Posted on 04/12/2009 10:19:35 PM PDT by DrGop0821
I'm just curious. Does it matter that to anyone that I don't fill in the "source" part of posts? Is it not enough that I give the URL? Does anyone except pissant give a damn?
Get off my back, pissant! Just trying to do my part to save conservatism and fight Obamunism.
Your pettiness about formatting gives this whole site a bad name.
Not trying to start a fight; but get over yourself with the "proper posting" crap already!
That may be going a little overboard?
If it's even possible to go a "little" overboard.
Anyway, it doesn't bother me.
I would just ignore pissant. Consider the source if you will.
Well, well, well....aren’t we a little pissy...
Ummm... his name “Pissant” Not “Pollysunshineblower”.
You better come here.
Will somebody please tell me why Natalie Portman is running for Senator? I thought she already was Senator...
Yes the source is very very important. A lot of people here decide not to read an article if it is not from a source they already feel pretty sure they’ll agree with.
I for one care very much for the source. Since 1) the source of this particular post is the person who posted it and 2) the poster has little to say except engage in a very personal, petty, non-topical rant, I can’t think of a thread that is more worthy of being pulled.
i just don’t who he/she is and why it gives me such a hrd time.
I think I post decent, relevant material.
Don’t get what the problem is.
“Not trying to start a fight; but get over yourself with the “proper posting” crap already!”
Without trying to sound like Andy Rooney, “Did you ever notice that when a guy says “Not trying to start a fight;” it’s always just before the thing that he says that tries to start a fight?”
newbies starting fights is considered poor form on FR. Even worse is calling out someone by name and not pinging them to the thread. You won’t last here if you keep it up.
I’m really not;just didn’t think it was that big of a deal. If it was, then FR would make it mandatory.
Yes, I care. I like to go back to the original source and judge them for credibility. Some sources are more reliable and some are just plain fiction writers. I like to make up my own mind.
I've never had a problem getting to whatever link you've provided.
I don't know what pissant's problem with you is but his nick may contain some clues.
What’s the difference between the “source” and the “source URL”? I really don’t get it. Is it that big of a deal? Seriously!
You're really trying to get some mileage out of the "Natalie Portman for Senate" thing. I would add, if you are a Natalie Portman fan, check out a movie she made called "The Closer". It's filthy - in all the best ways.
Lighten up...what would Andy Rooney do? sarc... ;^)
“Closer”, you mean. And it ain’t worth sitting through. She still doesn’t do the full monty in it.
WOW! The Closer, huh?
These two guys are headed for e-fisticuffs. I figured I’d lighten up the situation.
Andy Rooney would say? “Is it just me? Or is this a stupid thread and sorry I started it. I mean, it’s just a thread, right?”
I guess I don’t understand the nature of pissant’s complaint. I just did a search of your posts and they all contain a link which takes you to whatever blog contains the story.
Yes. It is titled "Closer". And, you're right. She doesn't go au natural, but she gets really, really close.
From what I understand she did when they filmed it - and more - but, Mike-married to Diane Sawyer-Nichols left it on the counting room floor. Which immediately leads me to believe he's a homo. Which, would be par for the course in Hollywood.
That’s exactly my point. Not trying to make anyone’s life difficult; in fact, I think it makes it easier. I don’t post any BS. I really just don’t get pissant’s beef with me. FR is a comfortable place for me and I feel like I’m helping the movement.
Some people may not like to click on a URL that looks like a random alphanumeric string because they fear opening a link which may contain a virus or malware, or maybe is just a pop-up pest site. Whatever. Here’s a solution: Fill in the friggin’ source. That’s what the space is there for.
“Andy Rooney would say? “Is it just me? Or is this a stupid thread and sorry I started it. I mean, it’s just a thread, right?”
My old man used to say “why don’t you try shutting up about how unimportant this is? Or just shut up about shutting up?”
I think one of the complaints you will find on this forum regards people who come into this country and want all of us who were already here to acculturate ourselves to their newcomer ways instead of the other way around.
You came into FreeRepublic less than two months ago.
I just added you to my “idiot blogpimp” list.
There isn’t much of a difference. It is more of a courtesy. For example, if you saw http://www.mmlott.org, that wouldn’t give you much of an idea what you would find there, some charity from the .org extension. But having it repeated as “Lotts’ Labors” may give you a clue that somebody is talking about their work. [Granted that particular title doesn’t let you know what that work is. I used that particular website because I know the owners very very well (as well as I know my own self) and that it is discussing the Lott’s work on a Bible Translation team in Southeast Asia. You are invited to peruse the website.]
Giving a url takes a reader to the specific article. Putting in “NYT” tells the reader not to waste their time. Putting in “Washington Times” says that this may be a reasonably balanced article.
Just not close enough. Of course, she’s not well endowed, so that might be a reason why, but she’s very pointy, and that can make up for things. ;-D
Think about the difference between Washington Post and WND. We really do need to see the source, just to be able to judge what the content of the article may contain bias, BS, or just plain fabrication. :D
au natural, is that like FreeRepubic?
It kinda reminds me of people who make it their duty to inform others when they've posted a duplicate thread when that's what mods are their for.
Sometimes you gotta let these things play out, ya know?
Separate the men from the boys.
The wheat from the chaff.
The winner from the loser.
Besides, ain’t nuthin on the tube now... I’m makin popcorn!
What are the Vegas odds now?
More like FreeRethongic.
LOL.
She is hot beyond belief. Of course, she's practically to the left of Castro and a complete moron, Harvard degree notwithstanding.
No. That's exactly like how you NEVER want to see Rosie O'Donnell or Hilary Clinton.
What was the source of this thread, again?
I, for one, care about the source a heckofalot more than I care about pissant.
Ummm this is honestly a waste of bandwidth and everything else on FR. In order to keep FReepers from getting groundlessly petty with one another...Is there any reason not to pull this thread?
thanks for not making me feel like i’m insane. I would like to think “conservatives” are not so petty about “the rules”. Seems like those chastising my posting are a little too hypocritically “fascist” and way too territorial.
Man, I almost tossed my cookies on that graphic....
Well, sure - - that's what they're paid for. And they have nothing better to do anyway, than to remove duplicate posts by morons who can't be botherer doing a quick search. Wheeee.... infinite bandwidth.... And it's free!
Oh, brother. You don't lose sleep worrying about bandwidth do you?
Personally, I don't have a problem with duplicate threads insofar as there might have been a story that was posted earlier in the day that I don't know about because I work during the day and the duplicate brings it to my attention before the mod deletes it or re-directs it.
Natalie Hershslag got into Harvard not because of her stunning academic creds, but because she was a hollywood actress.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.