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