Dear forum visitor,
It looks as though you have not registered for a forum account, or are not signed in. In order to participate in current discussions or create new threads, you will need to register for a forum account by clicking on the link below.
ajqtrz
Chef - loquacious Old Dog
Six Paragraphs. Here's an outline to make it easier to follow.
1) Should you critique something you haven't read, especially if you find fault with the person for having written it as they did?
2) If you critique someone's post how is the one reading your critique to know if you actually read the original? And, if they can't be sure, what does that do to your credibility?
3) Wordiness may be a problem, but that's something you could only know if you read the post and hasn't been addressed as part of the idea of a "wall of text" except tangentially.
4) "Wall of text" is subjective so it's a lot of guesswork as to figuring out what might cause a reader to see it as a wall of text. In the end, since it's subjective it may not even be the writers' fault.
5) The reader should take responsibility for his/her own inability to tolerate long passages in places he/she may not expect them. Others have read the text and thus proven it can be read, even when the text isn't entertaining. Either that or take responsibility for any comments about the text which were made without reading the text.
6) Is the only type of writing allowed in a forum writing which entertains?
BODY
Of course there's the criticism of "I don't think you know of which you speak" since you both imply it's "vomitus" (Which, I assume has to do with appeal of vomit?) and "TL/DR" which means you have no way of knowing it's something you shouldn't read because you didn't read it. Tactfully, I'd suggest when you run into something you don't wish to read you don't imply its quality with such remarks. It's probably okay to mention that you didn't read it, but to add a judgement really undermines your own credibility. After all, if you make comments on my ideas without reading them, and, I might add, assume you already know what I think on a subject, why should anyone believe your comments on other posts since they can't be sure you've actually read those posts?
If you think about it, if you say something like: "I think Bob is wrong," how am I to know you even read Bob's post? Was his post larger than you could tolerate? Maybe your standard is more tolerant than mine and I see Bob's text as a wall and assume you would too. Now what? Do I assume you didn't read it? Since I don't really know your standard of reading...where you cut it off and where you put TL-DR, I have to assume that maybe your response is actually informed by having read the post.... or maybe it isn't. Who knows?
As for the wordiness, you may be right. I do sometimes go back and see places where I used more complex (
In the end the whole "wall of text" is subjective in most people minds. What they are actually saying is, "I don't enjoy reading much in this context, so I'll skip it." If they then go on to criticize the writer they are making the mistake of making their disdain for long texts the fault of the writer. How can their feelings about a bunch of words on a page be the fault of the writer who is not their teacher and isn't making them read those words?
The writer isn't responsible for the reader's inability to confront long passages without feeling sick. He/she may be responsible for sloppy and bad writing, but since the reaction that leads to TL-DR is not with how the text was written, but with it's length, how badly it's written is irrelevant. In some contexts the long passages seem, to some, out of place so they react. But that's just their emotions talking. Often it's like a child who is first assigned a "chapter book." It seems a bit daunting and they usually react with "do I have to?" It may be the only long passages some people accept are those in fiction or perhaps at work. Every other form of writing may be reduced to "am I entertained, or not?" Which brings me to the final response.
Is the only purpose of writing in this forum to entertain? Should it be? I do know it's probably a good thing to make writing entertaining, but is it necessary? If it's not necessary and someone, like myself, writes something to inform, challenge, and/or create interest in a subject, is that bad?
AJ
ps. You really should see a doctor aboult that finger doing it's thing without your control. Out of control fingers can be dangerous. Think "The Button" and the President! Yikes!
Last edited:
