Re: Luddites have a point

From: Zero Powers (
Date: Sat Apr 01 2000 - 10:58:13 MST

>From: "Stirling Westrup" <>
>John Clark wrote:
> >If someone really thinks the world will be a better
> > place if they quote 150 lines from a message everybody just read 5
> > ago then they should have to type it all in manually. I'll bet it
> > take long before they found innovative ways to cut the preamble short
> > get to the point.
>In no time at all you would see replies to messages of the form:
>"I still don't agree.", "What? Explain." and similarly unhelpful and
>completely context-free posts. I've seen it happen.

A proposed common-sense rule: quote *just enough* of the post you're
replying to so that a reader who had not been following the thread could
figure out (1) the author of the original post and (2) the context and
meaning of your reply. For you code jockeys out there, just analogize it to
optimizing code. Throw out all the redundant or superfluous lines, and keep
*only* what is needed to make the app do what its supposed to do. This post
is a good example.

In other matters:

"Just tried a very cool new, FREE program - GuruNet! It lets you point at
any word, in any Windows program, and, if you're online, it brings you
instant info about that word. Check it out at"

That is the blurb GuruNet gives you to spread the word about their site.
Essentially it acts as an instant dictionary, thesaurus, biographical
dictionary and web search engine for any term you click on. I highly
recommend their service. I use it quite a bit and thought others on this
list might find it useful as well.

(And no, this is not an April fool's prank. It's *real* tech.)


"I like dreams of the future better than the history of the past"
--Thomas Jefferson

Get Your Private, Free Email at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:08:58 MDT