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