> you stated that you hoped people would take the time to read and respond to your posts so that is why I offer up a suggestion. Not every post needs to be a thesis. Respond to what is asked and use a minimal amount of examples and evidence to support it. Just enough to do the job. Too much makes it seem like you are throwing up a smokescreen to mask a weak argument.
>

"Keep it short and simple" is a general rule of thumb for enhanced communication, true. It might be even more true if the all the people in this Forum had only thirty-second attention spans, which I don't think accurately represents our demographic. If this were a USENET debate, everything would be chopped into bite-sized, easy to digest pieces -- with no sense of continuity, and no lasting points.

I haven't found Arthur's writing uselessly redundant; in fact, the exact opposite. He manages to say exactly what he intends and he says it clearly. The posts might be wordy by our "normal" standards, but then again we have seen verbosity frequently -- just look at the "Adventures with..." posts. As a scientist, I'm a tad dismayed that Ferrick suggests "use the minimum examples and evidence to make your point." I mean, Yes, he's correct if this were purely some sort of debate where points are scored if Arthur expounds and refutes the maximum number of arguments in minimum time. But at the end of the day, the things that are going to stick with me are the examples and any solid *evidence.* Anyone can state any kind of opinion; but without a good foundation of logical support, it's not even worth remembering.

I just wanted to respond to the insistence that Arthur write at the lowest common denominator of reading tolerance. It may be true that his posts read more like a thesis, and that this might dissuade people who'd normally nitpick on a short point of disagreement. It would seem that, with the invention of the typewriter, and with the formulation of business letter etiquette -- not to neglect the overwhelming influence of real-time chatrooms, heh -- the art of writing a measured discourse, such as his, has seriously declined. I'd put it in the category of "a dying art." :-)

I do feel that people who are genuinely interested in the issues in this thread -- concerning the sanctity of life, and our role to play in it -- will be more interested in how openly Arthur's points are conveyed rather than in whether his posts are "too long."

Wolf "and that's a longer post, for me" spirit