Would you support the doctors' strike.

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.

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!

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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"

Dear, eh? how patronising.

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)

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.

I get fed up reading complaints about links, so I gloss over them. Simple really.

Whitewave, I think my point is that take issue with being castigated for not reading every link or for reacting 2 days later (!) . If as you say, you do not read all the links given either, you will appreciate that without a summary or indication of their relevance, it is impossible to know the entire content and then harsh to be beaten over the head for missing something!!
It's a bit like headlines in a newspaper, which give you a "taster" or précis of the content, if you had to read every article in full to see whether it interested you or not, you would still be there the next day.
I don't think it is unreasonable to expect hope for some personal input in a post , as opposed to "recommendations" via a barrage of links

I don't read all the links posted by DJ - I am selective, but I have learnt a lot of interesting things by reading some of them. I simply can't understand the strong objection. Why can't you simply gloss over what doesn't interest you? It seems a tad stressy to object so strongly.

I thought you co-home-schooled your GS, dj. Is that not 'teaching'? As well as watching PMQT with him, of course...

??????????????????????????????

I don't think I am the only person to object to death by a thousand unqualified links. I do indeed think it is lazy posting, patronising and didactic. And that is an opinion I am entitled to express.
This is a comment about posting not a comment about a person, before anybody leaps to the report button.
As to when or within what period of time a person may or may not react or respond to a post, individuals , like circumstances, will all vary. Clearly some people glean much comfort and company from GN and spend a large proportion of their day on it, others do not.
Two days to react? So what? To be then told to "keep up at the back" or whatever shows all too clearly that while you can take the teacher out of the school ..........

By the way, I gave up teaching a long time ago. Perhaps you ought to try it, too, and stop telling others what to do.

So you are allowed to be rude to me, but I am not allowed to respond in kind?

Death by a thousand links ,sigh. was not supposed to be sarcastic, was it not? Perhaps you'd better tell me next time.
It did take you two days to say anything.
You have no idea about my problems either, so get off your high horse.

And that, DJ, is b*** rude!
I am not, unsurprisingly, surgically attached to my iPad or indeed GN. You do not know, nor do I necessarily wish to share, how I am spending my time at present.
I shall respond in my own good time if I wish to.
Instead of these interminable links, why don't you do what others have done, summarise an article you wish to use to back up your argument, with a link for those who may wish to read it in full.
#thinkitsjustlazyposting

I've given you the link to God twice. However, you are slow to respond, Alea.

Death by a thousand links <sigh>
Is there a direct link to God too? A sort of virtual tablet (see what I did there?) of stone?

As I understand it, a perfect storm:

* too many doctors were predicted by DoH in 2006 which led to a 6% cut in medical training places. We now have fewer doctors in the training system than we actually need, ditto nurses.
* at the same time there was a cut in the budgets to local councils affecting their care home provision or care in home services. Hence the stories of bedblocking in hospitals and some hospitals releasing elderly patients back home with neither care home nor care in the home provision. Then the hospitals pay again if early release means early return to hospital.
* any promises made now about ramping up the numbers of doctors and nurses, given the length of medical training, only comes in 7-10 years later for junior doctors, a lot longer for consultants.
* many doctors and consultants here have opted out of the system: they can earn more and have control of their own lives by going agency - but this means hospitals are paying more for them. The cap system recently introduced for their fees has left hospitals who comply losing out for essential coverage to those who don't comply.
* the Private Finance Initiative, introduced by John Major but embraced by Blair's government, meant hospitals were built or expanded on private money with horrendous paybacks. There is more than one major hospital where they have had to close wards to save money to meet the pay back terms - or even set up a charity to raise money to meet the pay back terms.
* More importantly, Jeremy Hunt has gone for the argument that we need 24/7 hospital care based on a contentious report that more people die in hospital at the weekend. It appears not to be true for the most part. His response was to lay it on the doctors when it seems medical coverage, availability of other services (blood tests, processing xrays) would be more key. He is not providing any more junior doctors or nurses, so if more cover the weekends they will be missing from other days.

www.opendemocracy.net/ournhs/youssef-el-gingihy/junior-doctor-agreement-looks-like-sell-out