chris'n'vickie

[Julian.West@mac.dartmouth.edu]

Maybe I should take this outside, but enough people have
involved themselves with my flippant comment that.
Vickie posts a self-apology. I reply:

The main reason I don't read many c'n'v postings is that
you take a long time to say little. "I don't have the energy..."

>> I threw away, as a matter of ad hoc policy, all 
>> volumes of love-hounds of over 128K. 
> Are you able to see how big the files are then 
> trash them if they're too big? 

Sort of. My mailserver only opens the first 32K.
I used to forward longer digests to another machine.
Now I usually just throw away the tail. (It's rarely over 32K by much.)

My oxymoron, above, suggested that 128K had not been beaten often. 
Noone writes  _that_much_. I threw away a week of digests
because of the "eclectic music survey".

> I don't feel as if I should take responsibility for your
> pitching, because if my long post is first, then woj
> posts a one-line and puts the Digest over 128K, then it  > would be *his*
fault.

Better to apportion blame to  all posters in proportion 
to length. But it comes out in the wash: it's the longest
messages which are most likely cut off at 32K.

> It could be Neil or Jenn or IED or Ed or *anyone* ... 
> You put me in a strange position. Do I continue with my

An interesting catalogue of love-hounds luminaries!
But if you are adamant that anyone could be at fault,
why see _yourself_ as having been put in a distinguished position?

I leave it open,

Julian