The real story of what happened in that mosque

http://www.kevinsites.net/ ^ | November 21, 2004 | Kevin Sites

[eternalperspective]

For all you FR veterans. The most obvious way to search for a previous post would be to see if the original hyper-link was used. If you want to keep your quaint system of looking for titles when titles are almost always subjective, fine. But please don't act like this is rational, and the rest of the world outside your little clubhouse is a lower life form because they don't know the secret handshake. If you want your site to grow with intelligent contributors, you'll have to stop treating people like outsiders that aren't members of the club.

[NutCrackerBoy]

The most obvious way to search for a previous post would be to see if the original hyper-link was used. If you want to keep your quaint system of looking for titles when titles are almost always subjective, fine.

Number one, don't start a debate over whether the rules of the forum should be adhered to. That is a slam dunk. The forum's owners make the rules.

Number two, posting guidelines also demand that the original title of the linked content be included in the thread title. That makes the thread easier to find. It is not reasonable to force readers to find thread by searching for the hyper-link.

Number three, enhancing available search techniques is a perfectly reasonable request to respectfully make.

[shamusotoole]

Kevin Sites...IMHO a man without a country.

[eternalperspective]

I just looked at the two postings that had the original title "Open Letter to Devil Dogs of the 3.1".
in them. Neither of the titles indicate what the article is about. This accounts for the fact that many people never saw this story before I posted it with a more descriptive title. If you post an article with a title that doesn't describe why a person should read it, they will not take the time to read it. This points out a major flaw in the the search feature of NR. If titles other than the original title is used, there is no way a person can find if a previous thread exists. But if someone uses the original title, he hazards the probability that people will not read the article since it doesn't describe what's important to the NR reader. Obviously, the answer is to either change the search criteria in the NR search engine, or require that the original hyper-link be included in the title. Since the later is not rational, I suggest that the NR team include the original hyperlink in the search criteria.

[pacelvi]

Jesus.. who cares? Dont you got something better to do?

[pacelvi]

Jesus.. who cares? Dont you got something better to do?

[Minuteman23]

Sites hates what America stands for every bit as much as any Iraqi insurgent.

[NutCrackerBoy]

Jesus.. who cares? Dont you got something better to do?

Can't speak for mattdono but I see nothing wrong with taking the time to educate newbies on posting practices.

[Fruitbat]

It's ironic that the benefits-of-the-doubt and looking-the-other-way always go the way of the bad guys with the MSM.