Request for reposting

October 5, 2005 8:18 AM

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.
posted by rzklkng to etiquette/policy at 8:18 AM (39 comments total)

Huh?
posted by klangklangston at 8:20 AM on October 5, 2005

I agree! I move that this be adopted immediately!
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 at 8:23 AM on October 5, 2005

Link
posted by iconomy at 8:23 AM on October 5, 2005

Here, klangklangston
posted by sbutler 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

matt, very well. /slinks away.
posted by rzklkng at 8:32 AM on October 5, 2005

Bogus deletion.
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

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

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 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 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?

None of the links in the post support the exaggerated tone's claims.
posted by mathowie at 9:39 AM on October 5, 2005

In his defense, he does have an annoying blog.
posted by cortex at 10:26 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

rzklkng: "Or the ever-so-popular "this news event helps perfectly illustrate my personal agenda!"
posted by mathowie at 10:36 AM on October 5, 2005

matt, you're right. Less post, more lurk for me.
posted by rzklkng at 10:47 AM on October 5, 2005

Me too it seems.
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

Oh great. I can no longer understand english.
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

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
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

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

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

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

"I AM A LAWYER"

I know I shouldn't laugh.
posted by sonofsamiam at 5:57 PM on October 5, 2005

"...black is white..."
All I see is grey...
posted by klangklangston at 6:47 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

Which is ironic, given Dios 2.0's shrill partisan zealotry. Oops!
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

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

Alex, you are completely and totally insane.
posted by weretable and the undead chairs at 10:18 PM on October 5, 2005

this thread is awesome.
posted by shmegegge at 7:59 AM on October 6, 2005

i ate a bee
posted by cortex at 9:11 AM on October 6, 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

holy fuckin' shit! I'm not alone...
posted by stirfry at 6:14 PM on October 7, 2005