Lots of interesting things here. One of them: > If the telegram is packed full of unnecessary words, ... the sender has been guilty of economic waste. ... He

Lots of interesting things here. One of them: > If the telegram is packed full of unnecessary words, ... the sender has been guilty of economic waste. ... He added to the volume of traffic .... And yet: > But when you think of telegraphing someone to "reply at once," you may very well save the cost of an unnecessary word and write it, "reply immediately," .... So, in order to reduce traffic volume, we are counseled to replace 6 letters and a very brief pause with 11 letters. I think the writer had trouble distinguishing between trying not to overburden the telegraph system vs. hacking its cost structure. Also, here is the first sentence I quoted above, in full (emphasis is mine): > If the telegram is packed full of unnecessary words, words which might be omitted without impairing the sense of the message, the sender has been guilty of economic waste. The phrase that I have italicized is completely unnecessary. Of course, the writer was not composing a telegram. Still, I think this is just a bit ironic.