I'm noticing what once was a tactic of only one or two posters starting to become a trend, and I think it's badly damaging to the nature of discussion on this forum. I suspect we're all guilty of doing it from time to time. I know I have. But I think it's time we thought a little more critically about what it actually does.
I'm referring to the tactic of dissecting a post when replying to it, such that the replier responds sentence-by-sentence instead of replying to the entire thought. The result looks something like this.
So I've been thinking, and I have a compelling idea. Your idea isn't as compelling as you think. My thesis is that if we could do X, then Y would happen. X is unrealistic and Y is not important. The result of this would be a greater good in the world. Good is subjective. The world is full of pain. My club has recently implemented such a program and it has worked well, No club has ever implemented such a policy. as evidenced by our membership growth of 10% since last year. Don't go using your fancy numbers. I have enough observational experience to prove that your idea is stupid.
This tactic probably makes the replier feel like they've won the Internet, since it effectively cripples the original poster's ability to even make a coherent reply. In reality though, it tends to kill threads and undermine intelligent discussion. Show me a thread where dissection has been employed with regularity, and I'll show you a thread where unintelligible discussion has chased away all intelligent posts, if the thread has survived at all.
I think about it in the context of a real-life conversation. Employing the tactic referenced is akin to interrupting someone after every single sentence, which would land you somewhere on the spectrum between ostracized and punched. On the Internet, it somehow seems less rude on the surface and the risks aren't quite as severe. The outcome on the discussion, though, is nonetheless the same - taking people out of context constantly ultimately destroys intelligent discourse.
Now, I'm fully aware that there are times when it's appropriate to examine a post point-by-point. I'm not saying that I think it's a tactic with no place. Anticipating future posts on this thread, I'm not seeking to "coerce" anyone into ceasing to use the tactic. I'll also address the elephant in the room - this thread isn't about Pat Mucci. He invented the damn technique as far as I can tell, and that gives him license to use it. My complaint is more with its growing prevalence and situations in which it either advertently or inadvertently kills a thread, because that sucks.
I'm simply posting as one adult among a community of 1500 adults, and asking if we can be a bit more judicious about dissecting. It's in the best interest of the forum and in the best interest of our community. GCA.com has become a pretty recognized brand and a voice of influence, and when we fail to sound like coherent thinkers we undermine that influence. I can't stop anyone from using it, but the odds of me ditching a discussion and finding someone else to talk to are pretty high if you employ it irresponsibly in a thread I'm participating in. I have no interest in trying to win the Internet, after all, and if we were sitting at a bar having the same discussion and I was interrupted after every sentence, I'd gracefully excuse myself and go talk to one of the other 1498 people in the room. I figure I should do the same here, and I encourage fellow posters who are getting exhausted to do the same.