Biggest Forum Windbag

[Carpe Mortem]

^What he said

[Key]

What's a windbag?

[John Wilkes Booth]

i actually prefer it when people take the effort to put it their own words, because often the article isn't saying the same exact thing that the poster is saying, it's just linked in some way but the emphasis might be completely different. and so if they just post an article and leave it at that i might not get the full impression of what they are trying to convey.

#****thehaters
#larehipforpropagandaczar

[Trollheart]

Originally Posted by John Wilkes Booth

i actually prefer it when people take the effort to put it their own words, because often the article isn't saying the same exact thing that the poster is saying, it's just linked in some way but the emphasis might be completely different. and so if they just post an article and leave it at that i might not get the full impression of what they are trying to convey.

#****thehaters
#larehipforpropagandaczar

This guy gets it.
There would be no point in my grabbing a Wiki article (assuming this is directed towards my reviews) and pasting it into my journal. Why do that? Anyone can do that. Also as I said, it's against forum rules. Wiki and other articles can be used to illustrate the points you want, but if you're just going to quote them verbatim don't kid yourself you're a writer. All you are is a Xerox machine on legs.

I can't understand the mentality of anyone saying such a thing. So for a review of an album you just quote someone else's words and don't bother adding anything of your own?

I should also add (doing well to win Forum Windbag here!) that anything I write is done not to seem intelligent (I don't consider myself an intellektu --- intellexua --- intellieck -- smart guy at all) but to show that I know whereof I write, give some background, add some personal insight and hopefully make the resultant article more enjoyable for the reader.

Or at the very least, to annoy the hell out of them.

[Carpe Mortem]

I didn't mean album reviews whatsoever. That kind of writing is pure opinion, and its good when personality shines through. I mean all these retarded debates people have all over the internet on topics where both sides can express facts. Instead of stating those facts as if its something they invented, I think such debates would be more productive if people just pasted credible articles back and forth, written by specialists in those fields.

This article says a.
Well, this article says a is inaccurate, and actually b
Well this one says b is just a scheme to undermine a for reason c
Hmmm... Not seeing anything against c anywhere. I'll take a gander and say maybe d, but what do I know, I'm just some random person on the internet, not a scientist.

[John Wilkes Booth]

if you want to try that method out then hey, go for it.

i don't think it's a particularly effective way to debate or communicate but that's just me. it's basically outsourcing all the communication to experts... which sounds great and all but experts are pretty much windbags themselves.

sometimes articles are a good thing to cite to show you're not just pulling **** out of your ass, or if it's a particularly well written or thought provoking piece you want to share. but just pasting articles as a primary form of communication just sounds weird to me.

[Neapolitan]

not norg

[Pet_Sounds]

Today, it was Urban Hat€monger ?. He made almost thirty posts and created two new threads. By comparison, I've made seven posts (including this).

[Neapolitan]

Originally Posted by Pet_Sounds

Today, it was Urban Hat€monger ?. He made almost thirty posts and created two new threads. By comparison, I've made seven posts (including this).

Light a match, that will take care of his wind.

[Scarlett O'Hara]

I've got a bit of wind in the bag right now if you know I what I mean?