Posted on 09/18/2004 11:55:33 PM PDT by Cableguy
With its 60-foot-tall, 30-ton bronze of praying hands and an even taller prayer tower capped by a billowing eternal flame, Oral Roberts University is a strong symbol for Christian conservatives.
But the university's rules forbid mixing religion with politics. So when Dr. Tom Coburn, the Republican Senate nominee in Oklahoma, addressed students recently, the professor who welcomed him refrained from making an endorsement.
"But I don't think we would violate anything," the professor, John W. Swails, told the students with a bit of a nod and a wink, "by saying to you, 'We can pray for Dr. Coburn in this race.' ''
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Alright, if your going to post an article from a sight that you have to register, POST THE WHOLE THING.
Dude, rules call for me to post only the leading few paragraphs. If you don't want to read it, don't read it. Almost everyone in FR has registered for NY Slimes and other news websites. So stop complaining like a baby.
The real question is: what is the current status of this race? I like Coburn alot. I remember him as a solid Congressman from my days living in Oklahoma. I've heard that he was leading, and is now has fallen behind -- whazzup?
NY Times regarding Dr. Coburn...
www.bugmenot.com - for an sign in name/password
sorry dude I'm just tired i think i'm going to bed... thanks for the article though.
Are Dems making it a major priority to win OK from GOP? What about Moveon and other 527's. We hear about SD and IL political races but not other states. Wonder if Soros' groups are taking local election more seriously as Ho Chi Minh Kerry sinks in his Swiftboat?
Nytimes.com is NOT ON THE EXCERPT LIST. Unless you have seen a different thread from Jim Robinson stating differently, we are not prevented from posting the full article.
Your attitude towards Dixie was uncalled for, and your reasoning for behaving in said fashion is unfounded.
If we are not prevented from posting the full article from a website (such as the New York Times), it is irritating to many that surf FR to have to unnecessarily follow a link and/or register when the original poster (such as yourself) should have saved everyone else the trouble by posting the article in full within the original thread.
It is even more of a hassle when, like myself, you access FR using an alternative internet device (my cell phone for example, hence my screen name). A cell phone accessing the internet is not nearly as elegant at navigation as a computer. But when I don't have access to a computer it still allows me to keep up with events and articles.
By excerpting unnecessarily, you are creating obstacles that shouldn't be there.
I am not going to post any long article in full. It is a waste of my time as well as waste of bandwidth/resources. If you are accessing FR via cellphone, then you rather see an excerpt rather than a 3000 thousand word article, woudn't you? That way, you can make a choice.
I have posted over hundreds articles in the past year alone, and no one complained (other than duplicates).If you just look at yesterday's posts, there are dozens of NYT and Wash Post articles, which both require registrations. So bug off and don't be an idiot. If you don't want to read NYT, then don't click on NYT articles.
Ah, now we get to the point. You are not following posting guidelines, instead, you are using the excerpt rules as an excuse to be lazy when full posting is allowed. If you have the time to post so many articles on FR then you obviously have the time to spend a few more seconds to post the entire article.
If you are accessing FR via cellphone, then you rather see an excerpt rather than a 3000 thousand word article, woudn't you? That way, you can make a choice.</>
No, I would not rather see an excerpt. Most alternative internet devices have plenty of bandwidth to transfer the data at a quick enough pace. After all, text is not an intensive internet task. It's the page navigation and data entry that is cumbersome.
I have posted over hundreds articles in the past year alone, and no one complained (other than duplicates).
Unnecessarily excerpted articles have always been a pet peeve of many people on FR. You now have had two people complain about excerpting an article that should not have been excerpted. Additionally, if Jim Robinson and the powers that be at FR did not want the full text of articles posted, there would be no need for an Excerpt list which they update as necessary. They would simply tell everyone to excerpt and be done with it. Because there is a maintained and updated excerpt list that is itself an encouragement to post the full article EXCEPT those on the LIST.
If you don't want to read NYT, then don't click on NYT articles.
What a silly argument. Obviously, I do wamt to read NYT articles (preferrably the entire article without following a link), but due to people like you who are too lazy and have disregard for others, I now have more barriers to quick and easy surfing on FR. If you don't understand basic courtesy then I would not be banding about the label of idiot, sir.
If posting the full article is too much for you to handle, perhaps you should not be posting articles that do not need to be excerpted. Leave them for the other news hounds on FR that would post them in full.
I am going to do what I have been doing for the past year. No administrator has corrected what I have done except for some silly mistake I have made. If you got a problem, complain to them. I am not going to listen to some TROLL like yourself.
Otherwise, have a nice day.
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.