Categorically repudiating every line of a person's post is fatiguing to read, and can render a conversation redundant to some followers. A rambling post can overly-expand the conversation, drift from the main argument, and end in a non-conclusion; potency and impact are lost, and the main point risks becoming moot.
It's possible to succinctly summarize the main points, offer rebuttal - with supporting evidence - and conclude. Additionally, utilize breaks in text: during breaks, the reader can grasp arguments/concepts as differentiating from one another, and fit them into an overall statement.
So: In short...
That was a pun. : )
Hah!
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Well said.
Agreed. Consider all supporting text for this agreement omitted for the sake of brevity, and to preclude reader fatigue.
All I heard was:
Blah! Blah! Blah! Shut the fuck up Travis! Blah! Blah! Blah!
LoL! :D
Although you have a good point Mitch, no one is forcing you to read all the posts.
Some get caught up in extensive discussions and I don't have the tenacity to keep up with those all the time. But I for one think Travis is doing one helluva job. Keep it up.
I agree that some of the posts can get too lengthy...but if I come across one like that I simply pass over it once I get the main idea.