"Point by Point" responses to posts

[viscousmemories]

Inspired by some recent comments around here, I've been thinking about how I view post formatting when replying to people and when reading their replies to me. Specifically, "point by point" responses vs. "stream of consciousness".

When I am replying to a specific post I try to respond to (or at least acknowledge) the entire post. That means if it's more than a couple sentences long I usually break it into quote blocks and respond to it "point by point". I do this to be respectful. It's my way of demonstrating that I have read the post carefully and have considered everything the person has said.

I usually do this even in PM's, and I would do it in e-mail if most e-mail software supported it. I've always done it in my head anyway. When someone sends me a letter, for example, I refer to the letter as I write my response and try to comment on every point. That way I don't come off as callous or unconcerned by forgetting to mention some important detail they brought up.

I realize though that some people see this "point by point" style of response as impersonal and "debate-like". I can see that of course, because people who aren't into formal debate don't appear to give as much weight to precise language as, say, a lawyer. But I do. For example I hate it when people make ambiguous accusations on threads. Vague indictments that could apply to the last person who posted, everyone in the thread, or nobody specific at all.

I also hate it when people start threads and then answer only some or none of the responses they get, and when people respond "point by point" to a post but pick and choose the parts of paragraphs or even sentences that they are responding to. Especially when doing so clearly alters the meaning of the words in context. When I snip anything I usually indicate it somehow (like adding <snip>) and I always carefully consider whether doing so might alter the meaning of what was said.

Anyway the whole point of this thread is twofold. I'd like to hear what you think about how people format their replies, and I'd like to go on record as saying that I'm trying to be respectful not pedantic by favoring thorough, precise responses. And I have come to realize that there are many other reasons than lack of respect for me that people might not respond in kind.

[LadyShea]

I often use point by point responses to mimic a real life conversation. If I were speaking to someone, I wouldn't have to remember his entire speech, then respond (which is actually MORE debate like than point by point if you think about it), usually you discuss one point then move on to the next.

Some posts or topics I don't feel the need to respond to every word....so rather than quote a whole section only to say "Yep, I agree", I skip to the parts I feel need clarification or that I want to expand on or whatever.

[viscousmemories]

Why didn't you respond to me point by point?! Have you no respect?! :P

Ahem. Seriously though, that's a good point. Forums are odd in that they are a new format of dialogue unlike conversation or traditional written correspondence. So it makes sense that a new manner of interacting is appropriate. Trying to mimic an in-person conversation by fragmenting the posts appropriately makes sense to me.

[Socratoad]

Although I respect the point by point method, I'm afraid my mind just does not work that way very well. In my stream of consciousness method I sooner or later will respond to the points being made, simply because of my sensitivity towards hurting or ignoring others. I am well aware that they way I post is somewhat disconcerting to others, or rather can be, but that is me. I can no more turn myself into a point by point person than fish can fly, well most fish anyway. Take this thread for instance: vm's queries just struck the right cord and so here I am in my stream of consciousness mode answering as best I can.

Both methods have their pluses and their minuses. I guess the main bitch about the point by point method is that sometimes one can get pointed to distraction .... what I mean is that the person to whom you are doing your best to answer will just keep adding more and more points, some relevant, many as a type of one-up-manship, or just for the sheer joy of keeping the other person dancing to their tune, drowning one in a barrage of minutia The danger of posting the way I do is that some may not be able to take my contribution seriously.

Just a few thoughts from the stream of consciousness mind of a Toad :chin:

[viscousmemories]

Thanks for your response, Toad. It was actually the fact that I believe you to be a sincere and interested poster who prefers not to post in a point-by-point fashion that made me reconsider the value I personally assign it. Which is to say, I appreciate your style - as dictated by your personality and/or circumstances - despite the fact that it differs from mine. :yup:

[dave_a]

To me it depends whether or not I am debating something or not. If I say x is true and someone else says x is false, it's y that's true then we have a debate. It can be a nasty or civil or friendly style debate, it might be impassioned or casual, but I will almost certainly use the point by point method in responding because otherwise it appears I am avoiding a strong point rather than dealing with it or I am not reading the entire post or something.

This method of communicating does have it's drawbacks, however. Such posts tend to grow in size the longer the "debate" continues and the time it takes to respond increases to the point where the discussion might end with my feeling burnt out and needing a day or two to chill out and avoid any such conversations.

The rest of the time I just say what I want to say and may or may not even quote any of the OP, just as I didn't here.

[JoeP]

I'm a declared disliker of point-by-point responses*, so let me - in debate style - present the case for the opposition.

You have a point - and I take it as one main point, a theme. Sometimes it is desirable (and you're right that patterns of conversation or spoken debate may not be good models. However, I'd say that traditional written correspondence can be a good model. I have often resorted to numbering points in letters to, say, my bank, and adding "please answer all the questions I have raised in this letter", because it's so annoying when they don't).

Against the practice I put forward the following, ah, points:

1. Any suggestion that it is a "better" way of responding to threads will inevitably deter someone, sometime from replying when they only have an opinion about one sentence, or they don't have time to respond to it all. Do you want to deter such responses?

2. Sometimes the post being replied to is not properly structured into "points" to be responded to. Picking apart sentence by sentence is then an injustice to the post (the onus should be on the first poster to structure their post properly, but many of us just have too many oni).

3. Often, a post has a main point and some supporting or related points. If the OP didn't label them as theorems, lemmas (intermediate results), corollaries and so on, this structure is very easily lost in a point-by-point response.

4. The substance of a post is often more than the sum of its points. I often find this kind of response frustrating because, even when every point is commented on, I find something of value has been lost.

5. Related to this, such threads very often become confrontational where that wasn't always the attention and may not be appropriate. I don't know if this is easy to avoid.

I have more points, should you feel short-changed. But I'll wrap up with an alternate proposal: Point-by-point responses are appropriate in a thread that is a (semi-)formal debate. In this case, the original poster should in some way make it clear that they're stating a position on which they want argued responses, and then they're responsible for structuring it properly addressing my points 2, 3 and 4. In any other threads, the style should be entirely optional, and the repliers are responsible for avoiding the risks in 1 and 5.

joe

---
* In fact I only dislike them under certain circumstances. In general I'm all for point-by-point responses.

[JoeP]

I think dantonac cross-posted me with a simpler expression of the same main point, which just goes to show that shorter (necessarily not point-by-point) responses can be better!

[HelenM]

Inspired by some recent comments around here, I've been thinking about how I view post formatting when replying to people and when reading their replies to me. Specifically, "point by point" responses vs. "stream of consciousness".

When I am replying to a specific post I try to respond to (or at least acknowledge) the entire post. That means if it's more than a couple sentences long I usually break it into quote blocks and respond to it "point by point". I do this to be respectful. It's my way of demonstrating that I have read the post carefully and have considered everything the person has said.

I usually do this even in PM's, and I would do it in e-mail if most e-mail software supported it. I've always done it in my head anyway. When someone sends me a letter, for example, I refer to the letter as I write my response and try to comment on every point. That way I don't come off as callous or unconcerned by forgetting to mention some important detail they brought up.

vm, when I read a response to me I do make inferences about whether the other person seems callous or unconcerned, but I base them on the response in general, not on whether it a) addresses every point, point-by-point b) selectively addresses some points and not others, point-by-point c) addresses all or some of my points but not point-by-point.

In other words, I appreciate that you don't want to appear callous or unconcerned, but that you were trying to convey that with your completeness in point-by-point responding was lost on me.

I realize though that some people see this "point by point" style of response as impersonal and "debate-like".

I don't see it as impersonal and "debate-like". Sometimes it can be cumbersome; sometimes it can get hard to read, when layers upon layers of point-by-point build up as people keep using it.

I can see that of course, because people who aren't into formal debate don't appear to give as much weight to precise language as, say, a lawyer. But I do. For example I hate it when people make ambiguous accusations on threads. Vague indictments that could apply to the last person who posted, everyone in the thread, or nobody specific at all.

I agree that ambiguous statements are frustrating. But statements can be made clear without using point-by-point. Also, point-by-point can be confusing too as layers build up and when the person being quoted isn't clearly indicated.

I also hate it when people start threads and then answer only some or none of the responses they get, and when people respond "point by point" to a post but pick and choose the parts of paragraphs or even sentences that they are responding to. Especially when doing so clearly alters the meaning of the words in context. When I snip anything I usually indicate it somehow (like adding <snip>) and I always carefully consider whether doing so might alter the meaning of what was said.

It can be difficult to respond to every point in every post when you post something and get a lot of responses, because of time constraints. And point-by-point is the most time-consuming way to respond, imo.

Anyway the whole point of this thread is twofold. I'd like to hear what you think about how people format their replies, and I'd like to go on record as saying that I'm trying to be respectful not pedantic by favoring thorough, precise responses. And I have come to realize that there are many other reasons than lack of respect for me that people might not respond in kind.

I'm glad you've realized that not responding in kind doesn't necessarily mean disrespect. As i said, point-by-point is time-consuming; sometimes I simply don't have time to do that. I would like to think my level of respect or concern is judged more by my words in general than whether I use point-by-point and that I'm not judged callous simply because I choose not to respond to every point made. After reading what you wrote, perhaps what I would like to think doesn't accurately reflect reality.

Anyway, my view is: I find it irritating when people don't respond to me at all and respond to others in the thread; I also find it irritating when it's apparent they're deliberately evading points I made, because they still don't reply to them when I restate them. But I don't assume disrespect simply because people don't respond to my whole post or don't respond point-by-point. Apart from anything else, some people have a hard time with the vbb code for point-by-point responses. It's hard enough not messing up the code when you're familiar with it!

Helen

[seebs]

I tend to respond point by point in a debating format, but to posts as a whole in a discussion; in short, I mostly respond to points if I'm trying to rebut them, and this only works if they're reasonably separable. Often, I'll do a point by point response, followed by a brief essay tying the points together.

YMMV.

Also, when I'm doing something else, I tend to hurry through, or just do an overall response.

[JoeP]

Q: Every point-by-point discussion evolves, and at some time a given point will be covered while others aren't. Must it be listed in the next response with an "I agree" (by contrast, on technical boards and email lists, zero-value-adding responses like this are bad netiquette)? If not, how do you tell the difference between a point agreed to (by all speakers) and one ignored?

In fact the response to one point can consist of more than one point, and every such discussion is a tree. Reflecting a linear list of points with [ quote ] tags is hard enough. We'd need more powerful software and new models of post threading (trees inside the tree of post responses) to do it justice.

joe

[Adora]

Regarding the starting thread then only replying to some: Er, some of us don't have 12 hours out of everyday to devote to this site, y'know. If I start a thread I'd try to get around to the responses that actually matter.

As for PbP (Point by Point), that's only something I employ if it's needed. The way my brain works is chaotic and rambly, so if I'm in a discussion where I know an individual isn't really going to appreciate it unless I emply PbP, I use it. Otherwise it's just tedious.

Also, how should I put this, if we're going to bitch about reply-formatting, how about quote-tiers that are up to 5 layers? Seriously, we're not (all) idiots. Most of us can follow a bunch of posts leading up to another one. It's just a waste of bandwidth which slows down the loading time of the page. I'm not going to force anyone to stop though.

Anyway, you can't dictate to me the way I'm going to make my replies. So nyeh :P

[Ymir's blood]

I will typically go to a 'point by point' reply only when in a 'serious' debate. The main reasons are that it assures both myself and the other person that each point is being addressed and secondly, because it forces me to read and respond to exactly what was written. Otherwise it is easy to paraphrase and thus alter the other person's postion. Points which I agree with or choose not to respond to may either be so noted or simply snipped out, depending on the intensity of the discussion. (More intense equals less likely to be snipped out)

[viscousmemories]

To me it depends whether or not I am debating something or not.
Thank you for saying that, dantonac. That raises what for me is an important point. Of course nobody is required to engage in debate here or anywhere, and I understand that some people favor shooting the shit over meticulous analysis of subjects. But is it reasonable to expect people - in a public forum devoted to the free exploration of ideas - to honor your desire to avoid debate even if you have asserted something strongly contentious? I don't think so, but I'm genuinely interested in whether you or anyone else does.

This method of communicating does have it's drawbacks, however. Such posts tend to grow in size the longer the "debate" continues and the time it takes to respond increases to the point where the discussion might end with my feeling burnt out and needing a day or two to chill out and avoid any such conversations.
It helps considerably to be unemployed. :D Seriously though, that's a very good point.

The rest of the time I just say what I want to say and may or may not even quote any of the OP, just as I didn't here.
I do that too, but like you I feel much more comfortable doing it when the thread lacks any controversial content.

[Dingfod]

Hmmm? My mind does not work in the "stream of consciousness" way that some of you seem to function. Point-by-point, even breaking down posts to respond only to the pertinent part is more my style. Plus, I can't remember what was said long enough to maintain a stream of consciousness. I'm having trouble maintaining a stream of consciousness in real life too. Anyway, if you don't like the way I post, tough, because that's the way its going to be. Discuss.




Note to self: The Wellbutrin doesn't seem to be working as well as the Zoloft. Try it for another week, then see the doc.

[dave_a]

But is it reasonable to expect people - in a public forum devoted to the free exploration of ideas - to honor your desire to avoid debate even if you have asserted something strongly contentious? I don't think so, but I'm genuinely interested in whether you or anyone else does.


Well, speaking only for myself if I assert that x is true and someone objects then I am either going to debate the point or not. If I don't wish to spend the time debating or looking stuff up to make sure I was right then I will usually just say something to the effect "You might be right, but it is my understanding that x is in fact true. If you have evidence to the contrary feel free to present it."

I can't do this on IIDB though or I will get yelled at because I am breaking a rule of formal debate. I wish people would understand that not everything is a formal debate and I always reserve the right to state my belief and be too lazy or uninterested to prove the belief correct with supporting evidence.

Normally if challenged though I end up debating. That's what happened in the parental notification thread where Sweetie made the comment about 13 year olds wanting to get pregnant which ended up spiraling out of control. I took a position which seemed obvious to me and it ended up not being obvious to others. Liv said something to the effect that I has a responsibility to research my view more so I researched, debated and at the end was exhausted from it. Gotta learn to stop doing that. "Just say no" :D

[viscousmemories]

Against the practice I put forward the following, ah, points:

1. Any suggestion that it is a "better" way of responding to threads will inevitably deter someone, sometime from replying when they only have an opinion about one sentence, or they don't have time to respond to it all. Do you want to deter such responses?
That's a good point. It wasn't my intention to imply that point-by-point responses are somehow superior to "stream of consciousness" responses. Just explaining why I do it and wondering aloud why others respond as they do. And in retrospect I shouldn't have used "stream of consciousness" in contrast to point-by-point, because I actually don't think they're logical opposites. I probably should've used 'fragmented' or 'non-referential'.

2. Sometimes the post being replied to is not properly structured into "points" to be responded to. Picking apart sentence by sentence is then an injustice to the post (the onus should be on the first poster to structure their post properly, but many of us just have too many oni).
Hmm. It seems to me the vast majority of "arguments" people make (outside of formal debates, natch) aren't usually presented as formal arguments. I don't see that it's necessarily an injustice to overlook that fact and respond to the implicit argument.

For example, if someone posts "I hate people from Ann Arbor because they're all alcoholics and therefore don't vote", obviously this is not an attempt on the part of the speaker to make a formal argument. However it is nonetheless an argument. If I were to respond I might choose to say "Go to hell you Ann Arborite hating ass!" or I might dissect it point by point and reveal the fallacious reasoning behind it.

Honestly I think the former would be more in line with the spirit of the argument, but I find the latter more personally satisfying. In my opinion it's more generous (it assumes an ability and willingness on the part of the OP author to re-examine his/her belief) and it's more just (because I believe that negative stereotypes and generalizations should be challenged).

3. Often, a post has a main point and some supporting or related points. If the OP didn't label them as theorems, lemmas (intermediate results), corollaries and so on, this structure is very easily lost in a point-by-point response.
And right on cue, I have no idea what you mean. No seriously. :D

4. The substance of a post is often more than the sum of its points. I often find this kind of response frustrating because, even when every point is commented on, I find something of value has been lost.
I think I know what you mean by that. For example on occasion I've gone back and re-read some old threads I participated in and noticed that I had completely missed the forest for the trees during a discussion. In fact that's one of the biggest reasons I try hard (though I still fail too often) to be respectful of the people I engage in discussions - however vehemently I might disagree with their statements. I'm well aware of the fact that sometimes I am the weakest link*.

5. Related to this, such threads very often become confrontational where that wasn't always the attention and may not be appropriate. I don't know if this is easy to avoid.
This is another very good point. I'm positive that my analytical approach to discussions has had this effect.

I have more points, should you feel short-changed. But I'll wrap up with an alternate proposal: Point-by-point responses are appropriate in a thread that is a (semi-)formal debate. In this case, the original poster should in some way make it clear that they're stating a position on which they want argued responses, and then they're responsible for structuring it properly addressing my points 2, 3 and 4. In any other threads, the style should be entirely optional, and the repliers are responsible for avoiding the risks in 1 and 5.
I would think that a reasonable proposal but for the point I made above - that posts clearly framed as formal arguments are a rare creature even on heavily debate-oriented forums like IIDB and JREF. Which is to say I think the style should be entirely optional at all times and I agree that repliers should try to avoid 1 and 5.



* Reference to a TV trivia quiz show "The Weakest Link" wherein the person who misses the most questions per round is judged "the weakest link" and disqualified from the competition.

[maddog]

I am a linear thinker, so I tend to prefer point-by-point responses when I post back to something. The original poster (the one I want to reply to) may often have a complex argument, and I don't want to start at the end, because I might have questions about some of the premises. So I tend to break the post into segments which seem to "hang together" to me, and either agree or disagree or question, or whatever, at each point that an idea occurs to me. I don't really like "debate." I'd much rather have a conversation. But looking carefully at all the points, and making sure I understand them, to me, helps the conversational aspect of it.
#41

[Dingfod]

I am a linear thinker,Me too. Well, I'm not so much of a thinker, but what little thinking I do, seems to be linear, at least until I'm distracted by something else.so I tend to prefer point-by-point responses when I post back to something.That is my preference as well.The original poster (the one I want to reply to) may often have a complex argument,Complex or simple, my mind works the same.and I don't want to start at the end,I find myself finding tempted to break their post down and rearrange it according to how I want to respond.because I might have questions about some of the premises.That is much more deep that I usually get.So I tend to break the post into segments which seem to "hang together" to me,That's what I was talking about.and either agree or disagree or question, or whatever, at each point that an idea occurs to me.Easier for me as well.I don't really like "debate."Me neither.I'd much rather have a conversation.I'd much rather give a speech. Just kidding.But looking carefully at all the points, and making sure I understand them, to me, helps the conversational aspect of it.Sure flows more like one, especially the ones we had in my family, with everyone interrupting each other to insert comments expressing points of view about the individual points made. I never heard a debate in my family growing up, it was always the back and forth conversation.Why 41? I though the answer to the Life, the Universe and Everything was 42.

BTW, I did this on purpose. Sue me.

Soy un perdedor. I'm a loser baby, so why don't you kill me.

[HelenM]

I also hate it when people start threads and then answer only some or none of the responses they get

But you haven't responded to everyone on this thread :?

Helen

[viscousmemories]

I also hate it when people start threads and then answer only some or none of the responses they get

But you haven't responded to everyone on this thread :?
Yet. :)

Another drawback to my favoring detailed responses to everyone who posts on a thread I create is that it takes a lot of time and energy. So answering posts in chronological order results in there being a page of people who think they're being ignored while I'm still responding to people who posted yesterday. :(

[LadyShea]

VM, I think point by point responses to every single response to your thread is somewhat overkill and too time consuming, especially if many of your respondents make the same points.

Seems to me you could be somewhat flexible. Though your preference is for individual point by point responses, maye for some discussions/posts an overall "stream of consciousness" or whatever you want to call it would be more desirable? Change it up based on the individual situation rather than rigidly sticking to a particular format?

[HelenM]

I also hate it when people start threads and then answer only some or none of the responses they get

But you haven't responded to everyone on this thread :?
Yet. :)

Another drawback to my favoring detailed responses to everyone who posts on a thread I create is that it takes a lot of time and energy. So answering posts in chronological order results in there being a page of people who think they're being ignored while I'm still responding to people who posted yesterday. :(

Fair enough; when I posted the above I was under the mistaken impression that you'd responded to someone who posted after me, but not responded to me yet.

This is merely an observation: your post explaining that you reply in chronological order is an out-of-chronological order response. :giggle:

Helen

[viscousmemories]

vm, when I read a response to me I do make inferences about whether the other person seems callous or unconcerned, but I base them on the response in general, not on whether it a) addresses every point, point-by-point b) selectively addresses some points and not others, point-by-point c) addresses all or some of my points but not point-by-point.

In other words, I appreciate that you don't want to appear callous or unconcerned, but that you were trying to convey that with your completeness in point-by-point responding was lost on me.
I think I've failed to express myself adequately. It's not as if I've ever thought that dissecting a post and responding to it point-by-point is in itself a gesture of compassion or concern, nor do I always respond point-by-point. Sometimes I respond with only a sentence or paragraph, or just to a single sentence or paragraph. This could mean any number of things, from I'm busy right now but I want to say something to I'm not terribly interested in the subject overall but a particular point jumped out at me.

But I do typically use point-by-point responses when I disagree with one or more parts of the post because I prefer it when people do the same. To be blunt, the opinion of people who disagree with something I said but can't be bothered to argue their case is worthless to me. I'm more than willing to accept the fact that I might be wrong (I often am, after all), and in fact want to know if I am. But if I make an argument and someone disagrees with my conclusion, I expect that they will either show me where my logic fails or concede the point themselves. Not so I can "win", but so I can know for myself whether my belief is based on sound reasoning.

This was the biggest bone of contention between me and the admin staff at IIDB in the numerous policy discussions I was involved in. An ICR thread was far more like an audience than a debate. You make your case, they tell you why they disagree (which they almost always did) and then you go away. They just weren't interested in argument. This is all well and good as far as I'm concerned, honestly. I just wish someone had told me that's how it is before I spent many hours of my life presenting arguments nobody was interested in hearing, resulting in my being branded implacable.

I don't see it as impersonal and "debate-like". Sometimes it can be cumbersome; sometimes it can get hard to read, when layers upon layers of point-by-point build up as people keep using it.

I agree that ambiguous statements are frustrating. But statements can be made clear without using point-by-point. Also, point-by-point can be confusing too as layers build up and when the person being quoted isn't clearly indicated.
I agree that it can be more difficult to read a point-by-point response that's done improperly. When a person responds to snippets of multiple posts without indicating the author in the quote tag or when they only quote partial sentences, for example.

It can be difficult to respond to every point in every post when you post something and get a lot of responses, because of time constraints. And point-by-point is the most time-consuming way to respond, imo.
You don't say... :)

I'm glad you've realized that not responding in kind doesn't necessarily mean disrespect. As i said, point-by-point is time-consuming; sometimes I simply don't have time to do that. I would like to think my level of respect or concern is judged more by my words in general than whether I use point-by-point and that I'm not judged callous simply because I choose not to respond to every point made. After reading what you wrote, perhaps what I would like to think doesn't accurately reflect reality.
I hope I've clarified that I don't judge every interaction that way and that even when I do infer such a thing the length or detail of a response certainly isn't the only factor I go by.

Anyway, my view is: I find it irritating when people don't respond to me at all and respond to others in the thread; I also find it irritating when it's apparent they're deliberately evading points I made, because they still don't reply to them when I restate them. But I don't assume disrespect simply because people don't respond to my whole post or don't respond point-by-point. Apart from anything else, some people have a hard time with the vbb code for point-by-point responses. It's hard enough not messing up the code when you're familiar with it!
I agree. And you bring up another good point. Use of vbb code isn't required at all for a "point-by-point" response. What matters to me is whether all the points were addressed, not how the post is formatted. The problem with "stream of consciousness" replies is that they're much more conducive to sloppy or fallacious thinking, in my opinion. So when precision is important (and it's always important to me when I'm arguing about or trying to learn something) I think point-by-point responses are preferable.

[viscousmemories]

Seems to me you could be somewhat flexible. Though your preference is for individual point by point responses, maye for some discussions/posts an overall "stream of consciousness" or whatever you want to call it would be more desirable? Change it up based on the individual situation rather than rigidly sticking to a particular format?
I usually do change it up, actually. But threads like this one wherein I'm trying to re-examine (with the help of others) my whole approach to posting - are important enough that I want to be thorough.

This is merely an observation: your post explaining that you reply in chronological order is an out-of-chronological order response.
Yeah it was a tough choice, believe me. :D

[Corona688]

My posting style depends on the "feel" of the thread. For outright debates, when responding to somebody's post, point-by-point and occasionally metal baseball bats are essential if you want to get any acknowledgement at all. (I'll take a lot of crap from people, but I refuse to be ignored. :P)

On the other hand, if I'm contributing something "new" rather than directly responding to someone else -- as I am doing in this post -- I don't quote anybody at all, so nobody gets confused as to who I'm responding to and who said what.

For friendlier chat-like conversations, I only quote and respond to the parts I want to.

[pzmyers]

There is a very common debate tactic by the uninformed called squinking. What they do is throw out a lot of superficially considered points, shotgun-style, each of which may be garbage, but they know that it will take a fair amount of effort for the informed responder to address each one. And then they respond to the response by again firing a load of chaff.

This is the stereotypical creationist strategy in any discussion of that topic. You'll also hear it referred to as the "Gish gallop".

They love the "point by point" response. They especially love it when people insist on it as a point of etiquette, and complain when anyone instead cuts to the heart of the argument and tries to deal with it in depth. It's a guarantee of a shallow discussion that will pander to their strategy, and that will bore the pants off anyone if the serious guy actually tries to deal substantively with the issues point by point, especially since the individual points weren't intended seriously.


They also love the meta discussion babble where everyone complains about how things are said, since, again, there is no substance to what they say, and stirring up Miss Manners is always a good distraction.

[Dingfod]

If a single post is really long, due to short attention span, I'm not likely to read the whole thing. So, if you have a long post, and you want me to get the gist of it, make your point in the opening paragraph, then expand away after that.

[viscousmemories]

Okay thank you all for your contributions to this thread. The conclusion that I've come to is that most people view point-by-point responses as generally somehow less than warm and friendly, so I am going to make a concerted effort to avoid responding in that way from here on out. Of course this doesn't mean I won't ever do it, but I'll be cutting back. If you feel neglected because I didn't respond to something you said in this thread, tough shit. :D

[Dingfod]

If a single post is really long, due to short attention span, I'm not likely to read the whole thing. So, if you have a long post, and you want me to get the gist of it, make your point in the opening paragraph, then expand away after that.Nevermind. Sorry, I had a fleeting moment of insanity there. I had a stupid idea for just a second that someone would actually care if I read their post or not. This is the fucking internet, I should know better.

[viscousmemories]

If a single post is really long, due to short attention span, I'm not likely to read the whole thing. So, if you have a long post, and you want me to get the gist of it, make your point in the opening paragraph, then expand away after that.Nevermind. Sorry, I had a fleeting moment of insanity there. I had a stupid idea for just a second that someone would actually care if I read their post or not. This is the fucking internet, I should know better.
Hey man, don't you go badmouthing the Internet!

No seriously... what? Are you pissed that I didn't respond to your post?

[Dingfod]

Sorry. Although I admit I internalized it a bit, I don't think my point of it being the internet and nobody really caring if anyone else reads what they write is that far off base. Perhaps a subject for another thread, but valid, none the less.

[beyelzu]

Sorry. Although I admit I internalized it a bit, I don't think my point of it being the internet and nobody really caring if anyone else reads what they write is that far off base. Perhaps a subject for another thread, but valid, none the less.
Hell, I for one give a shit, or I wouldnt be here.

[beyelzu]

did liv used to have a post below vm's or am I losing my fucking mind?

[Dingfod]

I'm taking this to another thread as livius suggested in her now invisible post.

[livius drusus]

liv did. liv removed it cause it was stupid.

[Dingfod]

Was not. You were dead right. Here (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=914) is my new thread on the subject I broached.