CDZ What's with the TL;DR thing?

[320 Years of History]

You ever write anything funny?

This is written communication. Folks can't see the expression on my face and my body language. They can't hear the inflection in my voice, even though I try to punctuate my posts so they can get as good a sense of it as possible.

To directly answer you, yes, occasionally I do post something with jocular intent. When I'm intentionally humorous, I let my reader know that's so by accompanying my remark with "LOL" or a smiley of some sort or some other clear indicator of my intent.

 

[320 Years of History]

Neither would I. I think the U.S. should have done what Iceland did...
This Is Where Bad Bankers Go to Prison

Call me crazy, but I suspect that had the banking system been allowed to go into full on collapse, there'd have been no need to imprison the bankers. They'd have been sentenced to the kind of isolation that no prison could ever replicate.

Perhaps. But I think I understand why Iceland would jail some of them. By deceit, bankers can rob much more then a regular thief.

If it were a situation where the preponderance of the global banking system and its major and intermediate players were to cease to be going concerns, I see no point in criminal prosecution and imprisonment. If it's a matter of individuals being malfeasant, sure, acting to bring charges and prosecute the convicted defendants is what I'd do too.

Could you elaborate on what you mean by "going concerns"? I googled it, came up with this: "Going concern is a basic underlying assumption in accounting. The assumption is that a company or other entity will be able to continue operating for a period of time that is sufficient to carry out its commitments, obligations, objectives, and so on." I don't really understand how it relates to what we're talking about...

To be a going concern is to remain in business in a general context. In an accounting context, it means to be reasonably expected to remain in business for the following calendar year.

 

[320 Years of History]

That being said, I think 320 is aiming for a serious discussion and doesn't want to get sidetracked .

Precisely.

 

[320 Years of History]

Does he know ;-)? Again you've got me smiling . I think he's doing his best to make arguments that he thinks will be persuasive. With some audiences, the way he writes may be just the thing. With others, perhaps not so much. You and I have gone mano a mano a long time in the past, and my own personal take is that when faced with arguments you don't like long enough, you seem to tire of them. In this case, it seems he's come to the conclusion that you don't examine his arguments with enough thoroughness. Here's a question: you read his entire OP, but did you also read all or even some of the links in it?

In that thread several folks commented as though they thought I was attacking conservatives. That's what they thought in spite of the following remarks being in it.

What gives rise to the anti-intellectual movement isn't nearly as important as is the very reality that the American citizenry is so profoundly dull in its thinking that the phenomenon actually exists. What is most astounding is that voters on both sides of the aisle will hear the vapid claims issued by their preferred party leaders and just accept that crap as though it is true, largely it seems because the remarks are issued by someone in their party, not because they have actually bothered to find out whether "their guy" or "the other guy" has developed a better case based on the body of facts that actually are facts not taken out of context.​

 

[320 Years of History]

the way he writes

Out of curiosity, how other than with "standard English" do you see extant "the way I write?" I know precisely what my writing style is, but I'm curious to learn what you think it is. It doesn't matter to me what you think it is; I just want to know what you think it is.

Most of the time, my writing is a blend of standard grammar and structure and conversational syntax. I use the former for clarity's sake, the latter for accessibility. Once in awhile I shift to styles characteristic of either academic liberal arts (history, English lit, philosophy, etc.) prose, accounting or economic professional reporting and analysis.

 

[phoenyx]

I don't think he wrote all those words to impress himself with his character count

TY. I did not. The only reason my posts are long is because I am to comprehensively communicate the full nature of my thoughts, both the literal and tonal aspects. I do that because I don't care to force readers to infer I think or believe something I do not. Additionally, if one carefully reads what I write (and the linked content where applicable) there's no reason for one to inaccurately paraphrase my remarks; indeed there'd be no need to do so at all, thus permitting one to address directly the substance of my comments rather than having to waste time discerning what I truly intend by them.

How to make a persuasive argument is hardly easy. I think we all want to be understood, but getting people to understand is another matter entirely. Say too little, and they might, as you say, infer things that aren't true. Say more than they're willing to process, and they may tune out and/or protest that the post is too long. Ultimately, we all need to find a balance between the extremes, and after reading your entire post, I think you've found yours.

I don't think it gave a lot of room to respond in turn to.

Well, if one is going to debate with another, why would one?

You're asking why would one give the person one is debating with something worthwhile to respond . To be fair, it's hard to make a valid question when you're only seeing half of the conversation. You have to infer what the other person is saying, something which I'm sure you'd agree is generally not a good thing . I'm seeing both sides though, so I'll just say that I think you felt the person's response to your OP didn't do it justice, and so your response was just shy of an outright dismissal. Based on what said respondent has said, you eventually decided to put her on ignore, which comments in this post of yours seem to confirm.

I'm not sure that -he- considers himself a lefty, so perhaps he took offense.

I consider myself neither leftist nor rightist. It's more likely I was frustrated with the pettifoggery and triviality of the discussion than it was that I was offended. I don't know of whose conversation with me you write, so it's hard to say for sure.

That would be Pumpkin Row .

The OP of the thread to which you refer is my expression of frustration, disappointment even, over the absence of intellectualism in the narrative found on the forum. The forum seems largely populated by conservatives, but I don't frankly care whether anti-intellectuals are liberal or conservative. I find both kinds boring in a conversation.

As do I. We may have somewhat different tolerances as to what constitutes an anti intellectual commentator, but for the first time here, I've put a person here on ignore, so I can certainly sympathize.

It's worth noting that a material share of my frustration comes from this being a venue where the sole communication mode is writing and there's no expectation of immediate reply as there is in a face-to-face conversation. In written discourse, one has all the time in the world to carefully research one's ideas, beliefs and lines of argument. Yet those seem precisely the things folks here eschew.

Giving people as long as they wish to respond to an argument won't change much if their wish is to respond to said argument as quickly as possible . To be fair, I think that PR did put a -bit- of work into responding but, well... she is young, and I have never known people who are young to have a lot of patience when it comes to these things. For a while, we debated a subject in the Economics forum, but she eventually grew tired of my arguments and moved on.

It looks like he never responded to this post of yours

Yes, well that's the consequence of my frustrations leading me to determine that it's just not worth it to try to have a discussion with the person. I'm at the point now whereby I'll give someone whose ID I don't recognize as being one from which comes nothing but drivel and insults one "free" immature and reply that's offered as a serious retort, but that's it. Earlier in my tenure here I was more patient, but those days have gone.

PR does go down to insults at times, but I've found that if I point this out to her, she tends to back off. The same can't be said for other posters here, and like you, I've finally decided that atleast one of them would better be on my ignore list. After using what I'll describe as an insult template as a response to one of my posts, and I responded by pointing out it was this type of thing that got me to now post so little in that particularly subforum, he actually suggested I put him on ignore himself .

On many occasions I've posted/linked seriously first rate scholarly research -- stuff that discloses not only the results of the research but the methodology used to obtain the results -- only to receive replies where folks refute the findings by saying "the researchers were biased liberals" or something of that nature. They didn't refute the findings by citing specific weaknesses in the researcher's approach. They didn't cite specific insufficiencies in the data used. They didn't identify specific modeling or statistical invalidities. They assumed the researcher has a given political leaning, and that was the sole basis for their refutation. I don't have time for folks from whom that's all the rebuttal they can muster.

Fair enough.

I mean come on....I'm just not going to engage with someone whose remarks are evasive, unverified, equivocal, deflective, off topic, irrational, insubstantive, puerile, etc. I created a thread about it. The most recent illustration of what I mean is here.

I took a look- some good points, though I certainly don't agree with you regarding "free" trade .

I created that thread just past the halfway point of my time here and that was about the time I'd decided that my friend was right and I wrong about the nature and extent of thought and discourse among "typical" voters. As I wrote, I fully expected to find far more gravitas than I have. There's some, to be sure, but nowhere near enough.

Sometimes, if you want a nice garden to grow, you have to plant the seeds yourself.

 

[320 Years of History]

Say more than they're willing to process, and they may tune out

That folks may "tune out" doesn't bother me. If they do, they do. What annoys me is folks having "tuned out" and having something to say about the content/info/ideas they chose not to consume.

I have at times, though infrequently, not taken the time to read all of what a member shared in their post and still I commented on it. When I've done so, as matter of fairness and effective communication, I let them know that my post derives from a partial read of their remarks.

What does it take to be thus honest with someone? Not much in my mind. We all have "stuff" we want to share, and that's normally, but if what one thinks is based on a very limited dataset, just say so. Mature readers won't take issue with that; they'll just say "okay" and move on or bid the responder to read further.

There's no harm, foul or failing in not knowing something, but there's lots in expressing/presenting oneself as though one does fully grasp something when one does not. That angers and frustrates others who were attempting to have a legit discussion, and to no good end nor for good reason to begin with. Truly, communicating brilliantly is in fact more useful to any discussion than is being brilliant. (I can explain that last if you'd like, but for now I won't.)

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Lol . Sometimes, you have a way of arguing your points that wins me over. In this case, what you've said is buttressed by what someone else here said (can't remember his name). He mentioned that you don't need to prove anything to me, and while I came up with a quick quip, I never denied the basic thrust of his point. Furthermore, while you haven't proven your case, you -have- given me a solid lead. This Anti-Intellectualism thread that you mention. So I took a look at it, and your initial response. You say pretty much the same thing here as there ...

Wow, that was a long post. Well-worded, too. Though it feels like you're saying "Conservatives are idiots, the government never lies, and Liberals know everything" in as many words as possible. Most of the words you did use just fluffed out your post more, and served no purpose in reinforcing your points. Uhm... neato post, though. I'm sure you're impressed with how many characters you managed to reach, I certainly am.

I looked at his opening post. Unlike you, I don't think he wrote all those words to impress himself with his character count . That being said, I'm also a firm believer in trying to reach a wide audience. I think he probably put a lot of work into it, and so I can understand why he was non plussed by your response. His own response was, ironically, even shorter than your own, and I don't think it gave a lot of room to respond in turn to. To your credit, you went back to his OP and pointed out specific parts of it that you didn't like. To his credit, he responded with more points. I'll quote at this point because I think this is where it gets a bit interesting:

Well, had you spent your time reading the essays to which I linked instead of drawing boxes, you'd have noticed that the phenomenon isn't limited to conservatives, and had you reread my OP, perhaps you'd have figured out that castigating any one party isn't the post's aim. You may even have figured out that although noting that the anti-intellectual movement finds a happier home among the GOP is a point I did make, it isn't the key point. You may too have noticed that my signature line carries a quote from among the most staunch Conservatives to have lived in modern times, and who was in no way, shape or form an anti-intellectual. Indeed, he's one of the few modern Conservatives who I can think of off the top of my head who openly admitted he was mistaken about a position he took quite stridently and later recanted. Most importantly, however, you'd have avoided twice being an illustration of precisely the phenomenon the thread is about.

I think he makes some good points there. Your response:

I don't know why you're attempting to deny it if you were okay with heavily implying it in your post. You should take responsibility for your claims when it's pointed out, instead of pretending. The quotes I've boxed can easily be interpreted by anyone as claiming that the 'anti-intellectual movement' is mainly a Conservative one. That's a silly claim, but pointing out that it's silly isn't my point, it's that you made you post much larger than it had to be to claim that.

I think your response misses an important point, but you do also seem to realize another of his points, which he gets to:

And now you have thrice illustrated the phenomenon the thread is about. Over half the of the things you "boxed" aren't quotes at all. Additionally, and more importantly, you've moved from asserting in the absolute that "Conservatives are 'anti-intellectual' to claiming that "the 'anti-intellectual movement' is mainly a Conservative one." That's at least a start. Perhaps if you keep rereading the post and linked material you'll discover that I don't actually care whether anti-intellectuals are liberal or conservative, and that my source of annoyance is anti-intellectualism, regardless of whether it's expressed by conservatives or liberals.

Finally, your last response to him:

So, you claimed Conservatives are the main part of the 'Anti-Intellectual Movement', and then started denying you heavily implied that. Maybe you didn't read your own post. It's a bit long, I didn't really want to read it either. It's okay.

You've always had the ability to make me smile . It looks like he never responded to this post of yours, so I will. Perhaps I missed something, but I tend to agree with your first sentence. You know I'm a lefty, so I think it's hardly surprising that I would find the premise that you ascribe to his OP as valid. From my short conversation with him on the subject, I'm not sure that -he- considers himself a lefty, so perhaps he took offense. Anyway, if that first sentence didn't offend him, I imagine that the second and third one that he may well have. I would have responded, though. I almost always did with you. I think it's pretty hard not to offend opponents online in some way or another (I'm sure I've done my part here), but you tend to back down when you really get going (for instance the whole "nutjob" thing), and that's why I keep on responding to you .

Whether he considers himself a lefty or not, he's clearly one. He's just not a lefty that has no idea how the economy works. If that were the case, he'd be a Socialist~

I don't back down. I just don't need to keep reiterating that lefties and Socialists are nutjobs, because it's an easily observable fact.

It's pretty clear that he's trying to impress himself, his posting style has won over far fewer people(If any at all) than it has turned away. A skilled writer tries to target as wide of an audience as possible, and that being the case, it would make far more sense to not waste everyone's time fluffing out his post. People don't use most of the words he goes out of his way jam into his post because it hinders a conversation for someone to look it up. People don't make long speeches in the midst of a conversation because it prevents people from being interested. Sure, someone could be excited at the start, but about the time you realize most of the words are fluff, you realize it's a gigantic waste of time. As a writer, you should try NOT to waste everyone's time, you should be clear, concise, and to the point. He is none of those things, and there's no point to that other to impress himself with his post size.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

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 ;-).

Complaints about his posting style or lack there of draws more comments than his content. Now what does that say?

I don't think there has to be a single answer to that question. I'll give the possibilities I can think of:
1- Perhaps sometimes he is a bit too wordy.
2- Perhaps there are other times when some people just don't have the attention span required to give his posts the time they deserve.
3- Perhaps there are times when the answer lies somewhere in between these 2 possibilities.

I may have found that some of his posts were too wordy for me. If I have, I've just moved on to other posts. I've also liked some of his posts and have responded to them. As mentioned previously, I'm also ok with people letting him know his posts are too wordy in a constructive way.

I have read his posts in their entirety, it's not about attention span, it's about his posts being a waste of time because he fluffs them out to the max.

Does he know ;-)? Again you've got me smiling . I think he's doing his best to make arguments that he thinks will be persuasive. With some audiences, the way he writes may be just the thing. With others, perhaps not so much. You and I have gone mano a mano a long time in the past, and my own personal take is that when faced with arguments you don't like long enough, you seem to tire of them. In this case, it seems he's come to the conclusion that you don't examine his arguments with enough thoroughness. Here's a question: you read his entire OP, but did you also read all or even some of the links in it?

Less that they're arguments I don't like, more that I prefer not to argue with someone who's IQ is around room temperature for days on end, with them ignoring parts of my argument they don't like, and blatantly ignoring facts while they basically just repeat the opening post.

Adding fluff to your post doesn't make his argument more persuasive.

If I hadn't, I wouldn't have commented. His links didn't actually expand on his opening post, they just served to make it longer. Though, I didn't count them because he didn't write them.

 

[phoenyx]

You ever write anything funny?

This is written communication. Folks can't see the expression on my face and my body language. They can't hear the inflection in my voice, even though I try to punctuate my posts so they can get as good a sense of it as possible.

To directly answer you, yes, occasionally I do post something with jocular intent. When I'm intentionally humorous, I let my reader know that's so by accompanying my remark with "LOL" or a smiley of some sort or some other clear indicator of my intent.

Some people like to inject a little wry sense of humour or sarcasm into their posts. It's generally harder to spot online then in person due to the fact that there's no intonations online, but for some, that only adds to its appeal- I can't say I've never used it myself .

 

[phoenyx]

the way he writes

Out of curiosity, how other than with "standard English" do you see extant "the way I write?" I know precisely what my writing style is, but I'm curious to learn what you think it is. It doesn't matter to me what you think it is; I just want to know what you think it is.

Why would you want to know what I think it is if it doesn't matter to you what I think it is ;-)?

I think you write in a way that's fairly similar to how I write. When I was young, my father read me a book from E.B. White called The Trumpet of the Swan. E.B. White is much more famous for another book of his Stuart Little, which has now been made into a movie, but I digress. I really liked the book. It deals with a male and female adult swan, and their children. A male adult swan is called a cob. Anyway, the cob in the story liked to talk. A lot. Once I trust a person or an audience to some extent, I like to talk a lot too. Anyway, my father would humorously call me a cob .

Why do some talk more than others? It's not always because they have a great deal more to say. I may sometimes add words that are not necessarily necessary. Certainly, sometimes it's for clarity's sake. Here's the thing, though- there is a fine line between using words to clarify and using words as a shield. Some people will even use words in ways that are difficult if not impossible to understand, for the same reason. I'd like to think that I generally remain in the realm of the intelligible, but I would never deny that I use words as a shield at times. Like Sir Gawain in The Green Knight, I am pretty virtuous in my dialogues, but like Gawain's reluctance to give away the belt that he was told would protect him, I sometimes find it best to use obfuscation as a form of protection. I'd much prefer doing this than, say, using base insults on a person. While some may think that fighting fire with fire is the way to go, personally, I think it just tends create flame wars, which I find a complete waste of time. Instead, in difficult situations, I prefer to create mazes. If someone really wants to understand you, they'll run the maze. Those who don't may chafe, but they will also be safely outside of my inner circle.

 

[phoenyx]

Say more than they're willing to process, and they may tune out

That folks may "tune out" doesn't bother me. If they do, they do. What annoys me is folks having "tuned out" and having something to say about the content/info/ideas they chose not to consume.

It can annoy me too, but as long as they don't also use a base insult on me (stupid, idiot, etc.), I'm alright with it.

I have at times, though infrequently, not taken the time to read all of what a member shared in their post and still I commented on it. When I've done so, as matter of fairness and effective communication, I let them know that my post derives from a partial read of their remarks.

What I tend to do as a shorthand way of doing what you do is only quote the part(s) that I'm responding to. I know atleast one poster here who has protested my snippings (I'm looking at -you- ChrisL ), but I find it perfectly reasonable. There is no rule in this forum that one has to respond to everything another person says, nor that they quote someone's post in its entirety. Frankly, I -prefer- people only quoting what they are responding to, as not doing so has frequently made it harder for me to figure out what they are responding to.

What does it take to be thus honest with someone? Not much in my mind. We all have "stuff" we want to share, and that's normally, but if what one thinks is based on a very limited dataset, just say so. Mature readers won't take issue with that; they'll just say "okay" and move on or bid the responder to read further. There's no harm, foul or failing in not knowing something, but there's lots in expressing/presenting oneself as though one does fully grasp something when one does not. That angers and frustrates others who were attempting to have a legit discussion, and to no good end nor for good reason to begin with.

There is a fine line between responding to a certain portion of a person's post, and pretending that one has read more than one has actually read. I'm fine with the first, but definitely not fine with the second. If I catch someone doing it, I tend to make a point of pointing it out. I'm content with simply embarassing them.

Truly, communicating brilliantly is in fact more useful to any discussion than is being brilliant.

Definitely

 

[phoenyx]

You've always had the ability to make me smile . It looks like he never responded to this post of yours, so I will. Perhaps I missed something, but I tend to agree with your first sentence. You know I'm a lefty, so I think it's hardly surprising that I would find the premise that you ascribe to his OP as valid. From my short conversation with him on the subject, I'm not sure that -he- considers himself a lefty, so perhaps he took offense. Anyway, if that first sentence didn't offend him, I imagine that the second and third one that he may well have. I would have responded, though. I almost always did with you. I think it's pretty hard not to offend opponents online in some way or another (I'm sure I've done my part here), but you tend to back down when you really get going (for instance the whole "nutjob" thing), and that's why I keep on responding to you .

Whether he considers himself a lefty or not, he's clearly one.

Pumpkin knows best eh ;-)?

He's just not a lefty that has no idea how the economy works. If that were the case, he'd be a Socialist~

Like lil 'ol me, huh ;-)?

I don't back down. I just don't need to keep reiterating that lefties and Socialists are nutjobs, because it's an easily observable fact.

Careful, those are fighting words .

It's pretty clear that he's trying to impress himself, his posting style has won over far fewer people(If any at all) than it has turned away.

He seems to be fine with the amount of people that don't mind the way he posts. Not everything is a numbers game.

A skilled writer tries to target as wide of an audience as possible, and that being the case, it would make far more sense to not waste everyone's time fluffing out his post.

He feels that the way he writes his posts is fine. He generally doesn't use base insults, which is what I primarily object to in posts as you know, and, the economy aside, he and I tend to agree on things, which is certainly another plus.

People don't use most of the words he goes out of his way jam into his post because it hinders a conversation for someone to look it up.

I think he may have mentioned to me in the past that he's around 60. Different generations communicate differently. I also think he's fairly well educated. My guess is that he's not going out of his way to use words that to many are exotic- my guess is that's just the way he communicates in general.

People don't make long speeches in the midst of a conversation because it prevents people from being interested. Sure, someone could be excited at the start, but about the time you realize most of the words are fluff, you realize it's a gigantic waste of time. As a writer, you should try NOT to waste everyone's time, you should be clear, concise, and to the point. He is none of those things, and there's no point to that other to impress himself with his post size.

Tell me, does he remind you of anyone you know ;-)?

 

[phoenyx]

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

Complaints about his posting style or lack there of draws more comments than his content. Now what does that say?

I don't think there has to be a single answer to that question. I'll give the possibilities I can think of:
1- Perhaps sometimes he is a bit too wordy.
2- Perhaps there are other times when some people just don't have the attention span required to give his posts the time they deserve.
3- Perhaps there are times when the answer lies somewhere in between these 2 possibilities.

I may have found that some of his posts were too wordy for me. If I have, I've just moved on to other posts. I've also liked some of his posts and have responded to them. As mentioned previously, I'm also ok with people letting him know his posts are too wordy in a constructive way.

I have read his posts in their entirety, it's not about attention span, it's about his posts being a waste of time because he fluffs them out to the max.

Does he now ;-)? Again you've got me smiling . I think he's doing his best to make arguments that he thinks will be persuasive. With some audiences, the way he writes may be just the thing. With others, perhaps not so much. You and I have gone mano a mano a long time in the past, and my own personal take is that when faced with arguments you don't like long enough, you seem to tire of them. In this case, it seems he's come to the conclusion that you don't examine his arguments with enough thoroughness. Here's a question: you read his entire OP, but did you also read all or even some of the links in it?

Less that they're arguments I don't like, more that I prefer not to argue with someone who's IQ is around room temperature for days on end, with them ignoring parts of my argument they don't like, and blatantly ignoring facts while they basically just repeat the opening post.

Adding fluff to your post doesn't make his argument more persuasive.

If I hadn't, I wouldn't have commented. His links didn't actually expand on his opening post, they just served to make it longer. Though, I didn't count them because he didn't write them.

Links frequently lead to articles. Articles are written by writers, which is what we do here. I have no problem clicking on links and reading part or even all of the articles that the links lead to, if I'm interested enough in the subject and/or the person posting said links/articles. I conversed with you quite a while in the economy thread. You may have felt that I was putting fluff in my posts or what not, but I don't think I was. Just because you -think- you understand a person's argument doesn't mean you actually do.

 

[320 Years of History]

Why would you want to know what I think it is if it doesn't matter to you what I think it is ;-)?

Knowledge for the sake of knowing.

fighting fire with fire is the way to go, personally, I think it just tends create flame wars

<chuckling> Gotta laugh at how it's come to be that the age of the Internet and web trolls have made that metaphor's consistency possible. LOL

 

[phoenyx]

Why would you want to know what I think it is if it doesn't matter to you what I think it is ;-)?

Knowledge for the sake of knowing.

So you wanted to know because you wanted to know, is that it ;-)?

fighting fire with fire is the way to go, personally, I think it just tends create flame wars

<chuckling> Gotta laugh at how it's come to be that the age of the Internet and web trolls have made that metaphor's consistency possible. LOL

I think the problem with a lot of posters is that they fail to really understand why people disagree with them. They start to caricaturize their opponents, calling them base insults, which in turn can caricaturize their opponents' responses, resulting in flame wars. I generally try my best to see the humanity in my opponents. This is greatly aided by trying to limit my discussions in places where there is a minimum amount of insults being bandied about, thus the reason that I've become rather fond of this subforum.

 

[320 Years of History]

So you wanted to know because you wanted to know, is that it ;-)?

Yes. In a way similar to one's, say, in Car and Driver reading articles about cars one has not so much as even a passing interest in buying or driving.

 

[phoenyx]

So you wanted to know because you wanted to know, is that it ;-)?

Yes. In a way similar to one's, say, in Car and Driver reading articles about cars one has not so much as even a passing interest in buying or driving.

You're not a car though. I don't think you're as uncaring of what others here think of you as you suggest. If you were, I doubt you'd have made this thread to begin with .

 

[L.K.Eder]

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.

It is not ad hominem if it's true. Lol.

 

[320 Years of History]

I sometimes find it best to use obfuscation as a form of protection.

I'm not keen to do that.

I'd much prefer doing this than, say, using base insults on a person.

Yes, well, bandying banalites to berate others serves me not. If I'm of a mind to excoriate someone, I'll do it with a solid case that doesn't leave room for my castigation to be legitimately denied. There's no use to me or another in my merely tossing a vulgar invective at them. In contrast, if I show them the absurdity of their thinking/actions, perhaps they won't make the same mistake in the future. I don't necessarily expect them not to so err, but at least it makes it somewhat more possible for them not to if it's made clear to them how they went astray to begin with.

If I catch someone doing it, I tend to make a point of pointing it out. I'm content with simply embarrassing them.

If they are embarrassed, well, that's one them. Everyone makes mistakes. The mature way to deal with them is to own them rather trying to defend them. Case in point.....@holos recently remarked that one of my posts struck him/her as being incoherent and described what made it be that way. Quite simply, the description was accurate, so I just agreed with him. I was mildly embarrassed, but not because Holos pointed out the "mess" that was my writing, but rather because I'd let myself write it and not revise it so that it wasn't incoherent, but that's on me. There's no reason for me to take umbrage with him over his having pointed it out; I wrote that crap, not someone else, and it was sadly there for all the word to see.