Why was this deleted?

January 23, 2006 2:18 PM

I have to disagree. I thought things were just getting interesting. There was no name-calling or other objectionable activity going on, was there? What gives?
posted by JeffK to Etiquette/Policy at 2:18 PM (27 comments total)

The post has one link to a short transcript and nothing else, no explanation of who is on trial or where it is currently taking place. The comments read like any other israel vs. palestine post, and were flagged heavily.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 2:20 PM on January 23, 2006

Flagged comments? Really? On what basis? I didn't see a comment there that deserved to be flagged (at least, not offhand). More info about the case was just being posted as the thread was closed, but I can understand why it was closed.
posted by loquax at 2:28 PM on January 23, 2006

'nuff said. I'll just have to find another outlet for my Righteous Indignation.
posted by JeffK at 2:30 PM on January 23, 2006

Yeah, it was going great. Another wonderful round of MetaFilter users showing bravado with their summary judgments of events they know nothing about from behind the cozy safety of their keyboards.
posted by xmutex at 2:36 PM on January 23, 2006

It was heated, no doubt about that, but I think it was fairly sane. The poster obviously could have done a better job, that is nothing new.

I think it could have stayed...

How about languagehat's egregious use of the front page? that should really be trimmed, the <more inside> is smaller than the FPP...

That brings up another issue, the online Canadian election results should probably be sidebared. It will be way down the page before any results come in, and I'm sure a lot of people will want to find it later tonight (unless we want another FPP about it tonight, and another with tomorrow's result too...).
posted by Chuckles at 2:38 PM on January 23, 2006

good call Matt
posted by caddis at 2:39 PM on January 23, 2006

See, even one guy said What the hell was happening ?

But instead of just saying that, which is all any of us should say, he's gotta have a viewpoint on the morality of the thing anyway.
posted by xmutex at 2:40 PM on January 23, 2006

Add it to the Smile Upon column.
posted by Captaintripps at 2:41 PM on January 23, 2006

Flagged comments? Really?

"SO, Loquax is for killing kids" got some notice.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 2:43 PM on January 23, 2006

Point taken. I suppose even I saw it coming.
posted by JeffK at 2:48 PM on January 23, 2006

caddis, wipe your mouth, you missed a spot.
posted by The Jesse Helms at 2:54 PM on January 23, 2006

JeffK, I thought it was plenty funny that you made that 'not good' comment, yet you are the one calling it out...

Anyway, I think there was a post about this story around the time it happened, or maybe around the time the court martial ended. All I could find is a y2karl post: Killing [Palestinian] Children is no longer a big deal.

Anybody know where such a thread might be? Maybe it was deleted too?
posted by Chuckles at 2:55 PM on January 23, 2006

Add it to the Smile Upon column.
posted by Captaintripps at 4:41 PM CST on January 23 [!]

This has gotten old.
posted by COBRA! at 2:59 PM on January 23, 2006

The Jesse Helms, wipe your body, you're one big asshole.
Remember the 'front to back' rule.
posted by If I Had An Anus at 3:05 PM on January 23, 2006

This has gotten old.
posted by COBRA!

He just wants his own meta callout.
posted by justgary at 3:06 PM on January 23, 2006

Remember the 'front to back' rule.

There's a rule? Why didn't anybody tell me there was a rule?!
posted by cortex at 3:58 PM on January 23, 2006

it shouldn't have been deleted---the IP thing can be civil and constructive (most things can be). I think you're stuck in the old days regarding it, matt.
posted by amberglow at 4:09 PM on January 23, 2006

The Jesse Helms, wipe your body, you're one big asshole.
posted by If I Had An Anus at 12:05 AM CET on January 24 [!]

clearly, you're just jealous
posted by mr.marx at 4:29 PM on January 23, 2006

"SO, Loquax is for killing kids"

That was flagged? That's just a gentle little love tap!
posted by loquax at 4:30 PM on January 23, 2006

Personally, I found this thread is noteworthy for this aristocrats-eque comment. Nicely done Optimus Chyme.
posted by allen.spaulding at 4:44 PM on January 23, 2006

That was an interesting dicussion. It made me ask myself a very serious question. Could I really kill a child? Probably not. Could I be conditioned to do so? Yea, I'm sure I could.

Oh well.
posted by snsranch at 4:52 PM on January 23, 2006

I was hoping that the posting of a few "legitimate" links would help make for a better discussion...

Oh well (x2).
posted by neurodoc at 5:21 PM on January 23, 2006

clearly, you're just jealous

There's also the possibility that I don't have one because I am one too.
posted by If I Had An Anus at 5:24 PM on January 23, 2006

I feel there has to be a stricter set of explanations on offer when something is deleted. "This isn't going well.." while okay in this instance, is not what you want to hear when a seriously contentious issue is being debated. The explanations have been jokey and colloquial for a while and I think the site would benefit from a rigid set of deletion rules (drop down menu) which could implemented when required.
posted by fire&wings at 5:57 PM on January 23, 2006

but then you'd have deleted posts that only say things like "trainwreck" or "gyob" with no further explanation, and there would still be MeTa posts.
posted by shmegegge at 6:45 PM on January 23, 2006

There's also the possibility that I don't have one because I am one too.

Good point. Lots of noobs confuse inheritance with containment.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 6:52 PM on January 23, 2006

You guys can bitch about I/P all you like. I'm just here for the ads.
posted by Sonny Jim at 8:01 PM on January 23, 2006