begin oe_protect.scr
Peter Hayes <not_in_use@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
> On Sat, 2 Sep 2006 14:35:20 +0100, Hadron Quark wrote
> (in article <87r6yuo0h3.fsf@xxxxxxxx>):
>
>> "[H]omer" <spam@xxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>>> Mark Kent wrote:
>>> <snip massive post>
>>>
>>> I like Roy's posts, but I don't read them all; the subject is usually
>>> enough for me to decide what is interesting.
>>>
>>> Conversely, a digest post requires that I read through the whole message
>>> to find topics of interest. This is time consuming, laborious, and not
>>> very helpful.
>>
>> Rubbish. A single digest is much easier to read. Or "digest". You can
>> also tag it for further perusal - much easier than tagging 300 articles.
>
> Why do you have to tag anything, are you still on dial-up?
>
Odd, isn't it? Anyway, I'm happy to add the "long" moniker, as Homer
suggests, to avoid offending anyone.
If Mr Quark prefers a digest, then I'm happy to wait until Roy's posted
his pieces, assemble the digest and post it - it's no great issue for
me.
Anyone else have any thoughts?
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
I hate babies. They're so human.
-- H.H. Munro
|
|
