Split off - Linking offsite versus Quoting...

lol...

How to word this constructively....

I am always amazed at "old timers" who forget that the things they've done and said, will be done and said by the next generation, and were done by the generation before the "old timers"....

Because "new comers" are "new" and were not around for "the old discussions", to them, its new...

And, they need to logic out the reasons for themselves...

We all do...

Our "old timers" were "newbs" to someone once, and our "newbs" will be someones "old timers"....

I hope I can keep it in perspective when I quit being a newb.... :laugh:....

Jestor wrote: I am always amazed at "old timers" who forget that the things they've done and said, will be done and said by the next generation, and were done by the generation before the "old timers"....

To be fair, previous generations didn't have access to instant Search functions on forum websites.

People don't want to read a forum like a book.. they want to interact and get the information hands on.

Going throughout a thigh budget I'M missing money . these of it was like the hole carrier and my dream job when up in to flames . I think it is a rants .

Connor L. wrote: People don't want to read a forum like a book.. they want to interact and get the information hands on.

Good point....

And, my old posts may no longer be the same opinion as my new...

Speaking of, let me air a rant of my own...

Linking to older comments and videos, as current opinion to a topic..

People link "this comment" or "that video" and don't post their own thoughts....

Link old comments and thoughts instead of having a conversation....

One time, my first interaction with a guest (one who I've grown fond of and is still here, lol) was to tell him to not link off site... and he was linking to a previous, pertinent, comment from another time and place....

I don't wanna read a speech, or watch your thoughts, I want to interact!

Lol....

Its strange that people dont want to read a forum like a book.

I wonder how they study in other avenues of life.

Interaction is good, but so to is it to study.

Or should I only read the most recent sermon if I am a newcomer?

Exploration into the past in regards to development is important, even if it were the case that the individual who wrote those words doesnt feel the same now has no bearing on if there past words will not effect another in there path.

Also, not everyone switches there opinion so quickly, or at all...so why type it all over?

Time management is important, and as for videos, well its but another, important method of communication, and, if it is not to be used, then the option to post them shouldnt exist.

In either case, what people want is largely irrelevant to what they get here, especially when everyone else is about what they want too.

Sure...

Except when I'm having a discussion, I don't need you handing me a conversation from elsewhere...

It would be like reading a book, and having that book tell you to go read another chapter elsewhere because its already been printed....

A conversation/thread, is a conversation....

If I want to study Connor, I'll stalk his profile, and ask him questions as I do it...

I am a pretty cool subject.

lol

Jestor wrote:
Except when I'm having a discussion, I don't need you handing me a conversation from elsewhere...

It would be like reading a book, and having that book tell you to go read another chapter elsewhere because its already been printed....

A conversation/thread, is a conversation....

If I want to study Connor, I'll stalk his profile, and ask him questions as I do it...

Well, maybe ...

... but bringing up other sources and quoting that which has already been written happens all the time. In books, there are footnotes. They are references to established literature on whatever is being talked about. In fact, the more precise the 'conversation', then the more reliable what is being discussed if the subject matter tends to be more well documented.

For instance, I just read Krznaric's book "Empathy". His bibliography was 12 pages, single-spaced with no line breaks between the entries. It was a pretty conversational-style expository work, but given the gravity of his subject matter, he couldn't very well just say "I think this" and leave it at that ... Referencing books, articles, talks happens all the time and is necessary for credibility. Just saying "I think this" isn't worth much, except for telling you what 'I think', not for grounding it in anything that really matters.

Usually what "I think" without checking out the references is just hegemonic conditioning and has pitiful truth-value.

Posting videos is a pretty useful privilege that our forum permits : it allows us to share some things that we wouldn't have the time necessarily to read a whole book about and still lets us ponder the subject matter. I've read all the books now (Krznaric was the last one) on which he Seminary lessons are based. But those lessons which are based off of hour-long video (the RSA talks) couldn't be read in an hour.

Likewise, if someone is not understanding what I'm talking about, I could repeat it in a dozen ways the sources I've explored to come to the considerations I'm expressing, OR I could just point out where I got much of it from and then we'll all have the same frames of reference. Now, we might not come to the same conclusions, but at least we would all have the same level of information to be able to discuss something.

Now, I do understand when people link in a video and don't really say why they feel that what is in it is important (although, I admit that sometimes I do that myself). :blush:

Besides, we do that in conversations all the time. Suppose I'm talking to you (Jestor) and I want to tell you about something that Connor told me, I can just say : "Connor said ____________ ..." Yet, it could be that he didn't. Or that I've misunderstood - he didn't say what I thought he had. Or, that he did, but maybe didn't get his meaning across for whatever reason. We could get ourselves all twisted up in conversation/discussion if we didn't go back and look at it again ; this is an privileged option we don't have in face-to-face conversations.

Then again, I don't know the particular quotes and conversations being complained about here. On one hand, the forum can't really be read like a book, but more like a continuous conversational interaction between a number of participants. It is more like a panel discussion without an actively engaged moderator (meaning, not someone in the middle enforcing rules about how long someone can speak and who has the floor ...) That shouldn't be read like a book, but perhaps 'listened to' as though one were in the audience. Just, one can always chime in from the audience. That's rare ...

Jestor wrote: It would be like reading a book, and having that book tell you to go read another chapter elsewhere because its already been printed....

This literally happens all the time. It's a citation of sources. It's kind of exactly how intellectual discourse in text format has taken place for over a dozen centuries.

Alexandre Orion wrote: Likewise, if someone is not understanding what I'm talking about, I could repeat it in a dozen ways the sources I've explored to come to the considerations I'm expressing, OR I could just point out where I got much of it from and then we'll all have the same frames of reference. Now, we might not come to the same conclusions, but at least we would all have the same level of information to be able to discuss something.

^ This. This is why I think "words mean things."


Also, twice now I've used the forum convention of blockquotes pulled from other posts. This is a condensed version of linking, stripped down to the pertinent portion of the discussion being referenced. And we do it all the time. It's no different than telling you to read another forum post, except that it's right here in your face.