JR, I suppose the websites do deserve a click on their site for putting it up. But I do prefer being able to read those articles on the original post. Plus (as seen in yesterday's stupidly-titled "Cara on the WS" thread), some people don't even read the whole articles when they're posted on here, so I hardly think they will read them if they have to click on another link.
I think others would be tempted to read the extract posted and just comment on that rather than reading the whole story, figuring they know enough about it from the one part they read.
As you said Dave, some won't even read a whole article posted here anyhow. Appearance wise, it makes threads "flow better" not to have posts stretch forever, so maybe a middle ground is a limit in the length of a post in # of character or pixels? (Maybe with enlarged size type
counting as some multiple)
I'm sure the software can only limit the size of a post regardless
of whether its a c/p or a posters own words, but in the event a poster "wrote War And Peace
on their own", that's just as tedious. I'm not saying some draconian limit like the 140 characters on Twitter, more like several hundred or a thousand.
And just like spammers get bounced from here due to this board's property rights, shouldn't we respect those of other sites by only excerpting there stuff? (I say that just based on fairness, not even taking legal stuff I'm not an expert on into account) I think an ESPN or a CNN deserves the same shot @ clicks this site does.