Brevity and paragraghical subdivisions in message traffic.

[zweifel@nexus.chapman.edu]

Posting from Don Zweifel <zweifel@nexus.chapman.edu>
Subject: Brevity and paragraghical subdivisions in message traffic.

 Perhaps we're out of bounds in asking this, but it would really 
be much more expeditious for most everyone if we would attempt to limit 
our paragraghs to something much more manageable. 

 One could propose three, or possibly four sentences. If you're 
asking why please consider the following premises.

 Most of us will readily concur that the VDT or video data 
terminal is not as easy to read as the printed word. And when paragraghs 
are all jumbled together it makes for a quite a tedious read. Separating
our particular points by spacing gives the reader a momentary opportunity 
to digest what the writer intended us to comprehend.

 Wouldn't you agree that it provides our minds with a 
brief respite? 

 Many of us will just delete ostensibly endless message transmissions 
because they're too long and thus difficult to wade through. What a loss 
this is for those of us who have taken the time and energy to create or
even paraphrase a particular piece. 

 There may be another factor that also necessitates consideration.
And that revolves around having the ability to take a particularly 
technical subject and transforming it into something easily discernable 
and digestable. This is what Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) alludes to as genius.
He stated that, "The ability to take the complicated and turn it into the 
easily understandable is the mark of true genius."

 Perhaps the former Utah supreme court justice is on the right track.
What do you think? Aren't we sick and tired of trying to decipher 
unabridged message traffic? Couldn't we all promulgate abbreviated 
conceptualizations of what is thrown out at us every day rather than 
repeating word for word as if by rote?

 Or are nothing but automatons?

 Don Zweifel