Comments on: Double?

Double?

I Love Tacos — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 13:40:46 -0800

Maybe I'm crazy, but I thought that this was the same exact post as this.

By: I Love Tacos

I Love Tacos — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 13:40:52 -0800

Personally, I think they both suck... but since the latter stands, shouldn't the former as well?

By: Fidel Cashflow

Fidel Cashflow — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 13:41:45 -0800

You're crazy.

By: bardic

bardic — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 13:44:23 -0800

If it was posted by anyone other than S@L it would have been deleted. But matthowie feels the need to cater to certain posters lest he risk being thought of as "biased."

What he should really worry about is consistency in moderation, and while we're at it I'd like to ride a unicorn over a rainbow.

But number one is going to say "It started a decent conversation." Which is a real head-scratcher when you consider how often he and others say this place is all about the links, not the convo.

And so on and so on.

By: caddis

caddis — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 13:47:11 -0800

One is surprising, one is not.

By: Cyrano

Cyrano — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 13:49:54 -0800

You made a FPP to make a point about another FPP. Those generally don't last.

By: pardonyou?

pardonyou? — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 13:50:05 -0800

So you deliberately shit on the front page to make a lame point?

By: I Love Tacos

I Love Tacos — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 13:50:13 -0800

I didn't think either were surprising.

Poor people like cheap stuff, and most Americans are poor.

Where's the surprise?

By: keswick

keswick — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 13:50:20 -0800

Reporting on the results of a poll that occurs weekly if not daily is not front page-worthy.

By: Falconetti

Falconetti — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 13:50:34 -0800

Maybe I'm crazy, but I think [every post in this thread] is going to be like [every post in every other thread].

By: I Love Tacos

I Love Tacos — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 13:51:21 -0800

So you deliberately shit on the front page to make a lame point?

If #1 thinks the latter post is good, then I thought he'd enjoy my insightful news flash as well. My mistake.

By: monju_bosatsu

monju_bosatsu — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 13:52:43 -0800

They are both ridiculously crappy posts and should be deleted.

By: smackfu

smackfu — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 13:54:40 -0800

Au contraire. They are not equally crappy. The deleted one was way more boring. We can argue for days on Walmart, but no one cares to defend Bush anymore.

By: gigawhat?

gigawhat? — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 13:57:22 -0800

I thought they were both good posts.

Then again, I am a dumbass.

By: yhbc

yhbc — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 14:00:23 -0800

I appreciate the callout, because I wondered why the Wal-Mart one was even made, and I neglected to check LoFi. All is clearer now.

By: mathowie

mathowie — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 14:00:51 -0800

I'm really tired of people abusing MeFi to make their point. You are protesting an earlier post I didn't see yet (you assume that means approval), so you purposely make a shitty post to prove your point.

Don't disrupt MetaFilter to make your stupid point. Flag something. Email me if you want to. Start a metatalk post, but don't purposely shit in the middle of the room and then point at it and say "look, this is just as bad as what happened earlier today!"

By: mathowie

mathowie — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 14:07:13 -0800

matthowie feels the need to cater to certain posters lest he risk being thought of as "biased."

Steve is banned. I love tacos is banned. Steve's been trolling the site with these turds for the past couple months, trying to get a rise of out everyone here. It's lame, and poison to community. The i love tacos account has been timed out several times in the past and this is the straw that broke the camel's back.

By: yhbc

yhbc — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 14:08:16 -0800

My mistake; on checking LoFi I see that Tacos' came AFTER Steve's, and not the other way around. Hence, the wrath of Matt is appropriate, as is the tongue-lashing.

By: Pacheco

Pacheco — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 14:08:19 -0800

I finished a perfectly reasonable review of Wal-Mart corndogs and was unable to post it before the thread was deleted. How will I ever get that time back?

By: keswick

keswick — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 14:10:14 -0800

Boy, Matt's handing out the bans like crazy these days, huh?

By: bardic

bardic — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 14:11:22 -0800

Well, I'm off to drink a tall glass of stfu now.

By: mathowie

mathowie — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 14:13:30 -0800

Like crazy? Aside from spammers/self-linkers it's like 3 or 4 in the last month.

By: caddis

caddis — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 14:13:30 -0800

While the ban hammer is swinging, is dios in time out? If so, why?

By: keswick

keswick — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 14:16:03 -0800

And me. :)

By: cortex

cortex — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 14:16:10 -0800

I blame keswick for the S-K breakup.

By: Cranberry

Cranberry — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 14:16:21 -0800

Now I'll never be able to find out what beefaroni is. Are you opposed to continuing education, mathowie?

By: puke & cry

puke & cry — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 14:18:05 -0800

thanks matt! keep up the good work.

By: Mitheral

Mitheral — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 14:18:53 -0800

Pacheco writes "I finished a perfectly reasonable review of Wal-Mart corndogs and was unable to post it before the thread was deleted. How will I ever get that time back?"

Doesn't that drive you crazy? I had this awesome rebuttal of M_J's arguement and I lost it by previewing too much. Damn you occasional OCD.

By: Balisong

Balisong — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 14:21:45 -0800

(keeps mouth shut)

By: mathowie

mathowie — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 14:46:10 -0800

dios is in a time out because he just likes to pop into threads and crap on them and I'm tired of it. But it's unfair to talk about him when he can't respond so I'd say just move on.

And actually, after calming down a bit (I really hate it when people shit on the site to prove their point), I don't see a ton of awful deleted stuff Steve's done lately, so I'll lift the ban on him. His last two posts were kind of weak pro-right wing topics and I mistook that for a giant troll. He's really laid off the site and barely ever pops in anymore.

By: Kwantsar

Kwantsar — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 14:51:53 -0800

You know that ILT was a sockpuppet, right, Matt?

By: mathowie

mathowie — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 14:55:21 -0800

Yeah, and the other accounts he owned were also taken away for goofing around on the site earlier.

By: Mitheral

Mitheral — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 14:59:18 -0800

Kwantsar writes "You know that ILT was a sockpuppet, right, Matt?"

What?! Whose?

By: ThePinkSuperhero

ThePinkSuperhero — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 15:02:50 -0800

By: Cranberry

Cranberry — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 15:04:50 -0800

*sends mathowie's camel a get well card*

By: brain_drain

brain_drain — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 15:08:45 -0800

By: smackfu

smackfu — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 15:09:02 -0800

My Comments shows my comments in both of these deleted posts. I would have sworn it didn't used to do that. Is my memory faulty?

By: yerfatma

yerfatma — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 15:12:59 -0800

I don't see a ton of awful deleted stuff Steve's done lately, so I'll lift the ban on him . . . [ILT] and the other accounts he owned were also taken away for goofing around on the site earlier.

So not Steve's sockpuppet, right? Because that confused the shit out of me.

By: elpapacito

elpapacito — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 16:20:30 -0800

I don't get why the post was deleted ?

This post was deleted for the following reason: Not really that interesting

Uh well it's not exactly a "best of" the web finding, I concur on that. Yet the discussion that was sparked seemed good to me...certainly beats down yet another Youtube post...these are becoming kind of annoying if one thinks that youtube is the finding, rarely the single video is that big a finding. Also smells like covert advertising

By: monju_bosatsu

monju_bosatsu — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 16:25:56 -0800

Yet the discussion that was sparked seemed good to me...

Any suitably provocative statement on the front page will spark discussion, maybe even good discussion. That doesn't mean the discussion is a good excuse for a dog of a link.

By: elpapacito

elpapacito — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 16:30:58 -0800

As opposed to a good excuse for a dog of a link ? Consider this : one may tolerate youtube or whatever IF that promotes partecipation, so that Jow First User doesn't feel excluded. 1/2 the discussion anywhere is usually derail or not strictly pertinent, which is bad, but what is worse: lack of partecipation or subquality partecipation ? Which is hardest to obtain ?

By: graventy

graventy — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 16:55:30 -0800

Man, I really felt like I knew I Love Tacos. We both loved tacos and everything.

By: monju_bosatsu

monju_bosatsu — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 16:56:03 -0800

Youtube is a host. You invoke youtube as if that says anything about the quality of the post; it doesn't.

By: mischief

mischief — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 17:00:03 -0800

don't purposely shit in the middle of the room and then point at it and say "look, this is just as bad as what happened earlier today!"

Hmm, I'm conflicted. Still, well stated.

By: cortex

cortex — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 17:05:49 -0800

monju_bosatsu, video is inherently bad. We've been saying it for years.

By: elpapacito

elpapacito — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 17:13:59 -0800

monju_bosatsu writes "Youtube is a host. You invoke youtube as if that says anything about the quality of the post; it doesn't."

Certainly it is a host, yet it no longer is a best of the web, a rare finding or something hard to find or rarely seen. If we followed the logic that each and every content of a host is a best-of-the-web, then I could FPP each and every link on the net

A good post to MetaFilter is something that meets the following criteria: most people haven't seen it before, there is something interesting about the content on the page, and it might warrant discussion from others.

It's vague enough to allow almost anything : if the content "walmart" is cliche, then "youtube video" is fast becoming the replacement.

cortex writes "monju_bosatsu, video is inherently bad. We've been saying it for years."

You maybe, I never said that.

By: cortex

cortex — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 17:18:44 -0800

I was being silly, goddammit. Neither the defense of recent Youtubery nor the recent anti-Youtube whining seems entirely defensible.

By: caddis

caddis — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 17:30:07 -0800

OK, thanks Matt

By: monju_bosatsu

monju_bosatsu — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 17:35:53 -0800

Certainly it is a host, yet it no longer is a best of the web, a rare finding or something hard to find or rarely seen. If we followed the logic that each and every content of a host is a best-of-the-web, then I could FPP each and every link on the net

No. The point, which I think you're missing, is that youtube is neither the best nor the worst of the web. Each video posted to the front page should be judged on its own merit; the fact that youtube hosts the media is irrelevant. Not too mention that the best-of-the-web standard has been deprecated, but that's kind of beside the point.

By: Alvy Ampersand

Alvy Ampersand — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 18:48:49 -0800

Are anyone else's nipples hard?

And what Mitheral said.

By: cribcage

cribcage — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 19:03:40 -0800

In defense of YouTube.

By: cribcage

cribcage — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 19:04:01 -0800

(...which, mostly, I hate.)

By: empath

empath — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 19:57:21 -0800

I would like someone to give me a reasonable explanation for why they think youtube should be banned but flickr should not be.

By: puke & cry

puke & cry — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 20:16:06 -0800

Because the youtube pictures move, and they're scary.

By: furiousthought

furiousthought — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 21:49:28 -0800

Because television. The drug of a nation. Breeding ignorance, and feeding radiation.

By: shmegegge

shmegegge — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 22:01:07 -0800

Any suitably provocative statement on the front page will spark discussion, maybe even good discussion. That doesn't mean the discussion is a good excuse for a dog of a link.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 7:25 PM EST on June 28

bears repeating.

and I LOVE TACOS IS BANNED?! Holy fuck, I didn't see that coming. I wasn't even aware of whatever earned him several timeouts recently. Does anyone have links to whatever it was he's been up to? I, apparently, have been living under a rock. And whose sock puppet was he?

By: Pacheco

Pacheco — Thu, 29 Jun 2006 01:25:09 -0800

I miss dios.

By: Mitheral

Mitheral — Thu, 29 Jun 2006 08:57:41 -0800

empath writes "I would like someone to give me a reasonable explanation for why they think youtube should be banned but flickr should not be."

Because we aren't seeing 2-4 flickr posts on the front page every day. If we had a MeCha like stream of "OMG! Funny" links to images on flickr on the front page I'm sure people would be railing against flickr as well.

By: bshort

bshort — Thu, 29 Jun 2006 09:28:41 -0800

Kwantsar writes "You know that ILT was a sockpuppet, right, Matt?"

What?! Whose?

Yeah, whose?

By: sonofsamiam

sonofsamiam — Thu, 29 Jun 2006 09:29:44 -0800

Each video posted to the front page should be judged on its own merit

Banning YouTube would be like banning Geocities: sure, most of the user-created content really sucks, but that's why we have links, to go right to the good stuff.

Also: Yeah, whose, ya yahoos?

By: graventy

graventy — Thu, 29 Jun 2006 09:37:33 -0800

I'm afraid that information is classified cabal-only. Sorry, guys.

By: shmegegge

shmegegge — Thu, 29 Jun 2006 10:43:05 -0800

oh, then there's no problem with telling us. Because there is no cabal.

By: Kwantsar

Kwantsar — Thu, 29 Jun 2006 10:48:17 -0800

I am not going to out him, because I'm only 95% sure I know who he is-- similarities in syntax and content are not adequate proof.

Inky wave.

By: cribcage

cribcage — Thu, 29 Jun 2006 11:01:00 -0800

I KNOW A SECRET.

By: cortex

cortex — Thu, 29 Jun 2006 11:06:58 -0800

But shmegegge, with the non-existence of the cabal comes the non-existence of cabal information sources.

By: sonofsamiam

sonofsamiam — Thu, 29 Jun 2006 12:56:00 -0800

Inky wave.

Oh, man is this going to bug me.

By: Optimus Chyme

Optimus Chyme — Thu, 29 Jun 2006 16:09:21 -0800

That tombstone is the funniest goddamn thing I've ever seen.

HE LOVED TACOS

By: mrgrimm

mrgrimm — Thu, 29 Jun 2006 19:02:49 -0800

Yes, I laughed as well. Kudos, brain_drain (I'm still curious WTF he/she was ...)

Not to summon the demons, but I vote Alex Reynolds. Is he still around in one of his forms?

By: Kwantsar

Kwantsar — Sat, 01 Jul 2006 19:21:18 -0800

Alex and Tacos are different people.

Nonetheless, I'm pretty sure that Alex is indeed around, and as limber as ever, despite having aged considerably.

By: shmegegge

shmegegge — Sun, 02 Jul 2006 20:40:08 -0800

DON'T MENTION HIS NAME!!! OTHERWISE HE'LL WRITE YOU EMAILS ABOUT HOW YOU'RE PART OF A CONSPIRACY TO TORTURE HIM!!!