I would accept that as a valid argument *IF* the articles weren't mostly crypto-blog sites.  Who in their right mind wants an archive of the dross those sites churn out?  I can see value in something that serves to document actual media coverage, tracking progress of how Bitcoin is perceived in the wider world, but also feel it would be better still if those topics also served a function of generating stimulating conversations.  The only reason we don't have that is because the people posting them are seemingly too preoccupied with searching for the next trash-blog to copy that they can't find time to provide their own insights on the subject (assuming they even have any). 

Aside from the part where you clearly don't like us very much, what is your justification for opposing the suggestion that posters add their own commentary to their quoted articles? 

Surely if someone cares enough to share something newsworthy, then they must have some sort of view regarding it which can be expressed in words?  If they don't, then I tend to assume they don't care about the content of the article.  In which case, they must be posting it for another reason.



If all I cared about was getting paid, I'd just do what the people I'm complaining about are doing.  It's not exactly difficult.  This is something I care about.  I'm fairly sure I put more effort into putting forth my arguments here than these Press spammers do in pressing the 'Post' button without a single thought entering their heads.  I wouldn't say your posts here are without value, but I do believe them to be seriously misguided and counter-productive to the goal of making a better Press board.