Predisposition pertaining to the nature of replies

Post Reply New Topic

I have a question for each person to think about and respond as it pertains to each person individually.

When you reply to another poster on a forum, do you fully read what they have to say or do you more often assume the content of their posts based upon what you think they might say or might mean?

Last edited by iamnotaparakeet on 09 Nov 2010, 10:27 am, edited 1 time in total.

Wrong.













Edit: Hehe. I read posts. But if around the second paragraph everything is starting to get fuzzy I just reply to the first paragraphs instead of losing time reading a bunch of crazy stuff.

If I have replied, I have read the entire post. If a post loses me in the middle, I don't reply.

Once you get to know some posters you know what to expect, but if I reply to a post, I've read it, and my reply usually takes what they are saying at face value (meaning I try to reply to the content of their post rather than what I might assume they are saying).

I make an effort. I don't know how good this effort is, but whatev.

Generally, when I reply to something, I read it in full more than once before starting to write my reply, just so I give myself some time to let the words sink in a bit. I don't like to address someone's arguments directly if I'm unsure what points the person is trying to make.

iamnotaparakeet, what are you trying to find out?

- Do people recognize themselves in the post so much that they don't need to read it all?
- Do people have not enough attention to what is said?

(I think I responded to your question by asking mine )

Sometimes...
If it is too long, I will not reply
If it is short like this, I will reply

That is why I chose discussions that are short

It's always worth reading. Sometimes when I've contributed before to a thread (especially when I've been misunderstood), I'll take preconceptions in to the discussion. Other times, when I'm just trying to work out if I've anything pertinent to contribute, I read harder.

"predisposition" is not the nature of my replies unless the topic is about predisposition. my replies are pertinent to the topic i reply to, and i would probably not enter a topic about predisposition.

The topic is about predisposition as it pertains to the nature of replies.

sorry i did not read your post, i only read the topic title.

half past seven

Seriously?

Of nine?

Gerbils!




Silliness aside, whenever I read a post I give it my full attention and try not to infer anything from the words that isn't explicit - though sometimes a not-so-hidden meaning is staring you in the face.

From that point I'll either respond with my own perspective, ignore it because it's too long-winded or not of interest, or not respond because that person already said more or less the same as I would.

How can you challenge the reasoning (or lack thereof) of a person if you don't bother to understand it?