Well, you are half-right here. If I am reading properly: then he does not click any youtube links at all - for him it does not matter if they have any description or not.

*Quote is from PoSSeSSeDCoW's link.

I was only reminiscing of "the olden days" when people - well, some, at least - took the time to tell you where that link would take you before you clicked on it; there's no reason to "c'mon" me - it's not my opinion, it's a fact.

However, everyone has an up-to-date anti-virus solution running on their box today, right? Not really a problem if I started posting links to sites with drive-by downloads then. According to your reasoning. Those sites would - of course - also contain information relevant to the topic, so everything would be fine.
</sarcasm>

Now you're just strawmanning it up in here.

Thing is, some sites aren't that dangerous to visit....and the worst you'll get from a youtube link is a trollface picture or some rick astley music.

I could understand your reasoning more if it was a shortened url leading who knows where, but this wasn't the case here.

Yeah that's true. While he did say that he won't click on the links with or without descriptions, he also made a note in the OP to emphasize twice that the link was a link without accompanying description (ie "a Youtube link, with no description" and "guy's post was a youtube link and nothing else"). So I see where you're coming from, and I should have left out that part of my argument, but to explain why I included it...I just wanted to cover all of the angles.

Regardless, minus out the parts where I mention the descriptions and everything else I said still stands. No one can guess that he doesn't click youtube links. It's impossible to know that in advance.

Being a trauma surgeon is all kinds of different from being any of the myriad specialists. I'm the low man on the totem pole, just above interns and residents. If there's a heart problem I can't fix, we call a cardiologist. Cranial trauma, neurosurgeon. Etc.

I'm basically the guy who does what the paramedics can't, and what the specialists don't have to. With the way the medical system in general is going, my kind could be rendered redundant by giving extra training to EMT's and ER nurses. I think the only reason I and others like me are still around is because people still associate a medical doctorate with authority and want to see at least one doctor "in charge" of everything when they're brought in.

On the plus side, either because the cops did their job or because the other hospitals got all the incoming traffic, it was a pretty quiet couple of nights.

Like I said, I didn't "lambaste" anyone. I said what I felt about video links in an abbreviated manner. I didn't call him a homo or no-life or whatever else the kids are calling each other these days.

First of all, you just made a complete 180. Second, what I was "expecting" was someone to spend the necessary time and energy relaxing and contracting the muscles in their fingers to type out simple answer to the question, which happened to be "Am I supposed to smash monsters that are frozen in ice or am I supposed to smash ice-themed monsters". In the time it took the guy to search for the video and copy and paste the link, he could have typed "The second one".

I took the time to type the question, you can take the time to type the answer.

He still answered and you pretty much turned him down because he didn't post it in the correct format that you wanted.

I know you don't click youtube links and all, but why? Is it so hard to install a script to block youtube vids from autoplaying until you start them/click them and waste two seconds seeing if the link is legit or not?

Plus you could've avoided even bringing his post up as others answered you as well in the same thread.

Can you explain how I did a 180?

I stood by everything I said, with the exception that I understand why it wasn't necessary for me to talk about the "with or without comments" part. Either way, the core of my point still stood.

How is anyone supposed to know what format you were expecting? That is an honest question.

You are right, I guess, it's kind of strawmanning. It is however more likely that you'd have taken the precaution of installing an anti-virus solution than flashblock, wouldn't you say? Anyway, the point I'm trying to highlight, rather than argue this particular instance, is that I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a little more from those who only post links. It's in everyone's interest (except those less benign).

It's not only the OP that might click that link but everyone else reading the same thread, and you don't know anything about their abilities to "x out of it" etc. I try to teach my children not to click such link as this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1UQ9vKm_ig
- even though you know you should hover over the link to see where it actually will send you before clicking (which, incidently, was worthless on older IE versions; too easy to falsify), it only takes one wrong click..

When you know how, it's easy to make every single site on the net safe to visit, given that you don't scar easily; that's not the issue. It's about showing others the courtesy of not assuming that they are constantly prepared to deal with the less pleasant sides of the 'net.

If it isn't unreasonable to expect a little more from those who only post links, then what exactly are you referring to by "little more"? What else should they do?

The only good answer I can think of is that you would want the person not to necessarily describe the contents of the video, but to write out the answer even if the video gives the exact same answer. This is why I wrote what I wrote above concerning posting links without accompanying explanation.

If you ask for help and only want the answers in a certain format, then say so in the opening post when you ask the question. But to complain about the way someone decides to answer is discourteous. If we are going to bring courtesy into this, then is it a little discourteous for someone to not type out the answer and to instead just post a youtube video with the answer? Yes. Is it just as discourteous or more discourteous for the asker to get upset about the format of the answer even though the asker didn't specify in advance the type of format wanted? Without a doubt.

If you're expecting courtesy by the repliers then the repliers can expect similar courtesy by the poster. If you don't like the format the answer is in, you should have said so in advance. Ignore the answer and wait for someone else to explain it to you, or ask politely for the person to explain the contents of the video. But to complain about a valid answer because it isn't presented to you a certain way is more discourteous than someone posting the answer in a particular format when it was never made known that the particular format wasn't wanted.

Courtesy is a double edged sword here. In my opinion, it hurts the OP's argument more than it hurts the other side. OP is the one asking for help. He should take the initiative and be understanding. The replier had no way of knowing that the youtube link was going to be perceived as discourteous.

Thus the courteous thing for the OP to do would have been to (a) ask for clarification of the contents of the video, (b) explain politely at any point that blind youtube links aren't what he wants, or (c) just ignore the poster and wait for another person to answer. Instead, OP choose (d), which is to reply rudely and complain about something that no one could have guessed in advance would be a problem. OP is in the wrong here and more discourteous than the replier.

How does just posting a youtube link not show others the courtesy of not assuming that they are constantly prepared to deal with the less pleasant sides of the 'net?

"little more" depends on the circumstances, obviously. If I've understood the OP's question correctly (I haven't looked at the link to the original thread), it was basically a multiple choice type of question with only two alternatives. Thus, one way to reply would be "I'd say option b. Here's a youtube link that explains in greater detail: <link>". If the question was something like "how do I set up my wireless router <insert brand/make> to use WPA2?" it'd ne more natural to answer "You could google for the manual, or you could have a look at this youtube vid that shows you how to do it: <link>". So, no, I'm not expecting anyone to write out an answer if it's more work than finding a suitable link, just that one takes the time to add a few words when posting a link - it only adds a few percent more time spent so it shouldn't be unreasonable (of course, in this case, it seems like it'd been even faster just to reply "b" than finding that link).

I'm not defending the OP at all - I find that kind of hard to do when he/she gets into an argument in one forum and then decides to start a thread in another forum to complain about it, in a competitor's forum even. It's the principle of not just throwing out links, not the actions of this thread's OP.

Because it might not be a youtube link - try it (or just hover your mouse over it) and you'll see. Obviously, if you want you can add misleading links to "a proper post" too, but that doesn't happen nearly as often.

Another, more important point, is that you don't know who's going to click that link - it may be perfectly fine for the OP, yet offensive to others. Sure, nobody ever died from being offended, but we're talking about courtesy here.

1. I know you didn't suggest flashblock to block virus infections - the point was taking the precaution to block something unwanted, be it auto-playing youtube vids or virus infections. With only the URL to hint at what precautions to take, most people won't give it much thought if any.

I don't really care much about the OP and his/her actions, but rather the reasons for posting a little more than just links. And I wouldn't call it paranoia, it's risk versus value assessment. Of course, with no accompanying description, the value is potentially negative. Maybe it's because I've been interested in hacking and cracking for more than two decades that I don't find it to be paranoid.

2. Why only adults' abilities? Do you know a single (public) site on the whole web that can only be accessed by adults?

3. My children are not allowed on the 'net at all unless they are distrustful of anonymous people, regardless of nice they seem and the funny stories they tell. It's not because I distrust their ability to check the true URL, nor their assessment of outube being 'safe' - it's because I can't trust them to do it all the time. You don't have to be stupid to do stupid things.

I don't think it's absurd to err on the safe side - it's basically an admission to not knowing enough to keep oneself reasonable safe. I prefer that to the opposite.

Edit:
I hate it when the quoting markup doesn't work.. gah..