Join 3,421 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)

An FPP is not a place for them to make a point. It is a place to share.
March 15, 2006 12:05 PM   Subscribe

Mischaracterizing the link. Trying to prove a conspiracy. Rampant editorializing. Effective double posts due to retread of the same discussions/topics being made by the same users. These things make for crappy posts. They would not occur if people would learn that a front page Metafilter post is not a place for them to make a point. It is a place to share .
posted by dios to Etiquette/Policy at 12:05 PM (225 comments total)

I see the hybrid post has been deleted. Good deal. But this post is about more than that. It is about the problem inherent when people post as adovcates instead of posting as people who have filtered new, cool and interesting things to share. When the post is made to make a point or preach, it inevitably is a bad post.
posted by dios at 12:07 PM on March 15, 2006


Welcome to the new Metafilter--best of the "Bush Sucks" web.
posted by LarryC at 12:09 PM on March 15, 2006


Jeez, a made up quote posted to fit insominia_lj's personal views on the front page is pretty fucked up. Deleted.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 12:12 PM on March 15, 2006


And with it dies my lovely neologism.
posted by Astro Zombie at 12:13 PM on March 15, 2006


Oh, wait, I posted it in another thread. It lives on!
posted by Astro Zombie at 12:13 PM on March 15, 2006


More like a malogism.
posted by sonofsamiam at 12:15 PM on March 15, 2006


this really is pretty interesting, from the bush tag page dios links to.

Users that often use this tag:
digaman (42)
insomnia_lj (26)

the user after insomnia_lj is mathowie who only used it ten times.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 12:20 PM on March 15, 2006


The power law of Bush sucks.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 12:23 PM on March 15, 2006


haha up yours! woo
posted by rxrfrx at 12:28 PM on March 15, 2006


It is a place to share .

*falls down laughing, realizes dios obviously doesn't understand what "share" truly means, nor "prove a conspiracy" nor "rampant", etc, judging by the examples chosen here*
posted by amberglow at 12:31 PM on March 15, 2006


*wishes he could travel back in time and post exactly what dios posted in 50077, just to watch the complete lack of a similar in-thread response*
posted by cortex at 12:33 PM on March 15, 2006


How is a post from a month ago relevant, again?
posted by hototogisu at 12:38 PM on March 15, 2006


The real irony here is that insomnia_lj is a strong supporter of torturing and publicly sodomizing people, even minors. As he says, it "gets the job done". I don't know why he gets so bent out of shape about it in Iraq if he has no problem with it in the USA.
posted by loquax at 12:38 PM on March 15, 2006


I'm totally miffed that none of the other links in this MeTa post have mouseover text. I was looking forward to that.

In other news - insomnia_lj posts an anti-Bush screed, the world moves along exactly the same as before. Everyone else jumps to their positions at the parapets (including me) and the merry circus begins anew.

ho-motherfucking-hum.
posted by longbaugh at 12:42 PM on March 15, 2006


I often get bent out of shape re: torture in Iraq, but I would support the inclusion of a "nut punch for aggravated teabaggers" clause in the Iraqi constitution.
posted by rxrfrx at 12:43 PM on March 15, 2006


Share? My god, get over yourself.
posted by bardic at 12:43 PM on March 15, 2006


(place to share is the new SCIENCE!)
posted by bardic at 12:44 PM on March 15, 2006


I feel confident that, outside metafilter, yea, out there in the real world, dios is defending the quality and integrity of other good things with the same dedication and passion.
posted by George_Spiggott at 12:46 PM on March 15, 2006


Matt describes the now deleted post as a "made up quote not found in story, totally misleading and sensationalistic", but that's nonsense.

The "made up quote" was, as one reader indicated, "summary marks", followed immediately afterwards by the full quote.

"Ultimately it comes down to the free flow of goods and resources on which the prosperity of our own nation and everybody else in the world depend." (i.e. We need to protect the flow of oil in the region.)

So, where's the totally misleading element of this post? If Matt was so concerned about the potential for it to be misleading, he could've simply removed the quotation marks, rather than acting as a censor.
posted by insomnia_lj at 12:51 PM on March 15, 2006


Jesus Christ, dios speaks mathowie obeys

we're so fucking liberal around here alright
posted by matteo at 12:52 PM on March 15, 2006


add a new flag, Matt: "dios won't like it" -- immediate deletion for the guilty post
posted by matteo at 12:53 PM on March 15, 2006


What's the matter, did somebody take away the grinding wheel for that axe of yours?
posted by monju_bosatsu at 12:54 PM on March 15, 2006


So, if I were to repost the deleted links with some new, cleaned-up text, that'd be OK, right?
posted by sonofsamiam at 12:56 PM on March 15, 2006


"insomnia_lj is a fucking cry baby"

/summary
posted by longbaugh at 12:59 PM on March 15, 2006


where's the totally misleading element of this post?

Are you fucking serious? The element is this:
General in charge of Iraq says "It's the oil"
I don't know what they teach in livejournalism school, but the little quote marks around "It's the oil" indicate that someone actually said something, word for word. I opened the link attached to that quote, did a control-f for "oil" and didn't see the phrase uttered by the general that was "quoted" in your post.

You interpretted some words and put them into some guy's mouth and made it appear like he actually said it. He didn't. That's is misleading, and it's bullshit, and it's removed.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 12:59 PM on March 15, 2006 [18 favorites]


He's right. Now everyone stop making points and start sharing those elephant pictures.
posted by furtive at 1:01 PM on March 15, 2006


So if I were to repost the deleted links with some new, cleaned-up text, that'd be OK, right?
posted by sonofsamiam at 1:01 PM on March 15, 2006


He also quoted Abizad as "suggesting permanent bases". Abizad didn't suggest anything in the article. The entire article was full of "maybes" and "can't rule it out.' Which is why it isn't even news. But he wanted to make a point about it, so he tried to hack some things together.
posted by dios at 1:02 PM on March 15, 2006


"summary marks"

WTF? "Summary Marks"? The very fact that you put the phrase in quotes should indicate that no such markup exists in modern written English. Everyone else in the English-writing world uses those marks to indicate a verbatim quotation.

A lame excuse to cover up blatant editorializing.
posted by GuyZero at 1:03 PM on March 15, 2006


"livejournalism school"

Holy shit, Matt. Marry me.
posted by S.C. at 1:03 PM on March 15, 2006


Ah, mathowie beat me to it. Oh well. "livejournalism school": that makes my day.
posted by GuyZero at 1:04 PM on March 15, 2006


I don't know what they teach in livejournalism school

Zing!
posted by cortex at 1:04 PM on March 15, 2006


So if I were to repost the deleted links with some new, cleaned-up text, that'd be OK, right?

Sure. Don't make up quotes and don't ask why hasn't X picked this story up yet?!
posted by mathowie (staff) at 1:04 PM on March 15, 2006


Advice for new mefites: If you don't like it, skip it. Unless it offends you, so crap all over the thread you perceive as being offensive. But then people call you out for being an ass, so make two FPP's of dense, legalistic jargon involving issues that are usually studied and then forgotten in the first year of law school, competely out of spite. Then tell people that it's all about the sharing, man, the sharing. But continue to make inflammatory posts, because the admins will delete them from your permanent record and you'll look slightly less off-the-handle than you really are. Then clean up the part of your user file that had a hate list. Then, wait for your Samwise Gamgees to show up. Simple as that.
posted by bardic at 1:05 PM on March 15, 2006


It's clear from your amazement at "livejournalist" and its variants that you guys don't use Livejournal much.

Anyhoo, GuyZero, I don't get how you used "summary marks" in your comment and then said you said no such thing exists. You can either use "" to indicate verbatim quotation, or to indicate irony or a paraphrase. It's misleading because we expect verbatim quotation when we see "" in a FPP.
posted by rxrfrx at 1:06 PM on March 15, 2006


Now everyone stop making points and start sharing those elephant pictures.

Did someone say "elephant pictures"??

No. No I won't do it.
posted by JeffK at 1:07 PM on March 15, 2006


insomnia_lj, you're being completely disingenuous. Were you trying to make some sort of "It's the X, stupid" snowclone quip? Then freakin' say so.

Oh, and what a charmer you are! Hadn't seen that until loquax just pointed it out.
posted by veronica sawyer at 1:11 PM on March 15, 2006


Actually, I quoted him directly in the post, and he was obviously referring to oil.

Frankly, Matt, you're coming off as irrational and hotheaded. I never intended to suggest that Abizaid said quote "it's the oil" enquote, which should be obvious enough.

Obviously, there was a lot of discussion and interest in the post, so why you didn't simply remove the quotes is beyond me.

Why not blame the senators who heard his testimony and said that the current administration is sending a potentially dangerous message by suggesting to Iraqis that we may be keeping bases there indefinitely? Why not blame Reuters for misinterpreting him too, or blame Al Jazeera for doing essentially the same thing that I did, with summary quotes?

Summary quotes are commonplace in journalism, but if you don't want them on MeFi, why not simply remove them?
posted by insomnia_lj at 1:11 PM on March 15, 2006 [1 favorite]


If you did not intend to suggest that he said quote "it's the oil" endquote, you should not have dropped that phrase betwixt quotes as your lead. Summary quotes may be commonplace in journalist-y organizations, but they are not, from what I have seen, encouraged in the stylebooks of the better ones.
posted by cortex at 1:14 PM on March 15, 2006


With or without the fake "summary" quote, your post is still sensational newsfilter, designed to make a point and whip up opposition to the administration. Many of us would appreciate it if you'd take that elsewhere.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 1:16 PM on March 15, 2006


Someone please repost it so it can be deleted as a double.
posted by blue_beetle at 1:21 PM on March 15, 2006


"Were you trying to make some sort of "It's the X, stupid" snowclone quip?"

It occurred to me, but I thought that would be over the top.

That said, given that people are all bent out of shape with me summarizing Abizaid's quote as "It's the oil," I wish I had been just that over the top.

At least most reasonable people would've thought, "well, yeah, he didn't say exactly that, verbatim, but what did he say?

What I find frustrating about this is that we're debating whether I summarized the quote and what Abizaid said unfairly, but nobody is seriously saying that it's not noteworthy. It is, if only for the negative message it sends to the Arabs and insurgents, who do not want us there permanently.

I mean, it's a very short summary, but the quote in question follows it. Read the quote, then read the article. How hard is that?
posted by insomnia_lj at 1:22 PM on March 15, 2006


It's not noteworthy.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 1:23 PM on March 15, 2006


I came into this post with low expectations, but this: "I don't know what they teach in livejournalism school" was comedy gold. Man it made me laugh.
posted by OmieWise at 1:24 PM on March 15, 2006


"With or without the fake "summary" quote, your post is still sensational newsfilter..."

Obviously quoting US generals when they say stupid, idiotic crap to our politicians, and quoting the frustrated response of our politicians to such statements is unamerican and sensationalistic.
posted by insomnia_lj at 1:26 PM on March 15, 2006


At least most reasonable people would've thought, "well, yeah, he didn't say exactly that, verbatim, but what did he say?

The problem is that many reasonable people are pretty seriously turned off by things like made-up quotations. The other problem is that this is a Metatalk thread.
posted by cortex at 1:27 PM on March 15, 2006


"You are Created Stupid," Says Citizen Journalizer.

"What I find frustrating about this is that we're debating whether I summarized the quote and what Abizaid said unfairly, but nobody is seriously saying that it's not noteworthy. It is, if only for the negative message it sends to the Arabs and insurgents, who do not want us there permanently."
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 1:27 PM on March 15, 2006


never intended to suggest that Abizaid said quote "it's the oil" enquote, which should be obvious enough.

Aside from using quotation marks for a "quote" the preceding word in front of your quotation marks is the word "says". If you didn't intend for it to sound like he said it, you could have skipped the quotes or you know, remove the phrase "The General says..." from your sentences.

The only thing irrational here is you back pedaling from your fake made up quote and non "intention" of making it seem like a quote.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 1:30 PM on March 15, 2006


Obviously quoting US generals when they say stupid, idiotic crap to our politicians, and quoting the frustrated response of our politicians to such statements is unamerican and sensationalistic.

No. Quoting a US general who gave an equivocating non-answer answer to the question of whether the US will establish permanent military bases in Iraq and pretending that the general had instead confirmed that we would establish bases because the war was all about the oil is sensationalist and inappropriate. Hence, deletion.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 1:31 PM on March 15, 2006


Guys, making up quotes is okay! Haven't you heard citizen journalism is the future? We don't need no formal training! ANYBODY can write a good news article!
posted by keswick at 1:31 PM on March 15, 2006


God, this is a train wreck.

Your post sucked, insomnia_lj.
posted by blacklite at 1:32 PM on March 15, 2006


Obviously quoting US generals is unamerican
posted by insomnia_lj at 3:26 PM CST on March 15


*Searches thread for allegation that insomnia is unamerican*

Yeah. You don't make stuff up to be sensationalistic at all.
posted by dios at 1:33 PM on March 15, 2006


you fuckers must be a ton of fun at parties.
posted by kcm at 1:34 PM on March 15, 2006


"Summary marks" are the new "war on terror."
posted by Saucy Intruder at 1:42 PM on March 15, 2006


I would use wintery marks, but I'm afraid the responses here would leave me cold.
posted by mischief at 1:42 PM on March 15, 2006


I like those marks that block certain kind of newsfeed for some sites. You know, Atom-null marks.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 1:47 PM on March 15, 2006


Dare I name the sort of scars left on my back from sleeping on an unupholstered mattress?
posted by cortex at 1:48 PM on March 15, 2006


Summary Quotes™ are the new "memoir."
posted by cribcage at 1:49 PM on March 15, 2006


parties? heh.
posted by crunchland at 1:51 PM on March 15, 2006


why you didn't simply remove the quotes is beyond me.

We don't edit except by request or to fix truly awful FPP typos which this was not. Also, the email address that we have for you bounces.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 1:51 PM on March 15, 2006


Also, the email address that we have for you bounces.

Stop putting spring marks around it.


(I know, cortex already beat me to it...)
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 1:54 PM on March 15, 2006


They would not occur if people would learn that a front page Metafilter post is not a place for them to make a point. It is a place to share.

Share what exactly? I mean, if somebody picks a link to "share" then by inference they are a recommending it. I.e. they are making a point by sharing the thing in the first place. "Look at this, I think this is decent, cool, interesting."

I can understand the reaction about the insomnia_lj post, permanent Oil Bases, or whatever. But really, the only reason you, dios, have posted this was to make a point. Not to be altruistic and share. The point being, pick a target, an easy target, and project your own moral self-destruction upon someone else.

Actually, this post is about as interesting as dios' arguments for a woeful and criminal enterprise. It's really a waste of space and it's not sharing anything new --apart from a questionable FPP. It could have been sent to Matt as an email. Yeah, next time use your email account and ask for it to be deleted, couching the text in your caring and sharing tone.

I prefer silent data loss if it prevents me from reading your bullshit.
posted by gsb at 1:59 PM on March 15, 2006


It's not noteworthy.
well, "hay guys look I went to law school (together with a few millions other Americans) I'm so kewl" posts aren't noteworthy either. the fact is dios drags to metatalk people on his politics-based (and, I'm afraid, sexual-orientation-based) shit list and the mathowie bites.

we have three administrators now. thankfully, two of them are not fascists.
posted by matteo at 1:59 PM on March 15, 2006


dios' concerns would be easier to take seriously had he taken it straightaway to MeTa, instead of first making several comments of in-thread post critique.
posted by sonofsamiam at 2:03 PM on March 15, 2006


the fact is dios drags to metatalk people on his politics-based (and, I'm afraid, sexual-orientation-based) shit list and the mathowie bites.

What are you talking about? Perhaps you have failed to notice that dios pointedly refuses to talk about his own politics. The reason there are no callouts for fawning over-the-top conservative posts is that there aren't any such posts. And what's with the accusation of homophobia and what does it have to do with this callout?
posted by monju_bosatsu at 2:07 PM on March 15, 2006


But really, the only reason you, dios, have posted this was to make a point.

All other arguments about the merits of this aside, that's a poor counter to dios' "place to share" statement. Metatalk is not the blue—I think it's reasonable to say that posting here is largely done to make a point (or a feature request, or an announcement: all things not suited to the Blue.)
posted by cortex at 2:08 PM on March 15, 2006


"Ultimately it comes down to the free flow of goods and resources on which the prosperity of our own nation and everybody else in the world depend," he said.
its fair to say that "goods and resources" means oil. What he said was "Ultimately it comes down to the free flow of [oil]"

The United States may want to keep a long-term military presence in Iraq to bolster moderates against extremists in the region and protect the flow of oil, the Army general overseeing U.S. military operations in Iraq said on Tuesday.

"you might want to keep a long term presence" sounds like a suggestion to me.

the wording was misleading and sensationalistic, and i also get tired of the shrill bush bashing. delete it, by all means - however, he is right that the general did say it all comes down to oil, and suggested a long term presence.

that sounds pretty note worthy and important. but what do i know?
posted by Tryptophan-5ht at 2:09 PM on March 15, 2006


Shorter dios: MetaFilter swhould be about sharing links to bread & circuses, not about pointing out that Caesar has no clothes.
posted by orthogonality at 2:09 PM on March 15, 2006


Imagine the following two newspaper headlines:

General: It's the Oil

General: "It's the Oil"

The first is a summary. the second is a quote. Never the twain shall meet. Never ever.
posted by solid-one-love at 2:14 PM on March 15, 2006


this is pretty much bullshit.
posted by wakko at 2:14 PM on March 15, 2006


Matt, did you actually read the article linked to? I did, and thought that insomnia rendered it accurrately.

I know you're a busy guy Matt, maybe you just failed to read the article with the attention required to comprehend it.
posted by orthogonality at 2:14 PM on March 15, 2006


can someone please tell me what other resources the general may have been referring to in the article?

i mean, it can't be WMD's...
posted by wakko at 2:15 PM on March 15, 2006


Matt, you should have closed this thread after deleting I_LJ' post.
posted by rxrfrx at 2:19 PM on March 15, 2006


can someone please tell me what other resources the general may have been referring to in the article?

it's obviously all the candy and flowers the Iraqis keep showering everyone with daily (enough candy and flowers to kill more than 500 people since Feb. 22nd.)
posted by amberglow at 2:24 PM on March 15, 2006


Matt, did you actually read the article linked to? I did, and thought that insomnia rendered it accurrately.

ortho, you don't "render[] it accurrately [sic]" by making up and attributing quotes that don't exist. Moreover, it's clear that the general was not talking about the reason for going to war in Iraq in the first place, as so many seem to be suggesting, the general was responding to the question about permanent bases by noting that the US might not want to abandon the region because of the oil. Those are two very different claims, and insomnia was clearly asserting that the general intended the former, when the article makes clear that it's the latter.

Not to mention the "OMG media blackout!!11!" perspective of the post, which is clearly false, given that the Defense Department itself put the General's remarks into a press release. The reason that there is not much to this story is, as I said above, the General gave an equivocal non-answer answer to the question about military bases. He didn't say anything about oil as justification for the war, and he didn't confirm or deny any plans to establish permanent or semi-permanent military bases. None of which you would know from reading insomnia's post.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 2:25 PM on March 15, 2006


Jesus, there are people here who defend polarizing editorial bullshit in front page posts. I have to keep reminding myself of that.

Is it really *that* hard to post some Newsfilter links *without* over-the-top editorializing, wait for the thread to develop a bit and *then* jump into the fray with your sharply worded opinions? I guess so. There really needs to be a warning about editorializing on the post page, Matt; it's killing the tone of the site.
posted by mediareport at 3:07 PM on March 15, 2006


Reading this thread is fantastic, in the sense that if you hand crayons to everyone, the brain-dead lunatics will invariably mark themselves on the face so you can tell them apart. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I'd have paid another $5 for an IGNORE button.
posted by cribcage at 3:12 PM on March 15, 2006


As I mentioned in the thread, the lede in the Reuters article was also misleading because Abazaid mentioned a "long-term vision for a military presence in the region" (my emphasis), not in Iraq. So the wording of the post was inaccurate there, too.
posted by kirkaracha at 3:14 PM on March 15, 2006


I wasn't actually quoting SCIENCE!, I was just using "summary marks" about something that I think SCIENCE! implied.

Metafilter: A place to share "summary marks" of SCIENCE!
posted by JekPorkins at 3:18 PM on March 15, 2006


it's obviously all the candy and flowers the Iraqis keep showering everyone with daily (enough candy and flowers to kill more than 500 people since Feb. 22nd.)
You had me at "My belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators." I wish I could quit you.

posted by kirkaracha at 3:20 PM on March 15, 2006


Reading this thread is fantastic, in the sense that if you hand crayons to everyone, the brain-dead lunatics will invariably mark themselves on the face so you can tell them apart. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I'd have paid another $5 for an IGNORE button.

Is that so.

If you are serious, put your $5 into a soda machine and use the killfile script.

If you choose to ignore me, well, so long! Nice knowing you!
posted by sonofsamiam at 3:22 PM on March 15, 2006


Jesus Christ, dios speaks mathowie obeys

If a shitty post gets deleted and dios isn't around to point out that it's shitty, is Matt still silently doing the will of dios by proxy? I'm just trying to figure out the metaphysics of the eponysterical ascension being implied here.
posted by cortex at 3:24 PM on March 15, 2006


Your post sucked, insomnia_lj.

Yup. And it's pathetic how certain people start drooling and gibbering whenever they hear the sound of dios's voice. He made a good callout, mathowie quite sensibly paid attention and deleted the crap post, and it all shows Fascism is taking over!!!

OMG!

Actually, it doesn't. But enjoy your outrage.
posted by languagehat at 3:33 PM on March 15, 2006


I think the larger point is that Metafilter is not a place where pressing points really has a huge effect. The community here, save a handful of members, doesn't really relish fighting it out over every issue, and doesn't particularly value "fresh new points" in ongoing debates.

When you say:

"Why not blame the senators who heard his testimony and said that the current administration is sending a potentially dangerous message by suggesting to Iraqis that we may be keeping bases there indefinitely? Why not blame Reuters for misinterpreting him too, or blame Al Jazeera for doing essentially the same thing that I did, with summary quotes?"

I think it's kind of obvious that you just don't get it. You are on a crusade, one that on some level I admire, but it doesn't add anything of value to the debate here.

It seems that you see Metafilter as the largest possible media voice you have access to, and treat it as a place to get your message out. In my mind, that's misuse of the tremendous resource you are provided by being a member.

It's also absolutely pointless because 95% of people reading this site already know the message.
posted by cell divide at 3:49 PM on March 15, 2006


It's times like this that I realize, for all the flack we give him, what a great job matt does on metafilter. Take matt away, replace him with one of the whiners in this thread, and metafilter dies.
posted by justgary at 3:54 PM on March 15, 2006


GYOBFW

(fw = forthwith)
posted by delmoi at 3:56 PM on March 15, 2006


What LH said. Some of you fucking idiots on the 'left' make me want to switch sides sometimes. You're an embarrassment.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 3:56 PM on March 15, 2006


"Moreover, it's clear that the general was not talking about the reason for going to war in Iraq in the first place, as so many seem to be suggesting, the general was responding to the question about permanent bases by noting that the US might not want to abandon the region because of the oil."

Great slogan, there...

Iraq. Come for the freedom. Stay for the oil!

You also said I asserted that the general said that we invaded for the oil. Can you find that assertion for me in what I posted, because I sure can't.

As for my public email address being overrun, well, it's overrun. I haven't checked it for a week, and it's it's bouncing, that means I have a ton o' spam to plow through.
posted by insomnia_lj at 3:59 PM on March 15, 2006


Well, if nothing else, someone else can now make a completely asinine, leftist front page post, and Dios can't drag it into Metatalk. With only one post here ever couple of days, his only option is to call it out using his sockpuppets, and if enough people post enough liberal mumbo-jumbo on the front page, we'll eventually bankrupt the guy.

Come on, people. I know you can do it.
posted by crunchland at 4:00 PM on March 15, 2006


One thing is certain: Either you're a Fascisitic Diostician, or a graduate of the Columbia House School of Livejournalism ("Get 11 degrees for only $1!!!").
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 4:02 PM on March 15, 2006


When the guy said "goods and resources" he obviously meant Oil, But he didn't say "It's all about the goods and resources".

His full quote really meant something like ""Ultimately it comes down to the free flow of Oil on which the prosperity of our own nation and everybody else in the world depend."

In other words: we need to keep bases there to keep the oil flowing. And that's a good point, we really do need to keep the oil flowing.

On the other hand, it's not like he said we invaded in the first place over oil.
posted by delmoi at 4:03 PM on March 15, 2006


Anyway, dios may be only to point out crap posts, but he only complains about 'crap' posts that are damaging to the administration or conservative causes. It's a little disingenuous.
posted by delmoi at 4:04 PM on March 15, 2006


You also said I asserted that the general said that we invaded for the oil. Can you find that assertion for me in what I posted, because I sure can't.

It's obviously implied, the slogan "It's all about the oil" refers to the invasion, not the subsequent occupation.
posted by delmoi at 4:06 PM on March 15, 2006


"In other words: we need to keep bases there to keep the oil flowing. And that's a good point, we really do need to keep the oil flowing."

You're jumping the camel. Just because it would be beneficial for us to have the oil flow, does that mean we should have permanent bases in Iraq?

In a country we invaded and occupied?

In a country we claim to be setting up democracy?

Where a prolonged occupation is obviously a sore spot?

Where polls show about 75% want the US out ASAP?

And about 55% want the US out immediately?

And where around half say that they support the right of Iraqis to resist in order to kick us out?

... when we have bases in several neighboring countries already?

You know, tyranny and colonialism can taste pretty good, so long as it's oil-flavored.
posted by insomnia_lj at 4:14 PM on March 15, 2006


You're jumping the camel. Just because it would be beneficial for us to have the oil flow, does that mean we should have permanent bases in Iraq?

*shrug* I guess. It would be nice to have bases there in the long run since we did invade, and spent all this money, etc. I think if you asked people if we should stay in Iraq or pay $5/gallon for gas the results would be diffrent.
posted by delmoi at 4:19 PM on March 15, 2006


Guys. This isn't the place for that. Come up with another half-assed front page post. This thread is about dios, for chrissake.
posted by crunchland at 4:23 PM on March 15, 2006


insomnia_lj: I've never heard of your so-called summary quotes. I'm not sure why you think they're common in journalism, either. The only thing that even comes close in my old style guide is an extended quotation, which looks like:
Nam faucibus quam at est. Vivamus urna lectus, commodo a, laoreet ut, pretium ut, augue. Proin enim augue, tristique in, placerat nec, elementum ultrices, ligula. Duis convallis, mi a auctor facilisis, diam magna feugiat augue, vel rutrum nisl ante sit amet elit.
Where and when was it suggested that a summary quote was "like this"? If it's common practice, can you provide a link to a news site that employs them, or a style guide that shows usage rules for one? The only reference I can find in the deleted fpp is from rxrfrx, and he noted that it was poor practice.

Watching you defend your post over this minor, semantic point is unpleasant. Your post was irredeemable, regardless of what editing you think matt or jessamyn owe you. It was poorly framed; it lacked merit; was not noteworthy, save for its ineptitude and meaninglessness; was not of import.

And when you say, "Read the quote, then read the article. How hard is that?", what immediately sprang into my head was, "clearly easier than making a good FPP about this particular subject".

Finally, the thing is a "quotation", the act of reciting, writing or otherwise referring to it is "quoting" or, in the present tense, "quote".
posted by boo_radley at 4:28 PM on March 15, 2006


dios writes "He also quoted Abizad as 'suggesting permanent bases'. Abizad didn't suggest anything in the article."

Well, since the FPP has been dutifully spirited away I don't know what it said, but this Aljazeera article has the actual meaty quote (second paragraph in the "Vital interest" section) that people were going on about. Normally I'd be tempted to post it on the front page, but, frankly, I say fuck it, because you're going to bitch about it and in all likelihood it'll get pulled again.
posted by clevershark at 4:37 PM on March 15, 2006


"I think if you asked people if we should stay in Iraq or pay $5/gallon for gas the results would be diffrent."

I think if you asked people whether we should stay in a democratic country where we are not wanted by the people, or face a permanent level of resistance and terrorism with hundreds of soldiers dying every year, the results would be different.

Incidentally, my theoretical is clearly the case. Your theoretical assumes that not having permanent military bases will cause the world price of oil to double.

Iraq's oil production is already in the dumps. They've been forced to import much of their gasoline, because they can't refine enough for their own people, and their truckers keep walking off the job due to unacceptable casualty rates and threats upon their families. You think that the US hunkering down behind a few airbases is going to fix that? Good luck.

Iraq could produce zero barrels of oil in the future, and the world would simply pump more oil elsewhere. That's how they've made up for the approximately 1.4 million BPD that Iraq no longer produces since the outbreak of the war, after all.
posted by insomnia_lj at 4:39 PM on March 15, 2006


Fucking drop it already, _lj. Seriously. If we wanted yet more getting-hit-on-the-head-with-Iraqtrivia lessons, we'd be in the blue, in yet another fucking thread about the greedy kelptocrat chickenhawk scumbag assholes running your country.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:46 PM on March 15, 2006


The kelptocrats are, of course, the secret sentient seaweed overlords controlling the planet with the help of the Halliburton Illuminati.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:48 PM on March 15, 2006


insomnia_lj: I never intended to suggest that Abizaid said quote "it's the oil" enquote, which should be obvious enough.

Hilarious...

...Summary Marks...

Double hilarious!
posted by SweetJesus at 4:50 PM on March 15, 2006


ThinkProgress have taken up the story, and have pointed out that Abizaid's waffling on the issue of permanent bases (which are apparently needed to protect the flow of "goods and resources") is, in fact, a new thing.

Under Secretary of State Karen Hughes flatly denied the idea in '05, and as Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, Central Command deputy commander, told reporters just 45 days ago...

"It is not only our plan but our policy that we do not intend to have any permanent bases in Iraq."

Well, so much for that policy, I guess.
posted by insomnia_lj at 4:52 PM on March 15, 2006


Any luck with summary mark references or citations, insomnia_lj?
posted by boo_radley at 5:05 PM on March 15, 2006


Persistent little fella, ain't he?
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:08 PM on March 15, 2006


He's like a spambot. Push the button, and out comes a "Bush bad" comment.

*push*
posted by monju_bosatsu at 5:13 PM on March 15, 2006


Hi Dios!
posted by Balisong at 5:14 PM on March 15, 2006


Anyway, dios may be only to point out crap posts, but he only complains about 'crap' posts that are damaging to the administration or conservative causes. It's a little disingenuous.

Steaming bullshit, delmoi. For example. Took me thirty seconds to find that. I'd happily bet that more could be found without much effort.
posted by cortex at 5:49 PM on March 15, 2006


cortex, that FPP you linked was anti-anti-hybrid, which is anti-conservative.
posted by rxrfrx at 5:53 PM on March 15, 2006


rxrfrx, that's one of the stupidest things I've heard today. Are you really suggesting that conservatives are anti-hybrid? Is the converse true on your planet as well?
posted by aberrant at 5:58 PM on March 15, 2006


insomnia_lj-Why don't you shut the fuck up?
posted by OmieWise at 6:30 PM on March 15, 2006

Abizaid also said the United States and its allies have a vital interest in the oil-rich region.

"Ultimately it comes down to the free flow of goods and resources on which the prosperity of our own nation and everybody else in the world depend," he said.
Abizaid says U.S. may want to keep bases in Iraq

That's Reuters. Making up bogus quotes is stupid and just plain wrong, but, the post was hardly inaccurate on points.

The very first MetaTalk post dios made was a personal attack on nofundy. While I can see how nofundy rubbed a lot of people the wrong way with his crude, rude and combative tone, dios's callout of him was a blatant attack on someone dios despised for his politics. It was met, as I recall, with a chorus of huzzahs from jenleigh and dhoyt, er, dhoyt. What saddened me that time was how fast Matt caved on that bogus callout and banned nofundy for a time. The argument that Matt coddles dios is not without merit.
posted by y2karl at 6:41 PM on March 15, 2006


The argument that Matt coddles dios is not without merit.

Make that has coddled from time to time. In this case, Matt's deletion of the post was his call alone and a right one, in my opinion.
posted by y2karl at 6:43 PM on March 15, 2006


The very first MetaTalk post dios made was a personal attack on nofundy.

Actually, y2karl, this was dios' first MetaTalk post. But I'm sure you knew that already.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 6:48 PM on March 15, 2006


Also, y2karl, I find it telling that you agree that this particular post was worthy of deletion and you believed Matt's decision "was his call alone," yet still you insist on getting in your dig at dios. Nice.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 6:58 PM on March 15, 2006


insomnia_lj-Why don't you shut the fuck up?
posted by OmieWise at 6:30 PM PST on March 15


OmieWise, why don't you be civil? Such behavior is pretty inappropriate, and arguably deserves a MeTa post of its own.
posted by insomnia_lj at 7:11 PM on March 15, 2006


I really hope and wish that some of you "so called liberals" (note the summary marks, kinda like KarlMarx) are actually secret versions of Bushies to make the rest of us liberals look bad.

Because you sure as shit are doing one helluva job.
posted by stirfry at 7:19 PM on March 15, 2006


and insomnia_lj

You need to accept that when you fuck up, to shut up is a civil act. Your ongoing self defense makes our society here look as if this simple sort of censure is not appropriate.
posted by stirfry at 7:26 PM on March 15, 2006


Appropriate? Eh. Effective? Questionable.
posted by mischief at 7:29 PM on March 15, 2006


But I'm sure you knew that already.

No, I didn't. I didn't scroll down, I was remembering the nastiest things he said or did when he first came here. Now I wish I hadn't made the comments above. Now I have joined the pack. I have contributed to the dios soap opera here. I feel unclean.

As dios was been nothing but nasty to or about me from the git go, I can't say I feel much pity for him. People hound him and he manages to continue to invite it, even revel in it, but, for a fact, people hound him for things he mostly did and said long ago. That is how it always goes around here--memories are long. But it's not entirely fair. Everyone who sticks around tries to show their version of good faith and tones it down. There should be some sort of statute of limitations on bringing stuff up from the past. More slack--that is what we need. More slack, less grudges.
posted by y2karl at 7:36 PM on March 15, 2006


"If it's common practice, can you provide a link to a news site that employs them..."

Funny you should mention that, because that's exactly what I did here. It's also very common in blogs, of which, last time I heard, this was one.

That said, most papers seem to stylistically handle it more like this:

Abizaid Says U.S. May Want To Keep Bases in Iraq

or

Abizaid Says U.S. Occupation Justified By "free flow of goods and resources"

or

Abizaid: Protecting Oil Supply May Justify Permanent Bases In Iraq.

What it ultimately comes down to is that the post got deleted because I said "It's the oil" in quotes, as opposed to not in quotes, summarizing the story in the same way as other major media sources.

So that's what I'll do next time, because we're apparently expected to act stylistically here like a newspaper and not like a blog. Perhaps I'll repost the article tomorrow, with more supporting links.
posted by insomnia_lj at 7:42 PM on March 15, 2006


Steaming bullshit, delmoi. For example. Took me thirty seconds to find that. I'd happily bet that more could be found without much effort.

First of all, driving hybrid cars are obviously liberal, and second of all that was one of the examples linked in the MeTaFPP. You can't seriously think I didn't consider that, right? I mean, why would I have posted this comment in that thread if I didn't consider hybrid cars a liberal cause?
posted by delmoi at 7:42 PM on March 15, 2006


and arguably deserves a MeTa post of its own.

Now you're just being a child.
posted by Kwantsar at 7:43 PM on March 15, 2006


What it ultimately comes down to is that the post got deleted because I said "It's the oil" in quotes, as opposed to not in quotes, summarizing the story in the same way as other major media sources.

No. It was not because "you said" but because you said "General in charge of Iraq says "It's the oil'".


I swear! You change history more than Karl Rove! Are you sure you aren't a neo-con plant??
posted by stirfry at 7:49 PM on March 15, 2006


What it ultimately comes down to is that the post got deleted because I said "It's the oil" in quotes, as opposed to not in quotes, summarizing the story in the same way as other major media sources.

The fact that you used quotes meant that you did not "[summarize] the story in the same way as other major media sources".

You use quotation marks for quotations. You don't use them for summaries. Period. No English-language news style guide would consider it appropriate style. None. o repeat what I wrote earlier, imagine the following two newspaper headlines:

General: It's the Oil

General: "It's the Oil"

The first is a summary. the second is a quote. Never the twain shall meet. Never ever.

You appear to think that there is no difference in meaning. That would be incorrect and not debatable.
posted by solid-one-love at 7:52 PM on March 15, 2006


If you've got time to post back into this thread complaining about others' lack of civility, then you've got time to answer boo_radley's question about your "summary quotes" bullshit. Got a citation?
posted by cribcage at 7:53 PM on March 15, 2006


I had this dream one time where I drank a pint of ice cold vodka at one go and with the rush of ethanol to my brain went nuts and pulled my pants down and screamed at everyone, "look, look at my fucking dick!" That part of the dream was fairly normal for me, the dream went on however, two hours later I was standing there still screaming, still with my pants down. That dream has always been hard to shake.
posted by Divine_Wino at 7:53 PM on March 15, 2006


I hate your use of quotation marks in summarizing this article which makes the war look bad, so I'm going to post to MetaTalk and raise a stink.

vs.

I hate being told by another person on MetaTalk that I should shut the fuck up, so I'll call the person on it and say that there's no need for such rude behavior, and that people have been suspended for similar things in the past around here. I won't do anything about it, however.

So, what's your point, Kwantsar?
posted by insomnia_lj at 7:53 PM on March 15, 2006


Insomnia_lj, I think what you meant to use were 'inverted commas', which are frequently used in journalism to summarize the gist of what someone said.

Those are not the same as "quotation marks", which are reserved for words as they were actually said (with minor exceptions, like taking out "um" and "ah" and other similarly useless words that sound fine when spoken but fuck up a quote on the page.

'These' don't look much different from "these", but it is an essential distinction to make.
posted by nyterrant at 7:56 PM on March 15, 2006


I didn't preview that by the way, monju_bosatsu, but, yeah, I hope that clears it up. Everything we write here, we write in stone. Yet we rarely remember that when we write it. I forgot it tonight, myself.

On topic, I don't know what I feel about what is called or uncalled for in regards to mountains of molehills made from insomnialj's post, but, as it was written, this is a lame grandiose callout made by the wrong person, in my opinion, ax-grinding about ax-grinding, a trainwreck on delivery. And I don't care for sappy pronouncements about how things ought to be done around here. People will demand an apology when no one ever wants to admit being in the wrong on demand. People are always trying to tell other people how to do things. And yet, Don't tell me what to do is everyone's personal default mode at the same time.
posted by y2karl at 7:58 PM on March 15, 2006


nyterrant, I've always understood inverted commas to denote quotations within quotations, and not summaries.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 8:01 PM on March 15, 2006


Tain't the callout. It is the fact of your editorializing being deleted. It was a crap post and you simply can't accept that and keep going on and on about it.

Just STFU.
posted by stirfry at 8:01 PM on March 15, 2006


What it ultimately comes down to is that the post got deleted because I said "It's the oil" in quotes

I hope that's not what you take away from this long exchange. It's not as simple as a few quotations. It was a misleading post. It was yet another Iraq post by the topmost poster about Iraq. It was another post that is pretty much repeated from your own blog (or was reposted to your own blog) and you defended it here as if anyone who doesn't see what is TRUE and REAL about what's going on in Iraq (as shown to us in your posts) are a bunch of apathetic sociopaths. You misrepresent your detractors and you quote soundbytes at us all as if we'd immediately see your points if we could just get them through our thick skulls.

You're smart and you know how to put together links to tell a story, but here you're a (nearly) one trick pony that doesn't take criticism well and you're not endearing yourself to the community that isn't already on your side. No one has a right to use MetaFilter as their own personal political soapbox. That is what your own blog is for.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 8:02 PM on March 15, 2006 [2 favorites]


I swear! You change history more than Karl Rove! Are you sure you aren't a neo-con plant??


posted by delmoi at 8:02 PM on March 15, 2006


"If you've got time to post back into this thread complaining about others' lack of civility, then you've got time to answer boo_radley's question about your "summary quotes" bullshit. Got a citation?"

First, the use of summary marks weren't my invention. They were first mentioned here, in the main post. That's what I was responding to. I think it's a valid criticism, too, and I've made it clear that I intend to not use quotes like that in the future.

That said, I think deleting the post as opposed to removing the quotes was the wrong call. I think I summarized the general fairly accurately, and linked to exactly what he said.

It's also been pointed out that the Reuters story summarized the general's statements as:
Abizaid says U.S. may want to keep bases in Iraq
and Al Jazeera said
US 'may want to keep Iraq bases'

Note their use of quotes.

So, yes, there's your citation. What I did in summarizing this wasn't outside the bounds of journalism, and certainly wasn't outside the bounds of blogging, but I recognize the stylistic issue and won't use quotes like that anymore on MeFi.

And yet, I still think the article itself is postworthy, though it would've been a better post had I supported it with additional relevant links. There should be a national debate as to whether it's appropriate for the US to have permanent (and permanently attacked) bases within Iraq. If it wasn't such a hot button issue, it wouldn't have caused such a high level of debate.
posted by insomnia_lj at 8:06 PM on March 15, 2006


Remember kids, if you get ignored the first 30 times, just say it again! and again! and ....


posted by tweak at 8:08 PM on March 15, 2006


Why is Sean Penn wearing a fake nose, moustache and glasses?
posted by Divine_Wino at 8:15 PM on March 15, 2006


"No one has a right to use MetaFilter as their own personal political soapbox. That is what your own blog is for."

A-fucking-men. This one thing—just this one thing—is the cancer that most threatens to kill metafilter. And the people that do it don't even pretend not to do it. They argue that it's the purpose of mefi. They argue, implicitly, that if you don't like it, then you're one of the Enemy.

They somehow manage to believe, or at least claim, that those who protest this behavior are arrogant, authoritarian, intolerant, and petty-minded while simultaneously believing that their use of metafilter as a means to the end which is their social activism is humble, communitarian, tolerant, and high-minded. But it's not high-minded, it's an expression of the infantile desire to somehow force everyone else to agree with them because otherwise they'd have to face the fact that the world will never be what they wish it to be, and certainly won't cater to their needs. Horrors! This is the injustice they're fighting: their disappointment.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 8:23 PM on March 15, 2006


Dios lives under Mathowie's stairs. He's Matt's beloved, yet wretched stepchild.
If he didn't exist, we'd have to create him. Out of dung.
posted by Balisong at 8:25 PM on March 15, 2006


"Insomnia_lj, I think what you meant to use were 'inverted commas', which are frequently used in journalism to summarize the gist of what someone said."

Exactly. That said, I think even using inverted commas could lead to the same issues, so I don't plan on using them either.

"It was yet another Iraq post by the topmost poster about Iraq."

"you're a (nearly) one trick pony that doesn't take criticism well"

During the last month, I've posted about FreeSound.org, about Berlusconi's cozying up with Italian fascists, about Bush's statements supporting outsourcing to India, and about Jack Abramhoff. Only one post in five over the last month has been about Iraq, when I pointed out the video of the British soldiers abusing Iraqis.

While I believe I could've created a better post without using the potentially misleading quote and with a greater degree of supporting links, I also believe you're wrong about me being some kind of one trick pony. If I post about Iraq, it probably has a lot to do with the fact that I moderate a community for soldiers in Iraq. I don't see a problem with being one of the most active posters on a given issue, any more than I see a problem with Matt being one of the most active posters on Bush.

It's not the subject that matters, it's the quality of the post. This one could've been better, but I still believe that it should've been edited, and not deleted. I tend to be a more laissez-faire moderator than most MeFi mods, though.
posted by insomnia_lj at 8:25 PM on March 15, 2006


No one has a right to use MetaFilter as their own personal political soapbox. That is what your own blog is for.

That should be put in the guidelines.
posted by justgary at 8:27 PM on March 15, 2006


You know, I think it's posts like this, where people point out how Dios has just as much a right to be a dickweed as we do, is very strange.
If Dios had his way, we wouldn't be here.
Rules and precident be damned.
We are told that we MUST tolerate him, but I'm pretty sure he wouldn't tolerate us, were he in Matt's shoes.
posted by Balisong at 8:29 PM on March 15, 2006


Funny you should mention that, because that's exactly what I did here. It's also very common in blogs, of which, last time I heard, this was one.

There's a distinct difference between what you did and the example you cited. S-O-L gave a good overview of the difference.

So that's what I'll do next time, because we're apparently expected to act stylistically here like a newspaper and not like a blog.

Don't pin it on me, you're the one who went for a 'common in journalism' defense. You coulda just said "fuckit, I made up the quoting style cause I don't know why" and gotten a pass. Instead, you decided to make like you were being persecuted (1,2,3) and now you're left clutching at straws, making vaguely accusational statements like "It's also very common in blogs, of which, last time I heard, this was one."

Sure, it's a blog; it's a blog with standards for posts that you've failed to meet. The standards may all be in Matt's head, but if you don't like them, or don't want to risk having your material deleted on this particular blog, you may consider posting your material here; which is also a blog, the last I heard.

Perhaps I'll repost the article tomorrow[...]
Please don't.
posted by boo_radley at 8:30 PM on March 15, 2006


So, OK, an apology--for around here.

But stayed tuned for more People bitching about other people since 1999.
posted by y2karl at 8:36 PM on March 15, 2006


We are told that we MUST tolerate him, but I'm pretty sure he wouldn't tolerate us, were he in Matt's shoes.

Amusingly, I'm actually finding it harder to tolerate you than it is to tolerate dios. But tolerate I shall, with a martyr's sigh, while noting you are not one to preach.

On preview: I aim to please.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:39 PM on March 15, 2006


insomnia_lj: is there anything other than politics that interests you?
posted by tweak at 8:39 PM on March 15, 2006


monju_bosatsu: Inverted commas are used for that too, but they are also frequently used in the news business in headlines to summarize the essence of what someone said, as in the Al-Jazeera headline that Insomnia_lj linked to.

That said, to paraphrase the general's remarks as being about the 'oil' would probably be an editorial bridge too far for most media outlets. Although I suppose these are the internets, so perhaps other standards apply.
posted by nyterrant at 8:46 PM on March 15, 2006


Starvosthewonderchicken, you've never seen the MrHands.mwv I linked to once, have you? Then you'd really have reason to not like me.
posted by Balisong at 8:57 PM on March 15, 2006


This is the injustice they're fighting: their disappointment.

Holy shit. EB just said something deeply profound in such a straightforward and relatively unpatronizing way that I have no reservations about agreeing wholeheartedly.

*crosses self, drops to knees*

The apocalypse is nigh.
posted by mediareport at 8:59 PM on March 15, 2006


Hell, I don't dislike you, Balisong. I just find your Perpetual War on Dios a wee bit tiresome, is all.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 9:03 PM on March 15, 2006


insomnia_lj, matt said you could post again if you wanted too, without the inflamitory stuff.
posted by delmoi at 9:04 PM on March 15, 2006


I hate being told by another person on MetaTalk that I should shut the fuck up, so I'll call the person on it and say that there's no need for such rude behavior, and that people have been suspended for similar things in the past around here. I won't do anything about it, however.

So, what's your point, Kwantsar?


My point is that you've now said that "people have been suspended for similar things," that you "won't do anything about it" and that the STFU "arguably deserves a MeTa post of its own."

On the other hand, "you've call(ed) the person on it." But again you "won't do anything about it." Other than kvetching in MeTa, presumably. Which you seem to be doing already.

As if there was something you could do about it that you haven't already done. Despite popular demand, there's still no device that allows you to stab people in the face over the internet.

Lemme tell you, pal, I've been on the business end of my fair share of STFUs and KKKwantsars, and I've barely peeped about it. An STFU says more about the giver than the recipient-- unless the aggrieved blathers on about it, willfully oblivious to the paucity of his defenders.
posted by Kwantsar at 9:04 PM on March 15, 2006


It isn't just about the quotation marks. The post was crap in that it editorialilzed and distorted facts much as the Bushies do.

It was a sad expression of the "supposed liberal mind set". It was the kind of thing a Karl Rove would insert into the media to make the other side look bad.

Of copurse, that isn't a reason for deletion. Clever is clever, but we still have some basic rules apart from that.
posted by stirfry at 9:05 PM on March 15, 2006


Just a few clarifications

1> It should be noted (by the time alone...) that I posted about this to my journal after the post was already deleted off of MetaFilter.

2> It's already been discussed before in MeTa that there's nothing wrong with mirroring a post to a personal blog. Obviously, MetaFilter users who have blogs have the same right to post about topics as those who don't.

The essential problem, as I see it, is how can people post to MetaFilter about controversial issues like Iraq, problems with the economy, etc. without it being immediately politicized? It wasn't my intent to make a political post at all. (Note that Bush wasn't even a tag on this post.)

Where's the space we need here to discuss such matters? Does that space exist on MetaFilter anymore? Are we to stick to discussing cool new sites and hightech hacks in the middle of a world where conflict and eggregious violations of basic human rights routinely occur?

My use of "It's the oil" was, in retrospect, not helpful in avoiding the politicalization of this post, but where does the reporting on things which happen end and politics begin? Is it somehow my duty to report all the good things that happen in Iraq, when there are clearly others with a more positive view of the conflict capable of doing so? Shouldn't balance naturally evolve from everyone posting about what they want to post about, so long as the posts meet the criteria?

And, heaven forbid, what will we all do the next time there's a major election and people actually want to discuss it?!
posted by insomnia_lj at 9:05 PM on March 15, 2006


href
posted by delmoi at 9:05 PM on March 15, 2006


The most irritating thing about dios is that he makes himself the center of attention, and can't take a joke.
posted by delmoi at 9:06 PM on March 15, 2006


it doesn't matter if anything other than politics interests him. people are free to post about one topic all they want, within the guidelines of the site.

but that post just sucked. if edited, it would have had to have been completely rewritten. it excessively editorializes and provides virtually no decent context as written. It's also just a link to a reuter's article, a local paper that only briefly paraphrases the original reuters article and a google news search.

If you really believe that It's not the subject that matters, it's the quality of the post. as you said, then maybe you should just apologize and try again tomorrow. If you make a quality post tomorrow, then I suspect you'll find the subject palatable to all but the predictable bush-fanatics among us.

but then, a quality post wouldn't involve your soapbox, so good luck with that.
posted by shmegegge at 9:11 PM on March 15, 2006


how can people post to MetaFilter about controversial issues like Iraq, problems with the economy, etc. without it being immediately politicized?

By presenting the facts fairly, without sensationalism, so the conversation starts off on a reasonable foundation.

Duh.
posted by mediareport at 9:12 PM on March 15, 2006


-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------

skid marks
posted by pyramid termite at 9:20 PM on March 15, 2006


"Shouldn't balance naturally evolve from everyone posting about what they want to post about, so long as the posts meet the criteria?"

And, of course, from the discussion inside the post.

"The post was crap in that it editorialilzed and distorted facts much as the Bushies do."

If there was any editorialization or distortion, it was in the post summary, where I said:

"General in charge of Iraq says "It's the oil", suggests permanent bases.

To be entirely fair, I should've written this as:

General in charge of Iraq says protecting the flow of Iraqi exports may require permanent US bases.

Frankly, that's a long ass summary. Succinctness, in this case, is the enemy of balance. If anyone has a better, fairer, more succinct summary of the relevant quotes, I'd like to hear it.

Really, though, I *DO* want my posts to be as good as possible for MeFi. Suggesting that we restrict the subject matter, however, seems like the wrong way to approach it.
posted by insomnia_lj at 9:23 PM on March 15, 2006


Two little Hitlers will fight it out until
One little Hitler does the other one's will
...

That's how it seems around here anymore. Except it's thirty or more little Hitlers most of the time and the one little Hitler never does the other ones' will.

I guess I just don't care for people who make a career out of telling other people what to do.
posted by y2karl at 9:26 PM on March 15, 2006


The most irritating thing about dios is that he makes himself the center of attention, and can't take a joke.
posted by delmoi at 9:06 PM PST on March 15 [!]


Neat how you keep bringing up a dios who isn't even here and ignoring an insomniac who can't seem to shut up and keep blabbering on and on.

Your dios fetish is really not so cute.
posted by stirfry at 9:27 PM on March 15, 2006


There are no skid marks in front of insomnia_lj's body.
posted by Krrrlson at 9:29 PM on March 15, 2006


Listen, if insomnia doesn't get to make his post, global human rights violations will continue, the Iraq war will last forever, and next election someone worse than Bush will be elected. Posts about Iraq and Bush on Metafilter are the only things keeping this country together. Without them, the world would fall into immediate and total fascism.

Metafilter: the thin blue line.
posted by Falconetti at 9:33 PM on March 15, 2006


Suggesting that we restrict the subject matter, however, seems like the wrong way to approach it.

It's not wholly your subject matter; it's how you presented it. We've been over this.
posted by boo_radley at 9:35 PM on March 15, 2006


Lil' Godwin!

30 little hitlers sitting in a tree
w-h-i-n-i-n-g
first comes dios
then comes lj
then comes a bunch of other crap
posted by brain_drain at 9:41 PM on March 15, 2006


It wasn't my intent to make a political post at all.

Oh for cryin' out loud.
posted by LarryC at 10:20 PM on March 15, 2006


Jesus.

A member egregiously broke the rules, another member made the right call.

The anti-dios strike force should really wring out their hankies, untwist their panties, and call it a night.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 10:30 PM on March 15, 2006


"A member egregiously broke the rules..."

I'm not saying that I didn't make a stylistic error by using a short, summarizing quote, and that I couldn't have balanced the FPP a bit better, but I broke a rule? Which one?
posted by insomnia_lj at 10:59 PM on March 15, 2006


OK, I want to take a shot at actually writing this into a semi-decent FPP. Please note that I've never done a political/Bush/whatever FPP of any kind:



Back in December undersecretary of defense Karen Hughes stated [Salon], "we want to bring our people home as soon as possible." This January the deputy commander for strategy in Iraq Gen. Mark Kimmet said, "It is not only our plan but our policy that we do not intend to have any permanent bases in Iraq."

Now in March - The top general overseeing operations in Iraq, Gen. Abizad may have reversed that claim in a statement to the House of Representatives suggesting that a permanent presence in Iraq might be necessary to counter extremists and protect the flow of oil, despite continued negligible production.



How was that? Too long? BTW, "livejournalism school" caused me to laugh long and hard. Thanks for that.
posted by Ryvar at 11:00 PM on March 15, 2006


I broke a rule? Which one?

You're right, insomnia, there's nothing in the guidelines that directly applies to this situation. Seems pretty open and shut, when you put it that way.
Guess the call-out and everyone's reactions are completely unfounded. Guess you've made 10+ comments in a bogus thread for no reason whatsoever. To me it seems weird to dignify an obvious farce like this with even one response, but hey, whatever turns your crank, man.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 11:36 PM on March 15, 2006


Telegram for insomnia_lj! Telegram for insomnia_lj!

huffery defense posturing not helping you STOP just like bush STOP public not buying STOP best tuck tail apologize stfu STOP cut losses STOP no win possible STOP stop STOP please stop STOP
posted by five fresh fish at 12:07 AM on March 16, 2006


Just popping in to mention that so far we've had at least five or six comments decrying dios within this thread and you know what? He's had the good sense to stay out. I have a wee theory as to why.

He's made a justified callout on a frankly awful post and then people have lined up on their sides as they always do and turned the argument into an excuse to rail against what they see as his "evil influence". This MeTa thread isn't about dios at all, it's about insomnia_lj's continual insistence that he is some kind of awesome war journalist and the fact that we haven't all begun to immediately fellate him for his wisdom. dios hasn't been back in the thread because he is avoiding the abuse you are heaping on him for no goddamn reason. dios was right so please try and get over it. Matt and Jess have both stated that it was the usual axegrinding crap and it has no place in the blue.

If you want to write something nasty about George W Bush then I might suggest doing so in as plain a way as possible. His idiocy speaks for itself so leave the editorialising out and let the thread begin before you jump in with all the hilarious "America sucks more every day" and "dios is a fascist" schtick. I have to agree with EB, languagehat, stavrosthewonderchicken and a whole bunch of other people here saying that this continual, childish crap makes the left (of which I am a member) look like a total bunch of twats.

To summarise - longbaugh says "Grow the fuck up".
posted by longbaugh at 12:38 AM on March 16, 2006


Some of you fucking idiots on the 'left' make me want to switch sides sometimes. You're an embarrassment.

then switch already -- good riddance. since you're one the record here as having the -- hopefully alcohol-induced -- desire to "shoot Americans" and your idea of political analysis is "fuck George Bush in the eye with a dead donkey's dick", well, good riddance. one less "fucking idiot" indeed. the left will then breath better air (certainly less reeking of cheap beer)
posted by matteo at 1:02 AM on March 16, 2006


Right there matteo. That's great - someone who agrees with you and you go and call them an alcoholic and tell them to essentially fuck off. That's a bad idea. The left is not some amorphous blob that circulates the same ideas - it's a series of people who believe in the same general principles of freedom, helping their fellow humans and so on. They do not share every thought and so they argue amongst themselves as to who is more righteous, meanwhile those who can organise themselves despite minor differences will slowly eat away at rights and freedoms until all thats left is a bunch of people arguing about how much everything sucks on the internet with no power to change anything. Thanks for illustrating my point.

Also it's hilarious to see you use stav's hyperbole as an example of how he should be vilified when I could search your posting history and inside of ten minutes come up with some proper gems. It's simple - if we can't find a common ground and get along then we will continue to lose to a better organised enemy. Principles don't mean dick when you've got no way to actually make them work in the real world. I've loved your posts for many years but recently you've turned into some sort of parody and I wish we could get the old matteo back - same fire, but better directed.
posted by longbaugh at 1:48 AM on March 16, 2006


That's ironic, right there, that is. And predictably vicious.

Thanks, longbaugh, for saying well what I might have, if I cared more about the extent to which matteo dislikes me and my picaresque poses. You're right -- the comedic timing couldn't have been better.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 2:00 AM on March 16, 2006


Are you there dios? It's me, Margaret.
posted by bardic at 2:01 AM on March 16, 2006


So, this one time, I was doing stuff at a college radio station, a pretty big one, with, like more than a hundred people volunteering and a pretty big staff, well, anyway, this was about the time that the law about handicapped people passed, that ADA thing, and so we had a big, huge meeting with everyone there while a disabled person talked to us about being sensitive in the kinds of words we say. That was interesting, and we all thought we knew better now and so we're good people. And then, I got this idea, maybe it was a crazy idea, but I said, hey, we've got news people, we're part of this big state school, why don't we do a special thing where we find out how many buildings on campus are okay and how many are against the law and maybe that'd teach people about this stuff and maybe they'd put in ramps and stuff more quickly. And everyone was quiet for a second and I looked around, and then we started discussing which are the right words again.

So I decided I must be a bad person because I thought trying to put in ramps and stuff was more important than dumb ole' words. And everyone looked at me funny from then on so now I try not to be a bad person and I go along with what the loudest people are saying because now I know that I'm not doing the right thing if I don't and this is the best way to tell and most of the time to be a good person I have to clap really loud or, sometimes, talk really loud and that makes the world better. I feel sorry for the bad people that don't understand about this.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 2:57 AM on March 16, 2006


You're one of my favorites EB.
posted by Witty at 5:17 AM on March 16, 2006


insomnia_lj writes "Such behavior is pretty inappropriate, and arguably deserves a MeTa post of its own."

No, no it doesn't. But instead of going easy on me, I urge you to call it out. While you're at it, you might also call out the other people who told you to STFU, which is, you know, an internet abbreviation meaning "shut the fuck up."

Or, alternatively, you could stop your own uncivil behavior, most prominently in this thread, your insistence on having a political conversation in a thread about your own bad behavior on the front page.

I very rarely resort to such language on MeFi, you're welcome to check my history and see. Since you seem so concerned about it in this case, you might ask yourself what about your own behavior might be so infuriating. Somehow, though, I bet your concern stops short of self-examination.
posted by OmieWise at 5:24 AM on March 16, 2006


then switch already -- good riddance.

"It's not the best of MY web left!!!"
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 5:42 AM on March 16, 2006


Here's something. A new mefi page 'in the pink' for editorializing posts. IMHO this place needs to evolve or it will self destruct. The kind of policing that goes on from all sides seems to end up producing trainwrecks that inflame the original issue rather than produce a better best of.
posted by bluesky43 at 6:07 AM on March 16, 2006


Yes, insomnia_lj's behavior in this MeTa thread is rather over the top, but the deletion of his thread is one more example of how Matt tends to be more harsh on liberals than conservatives, I suppose to keep the appearance of balance. insomnia_lj's misrepresentation of the general's words, and his ensuing defense of that misrespresentation, was no worse than Steve_at_Linnwood's behavior, which Matt defended, even going so far as to call my callout "dishonest."
posted by MrMoonPie at 6:12 AM on March 16, 2006


Yes, insomnia_lj's behavior in this MeTa thread is rather over the top, but the deletion of his thread is one more example of how Matt tends to be more harsh on liberals than conservatives, I suppose to keep the appearance of balance.

Please. There are a thousand liberal voices for every conservative. There are thousands of liberal posts for every conservative one (which I can't say I remember seeing even one). I'm not complaining, just pointing out a fact.
posted by Witty at 6:20 AM on March 16, 2006


this place needs to evolve or it will self destruct.

For crying out loud. This is hardly the worst of what MeFi has been through.
posted by sonofsamiam at 6:36 AM on March 16, 2006


There are a thousand liberal voices for every conservative.

And a fair share of those are on a constant, mind-melting vigil for any hint of said conservativism so that they can seize the opportunity to Shore Up The Wall.

I'm practically a communist hippie and I find some of the lefty shit around here appalling. People don't want to listen to each other, they want to be RIGHT.
posted by cortex at 6:41 AM on March 16, 2006


Just because there are fewer conservative voices, there's no reason to give them any preferential treatment.
posted by crunchland at 6:41 AM on March 16, 2006


I'm outraged. Also bored. And hungry. Maybe it's time for some dolmades and flat bread.
posted by peacay at 6:54 AM on March 16, 2006


Just because there are fewer conservative voices, there's no reason to give them any preferential treatment.

"Are you being sarcastic, dude?"
"I don't even know anymore."
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 7:01 AM on March 16, 2006


Just because there are fewer conservative voices, there's no reason to give them any preferential treatment.

I wasn't defending that idea at all. I don't think that's going on around here even in the slightest.
posted by Witty at 7:04 AM on March 16, 2006


It's just ratios fucking us all in the ass. Five hundred liberal posters for every conservative equals five hundred times more liberal posts deleted for being partisan tripe.

Ass-fucking ratios, man.
posted by Ryvar at 7:26 AM on March 16, 2006


The left is not some amorphous blob that circulates the same ideas - it's a series of people who believe in the same general principles of freedom, helping their fellow humans and so on.

Isn't it pretty to think so? But in my experience, and my reading of history, the left is a series of people who believe that their particular microsplinter of the left is the One True Left and anyone who deviates from the party line by a millimeter is not only a bad leftist, he's not really a leftist at all, he's actually giving aid and comfort to the fascists, which means he's really a fascist himself... get him! This is why the left so often devolves into a circular firing squad and why the right almost always wins. And matteo, much as I love him in other ways (but in manly, heterosexual ways, you understand) is a perfect exemplar of this here on MeFi.
posted by languagehat at 7:32 AM on March 16, 2006 [1 favorite]


The essential problem, as I see it, is how can people post to MetaFilter about controversial issues like Iraq, problems with the economy, etc. without it being immediately politicized? It wasn't my intent to make a political post at all. (Note that Bush wasn't even a tag on this post.)

Where's the space we need here to discuss such matters?


Daily Kos
posted by ereshkigal45 at 7:39 AM on March 16, 2006


Isn't it pretty to think so?

Hemmingway to be, man.
posted by cortex at 7:59 AM on March 16, 2006


languagehat: The next time I'm where you are, I'm buying you a (manly, heterosexual) drink. You've nicely summed up something I'd been ruminating on for a while.
posted by boo_radley at 8:28 AM on March 16, 2006


boo_radley: Thanks. I've been meditating on it for 35+ years, so it's gotten boiled down nicely.
posted by languagehat at 8:41 AM on March 16, 2006


nyterrant: There is no stylistic convention as you've described. In American English usage, a quote is indicated with quotation marks (") while a nested quote (within the quoted material) is indicated with inverted commas ('). British English frequently reverses the order, i.e., inverted commas=quote, quotation marks=nested quote. Neither style indicates a summary or paraphrase. (See the relevant Wikipedia entry.)

languagehat: I'm interested in allying myself with your particular microsplinter, which is clearly The Sole True and Righteous Path. I give good self-criticism....
posted by vetiver at 8:44 AM on March 16, 2006


Splitters...
posted by longbaugh at 8:53 AM on March 16, 2006


vetiver: Have a humiliating written self-flagellation on my desk by tomorrow morning. If it's satisfactory, I'll give you your party name, an icepick, and further instructions.
posted by languagehat at 10:21 AM on March 16, 2006


matteo : "Jesus Christ, dios speaks mathowie obeys

we're so fucking
liberal around here alright"

Everyone knows a true liberal would never do something that a conservative person suggests, and a true conservative would never do something a liberal says. The Young Communists club at my university was decimated one day when one of the Young Objectivists ran through the quad and shouted "Don't kill yourselves!!".

Luckily, we're mostly moderates here, so we can take suggestions from other people.

orthogonality : "Shorter dios: MetaFilter should be about sharing links to bread & circuses, not about pointing out that Caesar has no clothes."

I know that was meant to rephrase dios in a bad way, but I wholeheartedly agree with that.

insomnia_lj : "Are we to stick to discussing cool new sites and hightech hacks in the middle of a world where conflict and eggregious violations of basic human rights routinely occur?"

In principle, I wish it weren't so, but considering the shameful way we go around discussing serious issues, I think it would probably be best to just stick to discussing cool new sites and hightech hacks.
posted by Bugbread at 10:25 AM on March 16, 2006


boo_radley : "languagehat: The next time I'm where you are, I'm buying you a (manly, heterosexual) drink. You've nicely summed up something I'd been ruminating on for a while."

If we're buying drinks for things like that, I apologize to languagehat and EB in advance, because y'all are going to be puking your guts out.
posted by Bugbread at 10:27 AM on March 16, 2006


mrmoonpie, I'm so glad you've taken this opportunity to re-dig up your personal grudge from fucking september of last year. get. over it. steve's post wasn't perfect, but no political posts are. insomnia's, on the other hand, was actively bad. mathowie even gave his reasons for deleting it, and not one of them had anything to do with which way insomnia leans politically.
posted by shmegegge at 11:38 AM on March 16, 2006


Easy, killer. Steve_at_Linnwood's deliberate misquotation, then subsequent denial, was a deliberate misquotation, then subsequent denial, regardless of his politics. "I didn't leave out anything. Anyone who reads the article will see that" is a lie, whether from a conservative or a liberal.

It's not a matter of grudges, it's a matter of consistency. Both posts should have been deleted, for the same reason.
posted by MrMoonPie at 12:02 PM on March 16, 2006


it's a matter of consistency.

I heart our mods, but i wouldn't ever accuse them of consistency.

This is due to just the personal element, not ideological bias, imo, and as such doesn't bother me.
posted by sonofsamiam at 12:13 PM on March 16, 2006


no, it's a matter of your more than half-year old callout having nothing to do with this, and proving nothing about consistency of moderation. stop bearing your crappy grudge.
posted by shmegegge at 12:15 PM on March 16, 2006


Got to agree with shmegegge, here: if it happened six months ago and you're bringing it up, unprompted, as "a matter of consistency", that feels grudgy.
posted by cortex at 12:24 PM on March 16, 2006


Uh, I'd say it's a memory more than a grudge. In either case, I stand by my point. YMMV, and all that.
posted by MrMoonPie at 12:34 PM on March 16, 2006


Remembering it is a memory. Bringing it up is what suggests a grudge. But I'm just opinionating, anyway; I don't have much invested in that exchange, and I don't know what sort of history you have with Steve@, but from my essentially neutral perspective, that's how it sounds.
posted by cortex at 12:39 PM on March 16, 2006


Uh, I'd say it's a memory more than a grudge. In either case, I stand by my point. YMMV, and all that.

fair enough. I still love you, shmookums. so what's for dinner?
posted by shmegegge at 12:45 PM on March 16, 2006


Just because there are fewer conservative voices, there's no reason to give them any preferential treatment.

First, the handicap access ramp to the open mike, then the mirrored ceiling above the couch in the Me Me Me Room--it's wingnut affirmative action. Their ice caps are melting, poor things, and they need a refuge. Don't drill there.
posted by y2karl at 4:02 PM on March 16, 2006


I'm not really sure where to put this, so I'll put it here where no one will read it:

Really, dios? A FPP of a chapter of a law textbook??

Of course I'm not going to post in that thread, because I know what the response will be: "Well, you obviously didn't RTFA..."

Well, of course I didn't RTFA! It's 93 pages long!
posted by jlub at 4:22 PM on March 16, 2006


I'm sorry—are you objecting to the subject of law? Or to reading?
posted by cortex at 4:33 PM on March 16, 2006


cortex --

I'm just pointing out that it's a crappy post. It didn't enlighten me at all, because I already knew there was a conflict between morality and law, and it didn't generate interesting discussion because the links were unhelpful.

Seriously. Did you read the 93 page textbook chapter before posting your snark? Did you even know that's what it was before I mentioned it? (It's actually 81! I exaggerated!)
posted by jlub at 6:07 PM on March 16, 2006


Jesus, jlub, take it elsewhere (or preferably nowhere). Let this thread die.
posted by Falconetti at 6:36 PM on March 16, 2006


Actually, I don't read the vast majority of posts to metafilter. I don't spend my time consuming the whole thing; different habits. That doesn't mean I declare threads shitty just because (1) I don't care much for the subject and (2) I like being part of the poke-the-outcast club.

What, again, is your specific argument against the post? That it wasn't a discussion-starter (just like many lauded posts)? That it had a long pdf (which would be a fucking gem to anyone interested in the subject)? Are you willing to assert that your opinion of the thread is in no way colored by your opinion of the author?

sorry, Falconetti, but we might as well leave it here in a dying-to-dead thread.
posted by cortex at 6:54 PM on March 16, 2006


I'm not really sure where to put this, so I'll put it here where no one will read it...

Hmm, I'm in a bad mood, so I'll take that bait.

You are what's wrong with Metafilter. Everyday you and people like you come here, spewing your shit and bile, is another day that the community gets weaker. More than Newsfilter, IraqFilter, YouTubeFilter, Self-Links, and Doubles, it's assholes like you who are damaging what so many people have built, and what so many people enjoy.

Fuck off.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 8:37 PM on March 16, 2006


These snarky comment on comment threads seem to be more popular, generating more traffic than most of the best of threads on the blue. Just sayin'.
posted by bluesky43 at 4:49 AM on March 17, 2006


Metatalk thrives on snarky comment-on-comment action. And better here than in moth of the best of threads on the blue. Just sayin'.
posted by cortex at 7:53 AM on March 17, 2006


Moth!
posted by cortex at 7:53 AM on March 17, 2006


Nice one, Alvy. Well done.

cortex -- I dunno if my opinion of the thread is colored by my opinion of the author or not, but I fully admit that my willingness to comment on my opinion of the thread is colored by the fact that this thread was created by the author of that thread to point out how crappy everyone else's posts are. Anyway, it's just my opinion... I'm not trying to legislate it!
posted by jlub at 10:28 AM on March 17, 2006


I'm not trying to legislate it!

Nobody said you were. They said you're being an asshole and are "what's wrong with Metafilter." And they're right. Next time you feel like making a pointless snark just because you don't like somebody, keep it to yourself. We'll all be better off.
posted by languagehat at 10:32 AM on March 17, 2006


languagehat, I renounce your vile and degenerate ways. All true patriots know that the icepick is used only in the service of preparing hedonistic anti-proletariat cocktails such as the rum fizz and the Singapore sling.

However, "Keep it to yourself. We'll all be better off" is a nifty slogan for a t-shirt. Or a party platform. Or a world religion. I may reconsider.
posted by vetiver at 7:27 PM on March 17, 2006


I may reconsider.

*temporarily recalls loyal icepick-wielding microsplinter member, composes sarcastic screed against superficially similar microsplinter while waiting for reconsideration*
posted by languagehat at 4:33 AM on March 18, 2006


languagehat, you defile the Honorable and Pedantic Microsplinter Jihad. Dispatch your puny minion to pester me with an icepick! I shall befuddle the flunky by offering a block of ice to be picked. Once the tool-wielding tool has produced slivers enough to chill a pitcher of mojitos, I shall target the dupe's hollow cranium with the formidable and workmanesque ice axe. (If it's not too much trouble, could you reschedule the minion for July/August? That's peak mojito season.)

But really, no shit, I'd vote for a "Keep it to yourself. We'll all be better off" ticket -- though that's a bit long for a bumper sticker. Perhaps you'd consider abridging it to "TMI. STFU."
posted by vetiver at 5:46 PM on March 18, 2006


livejournalism: eggregious malcompetence?
posted by flabdablet at 11:45 PM on March 19, 2006


« Older Where da hybrid thread at? It ...  |  Linefeeds/Carriage returns in ... Newer »

You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments