If Im not misunderstanding uncorrectly, please help a Freeper out and 'splain it to me.
Posted on 10/28/2017 6:01:13 AM PDT by gaggs
A Wikileaks email, titled “Grassley letter” points to possible collusion between the Department Of Justice and the Clinton Campaign on Uranium One.
A letter from Senator Chuck Grassley to Loretta Lynch questioning the Uranium One deal ended up in the hands of a Clinton Foundation Senior VP and ultimately in the hands of John Podesta and the Clinton campaign.
(Excerpt) Read more at commonsenseevaluation.com ...
I don’t have “add.”
Non-Sequitur we much!?!
bookmark
He may not “follow” you unless he’s taken his “add” blocker.
Here's an apt analogy.
"Come swim in my blogger pool."
"No. The FR pool is crystal clear and has babes. Yours is full of piss and algae and has skanks."
"They sell full body condoms for that, you know." (You'd probably misspell "condoms.")
"No, thanks. I'll just not swim in a petri dish."
The peculiar pecunious grammateus
of my posted pontifications does
not lie in the paltry perceptions
of plebeians and proletarians.
"Like" a "dirtbag thief"?
There are laws (and policies) against theft.
If the poster of this article is in violation of either the law or the site policies, then there are provisions for addressing that issue—such as the disgruntled FR member who has taken offense clicking on the "Abuse" button, thereby inducing a moderator to delete the improperly-excerpted article.
If instead the poster of this article is acting within the constraints of the site owner's guidelines—such as properly posting this excerpted blog content to "Blogs & Personal", then the overwhelming majority of the members of this community have no issue with it. Indeed, as we have seen, some members are even positively inclined to giving the poster traffic to their resource. It's simply a matter of whether the poster is being reasonable or abusive in their actions.
So knock yourself out—but learn the meaning of the term "theft". I'm not aware of any coercion or fraud perpetrated by the originator of this thread. If the blog excerpt isn't of interest, there's no requirement to click to see the rest of the article—and if it is sufficiently interesting, then—gasp—clicking to read more remains entirely voluntary...
No worse than when some posts a story from the Washington Post and we click on the link to read that story. At least we are supporting someone who thinks like us and the increase in their readership helps that site.
“If instead the poster of this article is acting within the constraints of the site owner’s guidelines”
See post #552
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2636843/posts?page=552#552
“I have no complaint if a good conservative blogger posts his own material to FR, not as an excerpt to drive hits and discussion back to his blog, but rather to impart useful information to OUR readers and to promote and join in on the discussion and conservative activism HERE on FR.”
~Jim Robinson
I have personally turned this poster in for plagiarism on more than one occasion.
Plagiarism *IS* theft.
And no - I can’t direct you to those threads.
They were pulled. Very quickly I might add.
Excellent.
Note that JimRob's comment does not explicitly ban excerpting. Clearly, the question of intent arises.
If you feel that this poster has violated the guidelines, you're at liberty to click the "Abuse" button.
Most FReepers seem to be a little less cynical regarding the issue of bloggers' intent.
Personally, it seems as if this blogger may have imparted "useful information"—even though it was excerpted—but, to reiterate, there's an "Abuse" button for those who disagree...
I don’t know what any of that means.
I was in a pec union.
And work out my grammateus maximus daily.
But I want to know where to get an add blocker.
I’m tired of people adding me all the time.
According to "shibumi", they may not have been in the past. After all, plagiarism is a serious charge.
Again, someone please click the "Report Abuse" button if this person is a "dirtbag thief", and I have no doubt that this heinous article will be deleted forthwith...
If Im not misunderstanding uncorrectly, please help a Freeper out and 'splain it to me.
If you have a slow internet or a small screen and you come to FR to look at the news, sometimes someone will make a HUGE post that takes forever to load. If I don’t want to read about that topic I still have to wait for the entire thing to load. If the post contains pictures it takes even longer.
I wasn’t going to click the link . . . until I read your comment.
Does an “add blocker” subtract from my bandwidth requirements?
The electrons from one web site take just as long to load as the electrons from another. You can adjust your browser settings or your phone settings to not load images unless you want them loaded.
If your as restricted as you say, going to the the blog site took you much longer to get to the meat of the story.
I guess I didn’t make myself clear. Sorry.
What if I do not want to read a super long post? It delays getting me to what I do want to read.
Yea, but that sniveling little coward Sessions will do nothing except express disappointment.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.