Lengthy 'cut and paste' - acceptable or not?

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. ?

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.

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.

Thank you eloethan, my thoughts & feelings too.

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?.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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!

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

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

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

Great new username, Jalima

A thought for my reincarnation FarNorth

Has anyone else noticed that another prolific cut and paster seems to have disappeared too?

Just had another thought - could some of the content of cut and paste be subject to copyright?

Unfortunately she now feels unwelcome on GN and may or may not return.If she doesn’t, I can’t blame her and will miss her informative posts.

Posters have been using cut and paste on here for years until now.

Maybe GNHQ are concerned about copyright laws? I seem to remember there was an issue on mumsnet a couple of years ago due to somebody 'quoting' an article that was libellous.

Something like that, anyway.

I think copyright concerns are valid if quotation marks aren’t used and the quote isn’t correctly attributed, merlot.
That was happening in some cases.

Falling out over this is exactly what a real t****l troublemaker would have hoped we would do. Why let ourselves be manipulated into nastiness?

I have only just read all this about long quotes being "banned," and it seems to me more than a coincidence that it has happened at the same time as another hoo-ha about an admin decision (changing a thread title without an explanation, causing confusion about the earlier replies)

Both events appear to have been initiated by either someone with admin rights, or someone who got hold illegally of those rights.

Do we have any evidence other than the quoted message from HQ to the OP that they have banned them? To me it reads as though someone is new to the job and hasn't quite got the rules clear in their head, or learnt how to apply tact. This was at the weekend, when regular moderators are at home with their families, remember.

The last slight possibility in the case of these long quotes which are said to have been banned by HQ in an untypically harsh email is that this particular hoo-ha was caused by someone who would like us to think that HQ are responsible.

HQ have said (more or less) about the title change that they don't know how it happened and are looking into it. Presumably they are looking into this too. Maybe the two are linked?

Too much hot air wasted and boiling off into the atmosphere! Why not send PMs to HQ to ask what is going on? If they get a lot of mail about it, they will act faster to clear it up and to keep us informed.

By the OP I mean the OP of the previous threads which DID quote at length from articles, and in which she was told it was not allowed.