Advice for posting in comments sections across the net

[Seer]

1. Civility- The Internet is a place where it's easy to express emotions that you didn't mean to. Written type differs from speech because there's no inflection. In fact, make sure you remember this when reading other things on top of writing. I've seen people takes jokes as serious attacks on Ron Paul. In writing, remember that it's very easy for other people to think you're angry when you don't mean to be.

2. Duplication- All that duplication accomplishes is being annoying. It creates the feeling amongst people that there is "spamming" going on. If there is a large volume of pro-Paul comments, is it really necessary to post more? No. I'd recommend that unless there is a debate going on that you can jump in on, that it's better to avoid over-posting.

3. Uniqueness- The whole "look at his record" "he's going to save us all" "he made me interested in politics again" is great, but it makes you look more like a bot than a person. If there's an article about, say, Ron Paul's foreign policy positions, your comments should probably focus on those. If it's about, for example, his appearance on a TV show, focusing on his performance makes more sense.

4. Other: without being too detailed, please do not attach something that has nothing to do with Ron Paul to a pro-Paul post. It will either confuse people looking at the posts or it will cause them to think Ron Paul supports that message. Example" Vote Ron Paul, Stop the Jews!" is not appropriate. All that does is make people think he's some kind of anti-semite (this is an extreme example, I've never seen this one). True, you have the right to hold this opinion, but if you want Paul elected, this kind of thing is counter-productive.

Any other ideas, or complaints about this post?

 

[angelatc]

I usually try to read some personal pieces about the blogger, and use that to connect. Or I start with "I used to feel that way, but ....." or "I totally agree with you about this, but that other thing......"

 

[Seer]

bump

 

[beermotor]

I'm addicted to doing this stuff. I think it's probably most effective when you use facts to attack the anti-Paul assumptions, especially the dems who say Paul is great on some stuff but not on others. I always like to use the we've had thousands of years of government, and it's never succeeded once, so maybe we ought to limit its scope eh.

Other than that, you just have to keep plugging away at refuting the racist crap, etc. The biggest thing is to be COHERENT. Proofread before you submit; I'm guilty of typos, too, but bad grammar makes us, and Paul, look like tards.