Request for reposting October 5, 2005 8:18 AM Subscribe
Note: The deleted post of mine was supposed to be saved as a draft...I didn't mean to publish it on my own site. I've just found cutting and pasting code is easier than typing it (blogger to mefi). If you note, I've re-drafted it, and as it is a relavent and news-worthy topic, would like to see it reposted.
I agree! I move that this be adopted immediately!
posted by pardonyou? at 8:22 AM on October 5, 2005
posted by pardonyou? at 8:22 AM on October 5, 2005
The full reason for deletion is there. You grabbed a document off the white house site, made up some stuff about everyone being unqualified then found a bunch of infographics that don't support that premise. None of the links are new or noteworthy and it read like unsupported opinion. That's a bad post.
Some of the anti-bush posts of late seem more at home on some DailyKos personal diary than MetaFilter.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 8:23 AM on October 5, 2005
Some of the anti-bush posts of late seem more at home on some DailyKos personal diary than MetaFilter.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 8:23 AM on October 5, 2005
There is also a double post on Rocket Racing on the front page that can't be flagged due to a CF error.
posted by sciurus at 8:28 AM on October 5, 2005
posted by sciurus at 8:28 AM on October 5, 2005
Bogus deletion.
posted by sonofsamiam at 8:33 AM on October 5, 2005
posted by sonofsamiam at 8:33 AM on October 5, 2005
It's unfortunate that your blind partisanship and adherence to party politics...
Aww, while the deletion was appropriate it's really too bad we lost that bit of comedy.
posted by justgary at 9:01 AM on October 5, 2005
Aww, while the deletion was appropriate it's really too bad we lost that bit of comedy.
posted by justgary at 9:01 AM on October 5, 2005
Proves nothing but the poster's opinion.
What? That's a strike against it?
And, yet...this makes the cut. Oh well, a double-standard to encourge diversity is understandable I guess.
Though, the "but I should get another chance because I posted a draft on my blog entry" part is pretty lame too.
posted by If I Had An Anus at 9:06 AM on October 5, 2005
What? That's a strike against it?
And, yet...this makes the cut. Oh well, a double-standard to encourge diversity is understandable I guess.
Though, the "but I should get another chance because I posted a draft on my blog entry" part is pretty lame too.
posted by If I Had An Anus at 9:06 AM on October 5, 2005
Bogus deletion
Care to elaborate?
while the deletion was appropriate it's really too bad we lost that bit of comedy
I found that quote funny as well, especially since dios was rather calmly arguing the premise for the post was unfounded. Sweet, sweet irony.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 9:07 AM on October 5, 2005
Care to elaborate?
while the deletion was appropriate it's really too bad we lost that bit of comedy
I found that quote funny as well, especially since dios was rather calmly arguing the premise for the post was unfounded. Sweet, sweet irony.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 9:07 AM on October 5, 2005
And, yet...this makes the cut. Oh well, a double-standard to encourage diversity is understandable I guess.
That made the cut because the post is about what the link is about, they didn't use it as a jumping off point to go in several other directions.
There's no double standard here, I'm simply trying to keep some semblance of a relationship between posted links and what the poster is trying to say. Today's post read as "all of Bush's appointees are crap choices and buddies of his" and that's an exaggeration. They posted a bunch of links but the links didn't support the exaggeration.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 9:12 AM on October 5, 2005
That made the cut because the post is about what the link is about, they didn't use it as a jumping off point to go in several other directions.
There's no double standard here, I'm simply trying to keep some semblance of a relationship between posted links and what the poster is trying to say. Today's post read as "all of Bush's appointees are crap choices and buddies of his" and that's an exaggeration. They posted a bunch of links but the links didn't support the exaggeration.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 9:12 AM on October 5, 2005
Elaboration: I thought the links were decent enough to keep the post up. Just my opinion, but it seems kinda arbitrary.
Is the exaggerated tone of the post the discriminating factor here or what? Ah, well. It's the mod's perogative to decide.
posted by sonofsamiam at 9:25 AM on October 5, 2005
Is the exaggerated tone of the post the discriminating factor here or what? Ah, well. It's the mod's perogative to decide.
posted by sonofsamiam at 9:25 AM on October 5, 2005
Is the exaggerated tone of the post the discriminating factor here or what?
None of the links in the post support the exaggerated tone's claims.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 9:39 AM on October 5, 2005
None of the links in the post support the exaggerated tone's claims.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 9:39 AM on October 5, 2005
In my defense, the first link was intended to give a list of appointees/nominees. The various charts were intended to show how certain connected individuals and corporations always turn up in this/all administration(s), as well as illustrating ridiculous conspiracy theories. The specific links regarding Spelling, Gonzalez, Roberts, and Miers spoke to their lack of either specific experience, a preference for loyalty over fulfilling one's constitutional oath, or seriously suspect conflicts of interest. I don't think I said all..."The choices of the Bush team are most confusing, what with the amount of unqualified individuals nominated (and confirmed)".
posted by rzklkng at 10:29 AM on October 5, 2005
posted by rzklkng at 10:29 AM on October 5, 2005
rzklkng: "Or the ever-so-popular "this news event helps perfectly illustrate my personal agenda!"
posted by mathowie (staff) at 10:36 AM on October 5, 2005
posted by mathowie (staff) at 10:36 AM on October 5, 2005
Me too it seems.
posted by If I Had An Anus at 10:58 AM on October 5, 2005
posted by If I Had An Anus at 10:58 AM on October 5, 2005
Me too it seems - If I Had An Anus
but! but!! NOOO!
*cries cranberry-flavoured grapefruit-shaped tears*
*longboat tiara shimmers dazzlingly in the sunlight*
posted by raedyn at 11:33 AM on October 5, 2005
but! but!! NOOO!
*cries cranberry-flavoured grapefruit-shaped tears*
*longboat tiara shimmers dazzlingly in the sunlight*
posted by raedyn at 11:33 AM on October 5, 2005
Oh great. I can no longer understand english.
posted by sonofsamiam at 12:01 PM on October 5, 2005
posted by sonofsamiam at 12:01 PM on October 5, 2005
Homer: Well, what do you think?
Editor: This is a joke, right? I mean this is the stupidest thing I've ever read!
Homer: What's wrong with it?
Editor: You keep using words like "Pasghetti" and "Momatoes" You make numerous threatening references to the UN and at the end you repeat the words "Screw Flanders" over and over again.
posted by blue_beetle at 12:54 PM on October 5, 2005
Editor: This is a joke, right? I mean this is the stupidest thing I've ever read!
Homer: What's wrong with it?
Editor: You keep using words like "Pasghetti" and "Momatoes" You make numerous threatening references to the UN and at the end you repeat the words "Screw Flanders" over and over again.
posted by blue_beetle at 12:54 PM on October 5, 2005
mathowie writes "especially since dios was rather calmly arguing the premise for the post was unfounded."
Actually, dios won that thread hands down and probably this one too by absence - and rzklkng, while your intentions, after long lines of explanations, are now somewhat clear, they are very far from the actual post you made: a bunch of unrelated charts, linked in the annoying "this sentence bears no relation to the linked pages" form in a strongly editorialized for a news post. What did you expect?
posted by nkyad at 1:53 PM on October 5, 2005
Actually, dios won that thread hands down and probably this one too by absence - and rzklkng, while your intentions, after long lines of explanations, are now somewhat clear, they are very far from the actual post you made: a bunch of unrelated charts, linked in the annoying "this sentence bears no relation to the linked pages" form in a strongly editorialized for a news post. What did you expect?
posted by nkyad at 1:53 PM on October 5, 2005
Actually, dios won that thread hands down
posted by nkyad at 1:53 PM PST on October 5 [!]
Actually, nobody "won" anything, but it was fortunate for dios that his ill-informed, partisan comment was removed from public viewing.
posted by Rothko at 2:04 PM on October 5, 2005
posted by nkyad at 1:53 PM PST on October 5 [!]
Actually, nobody "won" anything, but it was fortunate for dios that his ill-informed, partisan comment was removed from public viewing.
posted by Rothko at 2:04 PM on October 5, 2005
Eh, it was a crap post, IMO, although the thread itself looks intresting.
posted by delmoi at 2:18 PM on October 5, 2005
posted by delmoi at 2:18 PM on October 5, 2005
Actually, nobody "won" anything, but it was fortunate for dios that his ill-informed, partisan comment was removed from public viewing.
posted by Rothko at 2:04 PM PST on October 5
That is a pretty hilarious humiliation, Rothko.
"Okay, that's sixty-seven unqualified appointees. That's it?"
"Okay, four hundred and seventeen. The man's not perfect."
"A veterinarian is a fine choice to decide policy on women's health."
"I AM A LAWYER"
posted by Optimus Chyme at 2:44 PM on October 5, 2005
posted by Rothko at 2:04 PM PST on October 5
That is a pretty hilarious humiliation, Rothko.
"Okay, that's sixty-seven unqualified appointees. That's it?"
"Okay, four hundred and seventeen. The man's not perfect."
"A veterinarian is a fine choice to decide policy on women's health."
"I AM A LAWYER"
posted by Optimus Chyme at 2:44 PM on October 5, 2005
Does anyone else ever feel like they've taken crazy pills when reading Metatalk threads? You know, up is down, black is white...
posted by loquax at 2:54 PM on October 5, 2005
posted by loquax at 2:54 PM on October 5, 2005
You mean up is not down and the blackness I sense coming is a glorious white epiphany?
posted by nkyad at 3:02 PM on October 5, 2005
posted by nkyad at 3:02 PM on October 5, 2005
Dios is the new black. Everyone is giving him props lately.
posted by Roger Dodger at 7:15 PM on October 5, 2005
posted by Roger Dodger at 7:15 PM on October 5, 2005
Which is ironic, given Dios 2.0's shrill partisan zealotry. Oops!
posted by Rothko at 9:11 PM on October 5, 2005
posted by Rothko at 9:11 PM on October 5, 2005
No, what's ironic is that those who attack dios multiple times in the same thread because of the same comment come off as unstable, which in this case, is pretty much par for the course.
posted by justgary at 9:31 PM on October 5, 2005
posted by justgary at 9:31 PM on October 5, 2005
Or redefining black and white, and up and down, which is pretty much par for the course and completely unironic.
posted by Rothko at 9:39 PM on October 5, 2005
posted by Rothko at 9:39 PM on October 5, 2005
Alex, you are completely and totally insane.
posted by weretable and the undead chairs at 10:18 PM on October 5, 2005
posted by weretable and the undead chairs at 10:18 PM on October 5, 2005
That's shrill?
Admit it, Rothko, you're secretly a conservative and your parody of a left-winger is some sort of performance piece.
posted by klangklangston at 7:48 AM on October 7, 2005
Admit it, Rothko, you're secretly a conservative and your parody of a left-winger is some sort of performance piece.
posted by klangklangston at 7:48 AM on October 7, 2005
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by klangklangston at 8:20 AM on October 5, 2005