I don’t want to press this too much especially because I’m just dumb enough that I could be missing something obvious here but I do want to respond to your post.
I was having some formatting issues and I couldn’t get your post to appear just as it originally looked so I just went with the header in my previous post. Sorry.
I still can’t get it to look just right, but here, more or less, is what I intended in my previous post: the GQ question title followed by your response:
Why did all the McDonaldland characters disappear
So there’s a question in the General Questions forum:
“Why did all the McDonaldland characters disappear?”
You responded with only a link. That’s already bad form, IMO, but in this case it was even less helpful than usual because neither the link nor the infobox capsule had anything approaching an answer for the OP.
What does plagiarizing Pufnstuf or murky origins of McD-Land characters have to do with the question?
And if there was an answer somewhere in your link, why in the world didn’t you quote it and share it with that thread? Especially as this was just the sixth post in a GQ thread.
I believe that links should almost always be used only for support, further elucidation, or illustration of your thesis. They should not be your entire contribution to a thread. them.
I’m never impressed by a bare link as a post. It doesn’t matter whether that link is to Cecil or God or my dead uncle.