I post a lot of links, just because it's easier than cleaning out the charts and ads and weird stuff in the average piece. Do you, the target of my informative generosity, my efforts to educate the electorate of this great country, prefer the links or the laboriously cleansed c&p's?

I'm ambivalent on this. I read some posters' links religiously, ignore others because they tend to be RNC or DNC garbage, and usually prefer a judiciously edited c&p. Maybe I'm just getting lazy?

I prefer the article and a link.

Sometimes I go into the links, but many times, I don't have the time, or am too lazy to do so.

I would say that if you have the time, take the time to post the article and go through the cleansing process. If not, post the link.

It's always helpful to have a brief summary there if all you post is the link........... so that I know what to expect if I do happen to go to the link.

Count me as ambivalent on this also - I don't care either way is acceptable...

I like having both.

"It's always helpful to have a brief summary there if all you post is the link.."

I try to do that, give the high points and opinion on the issues.

StanH:

I like having both.

Probably best, but I have yet to master putting both in one post. Maybe just a primary c&p with commentary, then secondary post with link would be best.

Thanks, all.

Yes..........you do that very well.

Some don't.

Wanted to make sure they had the heads up.

;-)

tsedek:

"It's always helpful to have a brief summary there if all you post is the link.."

I try to do that, give the high points and opinion on the issues.

When I do it, I open two windows........one with the article, and one with the posting block. That way I can C&P the article.......go over and post it, then go back for the url and get that to link into the beginning of the post somewhere.

Jen01:

When I do it, I open two windows........one with the article, and one with the posting block. That way I can C&P the article.......go over and post it, then go back for the url and get that to link into the beginning of the post somewhere.

Well duh! Thanks, Jennie Belle. For as smart as I appear to be I'm not too bright on this 'puter thang :)

Especially when I see a carefully selected excerpt, something that is quite common here. Usually I even click the links on the linked page, because (I find this very common with right-wing sources) the sources often don't support the conclusions made in the article, and the article often doesn't support the conclusions made by the user on the fray.

Short answer- I click the links anyway. Even news organizations I respect are prone to misunderstanding and misrepresenting data (one of my favorite websites quoted a general in Afghanistan and misrepresented his words to be about Iraq, and I was less than kind in pointing this out to them), so I think it's just a good idea to double-check.

All the adds cleaned out, the type-font changed to the most visually appealing and easies to read, the grammer edited, and all words spell-checked.

And FOUR sources, independently verifying the information....

Nah, just kidding. The link itself is fine by me.