It's a shame that Turtle is missing this, loving irony as he does.
I'm not really missing it. I've been loaded and runnin', but have been reading and been pseudo-participating via a cell phone proxy.
The cut-n-paste of entire articles, once in a while, especially if they are short, especially if you think it might interest others in the community, is fine. Nothing wrong with that. It often sparks debate or thought or is in some way a contribution to the community. However, when post after post contains essentially nothing but aggregated articles from the Web quoted in their entirety, the sheer amount of screen real estate and mousing around that it takes to navigate the forum threads stifles both interest and intelligent debate. To further stifle debate and interest is when article after article deals with essentially the same topic.
Now, all this is pretty bad, but when you pile on the fact that most of the articles are not even posted to spark debate, but rather to invoke an emotional response from readers, all possibilities for debate, intelligent or otherwise, are lost, and the posts devolve to nothing more than trolling. Add to the mix the fact that the articles are rarely, if ever checked for accuracy, and not only is it trolling and rude, it's irresponsible and reckless. And, it's a disservice to the other members of the community.
I'm a free speech kinda guy and enjoy rigorous debate, but it is my opinion that the quality level of debate in the Soapbox Forum has degraded immensely since Dennis began cut-n-pasting entire articles that are accompanied by comments that amount to little more than a mindless giggity,
"This article rulz! It's awesome, Dood!"
Comments to begin the debate, along with simple links to the articles, would be a far better way to engage others. It would get your own opinion out there, invite others to add theirs, and in the end everyone learns something whether they agree with the points made in the debate or not. Merely regurgitating the opinions of others isn't very inviting, nor educational, since most people simply tune that out.
Can you imagine going to Google and doing a search, and then instead of summaries and links to Web pages, you were instead buried under a deluge of entire Web pages? No one would go to Google very often. That's what's happening here. People may click on a Forum topic link, which generates a "page view", but that doesn't mean the contents of the page was actually read. Instead, people see a screenfull of cut-n-pasted drivel that doesn't even leave room, much less invite comments for debate. It's an in-you-face, read this dаmnit!, one-way conversation.
Reasoned people do not communicate this way. When you post lengthy articles, especially in repeated fashion, you are
demanding a significant amount of time from the reader. It had better be interesting, or entertaining, otherwise you are wasting people's time. And if you are wasting people's time, then the post itself is a waste of time and space.
The ironic (and sad) thing is that he thinks he's doing people a favor by providing them with content from Web sites that they wouldn't normally visit. He's not. Why he feels he has a calling to do this, I have no idea. But it reminds me of a street preacher who will stand toe to toe with you, then lean in a little, and just
scream scripture at you. If you can seize upon a pause and ask the
screamer what it all means, he'll just
scream more scripture at you, 'cause he don't know.
