Kim Jong-un

[carpedm9587]

That's not a "kiddy game", that is the way that reply functions are designed to work on the Internet. I have no idea why you get hung up over that.

I get that complaint from several fronts. I frankly have never understood the objection. When someone asks a question or makes a point, I find it clear to place the response close to the question or point to which it relates.

[carpedm9587]

It is.

I would expect little kids to do this in an online argument with each other, not grown adults having a discussion.

No it's not. You literally have to meticulously break apart the post (usually out of context) and manually click the quote code around it each time. That isn't how it functions, you have to force it that way manually.

Because adults don't talk like that in person, so why should adults discuss things this way in a text post?

Really? When my wife and I went through marriage counseling, an exercise we were asked to do was to use a talking stick, limit anything said to 30 seconds, and stay with one message. Then the other person had to first reflect back what they heard before responding. At first it was cumbersome. Over time we learned to adjust how we spoke to each other to be more in a listening posture and less in a "framing my response while you're talking" posture. So when someone makes multiple points or asks multiple questions in one post, breaking it into the constituent elements and responding to each simply restores the exchange to that structure.

But, as I have said to those who have complained when I do it, there is a simple solution to your problem: if you don't like the practice, don't read the response and don't respond further. The problem will instantly go away!

[Cow Poke]

I agree. It gets hard to figure out to which part of someone's post you're referring to if you don't break it up that way. It's asking for misunderstanding to just leave it as one block of text with all your replies to the different parts of their post as one block of text at the bottom.

I get a kick out of somebody pitching a walleyed hissyfit when you respond to only ONE POINT of the wall of text they spewed forth. It's like..... They're so self-important that they think you have to respond to EVERYTHING they said, or they blow a gasket.

Sometimes, people type WALLS of text, but there's only one thing that struck you as worth engaging.

[Cow Poke]

Really? When my wife and I went through marriage counseling, an exercise we were asked to do was to use a talking stick, limit anything said to 30 seconds, and stay with one message. Then the other person had to first reflect back what they heard before responding. At first it was cumbersome. Over time we learned to adjust how we spoke to each other to be more in a listening posture and less in a "framing my response while you're talking" posture. So when someone makes multiple points or asks multiple questions in one post, breaking it into the constituent elements and responding to each simply restores the exchange to that structure.

But, as I have said to those who have complained when I do it, there is a simple solution to your problem: if you don't like the practice, don't read the response and don't respond further. The problem will instantly go away!

WHAT problem?

[Cow Poke]

It's kinda like the argument that the Jews stole the body of Jesus --- if that were true, all they had to do was parade the body through the streets to show He was dead.

All NK needs to do is show the little fella with the crazy haircut doing something "alive".

[carpedm9587]

WHAT

The problem of not liking it when...

problem?

...someone breaks up a post and responds to it in pieces.

[Cow Poke]

The problem of not liking it when...

Not liking WHAT?

...someone breaks up a post and responds to it in pieces.

Ya know, I really hate it when you break up my posts like that!

[carpedm9587]

It's kinda like the argument that the Jews stole the body of Jesus --- if that were true, all they had to do was parade the body through the streets to show He was dead.

All NK needs to do is show the little fella with the crazy haircut doing something "alive".

I never understood that argument for exactly that reason.

It makes far more sense that the followers of Jesus of Nazareth did the stealing...

[carpedm9587]

Not liking WHAT?

I am really...

Ya know,

...very...

I really hate it

...very...

when you break

...very...

up my posts

...very...

like that!

...sorry!

[Cow Poke]

...sorry!

Ya shoulda led with that!

[carpedm9587]

Ya shoulda led with that!

I'm a follower. It's a side effect of TDS...


ETA: speaking of following...I think I'm going to follow someone to bed!

[Cow Poke]

I never understood that argument for exactly that reason.

It makes far more sense that the followers of Jesus of Nazareth did the stealing...

Well, when He started showing up places and crashing their parties, they, too, could have presented the corpus delicti, had they stolen the body, but there would be no need for that, eh?

[carpedm9587]

Well, when He started showing up places and crashing their parties, they, too, could have presented the corpus delicti, had they stolen the body, but there would be no need for that, eh?

Ever seen "Weekend at Bernie's?"

[seanD]

Really? When my wife and I went through marriage counseling, an exercise we were asked to do was to use a talking stick, limit anything said to 30 seconds, and stay with one message. Then the other person had to first reflect back what they heard before responding. At first it was cumbersome. Over time we learned to adjust how we spoke to each other to be more in a listening posture and less in a "framing my response while you're talking" posture. So when someone makes multiple points or asks multiple questions in one post, breaking it into the constituent elements and responding to each simply restores the exchange to that structure.

But, as I have said to those who have complained when I do it, there is a simple solution to your problem: if you don't like the practice, don't read the response and don't respond further. The problem will instantly go away!

It's not like we're having informal discussions. It's a debate section essentially. You don't talk over each in formal debates. That's childish. I can sort of see it's function if it's a large block of text, sort of like how you did it (though even that irks the heck out of me if I haven't done it to your post, and my post was just three sentences!). If you're incapable of forming coherent ideas, points, rebuttals into a succinct block of text because you lack literary skill, then I guess you have no choice. But what DO did was just ridiculous. He even pulled my sentences apart.

[carpedm9587]

It's not like we're having informal discussions. It's a debate section essentially. You don't talk over each in formal debates. That's childish. I can sort of see it's function if it's a large block of text, sort of like how you did it (though even that irks the heck out of me if I haven't done it to your post, and my post was just three sentences!). If you're incapable of forming coherent ideas, points, rebuttals into a succinct block of text because you lack literary skill, then I guess you have no choice. But what DO did was just ridiculous. He even

I...

pulled

...would...

my

...never...

sentences

...do...

apart.

...that!