30:35 EST References: <751@chinet.UUCP> <212@cartan.Berkeley.EDU> <1333@PUCC.BITNET> <641@comp.lancs.ac.uk> <80@reality1.UUCP> <4239@amdahl.UUCP> Reply-To: dww@stl.UUCP (David Wright) Organization: STL,Harlow,UK. Lines: 18 From the discussion so far, it is clear that an automatic check such as is apparently in 2.11 (it hasn't been installed here yet) can cause stupid problems, and can be avoided by the expert anyway. So why not accept that the only sensible use of such things is to computer-aid not to computer- control? By that, I mean that such a check should be used to remind the poster that he/she has probably not made a very good job of trimmimg the included material, and offer to re-enter edit for another try. Not just reject out of hand. I think most people who have included too much thoughtlessly would accept this and re-edit, whereas those who HAVE trimmed, but can put THEIR point in only 1-2 lines (surely to be encouraged?), can make an intelligent decision to go ahead with the posting, without having to add dummy lines. As can those who are actually posting diff's. -- Regards, David Wright STL, London Road, Harlow, Essex CM17 9NA, U.K. dww@stl.stc.co.uk...seismo!mcvax!ukc!stl!dww PSI%234237100122::DWW