Quote:
|
Originally Posted by loquitur
How about letting people post what they find persuasive, and letting other people call bullshit on them if they think it's bullshit? Isn't discussion what this place is supposed to be about? I'm suspicious of rules in the area of free expression because they are too often used to entrench the views of the rulemakers.
In terms of style, host gets a lot of flack for the bombardment, which is sort of unfair because he does a lot of work, and instead of garnering respect for the effort he gets grief. Personally, host, I think if you did "short excerpt plus link" rather than whole articles (which apparently leads people to hit the "page down" button hard, or exercise the scrolling finger), your stuff would be easier to follow and consider. But that's just me. Host, when you step outside from behind the sources and use your own words to pull stuff together you're much more persuasive and it comes across much less like hectoring. At least to me.
This is just my suggestion, and you can take it or not, as you choose. Use your own words, backed up with links to your sources or short excerpts with the links, if the source happens to have put things especially well. The posts will be tighter, easier to read and follow and probably come across as much less polemical.
|
Done....my goal is less confrontation within threads, and avoiding, from iside a thread, "shooting a messenger" who authors or publishes an article that is posted as representing important background in support of a POV or point, or more importantly, is the foundation/centerpiece of a thread OP. If an article linked and excerpted by a poster in this forum is so obviously biased/compromised that it is ridiculous to represent it as "news", or some kind of authority on a subject under discussion, or more critical, represented as the BASIS of the discussion, I think it is best to focus on that flaw, rather than be required to go through an exercise that makes one a pawn in the poster of the questionable article's hands....required to debate every point, "because some of it is probably true".
That's BS....it's bait, and it reinforces the practice of posting crap from a crap site, and fronting it in your post, as "news".
I've put together a new thread, it will display in a few moments, as an example of a way to respond to what I have just described, and simultaneously, allow the thread "with the problem" article, to proceed internally, as if it's centerpiece or a later posted article, was not an object of controversy and vehement criticism, because it is represented as "news", or authority, when it isn't.....