posted on August 21, 2002 05:47:42 PM new
Ah! Can you tell us all why you found it interesting enough to post in here? Maybe then we could decide if we want to follow up on your link. I mean, I find all sorts of interesting (to me) things on the Internet everyday. Should I then create a thread for each one of them, posting only the URL? I could do hundreds a day that way. Should I? Shouldn't we all?
Instead, how about doing it this way:
THREAD:
<post URL>
<explanation> as in, "I found this little [insert observation] and though that I'd share it all with you because [give valid reason to take up their time].
Go One Step Further:
<question for viewer> as in, "Gee, wouldn't it be great if we each had one/could do what they did/the world really did work that way?
I got into a fight at work with one of those Fundamentalist types that ragged on me about Creationism and I found this web site. It's so informative, that I thought that I'd share it with you all in case you run into the same thing.
If you are a Creationist yourself, what do you think about the information from that link above?
---------------------------------------------
Now, doesn't that have sex appeal? It gives the reader a hint at what the link is all about, it tells the reader why you found it worth taking up their time to go read it, and it even tries to bait some discussion.
I'm not ragging on you, Cyn, but you DO P&M on here about no one responding to your threads or posts. I'm just trying to be of help to you.
edited because AW hiccuped when I submitted post
[ edited by Borillar on Aug 21, 2002 05:53 PM ]
posted on August 21, 2002 06:05:37 PM new
>>I mean, I find all sorts of interesting (to me) things on the Internet everyday. Should I then create a thread for each one of them, posting only the URL? I could do hundreds a day that<<
Me too, but I thought the conspiracy theorists, which this place has no shortage of, including myself maybe, might find this one interesting. No more no less. Never meant for it to turn into a substantial thread. I notice plenty of threads that just fall flat. I certainly don't have a corner on that market! Maybe it was a waste of my time. Maybe no one found it of any interest at all, but in spite of my ennui, I bothered. Case by case. Case by case.
posted on August 22, 2002 07:42:30 AM new
>Me too, but I thought the conspiracy theorists, which this place has no shortage of,
Actually, we've presented a substancial amount of factual data from solid sources. Our detractors like to minimize our efforts by belittling us. They call us Conspiracy Theorists types. We are not that. Our critics have brought genuine Conspiracy Theory threads to the RT in order to prove that we'd all jump on whatever ludicrious conspiracy theory bandwagon that they choose in order to prove that what we discuss here can easily be written off.
Those sorts of threads have always failed to attract any talk or debate amonst the RT crowd. Your link to that article is a case in point, but not for any malicious motive. Personally, I dislike conspiracy theories as a genre'. I am a Patriot and I do believe something that is well documented and authenticated and has had a chance to be discussed here in the RT. That's because we sometimes find alternate explanations and deflate the picture that the link or links bring. Because we speculate, some people wrongfully conclude that we are Conspiracy Theorists, which we aren't.
And Cyn, I do appreciate the fact that you went out of your way to make a thread for us to discuss or to tickle us. I'll repeat and say that I was only trying to be of help to you by pointing out how you could better present your threads. Maybe I was wrong to do that?
