Mario500 said:
^I was actually asking other users to clarify some parts of their messages.
Let's have a look at some examples from the last three months.
Where a person asked for a source of another poster's assertions:
You could have posted a longer question.
Or, sometimes, a longer question simply isn't necessary.
Where "Lauer" and "Roker" were used in a thread subject:
Why did you only use last names (or family names) in the title of this topic?
Probably because nobody on this board could possibly mistake those last names, especially when used together, for anyone else.
In a thread on the "Classic TV" board in a post about a show's place on a 1993 schedule:
^Your last message was typed in a way that would give someone the idea that KNLC-TV was broadcasting "Captain N and the Video Game Masters" very recently if it were the only message here.
Fortunately, it's not the only message, so it's irrelevant what it would sound like if it were the only message there.
Replying to someone who cited one sentence out of an article he read in the newspaper in a short reply to an earlier message:
CTListener, were you aware of the official World Wide Web site for the Hartford Courant before posting here? Whether you were aware or not, you could have used a search engine to find the
Internet version of the article before posting here.
I'm sure CTListener was very well aware of it but decided the single sentence wasn't worth the effort. I certainly didn't feel the need to click your link. Talking like CTListener is someone who has never used a computer before certainly isn't the way to make any friends.
In a thread about cartoons aimed at children:
ShawnHill1, why did you refer use the phrases "children['s] product" and "kids['] programming" to categorize animated TV programs that were available to local TV stations through broadcast syndication?
Probably because the thread was about cartoons aimed at children.
And bear in mind that in each of these cases, the posts are not edited. That is the entire content of each post, which means those posts (other than the fourth one) add nothing to the discussion.
There's a difference between writing for clarity and writing for wordiness. If you use the word "website" in lieu of "World Wide Web site," I can guarantee that everybody here or on any other message board will know what you mean. Writing the latter rather than the former is being wordy and pedantic. Being as wordy as possible is not the same as writing for clarity. Being as wordy as necessary to convey your point to your target audience, and no more so than that, is writing for clarity. And pestering others for not being as wordy and pedantic as you are makes people just ignore your messages (as I usually do) or become unhappy when they see your posts (as I suspect Scott does).
And now that I've gone completely off-subject to the point where this will likely wind up in TIO, I will go do something more useful with my time. Apologies to the R-I administrators and moderators.
- Trip