Thank you.

OK, if you have to, then go for it, I suppose. But how about some discussion for each link about why you think it's important? And not just a short sentence; proper paragraphs and everything. It'll help to stop you coming across as a bit of an idiot.

No. You think it's a thread like that, but you'd be wrong. It's actually a thread where people look at it, wonder why there's no context next to the list of links, and mark you down as a conspiracy nut with the rest of them.

 

Explaining the reasons why you think the links are important might still get you marked as a consiracy nut, but at least you'll be able to feel smug in the knowledge that you put more effort in than most would.

 

And why would I ignore anyone? They might say something interesting. Though I'll admit your sig is about to get ignored.

But what you're not exactly explaining is why an eartquake in Greece is so important, when in the last 30 days there have been at least 1600 earthquakes worldwide. They happen all the time. There's about 30,000 each year. Posting a link that says that there was an earthquake in Greece is like posting a link that says milk comes from cows (and God knows that's a bad analogy to use considering you'll take it as an excuse to whitter on about the benefits of soy-milk again) and expecting people to think it's a bad thing.

'fraidI tend to go with Patch on this one, I don't tend to click on random links at all and I haven't looked at any of those posted at the begining of this thread

If you'd said a bit more about them then I might have taken a peek

Ignore the whiners, the thread is(was) perfectly fine.

The URLs generally give enough information for anyone with an IQ to understand, and where they don't you've provided a brief note.

That along with the thread title give sufficient context/commentary - no need to write redundant stuff.

Give over. We're not here as a replacement for Digg. If he wants to post a full list of his bookmarks, then he could at least provide some context.

The context is the thread. It's not a random list of bookmarks, it's a set of related news items.

There is no need to write a paragraph for each link, the structure of the thread doesn't require it.

So what if that makes it not like a normal discussion - the great thing about internet forums is the flexibility of expression they give.

If you want a 'real' discussion on apocalyptic events, go start a thread with lots of paragraphs in it; if you don't want one, then you're just whinging for no good reason.

Related? Not in any meaningful way:

 

- Volcano in Alaska
- Earthquake in Russia
- China says thanks for helping after an earthquake
- Earthquake in Greece (which, according to whatsisname, is a news story that hasn't hit the mass media, but he links to CNN)
- Link to a 3 year old article that seems to be about Russia selling arms to Iran and Syria, but which then starts going on about "Zionist oligarchs" and alliances between Brazil, Russia and God I lost all interest.

 

Now, I can see the way the earthquakes and volcanoes are related, but where does the conspiracy-laden rant come into it? He certainly seems to think so, considering he said "A techy would post 2 links on surprising natural events, and another on a (now) known important political manouvre, and leave the lads here to make up their own minds." Is he saying that the Zionists have got an earthquake-ray and are planning to take over the world by shaking it to bits?

Read all that and tell me he's not talking bollocks.

That sort of post won't get you very far on this forum. You're listing lots of unconnected things and implying by your tone that they add up to a point. But you're leaving the point to the readers' imagination (in order to avoid being argued down) and suggesting that you will be proved right by future events.

That kinda stuff works on stupid people. Unfortunately this forum has a disgustingly high proportion of smart people. So unless you talk about specifics and actually set forth a reasoned argument, you're fucked.

So here are some questions for you. Please answer in normal English.

• What have sunken cities got to do with anything?
• What have civilisations and planets got to do with anything?
• What have the Mayans got to do with anything? (with the sort of foreknowledge people attribute to the Mayans you'd kinda expect they'd have put up a better fight really)
• What 'races' are 'lost'?
• Which extinct beings do you mean?
• By what mechanism was Nostradamus able to know the future?