Lengthy 'cut and paste' - acceptable or not?

A thought for my reincarnation FarNorth

Great new username, Jalima

If I'm not on here later, I have probably been banned.

I think typists are called personal executives these days Rufus (see other thread )

I was looking for a slot on my pc to insert carbon paper, but can't find one unfortunately, so I shall say zis only once:

GN Rules are changing as we speak - however, we are meant to know and to follow them before they are made.

#Iamnotamindreader

Too late I fear Rufus or perhaps your plea doesn’t carry the same influence as that of others
<sigh> for the “old” days when we just got on with life

It would be helpful for GN to make a decision on copy/cut/paste. GN
GN: Please leave it as is!
This one-fingered typist finds it a life-saver. Never learned to type; we had typists at work to do our typing, giving us more time to think!
Remember the typing-pool? Typists are called secretaries now-a-days I imagine, but they were very clever. Putting up to 5 sheets of A4 with carbon copy interleaves (right way round) into a thing called a typewriter; no "delete" for minor mistakes, only some white stuff. The WPB file for major errors and start over again.
Those were the days; happy memories!
So please, hands off!

Conspiracy theory?
Life is too short Fennel

I find links to Twitter annoying as I can’t open them without a Twitter account and I forgot my password years ago. So they fall by the wayside

I'm another one who doesn't bother reading long cut and pastes, and have tried several times to persuade the writer to be more concise. Openly, on the forum.
As someone else intimated, there could be more going on behind the scenes.

I was certainly not a fan of durhamjen’s thousands of links, often ten or more at a time one after the other ( and to sites such as jackofkent and oneangryvoice etc all left wing blog type things) but I wouldn’t have called on HQ to ban them.
Looking at links means leaving this site to read them, whereas a cut and paste ( used, incidentally, by jura just yesterday) can be either read or passed by at will.

As for the massive squabble going on, on this thread -

It's not censorship - if the links are provided, those people who are interested have the choice of accessing them

That's fine if the main part of the article is not behind a paywall.
And/or no-one has asked what is in the article as they can't access it via the link given.

In those cases, I'd prefer to show all, or most, of the article rather than try to give it in my own words which may not put it across as it was written.

I therefore find it surprising that some people who were not at all appreciative of durhamjen's contributions, are now up in arms about the ban on these lengthy posts

Do you have evidence for this Eloethan?.

Thank you eloethan, my thoughts & feelings too.

I've not been on Gransnet the past week as I've been on holiday, so I don't know what Iamnotarobot has been posting.

However, the last couple of months or so there have been some threads where a series of very lengthy articles have been copied into a thread.

I expect many people on here will recall that not too long ago durhamjen (who has now left Gransnet) was constantly being ridiculed or criticised for providing links.

I therefore find it surprising that some people who were not at all appreciative of durhamjen's contributions, are now up in arms about the ban on these lengthy posts - which I feel are far more space-hogging and intrusive than providing a few quotes from an article and attaching a link for those who are interested in obtaining further information.

It's not censorship - if the links are provided, those people who are interested have the choice of accessing them.

Faithfuls - coven, acolytes (sp?) - I thought it was bad netiquette to correct spelling, especially of a non-native speaker- but t's up to you. I did not ask for the rule to be 'foisted' on you, all I asked for is clarification in the view of recent posters.

Oh MB, you are so funny at time- if you were agog with indifference, you would not bleat aboutmost of my posts (again, that word is just awful,but since you like its use)- as an automatic response- and would just keep quietly away - and be unbleatingly agog with serenity.

Hey my didn’t work!
Try again
it would just make you too pleased with having achieved your sad, mean goal
That’s better.
The rest as before. ?

^ it would just make you too pleased with having achieved your sad, mean goal^

Believe me Jura I am agog with indifference. ?

I don’t care much about your intent I do care about new rules being foisted upon us because some don’t like cut and pastes ( although you must like them as you have just done it on another thread.)
Faithfulls?

Oh I do try MB, I truly do. But people like you and your faithfulls make it very difficult - it would just make you too pleased with having achieved your sad, mean goal.

So I will leave you when I am good and ready-and not jump at your shrill whistle.

But will just try and do as before and keep away

But you do go on, despite the threats/promises to desist.

For someone who does not care much, you bleat a lot (now I would not normally ever use that word, but since it seems in common usage here on GN...Just don't comment if you don't care much, simple.

I don’t know what your intent was jura and frankly do not care much.

yes Lemon No point as you say jura in waiting for an apology ( you must be joking!) You started this thread didn’t you?

I did start the thread- what some of you chose to do with it, has been nothing but shameful. Anyone with a tiny bit of humanity and common sense would realise an apology for the attacks and misinterpretation of my intent is in order.

As said- I am not waiting for one. And it says a lot more about you and a few others, than me.

or rather DH's definition of one.