Dear all, I would like to make a few comments (which I expect will be my last) with regards to the recent discussions about the purpose of vsnet-chat, and posting attachments. Firstly, and most importantly I implore Bruce Sumner to reconsider his assertion that he will no longer post charts to vsnet ' <at all> '. I think the community of visual observers are well served by contributions such as his, and the posting of Sumner's charts to vsnet-charts is an important contribution worthy of continuance. I think there has been something of a watershed, in terms of a clear delineation between those who prefer direct and specific postings, and those who feel that posting in all directions for 'maximum coverage' is a good way to work. However I would suggest that the practice of 'maximum coverage' type postings is behaviour which we know is one of the causes of people complaining about internet speed. It is bad maths to imagine that many small postings have no effect on bandwidth. While the vsnet postings are a molecule in a drop in the ocean, when compared with daily internet traffic, the attitudes typified recently are strikingly similar to the attitude one encounters, for example, when discussing light pollution issues with a flux spilling neghbour, i.e. 'yeah, so what if I _do_ point my lights low, look at all the other lights around, it's a drop in the ocean..'. I doubt we are nearing some kind of 'bandwidth apocalypse', but it is very disheartening for me to see careless and indiscriminate use of resources by scientists, amateur or otherwise. One would hope that the mental processes involved in learning careful experimental method, necessary for determining subtle variations in starlight intensities, would gradually infuse into the daily lives of its practitioners. I remain confident that generally, this is the case. Cheers Paul Warhurst