Political Crossfire Forums

[Timmytour]

...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...

[agentkgb]

I don't think it should be against the rules but it is annoying.

[00timh]

I don't think that is necessary. All a peson needs is proof of their presented facts.

[Timmytour]

00timh wrote: I don't think that is necessary. All a peson needs is proof of their presented facts.

But I think they should state what those facts are with a least a little commentary without using a link to say... "there's my argument...go look at it!"

[Revenant]

Timmytour wrote: 00timh wrote: I don't think that is necessary. All a peson needs is proof of their presented facts.

But I think they should state what those facts are with a least a little commentary without using a link to say... "there's my argument...go look at it!"

Eh....I don't think so...

http://andhereiswhy.com/

[Timmytour]

Revenant wrote: Timmytour wrote: 00timh wrote: I don't think that is necessary. All a peson needs is proof of their presented facts.

But I think they should state what those facts are with a least a little commentary without using a link to say... "there's my argument...go look at it!"

Eh....I don't think so...

http://andhereiswhy.com/

Renevant..that's useless....you offered up an opinion first :lol:

[De0xide]

00timh wrote: I don't think that is necessary. All a peson needs is proof of their presented facts.

But what if they dont present facts and use that as an argument?

[00timh]

De0xide wrote: 00timh wrote: I don't think that is necessary. All a peson needs is proof of their presented facts.

But what if they dont present facts and use that as an argument? I give an argument for a specific topic, present my opinion and provide a link. So long as what I provided is in line with the argument I am presenting there should be no need to copy/paste part or all of that in the post. A link still needs to be provided as to proof of the source. It may be helpful to highlight the article as a direct reference to the argument I am presenting but it is not necessary IMO.

[Nathyn]

Revenant wrote: Timmytour wrote: 00timh wrote: I don't think that is necessary. All a peson needs is proof of their presented facts.

But I think they should state what those facts are with a least a little commentary without using a link to say... "there's my argument...go look at it!"

Eh....I don't think so...

http://andhereiswhy.com/
Yeah, I agree with Revenant.

Go here:

http://formoreinformation.com/

[The Grandmaster]

Why are you people posting useless and broken links?

[Timmytour]

The Grandmaster wrote: Why are you people posting useless and broken links?

Methinks a reread of the first post and an appreciation of a sense of irony will lead to enlightenment :-D

[Timmytour]

00timh wrote: De0xide wrote: 00timh wrote: I don't think that is necessary. All a peson needs is proof of their presented facts.

But what if they dont present facts and use that as an argument? I give an argument for a specific topic, present my opinion and provide a link. So long as what I provided is in line with the argument I am presenting there should be no need to copy/paste part or all of that in the post. A link still needs to be provided as to proof of the source. It may be helpful to highlight the article as a direct reference to the argument I am presenting but it is not necessary IMO.

00timh

if that´s how you feel then this thread is patently not aimed at you. But rather than address it how it relates to you, you could perhaps relate to us your thoughts about those people who do not post views or commentary but simply put up a link as their comment.

Do you think that it is right that in order to find out what people agree or disagree with, we should be required to follow a link.

Or do you, like me, think that people should put up their commentary or opionions first and that links should only be used as back up.

I´m glad you shared with us your philiosophy on posting with us. But I would have preferred to hear your opinion on the subject matter :wink:

[Gus]

It could be considered a kind of spam. I'll think about it some more...

[TheGirlNextDoor]

Gus wrote: It could be considered a kind of spam. I'll think about it some more...

How would it be considered a kind of spam?

:-|

[FCTE]

Gus wrote: It could be considered a kind of spam. I'll think about it some more...


Original SPAM, SPAM Classic, SPAM Lite, Hickory Smoked SPAM, Garlic SPAM, Oven Roasted Turkey SPAM, SPAM Less Sodium, SPAM with Cheese, BBQ SPAM, or Spam with Bacon???

[00timh]

Timmytour wrote: 00timh wrote: De0xide wrote: 00timh wrote: I don't think that is necessary. All a peson needs is proof of their presented facts.

But what if they dont present facts and use that as an argument? I give an argument for a specific topic, present my opinion and provide a link. So long as what I provided is in line with the argument I am presenting there should be no need to copy/paste part or all of that in the post. A link still needs to be provided as to proof of the source. It may be helpful to highlight the article as a direct reference to the argument I am presenting but it is not necessary IMO.

00timh

if that´s how you feel then this thread is patently not aimed at you. But rather than address it how it relates to you, you could perhaps relate to us your thoughts about those people who do not post views or commentary but simply put up a link as their comment.

Do you think that it is right that in order to find out what people agree or disagree with, we should be required to follow a link.

Or do you, like me, think that people should put up their commentary or opionions first and that links should only be used as back up.

I´m glad you shared with us your philiosophy on posting with us. But I would have preferred to hear your opinion on the subject matter :wink: I think my opinion is pretty well established as I stated it twice. I gave an example of how a person only needs to back up their stated facts with a link which prooves this. I showed an example of how I would make a post and that it is helpful to use as a direct reference to my opinion and any facts stated but not necessary to actually present a cut and paste of the link provided... :?

[Timmytour]

00timh wrote: Timmytour wrote: 00timh wrote: De0xide wrote: 00timh wrote: I don't think that is necessary. All a peson needs is proof of their presented facts.

But what if they dont present facts and use that as an argument? I give an argument for a specific topic, present my opinion and provide a link. So long as what I provided is in line with the argument I am presenting there should be no need to copy/paste part or all of that in the post. A link still needs to be provided as to proof of the source. It may be helpful to highlight the article as a direct reference to the argument I am presenting but it is not necessary IMO.

00timh

if that´s how you feel then this thread is patently not aimed at you. But rather than address it how it relates to you, you could perhaps relate to us your thoughts about those people who do not post views or commentary but simply put up a link as their comment.

Do you think that it is right that in order to find out what people agree or disagree with, we should be required to follow a link.

Or do you, like me, think that people should put up their commentary or opionions first and that links should only be used as back up.

I´m glad you shared with us your philiosophy on posting with us. But I would have preferred to hear your opinion on the subject matter :wink: I think my opinion is pretty well established as I stated it twice. I gave an example of how a person only needs to back up their stated facts with a link which prooves this. I showed an example of how I would make a post and that it is helpful to use as a direct reference to my opinion and any facts stated but not necessary to actually present a cut and paste of the link provided... :?

the key point in your post is where you say

Quote: I gave an example of how a person only needs to back up their stated facts with a link which prooves this

If they have "stated their facts" then they don't fall into the scope of what this thread is all about. I've no problem with people backing up what they have already said, my issue is with people trying to further the argument, especially those who do so on their first visit to a thread, by simply providing an "invitation" to view a link with no description of, nor commentary or opinion on, what it is all about.

That's why I was taking you to task to somewhat to provide an opinion on the circumstances as outlined in the OP, which I don't believe you have done. I apologise if I'm wrong in this.

I think Gus has it spot on thinking of it as potentially spam. The type of post I'm talking about has some similarities to the "hey everybody, look at this site" type of post that most of us instantly recognise as spam.

Well, except that with spam, the poster usually does at least add a comment on what he or she thinks of the site - as in "it's excellent"! :wink:

[TheGirlNextDoor]

There's already a rule that applies to spam or posting a link to an article without an opinion:

Quote: Article-based thread criteria. Articles posted to start a topic must be accompanied by a source and a substantive opinion, otherwise it will be deleted. Substantive opinions present an obvious stance with respect to the article and are not unarguable opinions like, "This is interesting." The opinion should create a solid basis for debate.

http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=64982


So then I'd say to start reporting things that you think break the rules and that a new rule is not needed... just that the current rules just need to be more stringently enforced.

Just my two cents.

[Timmytour]

TheGirlNextDoor wrote: There's already a rule that applies to spam or posting a link to an article without an opinion:

Quote: Article-based thread criteria. Articles posted to start a topic must be accompanied by a source and a substantive opinion, otherwise it will be deleted. Substantive opinions present an obvious stance with respect to the article and are not unarguable opinions like, "This is interesting." The opinion should create a solid basis for debate.

http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=64982


So then I'd say to start reporting things that you think break the rules and that a new rule is not needed... just that the current rules just need to be more stringently enforced.

Just my two cents.

I think that rule generally is pretty well enforced, the trouble being it appears to refer only to posts leading off a thread.

What I'm referring to are the ones that pop up in the middle of a thread.

[Lumina]

I sometimes do this because I don't want to waste bandwidth. If others are genuinely interested, they can click; if they aren't, well, I've saved them scrolling time and myself aggravation.