Political Crossfire Forums

Gus · Joined: 17 Jun 2005 Posts: 7253 Location: Tampa, FL

Personally I don't think it deserves its own rule. It doesn't happen very often, and when it does, it's not too hard to just keep scrolling...too many rules and this place could get mighty confusing.

spearsy23 · Joined: 24 Oct 2005 Posts: 5400 Location: Fulton, Ks

Timmytour wrote: ...and wonder if anyone else agrees.

What I'm talking about is posting up links as a means of furthering an argument, without including on the post any quote from the link itself nor any indication of what it is about.

For (made-up) examples replies that are along the following grounds...

Quote: You should try reading this..

[url]Completerightwingtosh.com[/url]

or

Quote: This site proves you wrong

[url]Leftwingdrivel.com[/url]

A site should be used as a source to indicate how you have developed your argument or where you have obtained your presented facts from.

But I don't agree with the kind of debating laziness that effectively fight one source off against another with some intellectual input from those quoting it that proves they have actually read and understood it themselves.

That's where I currently stand. As always, I'm interested to hear the views of others...

Your oppinion is valued.

No seriously, now shut the hell up

Timmytour · Joined: 07 Oct 2005 Posts: 6863

spearsy23 wrote: Timmytour wrote: ...and wonder if anyone else agrees.

What I'm talking about is posting up links as a means of furthering an argument, without including on the post any quote from the link itself nor any indication of what it is about.

For (made-up) examples replies that are along the following grounds...

Quote: You should try reading this..

[url]Completerightwingtosh.com[/url]

or

Quote: This site proves you wrong

[url]Leftwingdrivel.com[/url]

A site should be used as a source to indicate how you have developed your argument or where you have obtained your presented facts from.

But I don't agree with the kind of debating laziness that effectively fight one source off against another with some intellectual input from those quoting it that proves they have actually read and understood it themselves.

That's where I currently stand. As always, I'm interested to hear the views of others...

Your oppinion is valued.

No seriously, now shut the hell up

Very droll. :roll:

Revenant · Joined: 16 Apr 2006 Posts: 15852 Location: Bliss

Timmytour wrote: spearsy23 wrote: Timmytour wrote: ...and wonder if anyone else agrees.

What I'm talking about is posting up links as a means of furthering an argument, without including on the post any quote from the link itself nor any indication of what it is about.

For (made-up) examples replies that are along the following grounds...

Quote: You should try reading this..

[url]Completerightwingtosh.com[/url]

or

Quote: This site proves you wrong

[url]Leftwingdrivel.com[/url]

A site should be used as a source to indicate how you have developed your argument or where you have obtained your presented facts from.

But I don't agree with the kind of debating laziness that effectively fight one source off against another with some intellectual input from those quoting it that proves they have actually read and understood it themselves.

That's where I currently stand. As always, I'm interested to hear the views of others...

Your oppinion is valued.

No seriously, now shut the hell up

Very droll. :roll:

http://www.noonegivesadamn.com/

Gus · Joined: 17 Jun 2005 Posts: 7253 Location: Tampa, FL

No new rule. But we will consider it on a case-by-case basis--if you think somebody is incessantly flooding a thread or forum with just links, send a PM to a mod and we'll look into it.