Would you support the doctors' strike.

Precis-ing the link to God would not work. It was the link to God to which you specifically objected, Alea.
I'm not bothered whether you look at the link or not, but it really is pointless to object to something you have no idea about. If you objected to what was on the link, okay, but you didn't. Even the heading could be seen as objectionable.

Personally, I think you should just stick to the point of the thread if you do not like the links. I normally ignore people who object to links, like daphne but yours was so ridiculous, Alea, it needed responding to.

Well you just think what you like DJ dear, and I'll just think what I like and everybody will be happy.
(And I can get back to my new DGS)

Dear, eh? how patronising.

But durhamjen if you took the time to tell everyone, offended or not, that they should read the comments in the link, could you not give a brief precis? That way people might decide to have a look instead of thinking "Not ANOTHER bl---y link"

That's not true DJ when I commented on your plethora of links I got a nasty reaction too; so you don't 'normally ignore'.

The point, which is worth considering, is that you can have too much of a good thing and all these lovely blue links after a while, just become too much and tend not to be read.

I think it's reasonable to ask for a précis. It's also reasonable to refuse to give one but then you can't complain (well you can but that would be unreasonable) if people say they ignore the blued up writing. And when people begin to ignore one's links, it might (just might) be worth taking note and rethinking one's strategy.

Otherwise, it wouldn't be unreasonable for people to begin to think that one had tunnel vision and didn't actually ever listen, or even want to listen, to an alternative point of view, which is the whole point of discussion.

Not caring about discussion and only posting blues for one's own benefit is another option but it seems a pointless one to adopt on a public forum when you could do it privately.

I do collect articles privately, btw, using an app called Pocket. It means I can read them offline and that I can refer to them when I need to back up or clarify my argument.

Whilst we seem ot have gone right off the OP's subject - OK threads are allowed to morph. I am seeing more and more links being posted by several posters. So many in fact that I'm not sure there would be enough hours to read them all.
A summary would enable us to choose those that look interesting.

However I feel that links are also a lazy way to try to make a point, using someone else's words, lets have some original thought.

Good post, gand, and I agree in general. I use the term in general because I think "original thought" is over-rated. By that I mean that I think it's fine for a gransnetter to say what someone else's thought on a subject is but, like you, a précis of it is a better idea than just a naked link.

If one is using someone else's "original thought" it's only polite and proper to quote one's source by posting the link as well so that anyone who wants to can check your interpretation, but with your précis they can assimilate the idea without clicking on the link if they think that's sufficient.

Perhaps "personal opinion" would have been a better phrase. Whilst I may agree in the main with an article, it is rare that I agree 100%

As you did with my post

Bags completely off topic - how do I put the accent over the e with an iPad? I knew it looked wrong, but couldn't figure out how to do it!

Hold your finger on the vowel/letter you wish to accent, and a box giving you a choice will appear, then just slide your finger to the one you want.
E.g. à é ö ø û ç etc.

What alea said, ceesnan: just keep your finger on the letter you wish to accent and, when the accented letters appear, slide your finger up to the one you want. Good luck!

Précis! Thank you!!

Yøûr wèlcômè !

According to this article in the Times today, leaked texts between members of the junior doctors' committee show that although those in the BMA representing the junior doctors claimed that the dispute between them and the government was all about patient safety, in fact that was a lie and all they were really interested in was money. The texts also revealed, apparently, that committee members wanted to draw the dispute out over about eighteen months.

Although the BMA accused the government of "playing games", it would seem that the BMA was guilty in that respect and that the government did, in fact, make concessions.

Above article is a leader. This is via the online front page.

I'm glad I kept a neutral stance on this issue. Things are never as simple as popular media suggests.

Can't wait for you to put the leaks up from Hunt's side.

voxpoliticalonline.com/2016/05/26/online-newspaper-bids-to-undermine-junior-doctors-before-contract-referendum/

Have you not wondered why this has been leaked now, when the BMA are waiting for the contract to be printed so that junior doctors can vote on whether they want to accept or not?

Jeremy Hunt is dispensable. Thousands of junior doctors are not.
Anyway, living in Scotland, you ought to be neutral.

Another pronouncement from the thread police?
Anyway, living in Scotland, you ought to be neutral
That's a bit xenophobic!
I don't notice you denying granjura, Felice, mcEm, katek, soop, tizliz, Mamie, envious, ffinocchio and others a voice because they are not residents of England

Unless you have a Swiss French keyboard- et voilà!

Bags said she was neutral. Just agreeing with her.
Do all those live abroad? I never realised. Are you keeping a check on everyone, Alea?

I expect it was leaked now to show those junior doctors who agonised (because the do care about patients' well-being) about supporting the call to strike that the BMA committee probably didn't represent them very well.

Thanks for the support, alea, but I just think things like "Oh fuck off with your ought to be", when I read remarks like that. Getting inured to the digs from that quarter. I would never say them of course!