Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site tilt.FUN
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbdkc1!desoto!packard!hoxna!houxm!mhuxj!mhuxm!mhuxn!mhuxb!mhuxr!ulysses!allegra!princeton!tilt!chenr
From: chenr@tilt.FUN (Ray Chen)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory,net.flame
Subject: Summarizing
Message-ID: <234@tilt.FUN>
Date: Sat, 9-Feb-85 18:16:23 EST
Article-I.D.: tilt.234
Posted: Sat Feb  9 18:16:23 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 10-Feb-85 06:33:23 EST
Organization: Princeton University EECS Dept
Lines: 18
Xref: watmath net.politics.theory:54 net.flame:8280

On reading net.politics.theory, I notice that over 50% of the average article
is usually included text.  I thought that net.politics.theory implied
that people who read and post to this group should have a smattering
of the intellect necessary to both understand and debate political theory
in a rational manner.  If this is indeed the case, then could you bozos
out there do a better job of summarizing?  I, for one, am getting tired
of wading through 60 lines of included crap just to see the one line
"Some people don't recognize sarcasm when they read it."

Summarizing shouldn't be that hard.  Paragraphs are generally reducible
to a single idea (called the thesis, guys).  And if you can't do a decent
job of compressing somebody's article then what the hell are you doing
replying to it anyway?  Unless every single line contains an essential
idea, all you're proving is that you don't really understand what it is
you're replying to.

	Ray Chen
	princeton!tilt!chenr