Typical Eddie thread

[Dick Fitzwell]

*Long article that no one reads reposted from a news site with no comment from me*

[Guest]

...typical paladin post...

that's shit, you're shit,
I just come here to roll in it.

[Old Mack]

[Guest]

Paladin... I discovered it yesterday night: the fun is in the chat room

Edit: Hey... this typical Eddie thread is getting responses... hehe

I read Eddie's typical threads... not all of them. They are a bore obviously if you're not interested in what they talk about. Sometimes I even leave a trivial comment

[eddie]

I read Eddie's typical threads... not all of them. They are a bore obviously if you're not interested in what they talk about. Sometimes I even leave a trivial comment

Your comments are always much appreciated, senorita, however trivial.

Paladin has a point, of sorts.

If anyone can think of a better way of introducing a new topic into this Arts discussion board WITHOUT posting an article from the Arts supplements of UK broadsheets, I'd be happy to see it.

As asdf so acutely observes, the approach I've adopted CAN be boring if the reader has no interest in the subject. All I can say is:

1. Such articles almost always have the advantage of supplying useful background information on the particular subject.

2. Sometimes they can spark a degree of interest in a subject one had never previously even considered worthy of attention (or, at least, that's my experience).

I appreciate that the attention span of the average US teenager doesn't normally extend beyond the first paragraph, but- as I say- Paladin might have a point.

Alternative approaches are welcome.

[Lee Van Queef]

I've had a few gentle digs at Eddie's copy and paste approach in the past, but surely it's a better way to start a thread than not starting a thread at all?

[Guest]

2. Sometimes they can spark a degree of interest in a subject one had never previously even considered worthy of attention (or, at least, that's my experience).

...this is true for me. Often the spark of interest catches fire.

[tigerlily]

2. Sometimes they can spark a degree of interest in a subject one had never previously even considered worthy of attention (or, at least, that's my experience).

...this is true for me. Often the spark of interest catches fire.

Absolutely!

Thank you Eddie

[Constance]

2. Sometimes they can spark a degree of interest in a subject one had never previously even considered worthy of attention (or, at least, that's my experience).

...this is true for me. Often the spark of interest catches fire.

I read them. Just read the new one on changes in assessing mental illness.

[eddie]

7 months on, and it's time to re-evaluate Paladin's original critique. Was he right?

The answer seems to be: sometimes.

Sometimes I seem to throw good money after bad by adding post after post to a topic which generates very little interest.

At other times (the Werner Herzog thread in the Cinema/TV section is a good recent example) I post a single Guardian article which generates quite a few responses.

It's at least likely that the 'dud' threads would prove livelier if the member base were broader.

On balance, I think I'll just continue on my merry way and hope that the site eventually garners more members.

[eddie]

I just watched Hitchcock's "Lifeboat" for the first time yesterday.

By an odd piece of synchronicity I watched it for the first time myself about 3-4 days ago- i.e. before I spotted the Guardian paragraph.

[Dick Fitzwell]

If I wanted to read the Guardian, I would read the Guardian. The point of an internet forum is that YOU share YOUR thoughts with us, and we give you ours. We don't care about reading the thoughts of people that don't even come here to discuss them.

[Sponsored content]