a small note for civility re: asking questions about incomplete OP

[Lerkfish]

A small request for people who start threads to either be more clear on your topic or include links as to what you're discussing.

When you don't, it means people have to timidly ask "what is this in reference to", which means that others come along and jump on the people asking for justifiable clarification.

just a courtesy thingy thanks.


and, to follow my own advice: here's what I'm referring to:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2470657&mesg_id=2470697

[meegbear]

1. I've tried, they don't listen ...

I usually just post WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT to get them to state it.

Crass, sure. But it gets their attention and goes to the point of their fucking ignorance.

[Lerkfish]

3. LOL! I'll have to try that approach in the future.

:toast:

[acmejack]

2. Lerk, I stated that way since it was claimed that it didn't get much

play here. When that was incorrect. A search would reveal it was incorrect, true? Answer was entirely factual, hard to see that it was incourteous.

[Lerkfish]

4. I'm focusing on the people who craft the opening post.

They are the ones who should be courteous enough to include pertinent information.

as to your post being "entirely factual", the bolded portion was all that was necessary. The rest was discourteous. IMHO.


Can lead a horse to water, all we can do is post it, can't read it for people. the story was posted atr least four times I know of. What more can we do?

[acmejack]

5. I stand corrected.

My shocking lack of E etiquette is hereby noted. Perhaps someone will provide me with a link to the official online guide for all things manners related so I might avoid such boorishness in the future, I certainly hate to embarrass myself on a recurring basis. People here have such delicate sensibilities, for so many varied and sundry reasons, I find it virtually impossible to get through an entire day on this board without stepping on someone's virtual toes.

[JNelson6563]

6. Some LBN rules should be modified

and applied to GD IMO. I thought we were headed that way with a split of GD forums. One for serious discussion, on for people who mistake GD for their personal lounge for those who like to post brief little snippets that only a very few can decipher. What happened to that plan?

Julie

[shugah]

7. great post regarding this topic

can be found here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=349888

[Catch22Dem]

8. Or, one could go find out what people are talking about.

If there's a thread discussing a topic, say Specter's aide for example, should I have to tell the story at the top of each thread devoted to this topic? My post was about Rove's hand in the Specter thing. Why the fuck do I need to re-tell the story that's been all over the news for a week? If you know what I'm talking about, then respond with your thoughts. If you don't, then perhaps a little research is in order, but neither my topic nor my intent was to educate or inform.

[catabryna]

9. For goodness sake...

You don't even necessarily need to re-tell the whole story but, at a minimum, a link does help. My focus on this board over the weekend was on another compelling issue and I missed the Specter story.

So, to the OP, thanks for starting this thread, which linked to another thread, which finally linked me to the actual story.

:crazy: