Response to LW from The World forum

[caulfield]

LW,

In the spirit of keeping topics on-task and free from distraction I have moved my response to this post from The World forum here.

Without intending to get into an extended debate about differing perspectives on forum posting etiquette and especially not wanting to undermine either your style or your content (both of which I hold in fairly high regard). Like I stated, I read all of your posts in The World forum. My post as it stands is a mere suggestion.

The link idea too is a suggested method of doing two things:
-Getting people to branch out and research the topic on their own
-Keeping the thread more streamline and reader friendly

A simple reference to the origin and author would also suffice in accordance to this suggestion, but I like giving people a link as well (though you are correct that they do become broken; all hyperlinks do). It is your right to post as you see fit and if including the whole of an article word for word in its entirety serves to reinforce your viewpoint with greater emphasis, or assures oneself that viewers will actually absorb all of the intended benefit for the provided material, then by all means you are completely in the right for posting as you have done.

As I have stated, I simply seek, in my postings, to highlight particular points of valid interest in a given article of reference, provide the source of the material to give the author credit, and then focus mainly on my own commentary. It was perhaps hasty of me to interject my own methods, even if in the form of a suggestion, onto your posts and I do owe you some apology for interrupting the flow of an existing thread by doing so and too perhaps for falling into the assumption that our emphasis and intention are in-line when the entire spirit of online discussion is to encourage multiple perspectives.

That I object (only on the basis of preference) to (for example) back to back posts consisting of the entire articles of reference, remains outside of the scope of this underlying difference of opinion. Our goals are different, our perspectives are not in synch, and our methods underline this thusly... But all in all, I guess we would both have to agree that the internet is better off for those differences, and indeed exists and thrives because of them.

Peace bro.

,Caul

[Syd]

I agree with Caul, the differences makes us who we are and what we have built here. I for one like a summary and a link. To each their own though.

[laughingwillow]

Thanks for taking the time to post this.

I now understand and prolly agree with your preferred method of posting links and a summary rather than an entire article but only for the sake of making them easier to read. As I tend to skim articles anyway, the clutter has never been a concern of mine. And I hardly ever click on provided links in a thread. Too lazy I guess. But I've long pondered this formatting question and would like to reconcile my quest for posterity with brevity.

lw

[caulfield]

I tend to skim articles anyway, the clutter has never been a concern of mine. And I hardly ever click on provided links in a thread. Too lazy I guess.

So when I post links to relevant material on the subject we are discussing and you reply:

Right on Caul, thanks for sharing the link!

You are just humoring me?  

Say it ain't so...  :cry:

,Caul

[laughingwillow]

caul: No, man, I wasn't just humoring you. I was sincere when thanking you for sharing. You were participating in a thread that I started and I do appreciate that. Btw. I've really enjoyed our recent conversations concerning the economy. I've read every word you've posted more than once and perused the charts and graphs intently. This only came up as I was attempting to explain why I post the way I do. Hope you don't hold that against me.

To be honest, I was just happy to see us communicating and agreeing on the economic crisis at hand. We haven't talked much over the years and I was tickled to see the conversations go down the way they have.

lw

[caulfield]

Aw shucks LW, I feel all warm and tingly; The sentiment is likewise. :e_biggrin:

Years ago I would refrain from preaching on my soapbox about the various ills I've observed regarding the silly workings of our nation's economy for general fear of being perceived as any or all of the following:

1. Erudite and complex :geek:
2. Ignorant and uninformed :?
3. Just plain boring :roll:

Then someone informed me that all economists and analysts feel erudite, boring, and generally uninformed 80% of the time anyway :shock:  because the nature of our economy is purposefully obscure, and that the proof was right there on CNBC every morning. which is a breath of relief for me because now I shoot my mouth off all the time :twisted:  (and I try to own up to all the times I am wrong about market forces).

This is not to "preach" or influence anyone however, because as you know I encourage discourse on the subject matter. No, I truly do believe it is in our best interests (collectively) to proliferate our existing knowledge and personal understanding of this complex economic system (for the good of the nation). If we do not make some attempt to comprehend our volatile market of ever-flowing checks and balances and pass on what we know to our fellow man, and ESPECIALLY to our children and young adults, the consequences will be dire. Some of the founding fathers might agree...

"All the perplexities, confusion and distress in America arise,
not from defects of the Constitution or Confederation;
not from any want of honor or virtue,
as much as downright ignorance
of the nature of coin, credit and circulation.”
-John Adams

The evidence of this is plain to see when you consider John McCain, a man who is frighteningly close to entering the White House despite having confessed to a lack of understanding in economics. Ever shall history stand to educate the masses against a tidal wave of mounting ignorance and stubbornness - it may take time, hardships, and bloodshed... But history always wins.

,Caul  :mrgreen: