Do You Really Want to Read All That!?

Just as a side note, there are actually a few (but only a few) articles whose first sentences are intriguing enough to keep me interested for the entire story.

It's a problem, ain't it. Five or six folks do this quite regularly.

A better (more polite) technique is to find the most eye-catching or thought-provoking sentence or paragraph, and post just that, then provide the link so that interested readers can visit at their leisure.

Absolutely!

And in just a second, I'm going to post a really compelling bit from the Tibetian Book of the Dead.

Loved that book blatham. Yep, I find annoying self-righteous copy and paste articles from dubious sources quite disturbing. It leads me to believe that nobody really knows what they are talking about. "Here's a source...my opinion must be correct." Whatever. Sources can be manipulated to work for you regardless of what side you are on. I only started perusing the politics forums recently, as I find it a fine amusing diversion indeed.

It does provide a means for many of us to read stuff we would be damned unlikely to read otherwise. It is a bit like having someone staple a White Supremacist leaflet to your door. One can draw some educational value from it.

But one per year would be just fine.

I used to love accepting Jehovah's Witnesses requests for a little bible talk when they used to knock on my door. I scared most of them away, sadly. It seemed they didn't actually want to examine the bible, but just wanted to ram their interpretation of it down my throat. Go figure...

Me too, cav. I always warned them beforehand that I was familiar with the text and with a fair range of philosophical discussion on numerous theological points. The longest of these doorstep evangelations lasted perhaps ten minutes.

Why are those guys so fun to annoy?

LOL...good question. I think it is the pompous certainty and self-righteousness. It's rather like feeling badly for an elderly man who falls on the sidewalk, but being just elated if it happens in front of some lovely ladies and the faller is Donald Trump.

I don't mind news articles if I haven't read them (though I usually have) but I ignore op-ed and columns.

I think the news articles are useful but the opinion pieces less interesting than hearng the member's own opinion.

I love the column form...sort of mini-essay, so I respond to it more positively. As a species of modern commentary, it's also a proper subject of study for popular discourse. For that same reason, however, it is also the fundamental bullshit delivery system.

Sigh.

I confess I have done a bit of that lately - to no acclaim at all.

I just find the odd article I really like, and find stimulating, and I hope someone MAY wish to discuss it - which means, of course, reading the damn thing.

I obviously need to precis.....who has time to precis?

I never used to do it....

I occassionally plunge in, and usually regret it . . . i did so with the Tarantulas piece yesterday with which he was attempting to claim that WoMD have been found. After commenting on it, his response was to charge that no one had read the two overly-long articles he had posted. I wish i had not read them. The left is just as bad as the right in posting long, tedious articles rather than offering an opinion for debate.

Don't fanatics think for themselves? Do they consider it necessary to vindicate their fanaticism by an appeal to printed fanaticism, as though that were evidence of the rectitude of their position?

If we offer our own opinion then we get accused of saying things without anything to back it up.

I think it depends both on the article and the person reading the article.

I dunno. Somehow, I prefer links to cut and paste.

I usually like to post the most relevent paragraph, and then the link.

I almost NEVER read long articles, unless they are particularly fascinating, and grab me from the getgo.

I NEVER read long posts that are not broken up into paragraphs.

Agreed, Phoenix. Unless broken up into paragraphs, it always comes off as ranting.