It may go that far.
In this case, it’s still unclear why the couple was targeted. The couple said they filed a police report and confirmed the car is paid off as well as the registration.
Maybe it’s a novel way to steal a car?
Extra credit because the company name was ‘Specialty Towing’ Ummm… yeah, no argument there.
It used to be that you had to pay the Wah Ching tong a butt load of money to have someone kidnaped in SF. Now, Specialty Towing will do it for you for $200. That’s the beauty of a completive free market.
… and a bunch of people told you why they found it annoying. If you still don’t “get it”, well, I’m not sure what else to say.
Add me to the list: “Click here to read see something sorta about the post I was too lazy to write” is a post I skip over without a care. Nothing you could possibly have meant would be worth the scamtastic DIY you ask of me.
Have an explanation, and post the very same link as the bottom for reference? I’ll read the post for sure and probably click on the link. Other way around? Fuggedaboudit.
Same here, exactly.
This.
And I would say it wouldn’t be a big deal if it wasn’t so common, but a lot of threads and even whole sites are ruined by people posting links without explanation.
For example, right now there’s an interesting thread here on arguments for God. On lesser forums, such a thread would quickly be derailed with people just posting links to apologist articles or videos. Only a subset of people will open a given link, and the conversation becomes impossible to follow.
I feel exactly the same way about posting links to Xitter. That’s blocked for me and I see only an empty box. Which is about the same level of quality the poster put into posting.
Remember, on any given page that any given user visits, the average number of links followed is less than one. That’s not a feature of how people use the World Wide Web; it’s a fundamental, inherently unchangeable mathematical fact. Links should provide support or more in-depth information, but the basic point still needs to stand on its own.
As does mine. If someone is interested enough in the idea to click on the link, they will. If they aren’t interested enough to click on the link, well, as some dead hippy said, “And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.”
But how am I to tell whether I’m interested in the idea if the idea isn’t given in the post, but only the link?
I would rather read than watch, for the most part. For video tutorials (ex: for work) or news clips I always look for a transcript. Obviously there are things that are better with video, but video-info as the default drive me a bit nuts.
When a hundred people express mild annoyance about the same thing, it may look like outrage to someone who may even agree with the disinclination to endorse it, but doesn’t feel compelled to express their feelings about it.
Turning it around, why does it get you so worked up when people raise the issue? It’s not like they’re using “lead” to denote the past tense of the verb “to lead,” or talking about someone having “free reign” to act, because they’re a “shoe-in.”
What are you talking about? Turn what around?
No, you’re choosing to put a bag over your head then whining about being unable to see anything.
If you insist that nothing useful is ever on Twitter and then are inconvenienced because you’re missing out on context, clearly you should reflect on that.
That’s just scratching nails on a chalkboard…
Also to reiterate, while I don’t have a problem with bare youtube links, I wasn’t the one who posted it, so maybe y’all could stop shitting on me about it.
I don’t think anyone is “shitting” on you about it. You did mention not understanding the “outrage” over bare links so others (including me) have attempted to explain why it bothers us. (And BTW, really no one has expressed “outrage.”)
Yeah, I thought maybe I might be going a bit too far.