Lengthy 'cut and paste' - acceptable or not?

I agree jura
I’m very happy to read other people’s opinions and sincerely held beliefs, but when long screeds are copied and pasted, it does feel as though we are being force-fed political propaganda.

Especially when the person doing the copying & pasting gives no indication of their own thoughts about the subject in hand.

Links yes. Long cut n paste posts no!

I tend not to read great screeds of cut & pasted text. It feels like homework whereas a link and a comment from the OP that this is praiseworthy/deplorable/cruel and what do others think? will probably spark my interest and i'll follow it up.

Yup. If there's a long cut and paste I tend to just move on.

I never read long cut and paste either - just find it a nuisance scrolling past them. Like Scribbles I often open links and read them.

Some people don’t choose to read links or can’t access them.
So I think it’s a good idea to summarise your point in a paragraph or two, then provide a link if appropriate, so people can choose to read further if they are interested.

Long cut’n’pastes makes the discussion very tedious.

Another who dislikes this trend. Gives the impression of trying to blank out everyone else.
And I would prefer brief information on the source quoted in words not just an url.
Thank you for initiating this Jura.

Winterwhite - "Gives the impression of trying to blank out everyone else."
I agree. It has been annoying me, and others, for ages. Glad GNHQ have done something about it.
And thanks Jura for starting the thread.

I too do not read long cut and pastes. Give a link and a brief summary of the salient points.

I find it equally irritating when there are links, sometimes several and no indication of what they are about.

I just lose interest in long and wordy cut and paste posts and skim over them; I feel like I'm being word bombed. Far better to summarise the main points and post a link so that people can read further if they wish.

I'm another one who just scrolls past them. Life's too short to read a load of lengthy waffle. Links are far better - I tend to ignore them as well.

Thank you Lara @ GN, for clarification.

Thanks from me too Lara.

Lara I'm just wondering what's wrong with long cut & pastes? And how are they against the rules.

Posters aren't doing themselves any favours with long cut & pastes, as most of us just glaze over and ignore, especially if the OP doesn't provide at least a precis, but what rule are they breaking?

It's rather like those who post a pageful with no paragraphs - could be very interesting but the style and presentation means I just ignore. But not against the rules, I assume?

Are we getting bogged down with pettifogging rules?
Whether you choose to post links or the entire text you wish to quote seems irrelevant to me. There is always the choice not to read or not to click the link.
I would however welcome some universally recognised way of indicating quoted material. Up to now I thought we did this Which was fine, but some members choose not to do it , so perhaps a different colour would be even better.
Whichever, I would hope that members who like to quote in full have not been picked on in any way because their views did not happen to tally with those of the complainant.
Rather like a thread (or two) a while back on usernames it does seem as if the complaint while appearing disingenuous is somewhat targeted .
Can’t we just live and let live and put the onus on reading in full or not, on to the reader?

Yes it stifles debate to have overlong repetitive cut n pastes.

MB, my foreign keyboard does not have square brackets, so I cannot use them to indicate quote/unquote. So I will use '......'
and indicate that I am quoting. Simple enough.

MB, on the point of changing names, the rules are VERY clear on GN:

Quote: 'Username-changing

We discourage members from changing their usernames because we want everyone to be able to trust the relationships they build with others on Gransnet. However, you will be able to change your username once for sensitive threads. Alternatively, contact us directly at [email protected] if you think your current username is too identifying.' unquote.

Thefore posts mentioning this were indeed targeted at those who we know have changed names again, and again, and ... again. They know who they are. And yes, as GN says, it leads to trust issues and at times it takes a long time to work out who is who, and was who before, and before that again.

Which is why, although personal attacks by some would have made it more comfortable to change identity- I have made sure any change would NOT try and hide my identity at all. granjura, juragran and juragran 2. Now I would not have mentioned this again, but since you did...

Riverwalk and maw

I may be completely wrong here, but I don’t think the occasional cut’n’paste from a regular poster, would be objected to.
If there’s a paywall on a newspaper, for example, then many GNers wouldn’t be able to access the relevant parts.

That’s a very different scenario from someone suddenly appearing out of the ether and in the space of a couple of days, starting several new threads consisting of entirely cut’n’paste, or barge into existing breads and doing the same thing.

Something might not be explicitly against forum rules, but still be not in the spirit of the forum, which IMHO should feel like a conversation rather than a lecture.

Existing threads!!
Blinking phone!!!

MawBroon 'pettifogging'. Excellent word! I've not seen it for years!

I would however welcome some universally recognised way of indicating quoted material. Up to now I thought we did this

jura I think that, if you want to quote another poster's words or a quote from somewhere else, you use these ^^ either side without a gap, not the square brackets.

I still have to use two square brackets each side [[ ]] for links, but I don't think everyone has to do that.