There should be a Usenet writing-group rule that if the
number of characters in a posted link are greater than
the number of characters in whatever was written by the
poster, the post should carry a warning label in the
subject line. No, of course I don't mean that seriously.
As you know, I am not a big fan of "Usenet rules."
But what would be wrong, for instance, about putting
"LO" (Link Only) before the words in the subject line?
It is annoying to select a post in a writing group and
find that it contains nothing but a link. Of course, it is
perfectly appropriate in some, perhaps even in a large
majority of the tens of thousands of newsgroups.
It is certainly appropriate in the marketplace groups,
where posters often simply provide a link to ebay or
to some other sales venue.
In a writing group, though, it is disappointing. Yes,
you may know of sites containing interesting articles,
I may know of some, but it is really im****tant that we
post here for the simple reason we find an article
or story that we consider worth reading? Are we
truly trying to help, or do we like to post to see our
name in newsreaders, but are too lazy to write?
Let's be honest here, and maybe we can sort all
this out.
I have long held that writing groups should offer
challenges to writers, not be lounge chairs for lazy
minds to recline on. . It follows, then, to conclude it
would be nice if everyone posting a link would trouble
themselves to add at least one-hundred words of original
writing to the post. The writing might be a review or
commentary about what is at the other end of the link,
or it might be something completely different.
One-hundred little words, that's all I ask from you.
One hundred words isn't very much. But it certainly
would be more satisfying for readers who chose to
read a writing group post and found only a link.
Earlier I suggested that there should be a writing group
which is set up simply for the posting of links. That was
not meant to be a joke, and I continue to maintain it
makes excellent sense.
The group might be called something like misc.writing.links.
That way, people who were simply looking for intesting web
articles about writing could read the group and find nothing
but links with maybe a few words of added comment.
You know, it is sort of ironic that some people make
such a big deal about the im****tance of sociability
in misc.writing. Then they turn around and post
nothing but a link. If you do hold that there is a
im****tant social element here, then isn't posting a
link sort of like holding a salon and greeting a guest
by pointing your finger elsewhere, maybe toward
the library or bookstore?
You know that would be rude. Why, then, is it
less rude to greet a reader here with nothing but
a link, nothing at all which suggests the cut of your
jib in the intellectual or creative sense.
All this posting of ONLY links is hurting the
atmosphere at misc.writing and I wish the people
who are doing it would stop. Yes, you can ignore
me, you can hoot derisively at me, you can pelt me
with verbal brickbats, but I will say it again: I wish
you would stop what you're doing and reflect a bit.
"Mr. Penroast"
|
