Re: The Long or Short of it , was Re: Mercola...

[Guest guest]

> Message: 4

> Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 23:36:25 -0800

> From: Berg <bberg@...>

> Subject: Re: Mercola, was Re:Metabolic Typing was Detox Ideas

>

> Quoting Bruce Stordock <stordock@...>:

>

> >

> > > [MAP] Hello Ron, your posts are very interesting and I'm a firm (read:

> > > wild-eyed, militaristic) believer in LONGER IS BETTER

> >

> > Brevity..

> >

> > " Apologies for the length of this letter, if I only had more time, it

> > would have

> > been shorter " - Mark Twain

>

> There's an important point hidden beneath the superficial irony. The

optimal

> length of a non-literary text is " exactly as long as it needs to be, " and

it

> takes time, effort, and skill to achieve this. In some cases, more detailed

> may be better, and clearer is always better, but all else being equal,

> longer is always worse. Time is the dearest of nonrenewable resources, so

> giving your readers the information they want as quickly as you know how is

> a simple matter of courtesy.

>

> --

> Berg

I tend to be brief, but have gotten myself into hot water on occasion by not

giving enough detail, and having to explain my way out of the resultant

confusions/misunderstandings. This can take considerably more time than a

properly detailed explanation at the outset.

~~ Jocelyne