Originally posted by ThinkOfOneBut they might read the entire thread.
[b]I think he's likely trying to catch a few who might be too lazy to follow the links, even if they were interested.
Seems doubtful that very many of those "too lazy to follow the links" would not also be too lazy to hunt down and read a series of posts spread out amongst 80 or so other posts.[/b]
Part of why he seemed to be doling the OP out among several posts was to stimulate more discussion on each piece, as I see it, anyways.
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyYour endless OP is more like a maze with a stale sandwich hidden in it than it is a five course meal. Just because something is long doesn't mean it contains more information.
Pat, granted the thread's unusual in format and presentation. Think of it as a full five course meal, rather than a sandwich.
Any idea can be successfully summarized with a little effort. Encyclopedias summarize things like quantum mechanics and relativity into a few paragraphs. If you won't put forth the effort to summarize the information you present into a reasonably sized post, you shouldn't expect others to put forth any effort in reading it or discussing it.
Originally posted by SuzianneMy sentiments as well. Within online forums there seem to be strata of interest: quick hit instant gratification; entertaining small talk and small ball discussion; and honest inquiry which is driven by an earnest desire to know. Random composites are probably desirable if not essential for the sake of viewpoint variety and levity to balance hard questions and, at times, mutual discovery of unpleasant answers and acid truths. Eleanor Roosevelt's frequently quoted high brow opinion, "Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people." is a useless crock. All of us are great, average, small minded at times; and grossly ignorant about more topics than the few about which we're well informed. imo
I appreciate that the forums on RHP provide a full spectrum of the internet forum experience, as well as unusually intelligent participation.
Originally posted by SuzianneYes, to gradually stimulate discussion or at least interest (with the realization that a thread based on several pages of an author's book required an innovative presentation so as not to allow a cumbersome OP from becoming overwhelming).
But they might read the entire thread.
Part of why he seemed to be doling the OP out among several posts was to stimulate more discussion on each piece, as I see it, anyways.
Originally posted by PatNovakWhat's not to love in an extended metaphor or the play of mind which naturally gravitates to it. I like the fact that you're all business and no nonsense here as well as in online correspondence chess with an 80% Win Rate. Thanks for your insights.
Your endless OP is more like a maze with a stale sandwich hidden in it than it is a five course meal. Just because something is long doesn't mean it contains more information.
Any idea can be successfully summarized with a little effort. Encyclopedias summarize things like quantum mechanics and relativity into a few paragraphs. If you won't put forth the ...[text shortened]... sized post, you shouldn't expect others to put forth any effort in reading it or discussing it.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by PatNovak
Your endless OP is more like a maze with a stale sandwich hidden in it than it is a five course meal. Just because something is long doesn't mean it contains more information.
Any idea can be successfully summarized with a little effort. Encyclopedias summarize things like quantum mechanics and relativity into a few paragraphs. If you won't put forth the ...[text shortened]... sized post, you shouldn't expect others to put forth any effort in reading it or discussing it.
Any idea can be successfully summarized with a little effort.
The danger in too concise a summary is that some contrarian will immediately say "But you overlooked this."
Sometimes more length preemptively deals with objections like the hasty assuming that something was not already considered.
First off, GB, let me start by saying I do not wish to derail your thread, but something in this thread caught my eye and I wish to comment.
I am sorry that I did not follow this thread from the beginning. Because I missed the initial discussion in this thread about circumcision and someone made the comparison between circumcision and female genital mutilation and the inevitable misconceptions surrounding it.
First of all, I'd like to stress that by definition, these are NOT the same thing at all. Circumcision, is just that, incision around the circumference of the foreskin of the penis, resulting in removal of a portion of it. I'm not going to belabor the point of just how in-depth my experience is with this, but yes, I have seen more than my share of penises. Probably a bit more than the typical guy here. Sure, there's locker-room antics and such, but there is also cultural taboo which generally makes it unacceptable to be caught staring at another man's penis. As that may be, I've seen good circumcisions and bad ones, as well as uncircumsized ones. I think circumcision is the norm, at least in America. It even seems to be most common among most races as well. Very few of these seemed to be 'a botched job', the practice is so widespread that the occurrence of these is low. I'm not sure that among most men, there is a perception that the procedure in a bad thing, I'd say that 99.9% of men don't give a second's thought to it. In fact, I've talked to more uncircumcised men who wish that their parents had had it done than circumcised men who wish their parents hadn't had it done. There are issues for uncircumcised men that just don't come up for circumcised men, and I'm not just talking about health issues like hygiene (which is overstressed by those who are circumcised, I've found). Women who are not familiar with the uncircumcised penis need to take special care in handling so that injury does not occur; this is (usually) not an issue for the circumcised penis. Nature is nature, of course, and people get used to dealing with what they have, but in my opinion, less issues are encountered overall with 'being circumcised' versus not. Overall, I would not call circumcision a 'bad' thing.
Female genital mutilation, on the other hand, is pure evil. Misinformed people also call it 'female circumcision', which is wrong and a total misnomer, making it seem much less serious than it is. FGM involves cutting off a woman's (or more usually girl's) clitoris and depending on who's doing the cutting, could involve most of the clitoris (which extends into the woman's body rather than just being on the surface) or just the visible part of it. The labia minora are also taken as well, in most cases. This takes away any form of sexual arousal from the woman at all, reducing all sexual relations to a chore at best, and agony at worst, and for the rest of their lives. This is equivalent in men to cutting off the entire head of the penis and possibly some of the rest as well, and then still being expected to have sex.
Maybe now some of you who were unclear on exactly how evil this practice is can see just how evil it truly is. Some girls do not survive the experience, it's that bad. Simple circumcision, it is NOT.
Originally posted by SuzianneBut they might read the entire thread.
But they might read the entire thread.
Part of why he seemed to be doling the OP out among several posts was to stimulate more discussion on each piece, as I see it, anyways.
Let me see if I understand you: They are "too lazy to follow the links", but might not be too lazy to "read the entire thread". Somehow I just don't see it.
Part of why he seemed to be doling the OP out among several posts was to stimulate more discussion on each piece, as I see it, anyways.
That would be fine except for the fact that he took at least a couple of posters to task for not waiting until all the excerpts had been posted. Not exactly a tactic conducive to "stimulat[ing] more discussion on each piece". GB is really something.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOnePerhaps I was too quick to describe people who don't click links as "too lazy".
[b]But they might read the entire thread.
Let me see if I understand you: They are "too lazy to follow the links", but might not be too lazy to "read the entire thread". Somehow I just don't see it.
Part of why he seemed to be doling the OP out among several posts was to stimulate more discussion on each piece, as I see it, anyways.
...[text shortened]... tly a tactic conducive to "stimulat[ing] more discussion on each piece". GB is really something.[/b]
I don't click links for a variety of reasons. Not knowing where I'll end up is one of them.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]But they might read the entire thread.
Let me see if I understand you: They are "too lazy to follow the links", but might not be too lazy to "read the entire thread". Somehow I just don't see it.
Part of why he seemed to be doling the OP out among several posts was to stimulate more discussion on each piece, as I see it, anyways.
...[text shortened]... tly a tactic conducive to "stimulat[ing] more discussion on each piece". GB is really something.[/b]
Originally posted by sonhouse
How can we believe the analysis of a Christian who would be biased before he even begins to write? He is writing from the stance that atheism is some kind of disease.
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
"How can we believe the analysis of a Christian who would be biased before he even begins to write? He is writing from the stance that atheism is some kind of disease." sonhouse, I'm not asking you or anyone else here to "believe" any "analysis" by Spiegel or any other author living or dead. It would be encouraging, however, if you could muster the patience to hold your fire until all four installments of the excerpts have been posted; and you've taken the time to assimilate the entire profile assessment [disregarding the review if necessary]. It's the same courtesy you would expect from me. Thanks. -Bob
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
But they might read the entire thread.
Let me see if I understand you: They are "too lazy to follow the links", but might not be too lazy to "read the entire thread". Somehow I just don't see it.
Part of why he seemed to be doling the OP out among several posts was to stimulate more discussion on each piece, as I see it, anyways.
That would be fine except for the fact that he took at least a couple of posters to task for not waiting until all the excerpts had been posted. Not exactly a tactic conducive to "stimulat[ing] more discussion on each piece". GB is really something.
"It would be encouraging, however, if you could muster the patience to hold your fire until all four installments of the excerpts have been posted; and you've taken the time to assimilate the entire profile assessment [disregarding the review if necessary]. It's the same courtesy you would expect from me. Thanks. -Bob" equals "... the fact that he took at least a couple of posters to task for not waiting until all the excerpts had been posted."? ThinkOfOne, you haven't a clue of the responsibility levels in which there have been arrogant managers I've been forced to take to task. sonhouse is a friend.
Originally posted by SuzianneSuzi, please feel free to pursue any of Jim Spiegel's quotations, findings and conclusions. I'm not surprised with your depths of knowledge and insight; you've subtly revealed a few in other forums on relevant subjects over the years. Thanks.
First off, GB, let me start by saying I do not wish to derail your thread, but something in this thread caught my eye and I wish to comment.
I am sorry that I did not follow this thread from the beginning. Because I missed the initial discussion in this thread about circumcision and someone made the comparison between circumcision and female genital mut ...[text shortened]... y is. Some girls do not survive the experience, it's that bad. Simple circumcision, it is NOT.
Edit Note: Yes, I do have some measure of understanding of the horrors of female mutilation from both literature and television documentaries; male circumcision at birth seems the best parental decision, belief restrictions notwithstanding.
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyYou and I both know that you haven't fairly depicted the situation with your misleading "synopsis". Do you not think it underhanded? Why do you insist on playing those types of games?Originally posted by sonhouse
How can we believe the analysis of a Christian who would be biased before he even begins to write? He is writing from the stance that atheism is some kind of disease.
[quote]Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
"How can we believe the analysis of a Christian who would be biased before he even be ...[text shortened]... which there have been arrogant managers I've been forced to take to task. sonhouse is a friend.
ThinkOfOne, you haven't a clue of the responsibility levels in which there have been arrogant managers I've been forced to take to task.
Okay I'll bite. Tell me of the "responsibility levels in which there have been arrogant managers [you've] been forced to take to task". While you're at it, you can start by explaining exactly what that awkward statement is supposed to mean. "responsibility levels in which there have been arrogant managers"?
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneYou've been given solid facts; our extensive sidebar chat has served its purpose. Time to return to on topic conversation.
You and I both know that you haven't properly depicted the situation with your misleading "synopsis". Do you not think it underhanded? Why do you insist on playing those types of games?
[b]ThinkOfOne, you haven't a clue of the responsibility levels in which there have been arrogant managers I've been forced to take to task.
Okay I'll bite. Te ...[text shortened]... u're at it, you can start by explaining exactly what that awkward statement is supposed to mean.[/b]
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby"Solid facts"? For the record, sonhouse was not the only one that GB pulled up short for not waiting until all the excerpts had been posted though GB tried to frame it that way (awkward though it be). This isn't the first time that GB has posted a misleading summary in an attempt to deceive. He also did so on the "Sharia Law" thread where he also repeatedly posted deceitful Islamaphobic fear mongering articles on the "Sharia Law" thread whilst pretending to not have an agenda.
You've been given solid facts; our extensive sidebar chat has served its purpose. Time to return to on topic conversation.
Why is it that so many of the Christians who post on this forum seem to have little to no reservations when it comes to deceit and lying? Even though the Bible repeatedly warns against it? For example:
Psalm 101
7 No one who practices deceit will dwell in my house; no one who speaks falsely will stand in my presence.
