 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in...
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: Bobert Date: 22 Sep 05 - 09:25 PM Well, well, well... I hate to bring it up again but fir those of you who think you are being clever with yer "War 'n Peace" lenght cut-n-paste responses, all you are doiong is seriously weakenin' yer danged arguments... ... and wasting bandwidth!!! If you can't make yer arguemnts without draggin' other folks blogs in word fir worfir word fir word than you ain't thinkin' 'bout nuthin'... Hey, if you wanta read somethin' and come in and argue based on what you have read, fine, but at least make an attempt to be arguin' yer points as, ahhhhh, ***you***... Tell ya what, most folks ain't gonna read no "War 'n Peace" length rebuttal that you ain't even written... Plus, after you been through a couple of them, they are boring and not at all objective... MO... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: Rapparee Date: 22 Sep 05 - 09:32 PM Dang, Bobert, and here I was gonna paste in the US budget. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: Sorcha Date: 22 Sep 05 - 09:35 PM LOL! Rap! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: Bobert Date: 22 Sep 05 - 09:35 PM Glad I got to ya before you did, Rap... B;) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: number 6 Date: 22 Sep 05 - 09:38 PM I'm with ya on that one Bobert! sIx |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: Donuel Date: 22 Sep 05 - 09:44 PM Bandwidth be damned, but any decent propogandist knows that 99.8% of readers turn off if they have to scroll more than once. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: Bill D Date: 22 Sep 05 - 09:45 PM the semi-'official' limit is one screen....and I too have been getting tired of folks 'arguing' by swooooping up 20 column inches of someone else's writing of data and whamming it down in here! If you can't be bothered to summarize, sort and provide links to your source, don't be surprised if you find stuff suddenly edited....I KNOW that politics and hurricanes and religion require a lot of talk, but MAKE A LINK...we'll read it if we are seriously interested. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: John Hardly Date: 22 Sep 05 - 09:46 PM transparent. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: Jerry Rasmussen Date: 22 Sep 05 - 09:54 PM They did an experiment once, trying to find the maximu number of words that people would read on a Museum label. It turned out to be less that 75. They tested this by saying in the text, after 75 words, "If you've read this far, please stop in the office for a free gift." The gifts went a'molderin'. When I scroll down a long "cut and paste," I rarely even bother to read it. Maybe we should though, Bobert.. maybe they all say at the end of the seemingly endless text, "If you've read this far, please PM me for a free gift." It would have to at least be a new Taylor guitar for me to do it, or it wouldn't be worth the energy. If I want to read a book or a newspaper, I wouldn't be here in the Cat.. Jerry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: number 6 Date: 22 Sep 05 - 10:03 PM Taylor guitars ... very nice axes they are Jerry. sIx |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: John O'L Date: 22 Sep 05 - 10:05 PM A blue clicky is worth a thousand words. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: number 6 Date: 22 Sep 05 - 10:08 PM But the blue clicky (most likely) points to a thousand words John O ... and who really wants to sit at some forum and read a thousand words ... If I did, I'd buy the book and sit in my easy chair and have an insightful read. sIx |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: Bee-dubya-ell Date: 22 Sep 05 - 10:12 PM Cut. Paste. Creep. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: number 6 Date: 22 Sep 05 - 10:13 PM HaHa ... luved that Bee-dubya-ell !! Well done indeed. sIx |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: Don Firth Date: 22 Sep 05 - 10:17 PM I definitely favor the link for a couple of reasons. First, I find myself put off by long blocks of obvious cut-and paste text, and I confess I don't often give them more than a cursory glance to get the gist of the thing. Long strings of statistics are particularly snooze-producing. Gimme a link for this kind of thing. I'm more inclined to read something if a person posts a link with a word or two about what it is, or maybe a sample paragraph or two (75 words sounds about right). If you're trying to convince me of something, present a reasonable argument, complete with a link for any data that might need backing up. This is far more effective that trying to bury me in sheer bulk. Second, I can then see what the source is. Not all web sites are authoritative or credible, and this way, I can evaluated it for myself. Uncredited citations are always suspect. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: Bobert Date: 22 Sep 05 - 10:17 PM Ahhhh, are you sayin' that there's a new Taylor in one of tyhese recent cat-n-pastes, Jerry??? Which one??? I'll read it... I swear I will... Every danged word... Need my address to send the guitar??? Please insure it... Bobert p.s. Good to hear from ya, Jerry... You been in my thoughts a bunch lately... I owe you a long letter, with pics... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: pdq Date: 22 Sep 05 - 10:22 PM Winner and still champ, in the "copy 'n' paste" category, we have: bandwidth limiter extrordinaire |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: Peace Date: 22 Sep 05 - 10:32 PM Short and to the point. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: Bobert Date: 22 Sep 05 - 10:41 PM Difference between Amos's thread and yer cut-n-pastes, pdq, is that everyone knows what Amos is about... He could choose to subvert every somewhat political thread with ebdless cut and posts but he keeps 'um right there in in his own little thread... That is alot classier than dumpin' stuff in verry thread that come along that criticizes Bush... Plus, with Amos's posts, you know who wrote them because he makes danged sure to credit the authorship... You won't find any indless rants of statistics which cannot be confirmed by some blogger who juist wants to sound intellegent... Amos has complete integrity... You may not agree with him but he is playin' by the rules... No source goes unidentifiled.... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: number 6 Date: 22 Sep 05 - 10:46 PM " Plus, with Amos's posts, you know who wrote them because he makes danged sure to credit the authorship" that's true. sIx |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: GUEST Date: 22 Sep 05 - 11:36 PM LOL - Bobert - best example of plebians given access doiong , doiong doiong |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: open mike Date: 22 Sep 05 - 11:40 PM i am reminded of those posts that showed up here for a week or two from that woman activist/journalist who had SOOOOOOOOOO much to say. hey, what ever happened to her? and what was her name? i think she had a web site that she quoted...at least the cut & paste test seemed to be her own....but the volume was overwhelming... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: Stilly River Sage Date: 22 Sep 05 - 11:51 PM I also started a thread that was intended as a place to put those stories that you would ordinarily point out to the person next to you and say "did you see this?" They're on any number of topics, only pasted there because I didn't want to start an individual thread for each one. Sometimes people remark on them, and there are a few other folks who also stick interesting stories in there. It's less about debate than about just sharing interesting stuff. I Read it in the Newspaper. (It looks like Foolestroup started it, but that's because the Mudcat scramble affected this thread along with many others.) SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: Ron Davies Date: 23 Sep 05 - 12:00 AM Amos can and does express himself well. As for the other cut-and-pasters, it's an open question as to how much acquaintance they have with the English language. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: Ebbie Date: 23 Sep 05 - 12:01 AM Oh dear. I do provide a link to the stuff I cut and paste but if I understand it correctly I should paraphrase the information in my own words, and just back it up with a paragraph or two? Sorry. I do get carried away and I will do better. (I just looked up 'verbosity'. I especially like 'Circumlocution' and 'Prolixity'. Sound like my son and daughter.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: Ron Davies Date: 23 Sep 05 - 12:04 AM I should have said "most" of the other cut-and-pasters. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: Donuel Date: 23 Sep 05 - 12:12 AM Fundamentalist Muslims that sprung up under the Egyptian Alahwi (now bin Laden's right hand man) fully intend upon destroying as much of Western Civilization as they possibly can. The time line is still quite flexible. There are no clear quid pro quos or political compromises that will deter this religious war. One possible exception would be the destruction of Israel. To think otherwise would be delusional. The only thin line this fundamentalist war has yet to cross is the concept of measured reciprocity. You know, blowing up 8 or 9 of our nuke plants on any given Tuesday. Once that line is crossed there is no retreat from a full scale nuclear response that will ignore all concepts of the innocent and lay waste to much of the Middle east, with strategic exceptions of oil fields. The sins of US imperialism have of course played a part in the evolution of the radical Muslim jihadists but the culture of religious fundamentalist war has progressed far beyond the issues of American aggression and numerous regime changes. There is nothing the US can put on the table to assuage any radical jihadist cleric. All we have left is our threat of nuclear annihilation. This of course does not play well in Iran. Pakistan can dole out their 20 nukes to destroy American port cities should a trigger happy American President decide to show them who is boss. Jerry PM me for your free gift. Do not forget who is downwind of all the Middle East nuclear fallout. China could simply decide the US has outlived its usefulness. With our demonstration of how good our NORAD is and how well we respond to emergencies they have a reasonably good chance of taking their best shot and hope our submarines are not successful in achieving total Armageddon. I'm sorry folks for bringing up the reality of a US nuclear response but it is now continually on a hair trigger. An animal or a war lord administration is always most dangerous when it is wounded. When our war lord says everything is on the table, "they" mean everything and everyone. When you have a multi bilion dollar bunker your thinking about such matters gets skewd and is not unthinkable at all. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 23 Sep 05 - 01:16 AM Hey can I get a freee gift too? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: Joe Offer Date: 23 Sep 05 - 03:59 AM The usual limit for non-music copy-pastes is one screen. I went from a 19-inch screen to a 30-inch screen this year, so the limit went up a bit. There are certain threads that don't get monitored, so the over-length posts can get by unnoticed in them. I figure nobody in his right mind would go into the "Popularity of the Bush Administration" thread, or whatever it is, since it has 1300 messages. I don't know if it's a technical burden on Mudcat to have a thread that long full of ridiculously long messages, but it's there. I sure hope people don't open it too often. It looks like most of the time it's just Amos in there, talkin' to hisself. But in general, the copy-paste stuff hasn't been the problem it once was, when people would argue back and forth without ever using their own words. That was just ridiculous. -Joe Offer- Please remember that in general, we encourage the posting of the full text of music copy-pastes - if they come from a source other than Mudcat. We don't need or want duplication of what we already have, despite what you-know-who seems to think. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: John MacKenzie Date: 23 Sep 05 - 04:22 AM Well pdq that's the first time I've looked at the Popular views of the Bush administration thread, and it looks to me like a Joe Clone should add Amos in brackets after the thread title, at least it would annoy Shambles. I must admit that I was surprised when I saw the number of contributions to that thread mount up, as I didn't think there was such a thing as a popular view of GWB. Anyway it's not up to us folks in the old country to intrude on America's private grief, although I do notice you seem to have more wind over there since he got in[or did he?] Giok |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: Emma B Date: 23 Sep 05 - 04:35 AM Thank you pdq for that; like Giok it was the first time I'd ventured into a thread that long too. OK, I'm a Brit too, but it's wonderful to know that there are other thinking, reasoned people like Amos over there prepared to stick their head over the trench - and - just 'cos you don't like the message don't knock the messenger! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: Bobert Date: 23 Sep 05 - 07:41 AM Hey, you all, stop pickin' on Amos... I not only stop in "popular Views" but contribute now and then with an original Bobert rant... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: Rapparee Date: 23 Sep 05 - 09:05 AM Hey, if you want I'll c&p big, long, articles about whatever I think deserves to be brought to your attention and never attribute them or spend the time to make a clicky (it ain't hard for most folks, I figgered it out all by myself). That way I can prove the not only is George Bush really Karl Rove in drag, but also that the Vatican is behind the sacrifice of infants to a statue of Poopsie at the Skull and Bones clubhouse in downtown Meyer, Illinois -- which, as we all know, is the seat of the interplanetary conspiracy to bring the Martians to their knees by having Gluon change the weather on Titan which has also messed up the weather on Earth and caused hurricanes that have done so much damage lately and the aid for which from the Federal government was delayed because Karl Rove was in the Rose Garden dressed up as George Bush, his secret drag identity, with Laura Bush, who is really Hillary Clinton only with her hair dyed out having her little fling like Bill did. That's the gist of it, you know. You can attribute all of the above to me and you really should, because if you don't you'll be really, really, sorry. Not that I'll do anything, but your conscience will bother you a lot. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: Wolfgang Date: 23 Sep 05 - 09:21 AM Of course, one can see double moral at work. Read Bobert's first post here and you'll see that it fits Amos' thread too. The 'credit' argument only came later. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: John Hardly Date: 23 Sep 05 - 09:22 AM 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. It's an interesting pinch the mudcat left puts on the right -- the right is dismissed if they use sources (instead of just opinion) but if they do source, they are criticized for cut and paste. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: The Shambles Date: 23 Sep 05 - 09:45 AM If you don't like the manner, spelling, grammar, punctuation or any other aspect of the way a fellow poster chooses to contribute to our forum - perhaps it is better to accept that this (no matter how irritating you may judge it) is none of yours (or anyone else's) business? Either post to respond to what your fellow poster is trying to say - or ignore it. Any form of personal judgements made about named fellow posters - made publicly - will mean that others will be subject to it, it will only risk a response in kind and clutter-up any attempt at a sensible debate on our discussion forum. The fact is that the only posts in which you have any control over these aspects are your own. If you should consider that these aspects are best displayed in your postings - then if you continue posting in this manner - others may well agree and follow your fine example and not the example currently being set by our anonymous volunteer fellow posters who would now appear to be under the impression that their permission to post anything - is required. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: Bill D Date: 23 Sep 05 - 11:56 AM "If a man were to signify, which he were not- if he had the power, which being denied him, he were to endeavor anyhow, merely because he don't....would you?" |
|
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- |
|
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: 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: 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: 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: beardedbruce Date: 23 Sep 05 - 01:10 PM damn, that's good BillD! |
|
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: 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: The Shambles Date: 23 Sep 05 - 02:47 PM Perhaps? |
|
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: 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 - 05:44 PM Peut-être ? |
|
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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 12:47 PM Perhaps? |
|
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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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 - 11:45 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 - 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: 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: 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 - 02:50 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 05:55 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: 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: 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: beardedbruce Date: 26 Sep 05 - 07:06 AM Ake, You miss the point that not all of us apriori agree with you. Some of us feel that the actions of those protesting the Iraq war BEFORE it began , without calling for Saddam to comply with his obligations ( both ceasefire and UN resolutions) makes those people more guilty of the murders of innocents, by encouraging Saddam in thinking he could get away without complying, than conservatives who supported holding Saddam responsible. I have posted links of how the anti-war folks have acted to silence those who disagree with them, and present exagerated numbers about civilian causualties, while ignoring the fact that the insurgents have killed more innocents than the coalition has. Yet where are the calls for the INSURGENTS to stop their terrorist activities, ao that the US and coalition can legally withdraw? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: akenaton Date: 26 Sep 05 - 07:17 AM Sorry BB...I know you are an intelligent poster, so I won't respond to that. It does you no credit to employ these tactics...Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: beardedbruce Date: 26 Sep 05 - 07:31 AM What tactics? To claim that those who disagree with me are evil, immoral, and guilty of crimes against humanity? I guess I would be just like you and Bobert if I did that... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: beardedbruce Date: 26 Sep 05 - 07:37 AM MY point was that there a differing opinions, and to attempt to judge other people without looking at what and WHY they feel the way they do is bigoted, narrow-minded, and self-serving. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: akenaton Date: 26 Sep 05 - 08:34 AM Bruce, the tactics I refer to, involve the prolonged discussion of unresolvable points like whether Saddam was actually complying; were the resolutions meaningless because the decision for war had already been taken; and the age old question, what came first the insurgents or the invasion. These points are as you know unresolvable, and tend to obscure my point about government and war- making by deception. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: Bobert Date: 26 Sep 05 - 09:15 AM My complaint ain't never been 'bout the correctness or incorrectness of folks positions... It's about chickencr*p tactics used by folks when cornered... I've always continued to re-load and re-frame... QWhat bugs me is others are unwilling to hang... When cornered they drag in some long anonomously writtten cut-n-paste that usually has very little to do witrh the subject at hand... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: beardedbruce Date: 26 Sep 05 - 09:20 AM Actually, Bobert, I agree with you on this point- on both sides of the issues. I have tried to post short excerpts and clickies when I want to refer to other factual articles. As for blogs, I have noted BOTH sides using them as factual when they are not supported by reality. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: The Shambles Date: 26 Sep 05 - 02:36 PM For getting support for your view here - there is an alternative to copy and pasting or providing a link. You can contact the author of the article, provide a link to the forum thread and ask them to join in the debate. They may be willing able settle the point - as was the case in the following example. Think Again Dick Gaughan ***Other than the one post that can still be seen in this thread - I do remember seeing a second contribution from the author concerned - being in this thread - one that did settle the point at issue. There are posts from others - referring to this - but the post itself does not seem to be there now!!! The thread does appear not to be in order so perhaps this second posting was lost in one our recent technical hic-ups?
-Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: Bobert Date: 26 Sep 05 - 07:42 PM Well, gol dangit, bb... Now ya' got me rethinkeratin' my satnce on the cut 'n pasters... Nah, guess we'll just have to agree to agree on this issue... Yeah, makes me just as mad when someone from the progressive side does it 'cause since progressives do have the market captured on the correct positions on just about any issue in the world, it is damaging to our arguments to have one of our supposed own go and do a long incomprehensible cut 'n paste... There's too much ripe fruit hangin' all 'round Bush and his gang fir that... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 26 Sep 05 - 09:19 PM Winning an argument isn't winning anything worth winning unless it has some impact on the way people think and behave. It might make us feel better to come back with a smart rejoinder or a forceful epithet, but making us feel better isn't the main thing. If the smart rejoinder and the forceful epithet has the effect of pushing away someone who was hovering on the brink of changing their views on the war, for example, it's not worth it. Remember more people read threads than ever post to them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: Ron Davies Date: 26 Sep 05 - 11:41 PM Just wanted to say I totally agree with John Hardly on the necessity of breaking up paragraphs. Your first goal when posting anything has to be to get people to read it. As a reader, even if you highly respect the poster, you don't want to be confronted with a big block of print--as John says, it makes it hard to read. Breaking it up hurts nothing-- and it makes it easier to read. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: The Shambles Date: 27 Sep 05 - 02:27 AM Perhaps it would be interesting to ponder on and to list the many other things (apart fron copy and paste) that are now used here on our discussion forum to try and get pesonal judgement to be passed upon those we may not be in complete agreement with. Mainly, it would seem - in the attempt to avoid actually entering into the debate - and in trying to be seen to be on the 'winning' - by any means. Ending a discussion - by getting a thread closed, deleted or being subject to any form of imposed action - is not 'winning'. It just means that all those on our forum loses. Accusations about others wasting bandwidth - is good start. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: Paco Rabanne Date: 27 Sep 05 - 03:51 AM 100. I thank you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: The Shambles Date: 27 Sep 05 - 03:56 AM Ted - that was a waste of valuable bandwidth. *Smiles* |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: The Shambles Date: 27 Sep 05 - 04:16 AM I had a closer look and the post in question was still there - this is the example I was referring to. Subject: RE: LYR NEW: Think Again - Dick Gaughan From: GUEST Date: 02 Feb 00 - 02:33 PM > It would be interesting to hear his views on the song and the situation now. I normally make it a point never to take in part in threads where the topic is me - I would hate to inhibit anyone from expressing their views because they think I might be reading them :) but this is worth making an exception. Last night in Dublin I was asked to sing this song - I refused for the simple reason that if I were asked this question today I could not in all good conscience answer in the way I would have when I wrote the song. The song was a Cold War song and, like all topical songs, was always in danger of becoming obsolete as events overtook it. That is the price one pays for commenting on the present rather than the past. Perhaps Mr Bush, Mr Blair and company could be contacted and asked to contribute and settle in this way - other issues being discussed in threads on our forum? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: Paco Rabanne Date: 27 Sep 05 - 04:24 AM It's ALL a waste of bandwith Roger old fruit. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: The Shambles Date: 27 Sep 05 - 05:43 AM It's ALL a waste of bandwith Roger old fruit. If so - then the logical answer - must be not to post anything at all. Then no one can object, claim to be offended or pass any personal judgement on their fellow posters - and all the valuable bandwidth is saved. It would appear that is only the posts that are not in total agreement with yours are usually judged to be a waste of bandwith. I would suggest that it is the opposite - That it is any post that IS in total agreement - which may be a waste of bandwith (if there is such a thing). Me too. Amen to that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: Paco Rabanne Date: 27 Sep 05 - 05:45 AM errhh..... ok then! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: Bobert Date: 27 Sep 05 - 08:33 AM Well, without beatin' this poor horse to death, and speaking from the progressive side, when we don't "win" the debates we get stuff like the invasion of Iraq... Call it winnin' or not, it is about winning the debate and for progressives, who do not have the corporate media behind us or well financed pro-Bush organizations spinning crap into silver, it is a daily and difficult battle... But make no bones about it, every one of us here on this side knows that if we don't faight the good fight that these crooks will hurt or kill more people... Think Katrina as well as Iraq here for starters... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: beardedbruce Date: 27 Sep 05 - 09:26 AM Bobert, Glad to see you have maintained an open and fairminded view of the facts... "'cause since progressives do have the market captured on the correct positions on just about any issue in the world," |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: GUEST Date: 27 Sep 05 - 09:38 AM "The Corporate media behind us"???? If I had a friend who treated me like the media treats the Repubs, that would show that I have no concept of the meaning of friend. Can you say idiotic statement? One more idiotic statement; ".....if WE don't fight the good fight that these crooks will hurt or kill more people..." "Think Katrina as well.........." Tell me, oh maligned one, was not "WE" in charge of the first responders in NOLA as well as responsible for an evauction plan AND the orderly following of same? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: Bill D Date: 27 Sep 05 - 12:44 PM I still have not heard whether Shambles agrees with my analysis- From: Bill D Date: 23 Sep 05 - 12:42 PM I thought he'd surely have copyed & pasted relevant passages by now....*grin*....not even the French version... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: The Shambles Date: 17 Oct 05 - 04:31 AM Copy and paste prohibitions |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: Joe Offer Date: 17 Oct 05 - 05:44 PM Just so everybody's sure of this: We encourage copy-pasting of Music information and lyrics.Just be sure to tell us where you got it from. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: Uncle_DaveO Date: 18 Oct 05 - 09:51 AM Well, I'm going to plead guilty, your Honor, but with a statement in mitigation of my guilt. In Bobert's thread about Why Rebuild New Orleans, I pasted a LOOOONG article. And some may have been critical of that fact. Howsomever..... 1. The premise of the thread was a simple (not to say simplistic) question, but with a rather complicated answer in the real world. 2. The article explained in depth, in a way that I believed I could not meaningfully summarize without losing the strength of its argument. 3. The admittedly LOOOONG article I posted was one I had received in an e-mail, not from a website I could just clickify. The only way I could give the information was by quoting in full. 4. My post DID identify the source. 5. In the introduction to my post I warned readers that it was long, and anyone who didn't want to read that much was warned, and free to skip to the next. Dave Oesterreich |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: The Shambles Date: 18 Oct 05 - 10:08 AM We encourage copy-pasting of Music information and lyrics. Who is the "WE" being spoken for here? Just be sure to tell us where you got it from. -Joe Offer- Who is the "US" who have to be first informed? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: catspaw49 Date: 18 Oct 05 - 12:42 PM Who is the "WE" being spoken for here? EVERYONE BUT YOU. Who is the "US" who have to be first informed? EVERYONE BUT YOU. Just kidding Sham. As you well know WE are the infamous Gang of Seven.......otherwise known as "anonoymous fellow posters" who are engaged in the sinister task of destroying the Mudcat Cafe and taking control of it's owner who has now been duped into believeing that whatever they do and say is for the best. Opposing them is the gallant Private Shambles who refuses all reason and logic in his single minded pursuit to become the most paranoid and dumbest ass in the hemisphere.Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: Wolfgang Date: 11 Jan 06 - 07:45 AM refresh (just for the fun of it) Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: Bill D Date: 11 Jan 06 - 10:38 AM ohhhh...I got to read my creation again!....Wonder what it looks like in German...hmmmm.......nawwwwwww, better not. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: pdq Date: 11 Jan 06 - 12:08 PM Bill D - "be careful what you ask for - you just might get it" Aber Chaos. ..don't, den Sie erkennen, dass jener Aufstellen Antworten auf Ihre recapitulative Ermahnungen logisch gedacht hat, erfordert, dass uns nicht nur die kontextuellen Parameter des angezeigten isssue, sondern auch zu analysieren den zeitlichen Rahmen vom Argument um nicht einzuführen irrelevante persönliche Urteile bedenken, die schon sind beurteilt worden von der Mehrheit von den Befragten nicht, sich auf die jetzigen umstandsbezogenen Aspekte von allen NICHT BEURTEILENDEN Aufbürdungen zu konzentrieren, die können haben Früher, oder wenigstens in verschiedenen Fäden, schon geleistet wertlos in den Gemütern der wessen von von jenen geht züruckgeht zu den ehemaligen abgewerteten Aufbürdungen des Urteils durch nicht nur anonyme Freiwillige, sondern auch gerechterweise durch andere Mitglieder an (der, stellend unter ihren eigenen Namen, auch KÖNNTE SEIN einer der beurteilenden Freiwilligen auf) der entscheidet, die Debatte einzutragen nicht ohne zu wissen, ob das Thema an Hand hat, eigentlich ist auferlegt, ob in gewesen Der Fadentitel oder bloß während nicht beurteilenden Redigierens, den ich geführt werde, zu verstehen, dass Sie auch von in den meisten Fällen missbilligen, wo vorherige Erlaubnis (vom ursprünglichen Poster (oder Urheber vom Faden) vor der durchlässig erwähnten Diskussion nicht gesucht worden ist, den, auf Grund seine zeitliche Priorität, sollte supercede IRGENDEINE folgende Besprechung über Urteile, ob anonym auferlegt oder sollte bloß beiläufig, entweder durch Sie als 'Oberster Untersuchungsbeamter' von der Untersuchung, oder durch neuere Mitglieder vom Forum, viele, von dem die Erfahrung von unrichtig nicht gehabt hat, redigiert zu werden oder ihre Wörter haben zensiert, und folglich, der kann, vielleicht ist zögernd, die Mehrheit anzuschließen, die dessen vorherige Erfahrung unvermeidlich von sich wiederholendem reduncancy beeinflusst worden ist, beziehen sich auf die unaufhörliche Langatmigkeit überschwemmend die genauen Grundlagen von den ganzen Ausgaben von ob, hinsichtlich der besten Interessen von Unser Forum, die Anonymität von den Freiwilligen (am meisten, von dem sich nicht tatsächlich freiwillig gemeldet hat, aber waren, werde ich, zu verstehen, angeworben gegeben,) sollte auf Grund der ungemilderten Galle von einem unzufriedenen Mitglied beeinträchtigt werden das offensichtlich hat wenig andere Hobbys als langwierig zusammenzusetzen und Selbstreferential posten, die sich inner auf einen einzelnen Begriff von Diskussion und der vorrangige Wertsystemgedanke beziehen, zu sein, durch unsere Vermittler, nicht wesentlich zu Zentraler Kern vom ganzen Punkt, ein offenes Forum zu haben, das wo verschiedene Standpunkte ohne diskutiert werden könnten, anfällig für fremde Abschweifungen ungefähr Aufbürdung persönlichen Geschmacks durch die verlassen zu werden, die kein Interesse im chronischen Geschwätz das gewöhnlich haben, begleitet solche Abschweifungen und verursacht, dass viele völlig unverständliche Absätze auf einer umwilling Leserschaft sowieso begangen wird? Würden Sie nicht übereinstimmen? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: Bill D Date: 11 Jan 06 - 03:12 PM gaaaakkkkkk I see now why my favorite Philosophy professor once said that students in Germany took to reading Hegel in English, once it was translated, as Hegel was far too dense to wade thru in the original! My sentence/paragraph was very like a Hegelian attempt to strech a thought beyond normal endurance, then attempt a clarification before adding a period! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: GUEST,Crowbar Date: 11 Jan 06 - 06:18 PM Boberticus: Which is the more evil, GWB or cut-n-pasters? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: Bobert Date: 11 Jan 06 - 06:38 PM Can I get back to ya on this one, C-Bar??? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: Bill D Date: 11 Jan 06 - 08:10 PM C&Ps of GWB quotes? ....no, wait...they provide some of the few laughs going, these days. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: Joe Offer Date: 11 Jan 06 - 08:20 PM Who is "we"? Who is "us"? It's an intelligence test, Shambles. See if you can guess. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: Amos Date: 30 Nov 10 - 01:43 PM "Well, Prince, so Genoa and Lucca are now just family estates of the Buonapartes. But I warn you, if you don't tell me that this means war, if you still try to defend the infamies and horrors perpetrated by that Antichrist- I really believe he is Antichrist- I will have nothing more to do with you and you are no longer my friend, no longer my 'faithful slave,' as you call yourself! But how do you do? I see I have frightened you- sit down and tell me all the news." It was in July, 1805, and the speaker was the well-known Anna Pavlovna Scherer, maid of honor and favorite of the Empress Marya Fedorovna. With these words she greeted Prince Vasili Kuragin, a man of high rank and importance, who was the first to arrive at her reception. Anna Pavlovna had had a cough for some days. She was, as she said, suffering from la grippe; grippe being then a new word in St. Petersburg, used only by the elite. All her invitations without exception, written in French, and delivered by a scarlet-liveried footman that morning, ran as follows: "If you have nothing better to do, Count [or Prince], and if the prospect of spending an evening with a poor invalid is not too terrible, I shall be very charmed to see you tonight between 7 and 10- Annette Scherer." "Heavens! what a virulent attack!" replied the prince, not in the least disconcerted by this reception. He had just entered, wearing an embroidered court uniform, knee breeches, and shoes, and had stars on his breast and a serene expression on his flat face. He spoke in that refined French in which our grandfathers not only spoke but thought, and with the gentle, patronizing intonation natural to a man of importance who had grown old in society and at court. He went up to Anna Pavlovna, kissed her hand, presenting to her his bald, scented, and shining head, and complacently seated himself on the sofa. "First of all, dear friend, tell me how you are. Set your friend's mind at rest," said he without altering his tone, beneath the politeness and affected sympathy of which indifference and even irony could be discerned. "Can one be well while suffering morally? Can one be calm in times like these if one has any feeling?" said Anna Pavlovna. "You are staying the whole evening, I hope?" "And the fete at the English ambassador's? Today is Wednesday. I must put in an appearance there," said the prince. "My daughter is coming for me to take me there." "I thought today's fete had been canceled. I confess all these festivities and fireworks are becoming wearisome." "If they had known that you wished it, the entertainment would have been put off," said the prince, who, like a wound-up clock, by force of habit said things he did not even wish to be believed. "Don't tease! Well, and what has been decided about Novosiltsev's dispatch? You know everything." "What can one say about it?" replied the prince in a cold, listless tone. "What has been decided? They have decided that Buonaparte has burnt his boats, and I believe that we are ready to burn ours." Prince Vasili always spoke languidly, like an actor repeating a stale part. Anna Pavlovna Scherer on the contrary, despite her forty years, overflowed with animation and impulsiveness. To be an enthusiast had become her social vocation and, sometimes even when she did not feel like it, she became enthusiastic in order not to disappoint the expectations of those who knew her. The subdued smile which, though it did not suit her faded features, always played round her lips expressed, as in a spoiled child, a continual consciousness of her charming defect, which she neither wished, nor could, nor considered it necessary, to correct. ... (Opening paragraphs of War and Peace) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: GUEST,999 Date: 30 Nov 10 - 02:12 PM `I took a speed reading course. Read `War and Peace` in twenty-two minutes. It`s about Russia.` (Thank you Woody.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: Stilly River Sage Date: 30 Nov 10 - 02:26 PM ;-D |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: gnu Date: 30 Nov 10 - 02:43 PM I read the title and thought, "Nah, too deep and too thick for me." I prefer Uncle John's Bathroom Reader. Just bought the 23rd edition. Should get it finished in time for the 24th... on sale, of course. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: Slag Date: 30 Nov 10 - 03:49 PM Well, Bobert, yuh got a point there. I just scrolled thru most of this mess and finally shot down to the end so's I could get my 1/4 mite's worth in. Band width? Over a hundered and some posts so we can all say we don't like it? Don Firth had the best word on it, IMO and there! Use links if it's that important. If you have read and digested some item or idea you ought to be able to reformulate and state it in your own words. If you can't, you don't know what you are talking about in the first place. Ok,is that redudant enough? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: John MacKenzie Date: 30 Nov 10 - 03:54 PM You are so right Bobs my friend. People post whole screeds of stuff, as if it was all their own thoughts. Why don't they either make a blue clicky, or credit their source. They're like singers who don't give their source for a song, or credit the composer. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: Jeri Date: 30 Nov 10 - 04:03 PM Amazing how little changes in 5 years. Copy-pasters? I figure out who does it and pretty much skip "their" contributions. Amos? WTF, eh? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 30 Nov 10 - 11:11 PM ... and of course if you call them on it, especially if they have edited it a bit so as to try to stop you easily locating it on a search, they will try to smear your sanity... :p |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: Joe Offer Date: 01 Dec 10 - 02:10 PM I notice that Amos's copy-paste just barely fit within my monitor screen, so it's legal and I can't delete it. I wonder what the guy is like when he goes fishing. I can see it now - measuring the fish with a micrometer, and taking so long at it that the undersize fish are dead before he throws them back. But I love ya, Amos. Really I do... -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: Bill D Date: 01 Dec 10 - 02:19 PM Ya' know...he 'could' post ALL of War & Peace, one screen at a time, under those rules. I wonder if Readers Digest ever condensed it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: Joe_F Date: 01 Dec 10 - 08:59 PM Bill D: I have seen an abridged paperback that left out all the theoretical parts -- that is, the ones I liked best & still remember. In the original Russian, the conversations that were spoken in French are given in French, and then translated into Russian in footnotes. Thus, the opening appears as "Eh bien, mon prince,..." & is glossed as "Nu, knyaz'...". I remember that 60 years after, but if you asked me what kind of man Kutuzov or Bezukhov was, I would have no idea. My world is made of words, not people. It would be nice if one did not have to cut & paste, but could reply to a particular post, which would be quoted automatically with an indent, to be edited down to what was relevant. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: Joe Offer Date: 02 Dec 10 - 01:36 AM Ever see The Complete Works of William Shakespeare, Abridged? Great show!! -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: Sawzaw Date: 02 Dec 10 - 01:51 AM "It looks like most of the time it's just Amos in there, talkin' to hisself." Amos was so lonesome I went in there and posted something to cheer him up. That thread does jam up all my memory and the browser is barely functional when it is loaded. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: Slag Date: 02 Dec 10 - 04:14 AM Joe F Isn't "Nu knyaz" Yiddish? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in... From: Joe_F Date: 02 Dec 10 - 10:05 PM Slag: No. "Nu" is Russian & Polish & German & probably a lot of other European languages. That it made its way into Yiddish is no surprise. |
