Remove EvidenceVsFaith

[Edwardo Piet]

But what we're saying is that relatively, you have a lot of fluff posts. As for the ratio averaging out, it really shouldn't if you actually post decent stuff.

If you post more decent posts than fluff posts, you will have a better ratio.

Well if you define 'fluff posts' as spamming posts such as 'lol' posts, I have to disagree. An awful of my posts are arguments, posts like this one.

I don't think I exactly have that much of a 'fluff ratio' if you define 'fluff posting' like that.


On the other hand:

Anyway, I would categorize what you said above as a fluff post. You repeated your arguments again and again. Here are a few examples:

But my point was that it is of course relative

My point is that it is indeed relative.

So the fact I have absolutely more 'fluff posts' (simply because I have so many posts) doesn't mean I have relatively a lot - it may just look like I have 'a lot' (relatively) because I have so many posts.

So the fact I have many 'fluff posts' does not imply that I do it a lot if it's actually relatively a small(/er) amount, it's simply still absolutely a lot because I have 3000 posts

No my point is that the fact I have absolutely a lot of fluffs doesn't mean I have a high fluff ratio

Just try and write in a manner which is easy to understand and not repetitive. Read over your posts before you submit them (read them out loud) and see if they read well. If they don't, then take out the bits that cause the problem.

On the hand, if you indeed define 'fluff posting' like that then you would in other words be objecting to my whole writing style. Because pretty much everything I write is indeed 'fluff posting' if you define it as the both.

So all I wonder is: Why has it taken 9 months and almost 3000 of my posts to inform me of this 'issue' if it really is such an issue? (And 'such as an issue' as Bef makes it out to be). I just wonder...? Why wasn't I 'informed' of this before? If it's really such a 'issue'?

I try my best to consolidate my posts and as I have said before - I can't always get rid of the repetitions because it often ends up destroying my argument and I end up writing nothing (I believe I've told you this on MSN too), I get mental blocks, writers block - because I'm not sure which repetition to delete. So to make sure I'm understood I leave them in....if I ever catch any unnecessary repetitions (that are also obvious to me I mean) then I try to delete them.

And, importantly: I would have to change the entire way I write since when I was 13 and first used the net - I've never managed to do it another way, I always get mental blocks, writers block - and I can't think of anything remotely interesting, useful or helpful if I don't do it this way (the way I always have). I've tried it before on several occasions - I have no idea how I'd be able to do it another way (without simply clogging up entirely because of mental blocks; because of writers block). That being said - I'm trying my best to slowly improve.

Oh, and when I said this: "EvF is quite possibly the only person who could win an argument just by typing so much the other person loses interest in the entire topic", I didn't mean it as a compliment. You shouldn't be proud of the fact that you can win arguments by simple writing pages of random thoughts that cause people to lose all interest in the debate.

I didn't take it as an insult either though. I believe my arguments were strong, and whether you lost interest or not - I am yet to hear you refute them. I do my best with my writing skills, I try to simplify and shorten what I do - but I get writers block, mental blocks and end up deleting the good stuff too.

Yes I've repeated myself here too (on about the mental blocks and writers block more than once) but that's because it's relevant to this quote too. I'm not going to be 'original' when it isn't any more effective - In other words I'm not going to be 'original' just for the sake of it.

It's like when creationists that ask the same questions - I give the same answers. What's wrong with repetition if it's still valid and relevant and gets the point across? I think it's better than being original if it's merely for the sake of being original.

Sometimes I reply to 1 quote and in the next quote (or more) the same response is pretty much relevant, yet still slightly different simply because the quote was different.

EvF