Bernd,

>Nice thoughts, but I think the biggest problem of this list is the
>unneccessary inclusion of text from previous postings.   Take your
>message (sorry, Bill) as an example:  New contents: 36 lines. Total
>length: 98 lines.
>
>[...deleted...]
>
>I agree.
>Just my $0.02,
>Bernd

Point taken.  This is a "working style" difference for those who use digest
and those who don't.  If you don't use digest, it's far more convenient to
see the entire included message and all the predecessors directly below the
new entry.  This is particularly true for those of us who may be absent for
the list for a week at a time and then come back in the middle of a
conversation.

If you use digest, having all of the included message is a real pain.  On
the other hand, I found myself going back a day or two in the digest to find
references when they weren't complete in the new posting, but that's a
discipline issue for the responder.

I understand both arguments because I've used both methods, direct and
digest.  We've had the discussion here before, too.  I think the non-digest
votes won last time.  That was when I was using digest. :(

I've found that using Word with Outlook is great for this list because it
changes all the previously included message to a different color than the
new text.  Now that I'm not using digest, I don't mind either having the
entire message included or having the references inserted in the text.  The
two things that are important, however, is that the references be complete
and/or the included message is at the end.

But that's just my opinion.  I could be wrong.

Bill