> "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

Wow. Thanks, Wolf.

I'd like to state my agreement with some of your subpoints, but given the main point of this post that would be singularly inappropriate. I'm not sure if *I* think I'm that good a writer, but I thank you sincerely for defending me so eloquently. :)

I don't think USENET debates or chatrooms are bad; I've participated in both. But it is true I come from a subculture that prizes thoroughness. (If you haven't guessed, Dickens is one of my favorite writers, I read a lot of nineteenth-century rhetoric, and I have a ton of friends and relatives who love to ramble whose company I live for. There's a quote from _The Sword and the Stone_ about that which I can't quite remember right now but was about how the Wart was fascinated by Merlyn's wandering schizophrenic mutterings and how he learned more from those than from the "simple explanations" of other adults, which is an appropriate quote given my given name.)

It's true I treasure a careful and complete style, but, as others have said, I am aware it's possible to be more brief without sacrificing that style, and that's what I'm working on.

Still, I'd like to thank Wolf for caring enough to coming to my aid. Thanks, Wolf. You're coolf. :)

Ar"surprised to find out he has fans; okay, one fan"thur