CDZ What's with the TL;DR thing?

[TNHarley]

I was going to post to the OP, but pumpkin pretty much said it all!

 

[GaryDog]

It's meant to irritate the poster who posted some long ass post.

Oh, well TY for the explanation.

How bizarre?....I've always found the best way to irk a writer is to deliver a substantive sacathing rebuttal. Are there actually writers for whom anything other than that will get under their skin? I don't know why a writer would give a wet rat's ass about learning that someone didn't read what they wrote. After all, writers have a target audience and not everyone is in it, and folk who think something too long to read are definitely not in the target audience.

You have already stated in a thread that you are leaving the day AFTER the election. That makes you a hack. Do you really think readers who will invest THEIR time want to read a hack? That makes you a half notch above a spammer. Deal with it.

Good riddance, really. All he does is inflate pages with useless content. We already have the Insane Clown Posse for that.

Yet you seem desperate for his attention. He has you on ignore, you know this, and yet you reply obsessively to his posts. Why?

I have nothing better to do, really, I'm mostly just curious whether or not he'll hit the "Show Ignored Content" button to see what's being said~

So, desperate isn't the right word, then again, nor is "obsessively", since I replied to all of one of his posts. You're either purposely misusing the English language, or you don't understand the English language. Take your pick.

That or I can re-ignore you, since you never have anything of substance to add to any conversation and just stalk the board, trolling people. I only even read your 'posts' when I'm bored, anyway.

This explains a helluva lot. Thank you.

 

[Holos]

What I don't understand is why folks make the effort to share that they found a post TL and thus the DR it.

You answered your own question.

Folks make the effort and get the entire message in the first few lines. Then they let the OP know that the information was unnecessarily expanded when its core was already containing the totality of the idea in the very beginning.

That tends to happens with writing that is prolix. At a certain point the ideas become repetitive and retracting, although the sentiments and phrasing may change either to alleviate the author or to exercise the author's logical abilities within conditions determined by a background in psychology requiring from the author a multiplicity of their own mind-narrative characters and usually deferring from external interactions and inputs. Often, however, there will be writers and readers sharing the same conditions of psychology to discuss a topic or thread that otherwise is TLTR to a bigger audience, but usually that circumstance of sharing psychological conditions does not apply to the majority of readers and writers available and inquiring.

 

[GaryDog]

What I don't understand is why folks make the effort to share that they found a post TL and thus the DR it.

You answered your own question.

Folks make the effort and get the entire message in the first few lines. Then they let the OP know that the information was unnecessarily expanded when its core was already containing the totality of the idea in the very beginning.

That tends to happens with writing that is prolix. At a certain point the ideas become repetitive and retracting, although the sentiments and phrasing may change either to alleviate the author or to exercise the author's logical abilities within conditions determined by a background in psychology requiring from the author a multiplicity of their own mind-narrative characters and usually deferring from external interactions and inputs. Often, however, there will be writers and readers sharing the same conditions of psychology to discuss a topic or thread that otherwise is TLTR to a bigger audience, but usually that circumstance of sharing psychological conditions does not apply to the majority of readers and writers available and inquiring.

tl;dr

 

[320 Years of History]

No surprise that some folks may think my posts are too long and thus they don't read them. I understand that. What I don't understand is why folks make the effort to share that they found a post TL and thus the DR it.

Why I don't get it is because I've encountered prose that is too long therefore I don't read it. You know what I have to say about such works? Nothing. And why would I?

• The writer has already written it.
• Other readers who are interested in the material will read it regardless of whether I do.
• There is no better way to cast myself as a complete idiot than to offer as the sole discrediting factor is that it is too long, "sole" because since I didn't read it, I can no thoughts about its substantive merit, or lack thereof.
• If, instead, I'm merely informing the world that I didn't read the work because it has too many words, well, okay, but how self-absorbed must I have been to think that the world would want or need to know that?

This is a reasonable length OP. People tend to like small bites of info on a message board. Not a novel!

I like Japanese style "eating" too, but the fact is that some ideas just cannot be explained adequately in a "tweet." FWIW, when I discuss many of the same topics with folks in "the real world," neither I nor they generally need "War and Peace" to do so, but then none of us "jumps down the throat" of the other over a highly summarized remark, using some bit of minutia as the basis for doing so. Also, we don't "get on a soapbox" over matters we don't understand really well.

For example, when my scientist friends and close acquaintances take to climate change discussions, I sit back and listen, only occasionally asking questions designed to expand my understanding, but I don't say, "You don't know what you're talking about," merely because my beliefs about "what to do" or "how to do it" differ from theirs. They do the same when the conversation turns to business and economics. One must exercise intellectual integrity.

 

[320 Years of History]

No surprise that some folks may think my posts are too long and thus they don't read them. I understand that. What I don't understand is why folks make the effort to share that they found a post TL and thus the DR it.

Why I don't get it is because I've encountered prose that is too long therefore I don't read it. You know what I have to say about such works? Nothing. And why would I?

• The writer has already written it.
• Other readers who are interested in the material will read it regardless of whether I do.
• There is no better way to cast myself as a complete idiot than to offer as the sole discrediting factor is that it is too long, "sole" because since I didn't read it, I can no thoughts about its substantive merit, or lack thereof.
• If, instead, I'm merely informing the world that I didn't read the work because it has too many words, well, okay, but how self-absorbed must I have been to think that the world would want or need to know that?

if it takes 320 seconds or less to read your post, okay, more than that, the post needs a short-short-version-summary-tag-line-gist-of-it at the end.

An Excutive Summery would be nice.

Let me ask you something since the thread is basically on members and interaction. Ho many of your threads has he been on? Anybody for that matter?

I comment on other peoples threads much more often than I start threads. So I would not expect 320 to be on many of my treads...
It is also common for OP of a thread to comment more on his own thread than on others.

I have to hand it to 320.... It would be full time job for me to try to create the volume of words he puts into a many of his post.

I wonder how long this tread is going to survive. Seems like the topic has opened 320 to some critism that may not be appropriate for CDZ.

I know what door I opened; I knew it what it would be when I created the thread.

One member, JoeMoma, offered a constructive and substantive insight -- exec summary -- so far in my reading of the comments of this thread. I have no idea what most folks whom I ignore have to say, but I did see that one of them posted puerile remarks when I used the "full quote" feature, but I didn't read them....they are just there.

 

[Zander]

Keep it pithy!!

 

[Zander]

One other thing- don't be such a damn wimp.

Starting every thread in the " clean ad safe zone" is a total pussy move....grow a set!

 

[320 Years of History]

It would be full time job for me to try to create the volume of words he puts into a many of his post.

Spending a lot of time here....

...and here (home office)...

...to get to here....

...is a huge productivity booster. That I've shifted to being a part time worker (~30 hours a week billable hours and administrative work) instead of a full time one (~70 hours) also gives me free time I never before had.

 

[rightwinger]

No surprise that some folks may think my posts are too long and thus they don't read them. I understand that. What I don't understand is why folks make the effort to share that they found a post TL and thus the DR it.

Why I don't get it is because I've encountered prose that is too long therefore I don't read it. You know what I have to say about such works? Nothing. And why would I?

• The writer has already written it.
• Other readers who are interested in the material will read it regardless of whether I do.
• There is no better way to cast myself as a complete idiot than to offer as the sole discrediting factor is that it is too long, "sole" because since I didn't read it, I can no thoughts about its substantive merit, or lack thereof.
• If, instead, I'm merely informing the world that I didn't read the work because it has too many words, well, okay, but how self-absorbed must I have been to think that the world would want or need to know that?

It's a tactful way to say..............GTTFP











Get To The Fucking Point

 

[320 Years of History]

Folks make the effort and get the entire message in the first few lines. Then they let the OP know that the information was unnecessarily expanded when its core was already containing the totality of the idea in the very beginning.

It's true that the basic theme is usually at the beginning. The case that shows the theme to be so is not often for the types of discussions/topics on USMB made clear in the opening sentence/paragraph. Sure, if I'm in a situation where I'm known and recognized as an expert on the matter -- be the scenario professional, parental, or a didactic on one with my mentees -- sure, I can pontificate and be incredibly brief, but that's not the case here. I don't know anyone here nor they me.

That requires me to respect others' intelligence enough to not just toss out empty and unsupported assertions. Even with my clients when I do just tell them what they should do, or what's a better or worse approach, as goes an implementation I'm helping them manage, I still provide sound justification for my advice. The listening (thought consumption) dynamic in those situations is, of course, different. They aren't sitting there actively looking for reasons why I may be mistaken; they are seeking to understand the merit of the suggested approach and not to demonstrate that whatever way they may have opted to do things is better. That makes sharing ideas in that situation quite different from voluntarily and unbidden doing so here.

 

[320 Years of History]

No surprise that some folks may think my posts are too long and thus they don't read them. I understand that. What I don't understand is why folks make the effort to share that they found a post TL and thus the DR it.

Why I don't get it is because I've encountered prose that is too long therefore I don't read it. You know what I have to say about such works? Nothing. And why would I?

• The writer has already written it.
• Other readers who are interested in the material will read it regardless of whether I do.
• There is no better way to cast myself as a complete idiot than to offer as the sole discrediting factor is that it is too long, "sole" because since I didn't read it, I can no thoughts about its substantive merit, or lack thereof.
• If, instead, I'm merely informing the world that I didn't read the work because it has too many words, well, okay, but how self-absorbed must I have been to think that the world would want or need to know that?

It's a tactful way to say..............GTTFP

Get To The Fucking Point

Well, just asking, "What are the central themes of your post?", is certainly a tactful and clear way to get that piece of information. I'm not sure how tactful a vulgar command is, no matter how one tries to make it seem so.

 

[Gracie]

It's meant to irritate the poster who posted some long ass post.

Oh, well TY for the explanation.

How bizarre?....I've always found the best way to irk a writer is to deliver a substantive sacathing rebuttal. Are there actually writers for whom anything other than that will get under their skin? I don't know why a writer would give a wet rat's ass about learning that someone didn't read what they wrote. After all, writers have a target audience and not everyone is in it, and folk who think something too long to read are definitely not in the target audience.

Long posts are usually informative and the writer took a lot of effort to make that post. Just keep doing what YOU enjoy doing and either people will read it..or they won't. Those that don't...well....meh. They don't really matter, do they?

 

[320 Years of History]

It's meant to irritate the poster who posted some long ass post.

Oh, well TY for the explanation.

How bizarre?....I've always found the best way to irk a writer is to deliver a substantive sacathing rebuttal. Are there actually writers for whom anything other than that will get under their skin? I don't know why a writer would give a wet rat's ass about learning that someone didn't read what they wrote. After all, writers have a target audience and not everyone is in it, and folk who think something too long to read are definitely not in the target audience.

Long posts are usually informative and the writer took a lot of effort to make that post. Just keep doing what YOU enjoy doing and either people will read it..or they won't. Those that don't...well....meh. They don't really matter, do they?

TY...You can be sure I'm not at this point going to alter my communication methods on USMB.

Those who mind don't matter, and those who matter don't mind.
-- Bernard M. Baruch​

 

[Gracie]

 

[Holos]

Even with my clients when I do just tell them what they should do, or what's a better or worse approach, as goes an implementation I'm helping them manage, I still provide sound justification for my advice. The listening (thought consumption) dynamic in those situations is, of course, different.

The CDZ is a public forum, and therefore the problems addressed here cannot be truly compared to the situation of client and professional.

We are here for a debate, and not to conform to an already comprehended standard, nor to improve standards set to provide for specialists.

Justification in a debate isn't for what was known before (advice), but for what was and is sought in the free chosen participation of the multiple collaborators, and also for what may continue to be sought beyond the debating assembly.

It seems to me that the problem relating to the topic of the thread is in the way the information in posts are being sent and received through a progressive listening (as the case in a debate). The use or eliciting of any hierarchical subsidy (professional, intellectual, emotional) either in defense or in affirmation for and from an argument is deranging in the clear comprehended precepts of a developing debate.

 

[320 Years of History]

Even with my clients when I do just tell them what they should do, or what's a better or worse approach, as goes an implementation I'm helping them manage, I still provide sound justification for my advice. The listening (thought consumption) dynamic in those situations is, of course, different.

The CDZ is a public forum, and therefore the problems addressed here cannot be truly compared to the situation of client and professional.

We are here for a debate, and not to conform to an already comprehended standard, nor to improve standards set to provide for specialists.

Justification in a debate isn't for what was known before (advice), but for what was and is sought in the free chosen participation of the multiple collaborators, and also for what may continue to be sought beyond the debating assembly.

It seems to me that the problem relating to the topic of the thread is in the way the information in posts are being sent and received through a progressive listening (as the case in a debate). The use or eliciting of any hierarchical subsidy (professional, intellectual, emotional) either in defense or in affirmation for and from an argument is deranging in the clear comprehended precepts of a developing debate.

Well, just about any assertion of the sort discussed on USMB takes more than a "tweet's worth" to justify. Indeed, a great many of them have volumes of thought devoted to them, their own Dewey decimal classification level if you will. Why then should anyone think that a short essay offered here too long in an attempt to discuss such matters?

 

[DarkFury]

Even with my clients when I do just tell them what they should do, or what's a better or worse approach, as goes an implementation I'm helping them manage, I still provide sound justification for my advice. The listening (thought consumption) dynamic in those situations is, of course, different.

The CDZ is a public forum, and therefore the problems addressed here cannot be truly compared to the situation of client and professional.

We are here for a debate, and not to conform to an already comprehended standard, nor to improve standards set to provide for specialists.

Justification in a debate isn't for what was known before (advice), but for what was and is sought in the free chosen participation of the multiple collaborators, and also for what may continue to be sought beyond the debating assembly.

It seems to me that the problem relating to the topic of the thread is in the way the information in posts are being sent and received through a progressive listening (as the case in a debate). The use or eliciting of any hierarchical subsidy (professional, intellectual, emotional) either in defense or in affirmation for and from an argument is deranging in the clear comprehended precepts of a developing debate.

Well, just about any assertion of the sort discussed on USMB takes more than a "tweet's worth" to justify. Indeed, a great many of them have volumes of thought devoted to them, their own Dewey decimal classification level if you will. Why then should anyone think that a short essay offered here too long in an attempt to discuss such matters?

The fact that is was long does not deter from the fact it lacked content.

 

[Holos]

Even with my clients when I do just tell them what they should do, or what's a better or worse approach, as goes an implementation I'm helping them manage, I still provide sound justification for my advice. The listening (thought consumption) dynamic in those situations is, of course, different.

The CDZ is a public forum, and therefore the problems addressed here cannot be truly compared to the situation of client and professional.

We are here for a debate, and not to conform to an already comprehended standard, nor to improve standards set to provide for specialists.

Justification in a debate isn't for what was known before (advice), but for what was and is sought in the free chosen participation of the multiple collaborators, and also for what may continue to be sought beyond the debating assembly.

It seems to me that the problem relating to the topic of the thread is in the way the information in posts are being sent and received through a progressive listening (as the case in a debate). The use or eliciting of any hierarchical subsidy (professional, intellectual, emotional) either in defense or in affirmation for and from an argument is deranging in the clear comprehended precepts of a developing debate.

Well, just about any assertion of the sort discussed on USMB takes more than a "tweet's worth" to justify. Indeed, a great many of them have volumes of thought devoted to them, their own Dewey decimal classification level if you will. Why then should anyone think that a short essay offered here too long in an attempt to discuss such matters?

Good question.

1 - Because they are busy and would like to let you know they are busy, nonetheless paying their token of acknowledgement to the topic of the essay.

2 - The essay is not well written to make the topic clear throughout its already reduced size and thus engage interested debaters.

 

[Holos]

Even with my clients when I do just tell them what they should do, or what's a better or worse approach, as goes an implementation I'm helping them manage, I still provide sound justification for my advice. The listening (thought consumption) dynamic in those situations is, of course, different.

The CDZ is a public forum, and therefore the problems addressed here cannot be truly compared to the situation of client and professional.

We are here for a debate, and not to conform to an already comprehended standard, nor to improve standards set to provide for specialists.

Justification in a debate isn't for what was known before (advice), but for what was and is sought in the free chosen participation of the multiple collaborators, and also for what may continue to be sought beyond the debating assembly.

It seems to me that the problem relating to the topic of the thread is in the way the information in posts are being sent and received through a progressive listening (as the case in a debate). The use or eliciting of any hierarchical subsidy (professional, intellectual, emotional) either in defense or in affirmation for and from an argument is deranging in the clear comprehended precepts of a developing debate.

Well, just about any assertion of the sort discussed on USMB takes more than a "tweet's worth" to justify. Indeed, a great many of them have volumes of thought devoted to them, their own Dewey decimal classification level if you will. Why then should anyone think that a short essay offered here too long in an attempt to discuss such matters?

The fact that is was long does not deter from the fact it lacked content.

The fact that was (^) deters from the fact that will be (>).

The fact it lacked is null. (0)

I remind again, we are in the Clean Debate Zone.

We start with 0s.

If difficult to understand, I disagree, I do not fix.