[Weirdad]

Thanks for posting this. I don’t mind that you share your full articles you write here. It’s great.

It is sometimes annoying that some people only post a little tiny bit, and want us to visit their sites to read the rest, but you do not do that, and that’s great.

Sometimes I worry posts are designed to steal Freeper’s IP addresses and browsing “footprints” — in essence a form of Phishing.

I am not that annoyed when people only post a little but actually write the articles they post THEMSELVES, make it clea it is theirs, and they are worth reading and not just copy-paste plagiarism.

The really bad ones steal someone else’s stuff and might cite it a little on their web site, but post here as though they have written just a breakthough article themselves. Often those are relative “meatless” too.

I think that kind of thing has gotten people here sensitive to so called “blog pimps”, but your meaty apparently original post here seems OK to me.

(I still did not click through, though — hee hee !)

[Syncro]

Yes, it is a good article.

I don’t see the reasoning for the complaints, but it is a fact that some people just don’t like blogs, and seeing something posted from one makes them see red.

First, IIRC, the blog hating Freeper Beaters complained because articles were excerpted forcing anyone who wanted to read the complete text to click on the link.

Then when (as in this thread) complete text is posted, the complaints still rolled in.

Then it was complaining that posters that posted from blogs (even if it wasn’t their blog, they were accused of “owning” the blog contrary to the facts.)

Then (valid IMO) complaining that many only posted treads from blogs, with nary a comment anywhere.

This thread and others posted by this poster have many comments on them, thereby seemingly placating those that complain.

Even when a blog poster follows the rules of FR and takes the advise of those opposed to blogs, some still complain.

I would deem that a bit irrational.