How about some snipping?

Dear Tuning List Kids,

The last digest for the list came through at 54k, and it was about 50%
untrimmed replies! You know, where you reply to a message and you don't
bother to cut out all of the previous posting, so we see it over and over
again?

Ladies and gentlemen, it is quite simple to trim your replies. Anyone who
can understand microtonality, or understands the net well enough to find
the 'tuning list', subscribe and start posting -- anyone in these
categories is smart enough to cut the cruft.

In the spirit of valuing other's time as much as you value yours.

Said with warmth and love and frustration,
Surrogate List-Mom

> [Jon Szanto, TD 320.2]
>
> The last digest for the list came through at 54k, and it was
> about 50% untrimmed replies! You know, where you reply to a
> message and you don't bother to cut out all of the previous
> posting, so we see it over and over again?

Hey, Jon, thanks for reiterating something I've bitched about
in the past. It only takes a few seconds to trim the posts
one is quoting, and to add reference as to Digest number or
date so that the original can be found.

-monz

Joseph L. Monzo Philadelphia monz@juno.com
http://www.ixpres.com/interval/monzo/homepage.html
|"...I had broken thru the lattice barrier..."|
| - Erv Wilson |
--------------------------------------------------

___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.

> Ladies and gentlemen, it is quite simple to trim your replies. Anyone who
> can understand microtonality, or understands the net well enough to find
> the 'tuning list', subscribe and start posting -- anyone in these
> categories is smart enough to cut the cruft.
>
> In the spirit of valuing other's time as much as you value yours.
>
> Said with warmth and love and frustration,
> Surrogate List-Mom
>
Speaking of snipping...
Receiving this list as individual e-mails instead of the digest form
permits the sorting of messages according to subject. (Microsoft Outlook can be
set to sort messages into alphabetical order, then into chronological order
within each subject.) This makes following a thread very easy as all related
posts appear together in the order they were posted. The system lets us down
however because computers are thick as silicon and cannot even notice the
obvious connections within the following two threads:
Re: Re: [tuning] Partch in SF
Re: [tuning] Partch in SF,
and
AW.: Re: [tuning] Re: Role of quarter tones in Arabic Music
Re: AW.: Re: [tuning] Re: Role of quarter tones in Arabic Music
Re: [tuning] Re: Role of quarter tones in Arabic Music.
Consequently these posts get scattered throughout our inboxes instead
of appearing in order.

Let us rally together to assist our common-sense-impaired silicon
servants by snipping off the excess Re:s from the subject field of our replies
to replies, and just leave one Re: at the front.

DARREN McDOUGALL