The length issue is of some interest to me.  Does regular line text actually consume that much bandwidth?  This is one reason I will give links to photos for example, rather than trying to insert the photo into the post...because I know that graphics and photos do consume more bandwidth and memory.

On the other hand, I love TOD because it is not a "sound bite" site.  The comments boards after news stories on Yahoo and others seem to bring out the screamers who have one sentence of sarcasm, but no real discussion.  That is one reason I came to TOD, because the depth of commentary is deeper and more involved, which of course, takes a few more lines of writing (and a bit more effort of thought!)

I just posted a long post on the "Declaration of Independence" story for example.  There were only 12 posts when I got there, and the story had been up for 12 hours, so I didn't feel that I would "use up" the bandwidth by going a bit long.....and it is all line text, no photos or graphics.  The other issue is that if I post twelve different times at a paragraph each, I am using as much space as one 12 paragraph post, am I not?

This all brings back what is for me a growing sense of disappointment in the internet as a tool for exchange of information and discussion.  Only a few years ago, we were promised an age in which graphics, still and motion pictures, music, and voice discussion would soon be available to all.  Instead, we are finding that an old fashioned letter by mail is much more efficient for communication, and that "bandwidth" is becoming a jealously protected commodity.  The internet, like radio and television before it, is becoming nothing more than a giant bilboard for folks peddling junk (I can't help but notice that the sponsers and advertisers always seem to have bandwidth to put up flashing moving graphics on every site :-(
Television was once called "a vast wasteland".  The internet improves on that, by being a "vast interactive wasteland".

Roger Conner  known to you as ThatsItImout