CDZ What's with the TL;DR thing?

[DarkFury]

Even with my clients when I do just tell them what they should do, or what's a better or worse approach, as goes an implementation I'm helping them manage, I still provide sound justification for my advice. The listening (thought consumption) dynamic in those situations is, of course, different.

The CDZ is a public forum, and therefore the problems addressed here cannot be truly compared to the situation of client and professional.

We are here for a debate, and not to conform to an already comprehended standard, nor to improve standards set to provide for specialists.

Justification in a debate isn't for what was known before (advice), but for what was and is sought in the free chosen participation of the multiple collaborators, and also for what may continue to be sought beyond the debating assembly.

It seems to me that the problem relating to the topic of the thread is in the way the information in posts are being sent and received through a progressive listening (as the case in a debate). The use or eliciting of any hierarchical subsidy (professional, intellectual, emotional) either in defense or in affirmation for and from an argument is deranging in the clear comprehended precepts of a developing debate.

Well, just about any assertion of the sort discussed on USMB takes more than a "tweet's worth" to justify. Indeed, a great many of them have volumes of thought devoted to them, their own Dewey decimal classification level if you will. Why then should anyone think that a short essay offered here too long in an attempt to discuss such matters?

The fact that is was long does not deter from the fact it lacked content.

The fact that was (^) deters from the fact that will be (>).

The fact it lacked is null. (0)

I remind again, we are in the Clean Debate Zone.

We start with 0s.

If difficult to understand, I disagree, I do not fix.

I know where I am at. The fact that it lacked despite screens of info IS important. Readers want content not hyperbole. There are more than a few members here that can put more content in five lines than others can with five paragraphs.

When you write a long winded diatribe of nothing you are wasting the readers time for ego. The readers put more value on their time and the writer should as well.

One should expect to alienate readers when the writers glaring ego out shines the content. And the reader who feels they are treated that way? They can be rude or they can be polite.

tl;dr is a very polite way of saying write NOT for your ego but for the readers because a lack of doing that will cause the loss of both.

 

[leftwinger]

It's meant to irritate the poster who posted some long ass post.

Oh, well TY for the explanation.

How bizarre?....I've always found the best way to irk a writer is to deliver a substantive sacathing rebuttal. Are there actually writers for whom anything other than that will get under their skin? I don't know why a writer would give a wet rat's ass about learning that someone didn't read what they wrote. After all, writers have a target audience and not everyone is in it, and folk who think something too long to read are definitely not in the target audience.

You have already stated in a thread that you are leaving the day AFTER the election. That makes you a hack. Do you really think readers who will invest THEIR time want to read a hack? That makes you a half notch above a spammer. Deal with it.

Hmmmmmm......interesting. I too plan to leave if rotten low IQ hrc wins. OK I retract that. I figured if hrc is elected.....board will be shut, America finished. I will re-think per the dark one input.

 

[Holos]

I know where I am at. The fact that it lacked despite screens of info IS important.

Readers want content not hyperbole.

True.

When you write a long winded diatribe of nothing you are wasting the readers time for ego. The readers put more value on their time and the writer should as well.

Not true. Writers are also readers.

One should expect to alienate readers when the writers glaring ego out shines the content. And the reader who feels they are treated that way? They can be rude or they can be polite.

Not true. If expectation is to be applied it should be to ally readers and not to alienate them.

True. Readers can interpret written text to serve their egos, rather it be a rudimentary process for the ego, or a political process for the ego.

tl;dr is a very polite way of saying write NOT for your ego but for the readers because a lack of doing that will cause the loss of both.

Not true. Rudimentary ego processes can be multiple, but are not necessarily political.

 

[Wilbur Right]

The fact that is was long does not deter from the fact it lacked content.

You are the epitome of brevity. And you have no content worth reading.

 

[Wilbur Right]

Some of you might want to try a speed reading course.

 

[Holos]

Some of you might want to try a speed reading course.

What is the value of a speed reading course? Seems it would be gone in the next metrics.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

It's meant to irritate the poster who posted some long ass post.

Oh, well TY for the explanation.

How bizarre?....I've always found the best way to irk a writer is to deliver a substantive sacathing rebuttal. Are there actually writers for whom anything other than that will get under their skin? I don't know why a writer would give a wet rat's ass about learning that someone didn't read what they wrote. After all, writers have a target audience and not everyone is in it, and folk who think something too long to read are definitely not in the target audience.

Sorry, I stopped reading after "How bizarre?" What about a wet rat's ass has you ticked off?

 

[phoenyx]

No surprise that some folks may think my posts are too long and thus they don't read them. I understand that. What I don't understand is why folks make the effort to share that they found a post TL and thus the DR it.

Why I don't get it is because I've encountered prose that is too long therefore I don't read it. You know what I have to say about such works? Nothing. And why would I?

• The writer has already written it.
• Other readers who are interested in the material will read it regardless of whether I do.
• There is no better way to cast myself as a complete idiot than to offer as the sole discrediting factor is that it is too long, "sole" because since I didn't read it, I can no thoughts about its substantive merit, or lack thereof.
• If, instead, I'm merely informing the world that I didn't read the work because it has too many words, well, okay, but how self-absorbed must I have been to think that the world would want or need to know that?

So that you'll quit filling your posts with lots of nothing. They WANT to read your posts, but when you write an entire three page report that could be summarized in one sentence, nobody is going to bother. You are a PRO at expanding a single sentence into a massive post just to impress yourself, so nobody reads them. It also feels like you hold a dictionary while you do it(And you most likely do) just so you can attempt to sound like you have a larger vocabulary than you actually do. In other words, it's because your posts are long, pointless, and stupid, and people want you to know that so you'll eventually learn how to properly engage in debate without wasting everyone's time, but you're blaming everyone else for it, so you likely won't learn.

Hey PR, nice to see you again in what I'm now considering to be my primary residence in this forum . I happen to like 320's posts a fair amount. This may have to do with the fact that I think he's fairly left wing on the subjects I've seen him talk about, as am I. Could some of his posts use a bit of a trim? Maybe. I'm like him though- if I think a post is too long, I just don't read it. That doesn't mean that telling someone that their post is too long is necessarily a bad idea, for the very reason you bring up- they may well be interested in the poster's point if it were trimmed a tad (or a lot, depending). I don't mind constructive criticisms of this sort. It's when ad hominems start being used (idiot, stupid, etc.) that I tend to turn off.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

No surprise that some folks may think my posts are too long and thus they don't read them. I understand that. What I don't understand is why folks make the effort to share that they found a post TL and thus the DR it.

Why I don't get it is because I've encountered prose that is too long therefore I don't read it. You know what I have to say about such works? Nothing. And why would I?

• The writer has already written it.
• Other readers who are interested in the material will read it regardless of whether I do.
• There is no better way to cast myself as a complete idiot than to offer as the sole discrediting factor is that it is too long, "sole" because since I didn't read it, I can no thoughts about its substantive merit, or lack thereof.
• If, instead, I'm merely informing the world that I didn't read the work because it has too many words, well, okay, but how self-absorbed must I have been to think that the world would want or need to know that?

So that you'll quit filling your posts with lots of nothing. They WANT to read your posts, but when you write an entire three page report that could be summarized in one sentence, nobody is going to bother. You are a PRO at expanding a single sentence into a massive post just to impress yourself, so nobody reads them. It also feels like you hold a dictionary while you do it(And you most likely do) just so you can attempt to sound like you have a larger vocabulary than you actually do. In other words, it's because your posts are long, pointless, and stupid, and people want you to know that so you'll eventually learn how to properly engage in debate without wasting everyone's time, but you're blaming everyone else for it, so you likely won't learn.

Hey PR, nice to see you again in what I'm now considering to be my primary residence in this forum . I happen to like 320's posts a fair amount. This may have to do with the fact that I think he's fairly left wing on the subjects I've seen him talk about, as am I. Could some of his posts use a bit of a trim? Maybe. I'm like him though- if I think a post is too long, I just don't read it. That doesn't mean that telling someone that their post is too long is necessarily a bad idea, for the very reason you bring up- they may well be interested in the poster's point if it were trimmed a tad (or a lot, depending). I don't mind constructive criticisms of this sort. It's when ad hominems start being used (idiot, stupid, etc.) that I tend to turn off.

At least you admit that you only like his posts because he's a far left nutjob. Main point here is that his posts are massive and could be trimmed down to a single sentence and still say the same thing, especially given that nothing added expands on the 'point'. 320 is a psuedo-intellectual that's only here to try to impress himself.

 

[phoenyx]

No surprise that some folks may think my posts are too long and thus they don't read them. I understand that. What I don't understand is why folks make the effort to share that they found a post TL and thus the DR it.

Why I don't get it is because I've encountered prose that is too long therefore I don't read it. You know what I have to say about such works? Nothing. And why would I?

• The writer has already written it.
• Other readers who are interested in the material will read it regardless of whether I do.
• There is no better way to cast myself as a complete idiot than to offer as the sole discrediting factor is that it is too long, "sole" because since I didn't read it, I can no thoughts about its substantive merit, or lack thereof.
• If, instead, I'm merely informing the world that I didn't read the work because it has too many words, well, okay, but how self-absorbed must I have been to think that the world would want or need to know that?

So that you'll quit filling your posts with lots of nothing. They WANT to read your posts, but when you write an entire three page report that could be summarized in one sentence, nobody is going to bother. You are a PRO at expanding a single sentence into a massive post just to impress yourself, so nobody reads them. It also feels like you hold a dictionary while you do it(And you most likely do) just so you can attempt to sound like you have a larger vocabulary than you actually do. In other words, it's because your posts are long, pointless, and stupid, and people want you to know that so you'll eventually learn how to properly engage in debate without wasting everyone's time, but you're blaming everyone else for it, so you likely won't learn.

Hey PR, nice to see you again in what I'm now considering to be my primary residence in this forum . I happen to like 320's posts a fair amount. This may have to do with the fact that I think he's fairly left wing on the subjects I've seen him talk about, as am I. Could some of his posts use a bit of a trim? Maybe. I'm like him though- if I think a post is too long, I just don't read it. That doesn't mean that telling someone that their post is too long is necessarily a bad idea, for the very reason you bring up- they may well be interested in the poster's point if it were trimmed a tad (or a lot, depending). I don't mind constructive criticisms of this sort. It's when ad hominems start being used (idiot, stupid, etc.) that I tend to turn off.

At least you admit that you only like his posts because he's a far left nutjob.

Come on PR, let's not sink to ad hominem attacks. I came to this subforum to escape such attacks.

Main point here is that his posts are massive and could be trimmed down to a single sentence and still say the same thing, especially given that nothing added expands on the 'point'.

I have a feeling we may not agree on this- we'd need an example to debate the point though. Anyway, here's to hoping that we can dialogue more in the future.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

No surprise that some folks may think my posts are too long and thus they don't read them. I understand that. What I don't understand is why folks make the effort to share that they found a post TL and thus the DR it.

Why I don't get it is because I've encountered prose that is too long therefore I don't read it. You know what I have to say about such works? Nothing. And why would I?

• The writer has already written it.
• Other readers who are interested in the material will read it regardless of whether I do.
• There is no better way to cast myself as a complete idiot than to offer as the sole discrediting factor is that it is too long, "sole" because since I didn't read it, I can no thoughts about its substantive merit, or lack thereof.
• If, instead, I'm merely informing the world that I didn't read the work because it has too many words, well, okay, but how self-absorbed must I have been to think that the world would want or need to know that?

So that you'll quit filling your posts with lots of nothing. They WANT to read your posts, but when you write an entire three page report that could be summarized in one sentence, nobody is going to bother. You are a PRO at expanding a single sentence into a massive post just to impress yourself, so nobody reads them. It also feels like you hold a dictionary while you do it(And you most likely do) just so you can attempt to sound like you have a larger vocabulary than you actually do. In other words, it's because your posts are long, pointless, and stupid, and people want you to know that so you'll eventually learn how to properly engage in debate without wasting everyone's time, but you're blaming everyone else for it, so you likely won't learn.

Hey PR, nice to see you again in what I'm now considering to be my primary residence in this forum . I happen to like 320's posts a fair amount. This may have to do with the fact that I think he's fairly left wing on the subjects I've seen him talk about, as am I. Could some of his posts use a bit of a trim? Maybe. I'm like him though- if I think a post is too long, I just don't read it. That doesn't mean that telling someone that their post is too long is necessarily a bad idea, for the very reason you bring up- they may well be interested in the poster's point if it were trimmed a tad (or a lot, depending). I don't mind constructive criticisms of this sort. It's when ad hominems start being used (idiot, stupid, etc.) that I tend to turn off.

At least you admit that you only like his posts because he's a far left nutjob.

Come on PR, let's not sink to ad hominem attacks. I came to this subforum to escape such attacks.

Main point here is that his posts are massive and could be trimmed down to a single sentence and still say the same thing, especially given that nothing added expands on the 'point'.

I have a feeling we may not agree on this- we'd need an example to debate the point though. Anyway, here's to hoping that we can dialogue more in the future.

It's not ad hominem if it's true. You like his posts because you're both lefties. I personally don't care if he's left or right, if someone's posts are pointlessly long with one sentence worth of content, just to feed the writer's ego, then that happens to be the case.

We don't need one of his posts to 'debate' over. Arguing over something that's a plainly observable fact is a waste of time. In fact, if you want to prove my point for me, you can just look at his post history. Have fun.

 

[320 Years of History]

It's meant to irritate the poster who posted some long ass post.

Oh, well TY for the explanation.

How bizarre?....I've always found the best way to irk a writer is to deliver a substantive sacathing rebuttal. Are there actually writers for whom anything other than that will get under their skin? I don't know why a writer would give a wet rat's ass about learning that someone didn't read what they wrote. After all, writers have a target audience and not everyone is in it, and folk who think something too long to read are definitely not in the target audience.

Sorry, I stopped reading after "How bizarre?" What about a wet rat's ass has you ticked off?

Just how does one stop reading that post after "how bizarre," yet know the phrase "wet rat's ass" appears in the middle of the paragraph? Hmmm....

 

[DarkFury]

It's meant to irritate the poster who posted some long ass post.

Oh, well TY for the explanation.

How bizarre?....I've always found the best way to irk a writer is to deliver a substantive sacathing rebuttal. Are there actually writers for whom anything other than that will get under their skin? I don't know why a writer would give a wet rat's ass about learning that someone didn't read what they wrote. After all, writers have a target audience and not everyone is in it, and folk who think something too long to read are definitely not in the target audience.

Sorry, I stopped reading after "How bizarre?" What about a wet rat's ass has you ticked off?

Just how does one stop reading that post after "how bizarre," yet know the phrase "wet rat's ass" appears in the middle of the paragraph? Hmmm....

You are choosing to ignore the results of your content, your product. Might I suggest you review that thinking using the Ford Edsel or AMC Pacer as a base?

 

[320 Years of History]

I happen to like 320's posts a fair amount. This may have to do with the fact that I think he's fairly left wing on the subjects I've seen him talk about, as am I.

TY

I suspect you may not have read some of my remarks/thoughts about economics. I'm more conservative than most folks on that. I'm all about personal responsibility, "reading the writing on the wall" and heeding it, owning one's sh*t, etc., the effectiveness and ultimate efficiency of "the invisible hand." I freely admit to being socio-economically Darwinist, and laissez faire capitalism bothers me very little. Indeed, I prefer it.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

It's meant to irritate the poster who posted some long ass post.

Oh, well TY for the explanation.

How bizarre?....I've always found the best way to irk a writer is to deliver a substantive sacathing rebuttal. Are there actually writers for whom anything other than that will get under their skin? I don't know why a writer would give a wet rat's ass about learning that someone didn't read what they wrote. After all, writers have a target audience and not everyone is in it, and folk who think something too long to read are definitely not in the target audience.

Sorry, I stopped reading after "How bizarre?" What about a wet rat's ass has you ticked off?

Just how does one stop reading that post after "how bizarre," yet know the phrase "wet rat's ass" appears in the middle of the paragraph? Hmmm....

You are choosing to ignore the results of your content, your product. Might I suggest you review that thinking using the Ford Edsel or AMC Pacer as a base?

It's called scanning....How Bizarre.".......................
................ ".................................
.......wet rats ass......................
.".............

 

[phoenyx]

No surprise that some folks may think my posts are too long and thus they don't read them. I understand that. What I don't understand is why folks make the effort to share that they found a post TL and thus the DR it.

Why I don't get it is because I've encountered prose that is too long therefore I don't read it. You know what I have to say about such works? Nothing. And why would I?

• The writer has already written it.
• Other readers who are interested in the material will read it regardless of whether I do.
• There is no better way to cast myself as a complete idiot than to offer as the sole discrediting factor is that it is too long, "sole" because since I didn't read it, I can no thoughts about its substantive merit, or lack thereof.
• If, instead, I'm merely informing the world that I didn't read the work because it has too many words, well, okay, but how self-absorbed must I have been to think that the world would want or need to know that?

So that you'll quit filling your posts with lots of nothing. They WANT to read your posts, but when you write an entire three page report that could be summarized in one sentence, nobody is going to bother. You are a PRO at expanding a single sentence into a massive post just to impress yourself, so nobody reads them. It also feels like you hold a dictionary while you do it(And you most likely do) just so you can attempt to sound like you have a larger vocabulary than you actually do. In other words, it's because your posts are long, pointless, and stupid, and people want you to know that so you'll eventually learn how to properly engage in debate without wasting everyone's time, but you're blaming everyone else for it, so you likely won't learn.

Hey PR, nice to see you again in what I'm now considering to be my primary residence in this forum . I happen to like 320's posts a fair amount. This may have to do with the fact that I think he's fairly left wing on the subjects I've seen him talk about, as am I. Could some of his posts use a bit of a trim? Maybe. I'm like him though- if I think a post is too long, I just don't read it. That doesn't mean that telling someone that their post is too long is necessarily a bad idea, for the very reason you bring up- they may well be interested in the poster's point if it were trimmed a tad (or a lot, depending). I don't mind constructive criticisms of this sort. It's when ad hominems start being used (idiot, stupid, etc.) that I tend to turn off.

At least you admit that you only like his posts because he's a far left nutjob.

Come on PR, let's not sink to ad hominem attacks. I came to this subforum to escape such attacks.

It's not ad hominem if it's true. You like his posts because you're both lefties.

Indeed. Thanks for leaving out the "nutjob" part this time .

I personally don't care if he's left or right, if someone's posts are pointlessly long with one sentence worth of content, just to feed the writer's ego, then that happens to be the case.

Your entire argument hinges on that "if".

We don't need one of his posts to 'debate' over.

We disagree on that...

Arguing over something that's a plainly observable fact is a waste of time.

I'm fond of repeating an old line: Never argue with someone who knows they're right. That being said, I've always kind of liked arguing with you, so I'll make an exception. Let me put it this way: don't rush to the conclusion that just because -you- believe something is "plainly observable" that everyone else will come to the same conclusion.

In fact, if you want to prove my point for me, you can just look at his post history. Have fun.

I've heard this kind of argument before . I describe it as a debater asking their opponent to do their homework for them. You're the one who made the argument as to the nature of his posts. To give credence to your claim, you need to bring forward evidence that supports your claim.

 

[phoenyx]

I happen to like 320's posts a fair amount. This may have to do with the fact that I think he's fairly left wing on the subjects I've seen him talk about, as am I.

TY

I suspect you may not have read some of my remarks/thoughts about economics. I'm more conservative than most folks on that. I'm all about personal responsibility, "reading the writing on the wall" and heeding it, owning one's sh*t, etc., the effectiveness and ultimate efficiency of "the invisible hand." I freely admit to being socio-economically Darwinist, and laissez faire capitalism bothers me very little. Indeed, I prefer it.

You're right, I may well have missed your stance on economics . I think I confused you with someone else who I corresponded with a fair amount in the Economics subforum.

 

[phoenyx]

It's meant to irritate the poster who posted some long ass post.

Oh, well TY for the explanation.

How bizarre?....I've always found the best way to irk a writer is to deliver a substantive sacathing rebuttal. Are there actually writers for whom anything other than that will get under their skin? I don't know why a writer would give a wet rat's ass about learning that someone didn't read what they wrote. After all, writers have a target audience and not everyone is in it, and folk who think something too long to read are definitely not in the target audience.

Sorry, I stopped reading after "How bizarre?" What about a wet rat's ass has you ticked off?

Just how does one stop reading that post after "how bizarre," yet know the phrase "wet rat's ass" appears in the middle of the paragraph? Hmmm....

You are choosing to ignore the results of your content, your product. Might I suggest you review that thinking using the Ford Edsel or AMC Pacer as a base?

It's called scanning....How Bizarre.".......................
................ ".................................
.......wet rats ass......................
.".............

Speed reading gone wrong. To quote one of Trump's favourite lines, "Sad" .

 

[DarkFury]

So that you'll quit filling your posts with lots of nothing. They WANT to read your posts, but when you write an entire three page report that could be summarized in one sentence, nobody is going to bother. You are a PRO at expanding a single sentence into a massive post just to impress yourself, so nobody reads them. It also feels like you hold a dictionary while you do it(And you most likely do) just so you can attempt to sound like you have a larger vocabulary than you actually do. In other words, it's because your posts are long, pointless, and stupid, and people want you to know that so you'll eventually learn how to properly engage in debate without wasting everyone's time, but you're blaming everyone else for it, so you likely won't learn.

Hey PR, nice to see you again in what I'm now considering to be my primary residence in this forum . I happen to like 320's posts a fair amount. This may have to do with the fact that I think he's fairly left wing on the subjects I've seen him talk about, as am I. Could some of his posts use a bit of a trim? Maybe. I'm like him though- if I think a post is too long, I just don't read it. That doesn't mean that telling someone that their post is too long is necessarily a bad idea, for the very reason you bring up- they may well be interested in the poster's point if it were trimmed a tad (or a lot, depending). I don't mind constructive criticisms of this sort. It's when ad hominems start being used (idiot, stupid, etc.) that I tend to turn off.

At least you admit that you only like his posts because he's a far left nutjob.

Come on PR, let's not sink to ad hominem attacks. I came to this subforum to escape such attacks.

It's not ad hominem if it's true. You like his posts because you're both lefties.

Indeed. Thanks for leaving out the "nutjob" part this time .

I personally don't care if he's left or right, if someone's posts are pointlessly long with one sentence worth of content, just to feed the writer's ego, then that happens to be the case.

Your entire argument hinges on that "if".

We don't need one of his posts to 'debate' over.

We disagree on that...

Arguing over something that's a plainly observable fact is a waste of time.

I'm fond of repeating an old line: Never argue with someone who knows they're right. That being said, I've always kind of liked arguing with you, so I'll make an exception. Let me put it this way: don't rush to the conclusion that just because -you- believe something is "plainly observable" that everyone else will come to the same conclusion.

In fact, if you want to prove my point for me, you can just look at his post history. Have fun.

I've heard this kind of argument before . I describe it as a debater asking their opponent to do their homework for them. You're the one who made the argument as to the nature of his posts. To give credence to your claim, you need to bring forward evidence that supports your claim.

Why does she need to prove he is long and boring. Is she not entitled to that thought without having to prove?

 

[phoenyx]

Hey PR, nice to see you again in what I'm now considering to be my primary residence in this forum . I happen to like 320's posts a fair amount. This may have to do with the fact that I think he's fairly left wing on the subjects I've seen him talk about, as am I. Could some of his posts use a bit of a trim? Maybe. I'm like him though- if I think a post is too long, I just don't read it. That doesn't mean that telling someone that their post is too long is necessarily a bad idea, for the very reason you bring up- they may well be interested in the poster's point if it were trimmed a tad (or a lot, depending). I don't mind constructive criticisms of this sort. It's when ad hominems start being used (idiot, stupid, etc.) that I tend to turn off.

At least you admit that you only like his posts because he's a far left nutjob.

Come on PR, let's not sink to ad hominem attacks. I came to this subforum to escape such attacks.

It's not ad hominem if it's true. You like his posts because you're both lefties.

Indeed. Thanks for leaving out the "nutjob" part this time .

I personally don't care if he's left or right, if someone's posts are pointlessly long with one sentence worth of content, just to feed the writer's ego, then that happens to be the case.

Your entire argument hinges on that "if".

We don't need one of his posts to 'debate' over.

We disagree on that...

Arguing over something that's a plainly observable fact is a waste of time.

I'm fond of repeating an old line: Never argue with someone who knows they're right. That being said, I've always kind of liked arguing with you, so I'll make an exception. Let me put it this way: don't rush to the conclusion that just because -you- believe something is "plainly observable" that everyone else will come to the same conclusion.

In fact, if you want to prove my point for me, you can just look at his post history. Have fun.

I've heard this kind of argument before . I describe it as a debater asking their opponent to do their homework for them. You're the one who made the argument as to the nature of his posts. To give credence to your claim, you need to bring forward evidence that supports your claim.

Why does she need to prove he is long and boring. Is she not entitled to that thought without having to prove?

Of course. People can believe the sky is purple too. Free country and all ;-).