 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in...
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: akenaton Date: 26 Sep 05 - 06:54 AM Shambles..I understand your position and your wish to make this forum a better ond more friendly environment. I dont agree with much of the negative post you recieve. I suppose we are both perceived as obsessive by many here, but I don't think for a minute that people can be bullied into changing their opinions. However the issues raised by the Iraq war, and the conduct of our politicians in the lead up to it should not be allowed to fade from memory, as often happens. I'm sure your long campaign over moderation of this forum has been for the same purpose. Perhaps our efforts are counter productive, but have we any option?...Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: John MacKenzie Date: 26 Sep 05 - 06:53 AM The thing is Roger that it is also true that your endless diatribes, and tilting at the windmill that is the Mudcat, also turns people off. You started a thread entitled 'Opening threads....A debate' but you constantly air the views expressed in that thread in any other thread where you can squeeze it in, and where you think the title, eg 'Cut and paster's creepin' back in' might just conceivably be aimed at you. So your complaint about irrelevant comments sort of falls into the 'Do as I say and not as I do' category. Giok |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: The Shambles Date: 26 Sep 05 - 05:55 AM The para should have read. I understand and regret the depth of that feeling. But surely in a practical sense only - the issue being discussed matters less than acceptance of the limitations set by our forum - where the different ideas on this issue are currently being discussed? All that was being said here is simply that no matter how important you may feel any issue is in reality - if you want a positive outcome from any discussion - you have to first accept that posting about and debating the issue on a forum set up for that purpose - is not the same thing as that reality. This does not make the reality of those issues any less vital. Other posters may be equally convinced that their view is correct and that yours is not worthy of respect. Accusations coming from both sides - of foul play over the writing style and criticisms of any other aspect of how others may post - is unlikely to inform our forum and only going to turn-off any uncomitted reader and result in the issue being buried. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: akenaton Date: 26 Sep 05 - 05:42 AM I dont agree McGrath.. Those with a right wing perspective in the media and politically, are currently pushing the line that the situation in Iraq is some dreadful accident which could not be foreseen. This requires us to suspend rational thought and either refuse to "cut and run",(which means squat there till our soldiers and who knows how many civilians are massacred), or conversely get out as quickly as possible and pretend it never happened. As Bobert says, the issues here are too important for us to allow the politicians and their supporters to brush the mess under the carpet and "move on", which I'm sure you know is New Labour speak for an attempted cover-up. Its the mantra of the blessed Tony As I said earlier the whole engineering of the war, how each setback in its progress has been spun and used by Blair to attack our rights, should be a watershed in how the public view the conduct of their political leaders The Iraq war has been a window into the minds of the scum who masquerade as democrats, and as such should never be forgotten or forgiven....Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: The Shambles Date: 26 Sep 05 - 05:33 AM Good job I didn't mention the dirty knife http://www.ibras.dk/montypython/episode03.htm#5 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 26 Sep 05 - 04:28 AM AMEN Giok. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: John MacKenzie Date: 26 Sep 05 - 03:58 AM I understand and regret the depth of that feeling. But surely in a practical sense only - the issue being discussed matters less than the limitations by our forum - where the different ideas on this issue are currently being discussed? I read this paragraph several times and as with a lot of your posts Roger I find it obscure. Are you saying that what Bobert is discussing is less important than what you're discussing? Are you saying that the 'Left v Right' political doctrines in the USA are less important than your personal crusade? Or Are you saying that people are not discussing your complaints about "the limitations on our forum". As you have done with the Mudcat quotations thread you have tried to push this thread onto your own agenda, when it has nothing to do with your personal paranoia. When you say "where the different ideas on this issue are currently being discussed?" surely you mean where we try to discuss them and where you ignore all questions on the subject but just keep repeating the same crap ad nauseam? Lastly Roger we are as entitled to an opinion as you, and are equally as free to express it, whether you agree with them or not is of no matter to the majority of the world, Mudcatters or otherwise. Giok [Yes folks I know I shouldn't feed him, but he's so arrogant in his self righteousness] |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: Bobert Date: 25 Sep 05 - 09:52 PM No, McG, it ain't no friggin' game fir me... You lopok and see that I have a bout one hour a day to come 'round Mudcat... Some days two, others none... I have marched in 3 major demonstrations against the Iraq invasion... Ain't no game to me, my vfriend... It's the real deal... I have written letters to my congressmen... I have written letters to newspapers... I have marched... I have stickersd on the back of my car preachin' peace... I'd put what I have done for peace up against anyone in this joint... My fight goes back to marchin; in civil right's demonstrations when I was a teenager... Yeah, it is a battle of ideas and I'd like to think that the battles that have been fought for justice and equality that brought about change we battles I've fought here in Mudville have not been fought in vain... You may think that they have been but, hey, if I thought that fir one minute I'd give up... But I don't think that... Martin Luther King told us we would have to battle every day... He told us that we'd win and few and loose more than we won but that we had to keep pushing forward... So, McG, while I respect you, I disagree that it isn't about winning anf loosing... It's all about winning... It's about out'framing the well-finaced reactionaries... That is the only way that we have made progress... If we hadn't done it back in the 1850's an atmosphere that slavery was wrong would have never come into vougue... If we hadn't done it in the 60's, black folks would still have to pay to vote (poll taxes)... Yeah, 100% of human progress can be traced to progressives "winning" the battle... Now folks may not like it put that palin... But that's what it is and that is why I batlle it out here in Mudville... Hey, if I can out-frame a Bushite then I've perghaps changed one person's view of thwe world... We can only fight but so many battles and this joint is just another one... If this rathersimplistic approach makes some of my fellow so-called progressive Catters uncomfy, then tough! Get over it... It is a battle of ideas and we are on the correct (and Godly) side of the war so, I'll keep on fightin'... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 25 Sep 05 - 07:54 PM I think Bobert has it completely the wrong way round here. An argument that centres round ideas like "winning" or "losing" just means treating it all just as a game. And for some issues, they matter too much to be treated as a game. If we think that on some serious issue our view is the right one, that means we want to convince other people, and that means refusing to get into win and lose battles, even when it's tempting. People don't change their opinion because they "lose" an argument, or see someone else "losing" - they do it because the facts and argument as presented have the effect of making them see things differently. Rather than picking on the weak points of the other side, and dodging past the difficult questions raised by an adversary, we should do it the other way round. That is how to encourage people to recognise that the position we are arguing for has genuine merit. Leave the debating tricks, and play battles and that stuff for the issues that don't matter. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: The Shambles Date: 25 Sep 05 - 05:38 PM I dont think some of those ideas deserve respect...Ake I understand and regret the depth of that feeling. But surely in a practical sense only - the issue being discussed matters less than the limitations by our forum - where the different ideas on this issue are currently being discussed? While we can still make the effort to try respect our different views - reasoned discussion and debate may just prevent us from engaging in the actual physical combat. For this tends to be the inevitable result when us humans reach a stage where talking to our fellow humans becomes impossible. Or in this case when talking about war - threatens to becomes a form of war. And as in any form of war - everyone loses. One of the advantages of discussion here - unlike when you may be face to face with those whose views you cannot respect (and where they may not respect your views either) - is that you can take the time to think and cool-off before making any response. That should help result in holding reasoned debate..... One of the disadvantages of our relative anonymity - is that there is a temptation to say things - and say them in such a way - that we probably would not do if we were face to face. Using copy and paste is just another tool now available to us on the internet. I think it is better to accept it as a tool rather than see its use as just another way of passing pedantic judgement on each other's posts. Is our true test - the way we treat views we may consider don't deserve our respect? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: John Hardly Date: 25 Sep 05 - 02:51 PM um.....ake, I'm not pro war. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: akenaton Date: 25 Sep 05 - 02:50 PM I like your post shambles, but we are not discussing the origins of folk music on this thread, but ideas that can mean life or death to innocent people. I dont think some of those ideas deserve respect...Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: The Shambles Date: 25 Sep 05 - 02:34 PM Yeah, Shambles, it's a lot about winnin' or loosin' battles... Battles don't have to be physical... Many of us battline mightilly in the lead up to the Bush invasion of Iraq to frame the issues differently than the Bush war PR machine waas doing... We lost the battle though, as time has shown we were a lot more correct in out thinking that Bush and his gang was with theirs... It what way was anything really lost - on our forum when all that can be posted here are our views. The ammount of postings - one way or the other - is no real indicator of how the majority of our forum's readers may see things. It is also unlikely that any point of view expressed here or evidenced by some supporting information will result in a change of view of anyone who has a set position. It may well be possible - with a well-made argument - to influence others who do not have a set position. Unless they post and say so - it is unlikely that you would know. But no issue is going to be won or lost here - so there should be no fear that any form posting is going to unfairly influence any final result - as there will never be one. If each side show equal respect to each other's views - even when violently disagreeing with them - our forum should be better informed as a result of such a reasoned debate. If these can steer away from the temptation of posts that only make personal judgements of aspects of postings and posters that we may not agree with - everyone on our forum should be the winners. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: akenaton Date: 25 Sep 05 - 02:33 PM Would John Hardly have been so consensual had the Iraq War turned out well for the invaders....I think not. The reason the right are presently attempting to portray themselves as "soft and cuddly" is that their arguments have been denuded by events. They are in a no win situation, and their stance is damage limitation. Bobert is correct They were wrong ,wrong, wrong and they should not be allowed to foget the crimes of the administrations they support. The Iraq War was probably the worst ,and certainly the most cynical political crime perpetrated in my lifetime. "Drawing a line under it and moving on" as the right would like, would be a betrayal of the innocents whos deaths number in the tens of thousands and would be a dreadful precident for the future. The lead up to and prosecution of this war has demonstrated the difference in thought process between left and right. Dont let them forget it!!....Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: Stilly River Sage Date: 25 Sep 05 - 02:11 PM There's long, and then there's l-o-n-g, but I find that if I want to read the content of a large paragraph I simply make the browser window narrow so I'm reading shorter lines from side to side. That makes the text approachable. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: John Hardly Date: 25 Sep 05 - 11:45 AM I always do the paragraph thingy too. I noticed early on, the tedium of unbroken type -- long posts -- on a forum. I learned early on that more breaks, whether grammatically necessary or not, worked toward better communication. I will rarely read a screen-long paragraph -- it's too hard on the eyes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: Stilly River Sage Date: 25 Sep 05 - 11:37 AM Bobert, The big problem I have with these citations people cut and paste OR link to is that many of them are shoddy, pastiches of opinion based on misrepresented or misunderstood data. People who enter perfectly good discussions and start flinging around this nonsense do it to derail a discussion that is going against their points of view. Another problem is that many of them don't seem to understand how to evaluate such sources and know which to use and which to skip over. If I'm searching on a subject I want to send a link to, I never send links to blogs. Those are for the most part the non-regulated hyperventilated undifferentiated slop of the masses. Only if I can track down an individual through their various masks and links to a solid base to be sure that they are actually a thinking person, do I then bother with what I find in their blog. As you said, any blogger can make any claim they want, offer bogus backup, or no backup, and some fool is going to come along and believe it because they saw it in print on the Internet. Like used to happen in the last couple of generations--if it was on TV it must be true. In a world where not only is it easier to reach a wider audience than television ever did, and where you can do it absolutely for no expense to yourself, readers have to develop a pretty powerful filter to wade through all of it. Normally, the last three paragraphs I posted here would be in one paragraph, with the topic sentence now appearing as the first paragraph. I went back to break it up by way of demonstration. I wanted to illustrate another problem with writing on the Internet--this deplorable habit of breaking down an article so every sentence is its own paragraph. Grammatically it stinks and makes it harder to figure out when the writer has resolved the first topic and is moving on. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: John Hardly Date: 25 Sep 05 - 11:07 AM Bobert, I would assume that you won't simply take my word for it, but relative to either side's use of such "tactics" to "frame an arguement" I, and many others of us from the right side of things, feel exactly about the "progressive's" tactics as you do about the right's. Exactly. When you say: "Hey, the progressives know when they have been "out-framed" on an issue, even when we know in our hearts that we hold the correct position but we regroup and try another way to make our point... Alot of Bushites here don't... They just hit the blue clicky thing that really has nuthin' to do with the discussion.. It is diversionary..." ...that's exactly how I feel -- just the game uniforms are reversed. Oh, and I don't use a word that corresponds to "bushite" to refer to "progressives". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: Bobert Date: 25 Sep 05 - 09:35 AM Yeah, Shambles, it's a lot about winnin' or loosin' battles... Battles don't have to be physical... Many of us battline mightilly in the lead up to the Bush invasion of Iraq to frame the issues differently than the Bush war PR machine waas doing... We lost the battle though, as time has shown we were a lot more correct in out thinking that Bush and his gang was with theirs... Eveyday, those of us on the progrssive side have to battle the current framing of lies and half-truths by the Bush folks... Yeah, it is a fight and there are winners and loosers but a fight none the less... Most of the time when the progressive side loses the battle people suffer more than if we had won battle... I guess that what makes us progeressives... We fight for the betterment of mankind and the other side fights for power and greed and, yeah, make no bones about it, it is a fight... Martin Luther King was the fighter of our generation and from his many battles, won or lost, mankind is better off from his many battles... Peace and justice don't just happen... And, John, I wasn't lamently any inability to win... Reread the end of my post above whwere I made the analogy of using cropped up anonomus statistics... This is cowardly... It's lazy and, all it does, is protect the posters little ego... Hey, the progressives know when they have been "out-framed" on an issue, even when we know in our hearts that we hold the correct position but we regroup and try another way to make our point... Alot of Bushites here don't... They just hit the blue clicky thing that really has nuthin' to do with the discussion.. It is diversionary... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: John Hardly Date: 25 Sep 05 - 07:30 AM MofH, That's not a bad way of dealing with a slow dial-up. I may try that. (now I see why I sometimes see posts appearing in the wrong thread! *BG*). Bobert, What Shambles said. It is interesting -- the reason that mudcat has become so contentious, so unfriendly, is that perhaps too many of us think we can "win". And, as I said, I would prefer that we all understood the naure of most of our posts -- opinion. In fact, most often, even when "sources" are cited (whether by C&P or by link) the sources are opinion as well. The proof of that assertion is either side's unwillingness to accept the other's sources as "fact" (the left dismisses Fox News totally and the right equally questions, for example, the Washington Post). But this is the second post in a week's time where you, Bobert, are lamenting your inability to "win". Earlier you were desperately seeking your anonymous poster from Texas to come to your rescue. Now you're wishing that your opponent's wouldn't cite outside sources. hmmm. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: The Shambles Date: 25 Sep 05 - 05:37 AM I thought this was "discussion" forum... I have never send in a 2nd or a serrogate... Hey, win, loose or draw, what you see is what you get... I fight my own battles, crappy typin' an' all and I don't appreciate anyone who ahs taken shots at me to send someone else in in the 15th round... Has any discussion on our forum really got anything to do with concepts like battles and winning or losing? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 24 Sep 05 - 09:31 PM Having a dial-up connection is slower all round - but it needn't really slow you up having to click through to another site rather than read a cut and paste, John. All you need do is open up a couple of threads at the same time in separate widows or tabs, and if there's a delay with a blue clicky, you switch to the other thread and read or post there, while that link is opening up on the first thread. It sounds fiddly doing it that way, but after a few minutes it becomes second nature. Just think of the great stuff you might be mssing if you just stick to reading or skipping the cut and pastes, and ignore the blue clickies. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: Bobert Date: 24 Sep 05 - 09:03 PM John, Let me explain it in yet different terms... What made me start this thread in the first place was my frustration in debating a point with one other Mudcatter, who deabted until he or she also got frustrated bnecause I had made points that they could not or would not respond to so instead of responding to my repeated questions/challenges, he or she instead posted a amonomously written "War 'n Peace" length cta'n'paste written obviously by some right-wing think tank fianced by millions of dollars by other right winged people... This would be kinda like being Mohammed Ali going into the 15th round against Joe Frazier in "the Trilla and Manilla" only to find that Joe had turned the dirty work over to a fresh fighter with fresh legs... There is no longer any chance that I can prevail... Hey, I've probed, and I've worked hard and the other Mayudcatter, when the going got tough, merely took the coward's way out with an endless Cut'n Post of endless and mostly meaningless satistics... I thought this was "discussion" forum... I have never send in a 2nd or a serrogate... Hey, win, loose or draw, what you see is what you get... I fight my own battles, crappy typin' an' all and I don't appreciate anyone who ahs taken shots at me to send someone else in in the 15th round... That, as far as I am concerned, is cowardly.... And chickensh*t... An' other foul stuff As far as I'm concerned, I like to see Joe Offer start erasin' any cut a' post that doesn't have authorship... They are all chickesh*t irregardless of their slant... No one is held accountable for sources... Hey, I could get me a blog and say that: 67% of Bushite's are closet homosexuals. 39% of Buishites beat theior spouses... 92% of Bushites cheat on ther taxes... etc, etc... Now, if I were to go on for about 4 pages of this stuff and but it on a blog and in some other site where some progressive was in the corner and hee decided to just post this 4 page anonomously written crap, hey, the Bushite would be reral staemed... That's what I'm tryin' to point out here... That's waht I was tryin' to point out orginally... Maybe I should have gone thru these examples fir folks to see just how stupid the "cut 'n paste" defense is but I thought it was apparent... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 24 Sep 05 - 06:43 PM With old cars it works the other way round... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: John MacKenzie Date: 24 Sep 05 - 01:32 PM Only after you buy a new car do you notice how many others of the same make there are on the road! G.. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: Don Firth Date: 24 Sep 05 - 01:17 PM ". . . it appears to be people inventing new ways to say the same antagonistic shit over and over." Funny part about that, Jeri, is that, whether Right or Left, each persuasion thinks it's only the other side that does this. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: Bill D Date: 24 Sep 05 - 12:58 PM perhaps a temporary shift to 'mayhap' would enliven the debate, maybe. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: The Shambles Date: 24 Sep 05 - 12:47 PM Perhaps? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: Bill D Date: 24 Sep 05 - 12:40 PM I only know one person who 'sees' them as so keen, but I sure do see lots of bandwidth devoted to that 'situation'.........and here I am adding to it. Shame on me..(for all the good it does.) It only takes one Chicken Little to suggest "the sky is falling", but it can cause a lot of running and squaking in reaction. The sky, last time I looked, was still there. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: The Shambles Date: 24 Sep 05 - 07:14 AM If anyone knows of a site where people are more interested in common ground than what divisions exist and what wedges can be hammered in to widen them, please let me know. It used to be like that here, but it ain't no mo. Perhaps some positive moves now - toward reducing the more obvious causes of division among posters and toward everyone posting again on equal terms on our forum - may help? Can you think of any situation more likely to foster division on our forum that having volunteer fellow posters (some of them anonymous) being seen to be so keen to impose their personal judgement upon their fellow posters? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: Rapparee Date: 23 Sep 05 - 09:39 PM Jeri, I posted some facts (real facts, from supposedly neutral governmental agencies like the Census) the other day. I was taken to task (via PMs) by both the right and the left (which, of course, made me realize that I'd done a good job). Facts, as facts, are no longer wanted. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: John Hardly Date: 23 Sep 05 - 09:09 PM I could hardly agree with you more, Jeri. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: Jeri Date: 23 Sep 05 - 08:51 PM John, it's not the odd copy/paste that's the problem. The reason the limitations started was because we had one person who virtually bombed the place with pages of stuff and little or no comment of her own. Left, not right, by the way. Mudcat is supposed to be a discussion forum, I believe, not a site for regurgitation of everything a person sees as interesting. I'm afraid I don't read most of the political crap here these days since it appears to be people inventing new ways to say the same antagonistic shit over and over. Not that there's anything wrong with that. My brain just doesn't handle repetition well, especially when it's the same folks at the same other folks' throats. People finding new ways to hate other people and prove they're wrong. If anyone knows of a site where people are more interested in common ground than what divisions exist and what wedges can be hammered in to widen them, please let me know. It used to be like that here, but it ain't no mo. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: Bill D Date: 23 Sep 05 - 08:41 PM in answer to SRS & Shambles... Chevrolet Coupé |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: Stilly River Sage Date: 23 Sep 05 - 08:00 PM Have you already forgotten Ms. K. Anderberg, John? If it looks like a link won't work after a while then sometimes I try to find the same story in a more durable location. If not, and if it seems important enough, I'll paste the entire article. I try to remember to paste the link and the article in case the article gets lopped by a clone. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: John Hardly Date: 23 Sep 05 - 07:50 PM ah, maybe you're right. I dunno. I happen to be in the minority who'd prolly prefer to have the cut-and-paste instead of a link. I'd just as soon read other's thoughts and well-reasoned opinions, but in the absence of that, a link is moida on my dial-up connection. And, though I used to trust most links done here, I no longer do as one led to a site chock full of pop-ups and spyware on top of having been a quite disgusting hard-core porn site. A well-edited cut-and-paste and a word about whence it came is, to my thinking, polite, and a superior way of doing it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 23 Sep 05 - 07:13 PM "The only time cut and paste is complained about is when someone from what is percieved as the "political right" post things that make most mudcatters uncomfortable." That may be the only time you notice it happening, John, but it's not actually true. In fac there was a sopecifuic referance earlier on the thread to a recent visitor, with decidedly non-right-wing views, who got up people's noses by doing length cut-and-pastes. Any overlengthy cut-and-paste, more especially when it isn't credited, is liable to draw complaints, including from peopel who might actually share the general views being expressed by the cut-and-paster. Basically, most times, that kind of thing is just bad manners. And silly as well. A link with an explanation and a quote to act as a teaser is much more likely to get read with interest rather than skimmed and skipped in irritation. In addition the pieces involved are generally a lot easier to read in their original format. Plus that way peopole can get introduced to interesting new sources of information and opinion, which might even shift their perceptions, which is surely what the cut-and-paster would be hoping for. About the only exception to this is when, for some reason, it is not possible to make a link, maybe because the site it is taken from is only accessible to paying customers, or because it is likely the original site won't archive the piece. (In both these cases the better way would be for the person posting to stick the piece on their own website, and provide a link to that.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: GUEST,One of the JoeClones Date: 23 Sep 05 - 06:29 PM I'd be happy to delete some of those lengthy articles and replace them with links. It's usually easy enough to find where they were copied from. Trouble is, I seldom read BS threads about controversial issues any more, so I don't see them. Tell ya what: Post links here to threads that have long articles in them, and I'll see what I can do. The thread number would be sufficient. I don't guarantee that I won't get bored after a while, though. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: The Shambles Date: 23 Sep 05 - 05:44 PM Peut-être ? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: Stilly River Sage Date: 23 Sep 05 - 05:04 PM It sounds pretty good in French also:
Ne conviendriez-vous pas ? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: The Shambles Date: 23 Sep 05 - 03:52 PM Perhaps whatever system we may be educated in - it is possible for some of us to totally waste a really good education and only use it to mock others who may be trying to make the most of a really poor education? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: The Shambles Date: 23 Sep 05 - 02:47 PM Perhaps? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: pdq Date: 23 Sep 05 - 01:50 PM If nothing else, Shambles posts show the superiority of the English school system(s) over the American one, which is, at best, an over-priced babysitting service, and at worst, a series of training camps for street gang thugs. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: gnomad Date: 23 Sep 05 - 01:22 PM They say one example is worth a lot of description, so... A text of inapropriate length for cut & paste |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: beardedbruce Date: 23 Sep 05 - 01:10 PM damn, that's good BillD! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: Bill D Date: 23 Sep 05 - 12:46 PM (oh..please pardon the typo...perhaps some volunteer could fix that for me?) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: Bill D Date: 23 Sep 05 - 12:42 PM But Shambles...don't you realize that posting reasoned responses to your recapitulative exhortations requires us not only to consider the contextual parameters of the indicated isssue, but also to analyze the temporal framework of the argument so as not to introduce irrelevant personal judgements which have already been judged by the majority of the respondents to not focus on the current situational aspects of all the NON-judgemental impositions which may have been earlier, or at least in different threads, already rendered valueless in the minds of those whose concerns regress to the former devalued impositions of judgement by not only anonymous volunteers, but also, rightfully, by other members (who, posting under their own names, might also BE one of the judgemental volunteers) who decide not to enter the debate without knowing whether the subject at hand has, in fact, been imposed, whether in the thread title or merely during non-judgemental editing which I am led to understand that you also disapprove of in most cases where previous permission has not been sought(from the original poster (or originator of the thread) prior to the perviously mentioned discussion, which, by virtue of its temporal priority, ought to supercede ANY subsequent discussion of judgements, whether anonymously imposed or merely parenthetically referred to , either by you, as 'chief inquisitor' of the investigation, or by newer members of the forum, many of whom have not had the experience of BEING improperly edited or their words censored, and thus who might, perhaps, be reluctant to join the majority whose previous experience has been inevitably affected by repetitious reduncancy relating to the incessant verbosity inundating the very foundations of the entire issues of whether, in consideration of the best interests of our forum, the anonymity of the volunteers (most of whom did not actually volunteer, but were, I am given to understand, recruited,)should be compromised due to the unmitigated Gall of one dissatisfied member who evidently has little other hobbies than to compose interminable and self-referential posts which intrinsically relate to one individual concept of discussion and the overriding value system thought to be, by our moderators, not essential to the more central core of the entire point of having an open forum where dissimilar viewpoints could BE discussed without being left vulnerable to extraneous digressions about imposition of personal taste by those who have no interest in the inveterate balderdash which usually accompanies such digressions and causes many entirely incomprehensible paragraphs to be perpetrated on an umwilling readership anyway? Wouldn't you agree? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: Rapparee Date: 23 Sep 05 - 12:41 PM Aw, I wanna copy and paste my theory that Rush Limbaugh and John Kerry are the same person.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: Ebbie Date: 23 Sep 05 - 12:08 PM What Bill D said. I think. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: Joe Offer Date: 23 Sep 05 - 12:06 PM Maybe it's only the right-wing copy-pastes that get complained about, John. Almost all of the over-length copy-pastes that get deleted are left-wing ones. In general, the complaint is not about the ideas themselves - it's about the poster's failure to express his own opinion in his own words. When you post one copy-paste after another of stuff that's already available elsewhere on the Internet, that's obnoxious. If you copy-paste every once in a while to illustrate your point, that's not a bad idea. If you copy-paste music information, that's usually a very good idea. -Joe Offer- |
