Length of posts, and accepted tactics.

indie

This is an honest question. I'd like to participate in some of the discussions here, but I'm not entirely sure the best way to do this in some cases.

For example, with some of these incredibly long posts, such as this one, posted today There's perhaps three or four points I would address, and perhaps thirty points I either don't have the interest or time to address individually.

However it seems that if I do that, I would be arguing selectively and open to the response of taking things either out of context, or at least not taking the whole post into consideration. Or at worst, choosing to selectively ignore points. Whether or not any of that is true, what I'd like to know from some of the people here is how you choose to deal with such long posts, and what you think are acceptable tactics in debating them.

I'm quite serious about this. How does one even argue for or against this much material in a forum post, without spending four hours crafting an even longer post quoting and addressing each point - lest they be challenged on selective attacks (and leaving the next person who comes along an even greater amount of material to contend with)?

This is not a complaint about post length, as such.

Niall001 · Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2007 2:55 pm Post subject:

Through the use of sidebars for tangential subjects!

I can dream, no?

Honestly, it doesn't happen that often. I think that if you want to reply to one particular aspect of a post, the best thing to do is to make it clear that you are only interested in discussing the reasoning behind that aspect. It also means that you have to be disciplined!

Personally though, I don't see the point of entering a discussion, attacking an argument that is based on a conclusion from another line of reasoning because you don't share that conclusion without first outlining why you don't share that conclusion, or where the faults in the reasoning that lead someone to that conclusion can be found. But that's just me.

Mr. Pessimistic

irishrose · Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2007 3:43 pm Post subject:

Indie, there are a few of us, of which I am probably one, who are guilty of sometimes writing too long posts. I’m still a relative newbie here, but I don’t think any of the members would mind if you only touched on specific parts of topics, as long as they address the discussion in a significant way. That is to say that it would probably be annoying if you nitpicked at minor points, ignoring the issue as a whole, but I don’t think that’s what you are getting at.

In general, I think if I felt that you were selectively ignoring significant points on a post, or pulling things out of context, I would probably point it out. If I thought you continued to do so, without explaining or qualifying yourself, I would just ignore your posts from then on. No harm done.

Last, if you review some of the previous threads on the board, I think “garicker” does a good job of briefly addressing longer posts without ignoring significant points. He usually does not get bogged down in the point-by-point dissection of posts, which many of tend to do (though sometimes we’re able to pull him down to our level). If memory serves, his contributions in The God Delusion forum were particularly good examples of this effort.

Dissident Heart · Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2007 3:49 pm Post subject:

Dive right in. Grab something that catches your attention and see where it takes you and the thread. I think there is a thin line between hijacking a thread and pursuing unexpected trajectories...I would rather err on the side of the latter than abandon your post for fear of the former. I think illuminating ideas, provocative notions and challenging insights can be mined as they arise within a thread...without necessary following the dominant discussion or argument. I think the term hijack is unfortunate, especially since there is nobody holding a gun to anyone's head demanding they respond to their intrusion. If it doesn't work for you, pass on by. Someone else may find fodder or treasure in what's been posted.

Likewise, there will be times you want to engage the entire thread while establishing a thesis that requires methodical argumentation. I think this requires point by point responses that usually are meaningful only to those directly addressed. It doesn't mean you can't, or shouldn't, pipe in mid-way through the debate about an obscure point to the flow of discussion...but be prepared for the participants to pass on by in order to maintain the thread of their conversation.

Niall001 · Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2007 3:55 pm Post subject:

Dissident Heart · Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2007 4:07 pm Post subject:

Mr. Pessimistic · Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2007 5:08 pm Post subject:

riverc0il · Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2007 6:45 pm Post subject:

Indie, great point. Honestly, when posts start getting excessively long and responses start breaking down into bickering, semantics, or otherwise excessively anal or banal rhetoric, I usually start skipping posts or stop following the thread. Sucks, especially when you contributed the thread, but I think posters should keep things concise if they want other members to follow the discussion. Anything past three paragraphs or three quick responses to three quotes is more than I honestly have time for.

MadArchitect · Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2007 6:51 pm Post subject:

MadArchitect · Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2007 6:53 pm Post subject:

Um, and incidentally, I only count 1 point in my last post. More like 4/5ths of a point. It's mostly adverbs and spacing, really.

riverc0il · Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2007 8:05 pm Post subject:


	FORUMS	ABOUT	BOOKS	VIDEOS	TRANSCRIPTS	LINKS	BLOGS	DONATE	CONTACT