Quote:
There is a different between writing a persuasive paper, which that article is clearly intended to be, and my posting candid replies to people's comments. If no one is persuaded by anything I say, it doesn't hurt me at all, so I'm not about to spend a week preparing my replies, if someone sounds stupid, I'll say that.
  • I intimately understand the difference between persuasion, debate and argument. There is ALSO a distinct difference between arguing for the sake of argument and a genuine wish to improve the subject under discussion by adding arguments that the original poster might not have considered. We have seen many of examples of both from you. Personally, I prefer to see the latter from you because you can bring up potential gotchas and roadblocks to think around that others might not have thought of, or perhaps just didn't care enough to comment on.

    From your above comment, it is also clear that you don't care whether or not your replies have answered the questions posed or not or even contributed something to the discussion; if that is the case, why do you bother (leaving aside the obvious enjoyment you derive from being the "Devil's Advocate" in any discussion)?


Quote:
As I said above, if no one here is convinced by anything I said, it doesn't hurt me at all, so why should I bother writing up 20+ drafts of a reply to someone's post? If I have something I want to say, I'll say it. This is hardly a formal medium, I'm writing what comes to mind, I'm not taking the time to edit it thoroughly, and from the posts everyone else makes, that seems to be the way everone does it.
  • "Everyone does it"? This statement is simply patently untrue. I know that I rarely post a reply that has not gone through 5 revisions; 20 or more is a frequent occurance as well. This is simply part of my desire for the questioner to not only get the answer, but also to understand how and why that answer (or at least the general principle involved) is a correct answer or approach. There are others on these forums who do similar revisions prior to posting. This is, after all, a medium that can be considered "publication," in that a URL might easily be quoted and correctly annotated in any of the major publication standards now in use (American Psychological Association (APA), Modern Language Association (MLA), Chicago Manual of Style, or Council of Biology Editors (CBE), to name 4 of the most popular).

    You choose not to treat your post writing in any formal way, and that attitude shines through brilliantly. You are also not alone in that; many others (possibly even most) treat their posts in the same off-handed way. However, there are a few who do their level best to keep their writing at its highest communicative level (which is necessarily more formal). I try to keep my writing such that I wouldn't mind it being printed in such an article as you mentioned. I don't expect others to do the same -- that is simply what makes me most comfortable in posting. Grammar, spelling, punctuation and diction are all tools you can use in more formal writing to change the meaning of what you write, sometimes in quite subtle ways, that affect how the reader will react to what you've written.

    As I'm quite sure that you don't much care one way or the other, I haven't revised this post as much as I probably should have. Why should I bother writing up drafts when you likely will either disregard it completely or find a few points to argue for whatever reason?


DALnet: #HelpDesk and #m[color:#FF0000]IR[color:#EEEE00]C