NationStates Jolt Archive

I mean, really - this place is turning into the Book Of The Month Club - Newspaper division.

Thread after thread of:

"I read this. It's teh bomb! Discuss!!!"

Followed by the quoted full 500-word text of an article that happens to support a persons point of view.

For feck's sake. If I wanted to read the paper, I'd read the damned paper!!!! and that one-liner to get around rules about providing analysis with quoted articles has become pointlessly lame. You might as well not bother with all that gets put in 90% of the time.

Are people just getting too damn lazy to write up their own opinions as a starting point? Or do they like discussions sequeing into the political bent of the source and word-parsing to argue over the specific meaning of the original content?

And much of this seems to come from people here who I have SEEN make a cogent argument all on their own.


Well fine. Allow me to add my own contribution:




Boy! I read the following and it ROCKS!!!! Discuss!!!!


Silliopolous
The NS Times
All rights reserved

Silliopolous, in a press conference was quoted as saying: Get off your lazy asses and write up YOUR OWN opinions to defend instead of just regurgitating somebody elses. Thanks!




There. I feel much better now.

You don't seem to start too many threads - are you out of ideas?

You don't seem to start too many threads - are you out of ideas?

I've started 25 threads out of under 250 posts.

Given participation in my own discussions as well as in threads started by others, I think that is a fair percentage being new topics.


I may not be as prolific as some of you, but then again I have no desire to be.


So, after we toss aside this little attempt to turn this thread around to complain about me, can you comment on the thread itself?

I.e.: Do you feel that simply putting up news articles for discussion serves this forum well?

Well, some of us (like me) will never get to read those articles otherwise, because we don't happen to get the newspapers in San Francisco, London, Shanghai, or Cape Town. :rolleyes:

*goes back to debating*

I've started 25 threads out of under 250 posts.

Given participation in my own discussions as well as in threads started by others, I think that is a fair percentage being new topics.


I may not be as prolific as some of you, but then again I have no desire to be.


So, after we toss aside this little attempt to turn this thread around to complain about me, can you comment on the thread itself?

I.e.: Do you feel that simply putting up news articles for discussion serves this forum well?

1. Whenever I've tried to argue a point from logic, the next post is someone saying, "Linky?" as though logic had no merit (most people here can't recognize reductio ad absurdum when they see it). So people here seem to think that the New York Times, even if it's Paul Krugman telling an outright lie, is solid gold stuff.
2. In fact, they seem less interested in reading what I say, and more interested in reading the link. So I'm saving them the trouble.

Oh, yes, I'd love to discuss things without constantly having to post ten links that are then derided because they aren't from al-Jazeera.

and that one-liner to get around rules about providing analysis with quoted articles has become pointlessly lame.

I think the rule should be extended to say that only a summary of the article (with a link to the original, if necessary) be allowed.

Oh, yes, I'd love to discuss things without constantly having to post ten links that are then derided because they aren't from al-Jazeera.
Wouldn't we all? ;)

1. Whenever I've tried to argue a point from logic, the next post is someone saying, "Linky?" as though logic had no merit (most people here can't recognize reductio ad absurdum when they see it). So people here seem to think that the New York Times, even if it's Paul Krugman telling an outright lie, is solid gold stuff.


Well, I'll certainly concede the linky requests, although taht tends to be requests for verification when new items come up presented as facts. But many of the pieces quoted in these threads are largely opinion pieces with a very small quotent of new material in them



2. In fact, they seem less interested in reading what I say, and more interested in reading the link. So I'm saving them the trouble.


Hmmm...

Do you think that maybe this is due to your personal style of invective and that maybe you should think about modifying it? You DO seem to tend towards the hysterical overstatment of generalizations of your opponents...


Oh, yes, I'd love to discuss things without constantly having to post ten links that are then derided because they aren't from al-Jazeera.

Case in point....

Case in point....

Not an overstatement when it comes to OceanDrive2.

In fact, even when you do find something in a source he previously recommended, he'll turn around and say that the facts are still false.

It's like arguing with a toad.

"Don't complicate the issue with facts." ~I once actually said this in the heat of debate. We all do it at some point or another. :p

I mean, really - this place is turning into the Book Of The Month Club - Newspaper division.

Thread after thread of:

"I read this. It's teh bomb! Discuss!!!"

Followed by the quoted full 500-word text of an article that happens to support a persons point of view.

For feck's sake. If I wanted to read the paper, I'd read the damned paper!!!! and that one-liner to get around rules about providing analysis with quoted articles has become pointlessly lame. You might as well not bother with all that gets put in 90% of the time.

Are people just getting too damn lazy to write up their own opinions as a starting point? Or do they like discussions sequeing into the political bent of the source and word-parsing to argue over the specific meaning of the original content?

And much of this seems to come from people here who I have SEEN make a cogent argument all on their own.

There. I feel much better now.
Awwww! Poor BABY! :D

HINT!: If you log onto a thread with a long article and don't like what you see ... click out to the list of threads and try another. If you like, I can give you the URL of the thread listing so it will be a bit easier for you. :p

Well, some of us (like me) will never get to read those articles otherwise, because we don't happen to get the newspapers in San Francisco, London, Shanghai, or Cape Town. :rolleyes:

*goes back to debating*

No offense, but if someone links the article then it is hardly unavailable to you. It may not be a news site that you frequent, but that is another story.

Most major newspapers are about 75% the same content from feeds from the same wire agencies. The other 25% is their particular columnists for interpretation and opinion, and local news. So it's not like you have to read the whole of every paper out there.

But granted it can be nice to have a particular piece brought to your attention that you would otherwise have missed.


Some people here, though, seem to take providing that service to extremes.

1. Whenever I've tried to argue a point from logic, the next post is someone saying, "Linky?" as though logic had no merit (most people here can't recognize reductio ad absurdum when they see it). So people here seem to think that the New York Times, even if it's Paul Krugman telling an outright lie, is solid gold stuff.
2. In fact, they seem less interested in reading what I say, and more interested in reading the link. So I'm saving them the trouble.

Oh, yes, I'd love to discuss things without constantly having to post ten links that are then derided because they aren't from al-Jazeera.
Can you back that up with a source? Remember, this is the Interweb (and serious business by extension) and everything must be backed up by a source. Bob can say that he likes sauce on his pasta all he likes, but, unless Newsweek wrote an article on his pasta preferences, I'm not going to believe him.
In case you are interested, here is my source:
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9788111&postcount=13
Are hyperlinks behaving Asstastically for everyone else, or have I just been doing something wrong?

Can you back that up with a source? Remember, this is the Interweb (and serious business by extension) and everything must be backed up by a source. Bob can say that he likes sauce on his pasta all he likes, but, unless Newsweek wrote an article on his pasta preferences, I'm not going to believe him.
In case you are interested, here is my source.

I could add that virtually no one here will accept a book reference. It's as though everything on the Internet was TRUE and everything in books was FALSE.

Awwww! Poor BABY! :D

HINT!: If you log onto a thread with a long article and don't like what you see ... click out to the list of threads and try another. If you like, I can give you the URL of the thread listing so it will be a bit easier for you. :p


Nice way of avoiding addressing the subject per se with a personal return-volley.

I could add that virtually no one here will accept a book reference. It's as though everything on the Internet was TRUE and everything in books was FALSE.
Um ... perhaps that's because a fairly sizable proportion of us don't want to buy a book just to make sure that a poster is quoting it accurately, and don't live right next door to a library that has all the latest books on its shelves! :p

Not an overstatement when it comes to OceanDrive2.

In fact, even when you do find something in a source he previously recommended, he'll turn around and say that the facts are still false.

It's like arguing with a toad.


So, you're saying that this habit in and of itself is entirely justified due to the perceived stubbornness of ONE poster, regardless of their participation in various threads of that ilk?


Interesting.

Nice way of avoiding addressing the subject per se with a personal return-volley.
Personal? Nahh. It was directed at all the other dweebs who don't like posted articles. :p

I could add that virtually no one here will accept a book reference. It's as though everything on the Internet was TRUE and everything in books was FALSE.


Of COURSE everything on the Internet is true.....




What? You mean those WEREN'T really Britney's boobs?



Dang....

So, you're saying that this habit in and of itself is entirely justified due to the perceived stubbornness of ONE poster, regardless of their participation in various threads of that ilk?

Interesting.
Oh, there's more than just "ONE" of those on here, trust me! Heh!

I could add that virtually no one here will accept a book reference. It's as though everything on the Internet was TRUE and everything in books was FALSE.
Well, some people do have trouble getting to the books in order to check it out, Interweb stuff is a lot easier to track down. So you are fighting laziness, which is one of the founding principles of the Interweb.
Alternately, it could be a matter of the particular writer. I generally ignore Chomsyisms, because I think that he writes like crap and tends to be inaccurate.

Personal? Nahh. It was directed at all the other dweebs who don't like posted articles. :p


Yeah.



Right.




:rolleyes:

So, you're saying that this habit in and of itself is entirely justified due to the perceived stubbornness of ONE poster, regardless of their participation in various threads of that ilk?

Interesting.

No, but I would say that the majority of posters exhibit this "linky" habit to a disconcerting degree.

It's not perceived.

I could add that virtually no one here will accept a book reference. It's as though everything on the Internet was TRUE and everything in books was FALSE.
You mean it isn't? :eek:

( ;) )

Also, most of my info comes from articles I don't have on hand with me at the exact moment I'm debating. When I say "it came from such and such an article" people discount the information. I have to take a picture of the article or newspaper clipping and post it for them to believe it exists.

{btw, 6000th dedicated to the people who have made me feel better about myself...Armandian Cheese...The Noble Men...Glitziness...Simonist... you know who you are ;) — [/hijack]}

You mean it isn't? :eek:

( ;) )

Also, most of my info comes from articles I don't have on hand with me at the exact moment I'm debating. When I say "it came from such and such an article" people discount the information. I have to take a picture of the article or newspaper clipping and post it for them to believe it exists.

{btw, 6000th dedicated to the people who have made me feel better about myself...Armandian Cheese...The Noble Men...Glitziness...Simonist... you know who you are ;) — [/hijack]}

What's also interesting is that most people, after four or five posts deriding your lack of a link, and reference to a book, ignore you when you DO post a link, and then say your information is irrelevant.

Silli, only a minority of posters here debate in any remotely logical manner.

Are hyperlinks behaving Asstastically for everyone else, or have I just been doing something wrong?
Yes, they are being little bastards, and yes you've been doing something wrong, but for 50 bucks, I'll erase the tape I made of it.

No, but I would say that the majority of posters exhibit this "linky" habit to a disconcerting degree.

It's not perceived.


Well, while I'm not sure that most posters exhibit it as regularly as you claim, I will grant you that most threads that are premised on a contravesial (or less well publicized) fact WILL wind up with at least one such request by one of the other readers.

So there is merit in that argument.

But I still find it somewhat lazy for people to regularly just quote whole articles to make your point for you instead of writing up a real opinion and, if needed, referencing the required support.

Well, while I'm not sure that most posters exhibit it as regularly as you claim, I will grant you that most threads that are premised on a contravesial (or less well publicized) fact WILL wind up with at least one such request by one of the other readers.

So there is merit in that argument.

But I still find it somewhat lazy for people to regularly just quote whole articles to make your point for you instead of writing up a real opinion and, if needed, referencing the required support.

I was previously Whispering Legs, and posted many a real opinion - with links.

Not that it does any good - people like Stephistan are more likely to believe the words of Paul Krugman directly.

BTW Silli, theres a bar thingy to the right of a poste, and it magically allows you to "scroll" down past any post that may seem of unsuitable length to you. If you'd like, I'll post a how to for ya, but give me a minute, I have to find the article.

What's also interesting is that most people, after four or five posts deriding your lack of a link, and reference to a book, ignore you when you DO post a link, and then say your information is irrelevant.

Silli, only a minority of posters here debate in any remotely logical manner.


Yes, but you're using that as an excuse for dragging yourself down to their level.


I'd have thought that you'd have more pride than that.

That wasn't meant as a personal dig, so please don't take it as such. I just don;t know another way to convey it. But presenting yourself as being better than them (or "more logical") while pandering to the basest of them seems incongruous.

In other words: what are you doing to ELEVATE the level of discussion - besides complaining about it?

BTW Silli, theres a bar thingy to the right of a poste, and it magically allows you to "scroll" down past any post that may seem of unsuitable length to you. If you'd like, I'll post a how to for ya, but give me a minute, I have to find the article.


Gosh, thanks!


So very helpful of you.....


:rolleyes:

Yes, but you're using that as an excuse for dragging yourself down to their level.


I'd have thought that you'd have more pride than that.

That wasn't meant as a personal dig, so please don't take it as such. I just don;t know another way to convey it. But presenting yourself as being better than them (or "more logical") while pandering to the basest of them seems incongruous.

In other words: what are you doing to ELEVATE the level of discussion - besides complaining about it?

You'll notice I'll discuss it with the rational.

What's also interesting is that most people, after four or five posts deriding your lack of a link, and reference to a book, ignore you when you DO post a link, and then say your information is irrelevant.
Yes, that is the most annoying thing possible. People just ignore the posts they can't answer. It's almost sad. :(

Gosh, thanks!


So very helpful of you.....


:rolleyes:
Not a problem! Glad I could help!


The scroll bar is the thin vertical bar on the far right side of the screen. You can use the mouse and scroll bar to help you move up and down through a page or document. Using the mouse, place the arrow on the small button with a single triangle pointing downward, located at the bottom on the scroll bar. As you single click the mouse the bar and the information on the page will scroll downward. If you place the mouse arrow on the small triangle pointing upward at the top of the scroll bar, and single click, the bar and information will scroll upward. Or, to move quickly up or down the screen single click on the scroll bar on the right, and drag up or down at the desired speed.


You can also use the up and down arrow keys on the keyboard to move up and down through a document or page.

SOURCE (http://www.mgh.harvard.edu/pflc/howto_internet.asp#scrolling)

~EDIT~ Sorry, but how could I know everyone would believe me about the scroll bar?

Not a problem! Glad I could help!

SOURCE (http://www.mgh.harvard.edu/pflc/howto_internet.asp#scrolling)

~EDIT~ Sorry, but how could I know everyone would believe me about the scroll bar?
You wouldn't actually know. That's why it's the best idea to always post the linky. :D

You wouldn't actually know. That's why it's the best idea to always post the linky. :D
;)

Congrats on 6000 BTW

;)

Congrats on 6000 BTW
Thank you. /bows


It seems like just yesterday I was at #5000...wait, maybe it was. <_<

Silli, you have to give me some credit for fabricating the seedless watermelon thing. It looked like an article, and almost everyone except Tactical Grace bought it, and everyone had a lot of fun...

Silli, you have to give me some credit for fabricating the seedless watermelon thing. It looked like an article, and almost everyone except Tactical Grace bought it, and everyone had a lot of fun...
I knew that was a fabrication... :)

Nice job Sierra.

now that youve given silliopolous a ration of shit, id like to agree with him

for god's sake, instead of a quote that i have to scroll through just to read, how about quoting the part you found most interesting and TALKING ABOUT IT? the "here is an interesting article i read" and quote thing isnt debate, its a news clip service.

the utterly worst is when someone posts "ohmygod isnt this a crying shame" with jsut the LINK and no quotes whatsoever so i have no way of knowing what the fuck he's talking about and if its worth the use of my wretched bandwidth to find out.

if you expect a thoughtful response, you need to put some thought into it yourself.

I think the rule should be extended to say that only a summary of the article (with a link to the original, if necessary) be allowed.

Actually that USE to be the rule when I was a mod. I don't know if they've changed it or not. However I agree. I'm a little sick of constant articles too. Post your opinion and give a link to the article. There is no reason to post the entire article on the forum. People are usually more interested in your opinion of the article, yet when the entire article is posted they tend to be long and waste a lot of space when you could of just put a summary of the article and a link.

Actually that USE to be the rule when I was a mod. I don't know if they've changed it or not. However I agree. I'm a little sick of constant articles too. Post your opinion and give a link to the article. There is no reason to post the entire article on the forum. People are usually more interested in your opinion of the article, yet when the entire article is posted they tend to be long and waste a lot of space when you could of just put a summary of the article and a link.

And when I write a long original piece, you dismiss it out of hand - and by your one line answer, it's clear you didn't read it.

And when I write a long original piece, you dismiss it out of hand - and by your one line answer, it's clear you didn't read it.

I guess I proved you wrong on that one huh. :D

I guess I proved you wrong on that one huh. :D
Nope, you still missed the whole point.

Nope, you still missed the whole point.

Perhaps if you learned to write in a more pointed way and were less vague and arrogant assuming you have the answer and no one else gets it, ya know. You don't know what I missed and what I didn't and you don't decide how I choose to answer a question that was very much on topic.

What's the big deal about posting articles, pray tell?

I suppose I good proportion of threads I've started here were started by posting news articles. But isn't it obvious why?

1)A newspaper article is a very convenient material to ignite discussion. It provides much better "firewood" than the "I think Bush is stupid. Do you?" kind of opening posts.

2)It saves a great deal of typing time.

3)It eliminates the "where did you pull this from?" factor.

4)The article may contain facts other people are not familiar with- facts that may indeed reinforce one's point in a debate.

5)Posting only a link and a quote is not very helpful as most people tend to reply in a knee-jerk manner and will not follow the link to read the whole thing.


What does annoy me is when someone posts one of those "lists of facts" circulated over the internet. "Bush in numbers", "Clinton in letters", "100 quotes by and about Eskimos". Now THAT is bad taste.

Another problem is someone consistently bombarding the forum with articles that are not a news pieces, but political commentary from some fringe leftist hole like the Counterpunch or the racist trash bin like the National Vanguard. I mean, for God's sake, learn to distinguish between solid sources and obscure cyber holes run by some verbal diarrhea sufferers.

What's the big deal about posting articles, pray tell?

I suppose I good proportion of threads I've started here were started by posting news articles. But isn't it obvious why?

1)A newspaper article is a very convenient material to ignite discussion. It provides much better "firewood" than the "I think Bush is stupid. Do you?" kind of opening posts.


Surely there is a middle ground between these two extremes?


2)It saves a great deal of typing time.


Hence my "lazy" comment, plus you are putting forth someone elses opinion rather than your own.

3)It eliminates the "where did you pull this from?" factor.

4)The article may contain facts other people are not familiar with- facts that may indeed reinforce one's point in a debate.


And those I have granted as being valid reasons, however when the post is 99% article with just a "what do you think about this?" question, then you are - in my opinion - abdicating your point to someone else.

5)Posting only a link and a quote is not very helpful as most people tend to reply in a knee-jerk manner and will not follow the link to read the whole thing.


But people of that inclination aren't going to read it if it quoted either, so you still haven't added value.

What does annoy me is when someone posts one of those "lists of facts" circulated over the internet. "Bush in numbers", "Clinton in letters", "100 quotes by and about Eskimos". Now THAT is bad taste.

Another problem is someone consistently bombarding the forum with articles that are not a news pieces, but political commentary from some fringe leftist hole like the Counterpunch or the racist trash bin like the National Vanguard. I mean, for God's sake, learn to distinguish between solid sources and obscure cyber holes run by some verbal diarrhea sufferers.

Trash editorializing exists on both sides to be sure, and if you missed the original post my complaint is with those who repeatedly make posts of which there is little or no personal comment, and just a big quoted article - often, as you note, an opinion piece.


I accept the need of supporting material for facts. I accept that there is value in critiquing a well-written article.

All I'm saying is "please start the critique with your own to provide a starting point" rather than just posting the article with a "I found this interesting, what do you think" commentm, expecting everyone else to pick up your slack.

Because I generally think people are just post-whoring, trolling, or spamming at that point.

Surely there is a middle ground between these two extremes?
For example?


Hence my "lazy" comment, plus you are putting forth someone elses opinion rather than your own.
"Lazy"? Not necesserily. Some people just don't have the free time to waste on writing a huge post, only to have it lost when the God damned Jolt forum fails just as you hit the posting button. (You have no idea how many freakishly long, well-researched and written posts I have lost in this manner).


And those I have granted as being valid reasons, however when the post is 99% article with just a "what do you think about this?" question, then you are - in my opinion - abdicating your point to someone else.
I don't see the problem. It's what I do when I want to see people's opinion on a certain matter. When it is more important to you to express your own opinion on this article or the subject it relates to- by all means, write it down. But what if you actually want to know what the people think?


But people of that inclination aren't going to read it if it quoted either, so you still haven't added value.
Most of the time they WILL read at least a part of it if it's quoted. Although there exists a breed of posters who tends to reply to the headline and not read any further.


Trash editorializing exists on both sides to be sure
Which is why I gave two examples, one from each side.


, and if you missed the original post my complaint is with those who repeatedly make posts of which there is little or no personal comment, and just a big quoted article - often, as you note, an opinion piece.
In this case I partially share it- but some things are so self-explanatory that it is unnecessery to add much. I mean, when you find the writing of someone who has expressed your opinion better than you could have- why not bring it up for discussion instead of your own inferior attempt?

Silliopolous,

You'll notice that in my thread where I started with my own opinion, it was largely dismissed.

The dismissal takes largely the form of "it sounds too arrogant and opinionated".

Well, that is the nature of opinion, isn't it.

At least no one has hit me up for "linky" yet.

gee bthp, i see that your thread on spirituality has more replies than your one on iraqis caught humping a donkey. what more do you want?

gee bthp, i see that your thread on spirituality has more replies than your one on iraqis caught humping a donkey. what more do you want?

Silliopolous assured me that I would get intellectual conversation by posting such a thread.

I seem to have gotten little of that.

Silliopolous assured me that I would get intellectual conversation by posting such a thread.

I seem to have gotten little of that.

Well, lets put it this way, how many threads have you posted that contained articles that I have ever taken the time to really address you in? Not many. In the thread you posted (if that is in fact your own writing) I actually took the time to write at least what I thought were thoughtful answers. You will never get that from me if you post an article simply saying "So what did you think?"

Silliopolous assured me that I would get intellectual conversation by posting such a thread.

I seem to have gotten little of that.


I assured you of no such thing. My objection to the practice gave no indication whatsoever regarding the merit of the debates that followed tin those threads - as I think that the value and content of a given article would be the primary factor.

Rather it was you who stated that there was little valid debate here, so why bother putting forth a reasoned post of your own.


And I also note that you made your post one of such a scholarly bent as to be outside the scope of knowledge for many here, thus a deliberate attempt to prove your point.

I mean, how many of the quoted articles that I might have been talking about were a treatise using contraversial figures in modern psychology as their basis?

And yet still it has indeed raised some debate.


But hey, if it's just volume that matters to you, by all means keep posting threads that include Janet Jackson's nipples as part of the premise. But at that point, once again, you are pandering to the very same low baseline that you are complaining about.

I assured you of no such thing. My objection to the practice gave no indication whatsoever regarding the merit of the debates that followed tin those threads - as I think that the value and content of a given article would be the primary factor.

Rather it was you who stated that there was little valid debate here, so why bother putting forth a reasoned post of your own.


And I also note that you made your post one of such a scholarly bent as to be outside the scope of knowledge for many here, thus a deliberate attempt to prove your point.

I mean, how many of the quoted articles that I might have been talking about were a treatise using contraversial figures in modern psychology as their basis?

And yet still it has indeed raised some debate.


But hey, if it's just volume that matters to you, by all means keep posting threads that include Janet Jackson's nipples as part of the premise. But at that point, once again, you are pandering to the very same low baseline that you are complaining about.


As you noticed, I'm pandering to the high and the low today.

Tomorrow's topic for the highbrows = solitons and their relation to string theory.