A simple question, why do so many posters who post threads, duck out the the discussions they start? Occassionally, or often, I find one posting or two and no more after that? Do they lose interest?

Note my question does not require any answers from me.

A simple question, why do so many posters who post threads, duck out the the discussions they start? Occassionally, or often, I find one posting or two and no more after that? Do they lose interest?

Note my question does not require any answers from me.

I also notice this a lot.  

Matthew starts a lot of threads and leaves them orphans, but I think he does that to keep the forum interesting.  

Is that a bad habit, I don't think so.

Some possibilities

- attention spans?

- time constraints?

- already said what you wanted to say and feel no need for argument or further discussion?

If the person who started the thread doesn't post much in general, they're likely not the sort who's going to come back and reply. But, that doesn't mean they didn't read your responses.

Judge Clarence Thomas said that if he is quiet and listens patiently his questions are usually answered as the lawyers present their cases. 

A simple question, why do so many posters who post threads, duck out [of] the discussions they start?  Occassionally, or often, I find one posting or two and no more after that  Do they lose interest?

You're not really expecting a single all-encompassing answer, right?  But maybe I can provide some useful examples.

Matthew starts a lot of threads and leaves them orphans, but I think he does that to keep the forum interesting.

·   For starters, are you--Cassini--consciously exempting all those original postings that consist of a single article whose, ummm, most original version appeared on some other Web-site?  It's possible--if not likely--that in such cases, they're more-or-less passively notifying the CathInfo readership of news or other information that several readers might consider worth reading.  That's what I recall seeing Matthew do that others might describe as "orphans".

·   If I were to put Matthew's & Mater D.'s finances at risk by copying & posting in full a copyrighted article & photo[†], e.g., on discovery of an interesting Catholic or Christian structure or archæological site overseas, it's highly unlikely that I'd have anything substantive to add in a follow-up posting.  I'd love to indulge in the travel that'd be necessary to report to C.I. from such an overseas site, but my budget wouldn't allow it. I disagree that my absence from the topic after my o.p. should be considered "duck[ing] out".

·   There are times when it might be desirable to provide an unambiguous, i.e., well-focused, hook for gathering information over an unlimited stretch of time.  For example, while composing a "health & nutrition" posting, I wanted to link to the best CathInfo discussion about a notorious-but-widespread carbohydrate.  A CathInfo-wide search did find 1 topic, except that its o.p. contained obvious fundamental errors (i.e., neither obscure nor subtle).  So I might yet create a new o.p. for it, and see what useful information can be added by other C.I. members.  There's no rush.  If that be "duck[ing] out", then let us make the most of it.

But more often their question or statement opens up into an interesting discussion or 'argument'.  In other words posters should engage in their own thread if the question or interest in the subject they posted was genuine. Just as I am doing here.

·   "posters should engage in their own thread"?  Really now: "should engage!?"  What's your moral or philosophical basis for asserting such an obligation?   I'm sure as Hades not getting paid for submitting any postings to C.I.--nor anywhere else [‡].

-------
Note †: I infer that Matthew & Mater D. are far less concerned about the various financial & legal risks than I am.
 
Note ‡: For that matter, it's well worth keeping in mind that Matthew & Mater D. are not getting paid for operating CathInfo.