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