my opinions on thread starting etiquette
 

what follows is my opinion. OPINION.

If you're going to start a thread...

If I want a news article, I'll check CNN's front page. I don't need you to quote an article, or link it, give it a catchy thread title, and expect me to read it and comment on it.

If you want to discuss something, take the fucking time....expend the effort... to say what you're thinking in your own goddamned words. I'm not following any links that have no substantive context in the opening post of a thread.

It's as annoying to me as those asswipe news reporters that interview athletes by saying....."The opening drive of the fourth quarter...." And expecting the athlete to do his job for him.

It's not enough to rename a news story you read and post it. If you want to do that, you'd better express your opinion of what happened.

maybe there should be a current events thread for the link-compulsive among us. then if there was something to discuss, someone with a clue could start a thread about it and do a tangent link to that.

that covers current events threads.

with respect to the rest..... meh. I like threads that ask unusual questions. I like game threads. i like when people share intimate things with us. I respect people that are honest about their lives and have the skill with the english language to make me feel what they are feeling.

what's your opinion?

How can anyone agree or disagree with your take on a situation unless they have the same information you do? Wouldn't that compel you to make that information available to them to review for themselves?
No mater how much you write to explain the situation, it will contain your bias unless you're just reporting and have no opinion.... or you're lecturing like tw.

I agree with LJ have said as much before. This isn't fark. And a link in and of itself isn't a thread.

and how can they agree or disagree if you don't exfuckingspress your opinion? i'm all about sharing the source of your info. you gotta do both

A link by itself says "I found this interesting enough to share with you. But not interesting enough to share my opinion of it with you."

I got plenty of links. Fark, digg, memeorandum, tech memeorandum, hell theweblist.net lists ALL of them. Every single one of them had someone sharing it. What's interesting is what we think of 'em.

I won't click on a link in a thread that provides NO clue what it's about.

However, a sentence or two (including the title) that explains why the poster thinks it may be interesting is sufficient for me to decide whether I want to follow through. Extensive re-quoting or discussion isn't necessary.

Generally, I don't open links in a starter post that is nondescript. There are; however, those who will open links in nondescript posts (curiosity killed the cat); so, I let them screen the links for me. I may revisit such a thread if it has generated sufficient interest in the form of subsequent posts (from which I may glean the gist of the linked material). Then if I'm interested, I'll open the links for full disclosure. It's a time saving technique. :2cents:

Agreed.

Amen. We've come to expect better here. It's a community standards thing.

I really don't care what you want LJ.
You bitch about the link, others bitch about posting the article, bla, bla, bla... so what?

:cool: this community has standards?

In general, if I'm interested in the subject matter I'd rather read the source article and form my own opinion.

One thing I do object to, is not identifying the source, especially when quoting and not providing the link--the author, the website, etc. Credit should be given where credit is due.

Good grief. "Others complain about posting the article?" The whole point of the internet is to connect things such that we don't need multiple copies. And as if that wasn't enough, then there's that pesky copyright law making it illegal (we already covered unnecesarry) to reproduce it. Maybe you should link an article about what happens to people who violate copyright law.

There are three ways to initiate a discussion about an article that someone copyrighted:

1. Post a link without so much as a word of comment in which case nobody knows why the hell you posted it and we all get the impression that you just want to see how much polarity you can generate; or

2. Post the entire copyrighted article and get UT's ass in trouble; or

3. Post a link, maybe an interesting excerpt then add some commentary to initiate the discussion. If the article is not interesting enough for you to share a word or two in a thread YOU started then why even bother bringing it to our attention? Its amazing how you struggle to either understand or appreciate why anyone can have a problem with this.

Its a simple thing and despite your attempt to make it all about you it isn't all about you. Its about anybody. And everybody.

Maybe I'll start a thread called This Building. When you click on it, there will be a link. When you click the link it will take you to a picture of a building. I won't tell anyone why I started the thread. What building it is. How it was made, Who works in it. What used to be there before the building was built. Who designed it. What it just sold for. Who just bought it. Whether it is Feng Shui compliant. What is hidden in the basement. Who died there. When they are going to demolish it.

But I was really hoping it would start an interesting conversation that I can join in after everyone discloses first how they feel about it.

Yay! That's what I've been waiting for since I started posting!

When starting a thread, always make sure your pinky is extended. If you are wearing white gloves, it is considered gauche to remove them mid-sentence. Women's skirts should be mid-length, while gentlemen's coats should remained buttoned except after seating. In some cultures it is considered a compliment to belch heartily after a meal; check with your concierge to ascertain protocol in your particular thread.