I'm not a blog pimp cop, but they do have a point. I've been on FR a little while, and value it highly; I consider it my "one stop shop" for current articles, commentary and criticism. A loooong time ago, nothing was excerpted until FR was taken to court and certain media sources demanded it, based on the premise that FR was depriving them of hits. Those of us around at the time accepted it as, "the way it had to be," but see no need for excerpting when the author is the one posting it on FR!
Similarly, I'm not one to attack another's grammar, vocabulary, spelling, etc., unless that person is making a point based on their presumed intellect and education.
If you're that confident in the quality of your writing, save yourself the $229, post your material as a vanity post (for free!!) and you'll get more commentary on here on your substance rather than your presentation.
As an analogy, you're swimming in somebody else's (Jim Rob's) pool here. Even if you're the world's greatest high diver and we'd all be impressed by your skills, the rules simply state, 'no diving'. Other than that, come on in...the water's fine.
A reasoned response. As you now see, the blog-patrol has been summoned to this thread to hunt down their prey.
So, is it correct that a blogger can post a vanity thread in “news” that merely copy/pastes from his blog, but cannot post half a post and a link to his blog in the bloggers section?
I’m not being difficult, I’m merely curious.
I’m trying to imagine how useless Free Republic would be if every comment looked like this:
“I think that idea is silly. It is clear that.... (excerpted — read more at MyBlog.Blog”