|
11-01-2006, 10:51 AM
|
#42 (permalink) |
|
Lover - Protector - Teacher
Location: Seattle, WA
|
I don't read Host's posts. I don't have the time nor the effort to read every source he provides. There is a very good reason that profesionally written and peer-reviewed information includes references, and there's also a VERY good reason that it's included simply as a list at the end.
It's great that you want to share your sources, just as any good scholar. But I don't want to read their writing, I want to read yours. If you didnt include so many quotes, I wouldn't hestitate to read it. Especially since I typically agree with you. in short: I don't read any of your post because it's so loaded with quotes. If you wrote like a journal and included appropriate quotes WITHIN your opinion, citing the sources below, I'd read every one of them. While me reading your post might not be important, I'm not alone.
__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel |
|
|
11-02-2006, 03:26 PM
|
#43 (permalink) |
|
spudly
Location: Ellay
|
2 reasons discussion suffers in politics threads:
1) Posters with an agenda derail every thread so that they are all about the same topics; and 2) Threads quickly get choked to death by extraneous information. I've got no problem with references, but the times that I have bothered to read every quoted and linked word I have not found it to be worthwhile or rewarding. Hell, it wasn't even topical.
__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam |
|
|
| Tags |
| discussion, politics, threads |
| Thread Tools | |
|
|
(talk about a short post)
