Is listing your source really that important?

October 26, 2001 9:35 AM

Why is Miguel picking on Soon when only a small % of posts even say where the link is from? Why is that even important? Its usually an endless chain of I got it from this webpage, they got it from another webpage, that webpage was written by the brother of the webmaster, the webmaster sent a carrier pigeon to his brother about his new site, etc.

Webloggers don't own links, webmasters do.
posted by skallas to etiquette/policy at 9:35 AM (71 comments total)

Err that should be Spoon not Soon. Also the guidelines do not require nor suggest someone write "I got this from Drudge" or whatever.

posted by skallas at 9:37 AM on October 26, 2001

I use to cite every link I put on my website. Then I started noticing how some, um, bigger (read: a-list) sites never cited anyone even when it was obvious they found the link from someone else.

So now I only cite sources if the link seems really special. Come to think of it, I don't cite much at all anymore.
posted by justgary at 9:46 AM on October 26, 2001

Miguel is a narc.
posted by ColdChef at 9:48 AM on October 26, 2001

I think The Right Honorable Mr. Cardoso is getting a little carried away, that's all. Sometimes it seems like he wants to be the conscience of MeFi or something, but it comes off as a little presumptuous IMHO. Probably partly a language thing too.

Slap that wrist, skallas!
posted by Kafkaesque at 9:48 AM on October 26, 2001

it becomes more and more clear every day that Miguel is actually a 64 year old woman living in Trenton, NJ.

There's no reason to cite the source, that is, as Skallas said, ego bullshit. It might be nice to do, but not necessary.

Via fark, via boingboing, via memepool, via an email from Uncle Ted, via Stevie the bag kid at the grocery store, via....


posted by Doug at 9:55 AM on October 26, 2001

I have decided that plagiarism is morally acceptable because everyone just gets their ideas from reading other people's books anyway. Giving other people credit is just a waste of my time and the reader's, and only serves to ingratiate me with the person who kindly provided me with all the ideas so I wouldn't have to have any of my own.
posted by jjg at 9:56 AM on October 26, 2001

"Why is Miguel picking on Soon"

So that we will talk about him. In MetaTalk. Again. And again. And again. And again........
posted by y6y6y6 at 9:56 AM on October 26, 2001

I don't know, I came across those kitties via Metafilter, which means, does it not, it was here once before?

I thought Miguel was obliquely, or, um, obscurely pointing out a repost...

And I must confess I find all these flash animation posts somewhat tiresome.

Not to mention any animation related post: I got slagged for not being impressed by the online ad for This Waking Life in a post on Metafilter, then saw a trailer for it in the theater when I finally went to see Ghost World. What is the big deal about it? It was no big whoop...
posted by y2karl at 10:02 AM on October 26, 2001

As I was walking home this evening, a little girl was riding her bike in the middle of the street. She still had the training wheels on as she wobbled and struggled to peddle. It reminded me of when I was little and how badly I wanted a bicycle but couldn't get one. My parents wouldn't let me have a bike until I was 12; my mom was too afraid I'd hurt myself. I'd pass the bike section in the store and just look, having given up asking my parents about it long ago. I eventually did get one after much pleading and begging. Amazingly, getting my driver's license at 16 and the subsequent borrowing of the family car passed without incident.

Somehow, this all reminded me of Miguel Cardoso.
posted by iceberg273 at 10:04 AM on October 26, 2001

Why does everybody seem so unwilling to consider the possiblity that Spoon actually found that image independently?
posted by harmful at 10:08 AM on October 26, 2001

Why does everybody seem so unwilling to consider the possiblity that Spoon actually found that image independently?

There is no Spoon.
posted by gd779 at 10:10 AM on October 26, 2001

Skallas - your original point was good. You should credit the creators. But how can this be done? Some person actually produced the funny evil kitties thing. Is there any way of finding out who?(innocent, genuinely web-illiterate question).
In the absence of this, I suppose crediting the website you got something from would allow you to try to trace it back. Nothing exists out of the blue.
If this is some web etiquette thing and it doesn't matter who linked or posted what, OK. But I'm against it. There is such a thing as discovering something first. And there is merit to that. 1% of the world create but without those who divulge and promote those creations where would they be?
The kitty thing was not discovered here at MetaFilter - a lot of us were familiar with it from way back when - and it's just silly to pretend it was.
Your main point, though, is what matters. I feel like a thief when I see good stuff and don't know who created it. Webmasters aren't creators but if you took to trouble to track them down I'm sure you'd eventually find some information about the actual authors.
So...can anybody tell me how to find out who the creators are?

posted by MiguelCardoso at 10:11 AM on October 26, 2001

Miguel, I think you're going too far. Spoon linked to the kitty show. If the kitty show is on that site, he's given them the recognition by linking to them.

This whole discussion seems a little masturbatory to me. Or maybe I just like typing the word "masturbatory". Is that so wrong?
posted by Kafkaesque at 10:19 AM on October 26, 2001

Oh and another thing, Miguel.

Aaaaugh!
posted by Kafkaesque at 10:20 AM on October 26, 2001

just like typing the word "masturbatory" seems a little masturbatory to me.
posted by y2karl at 10:23 AM on October 26, 2001

OK. But I'm against it.

Miguel, MeFi is not about you. If you bother to look at the archives, you will see that sometimes credit is given and sometimes it is not. Furthermore, to presume that someone "stole" a post based on no evidence whatsoever is wrong, and your bashing of Spoon was utterly groundless and looked pedantic and mean.

Webmasters aren't creators but if you took to trouble to track them down I'm sure you'd eventually find some information about the actual authors... So...can anybody tell me how to find out who the creators are?

You know, they don't have time to track down everything just because you want them to.

Once again, Miguel. MeFi is NOT about you, or at least, it is not JUST about you.
posted by Avogadro at 10:24 AM on October 26, 2001

If you want to know the details of who created the animation, there's a contact link on the front page of the site to which you could probably send your questions. Beyond that, if the creators want credit, perhaps they should put more information (or a link to such) on their own page. Or is there some other issue you're trying to build this into?
posted by harmful at 10:25 AM on October 26, 2001

Miguel. if the creator chooses not credit herself in the work its really out of the scope of metafilter to track her down.

hamful, what difference does it make if he did or didn't? The issue, as I see it, is that a weblog doesn't deserve credit for providing a URL. If you choose to do so that's your prerogative, but don't expect others to continue the chain if they don't want to.
posted by skallas at 10:28 AM on October 26, 2001

What Avogadro said.

Word.
posted by Kafkaesque at 10:29 AM on October 26, 2001

here's why I always credit my sources here and on my own website, and here's why I think it's way, way way low-rent not to.

because, if I do not credit where I find links (if, indeed, I find the the link by way of another weblog), I am building my reputation on someone else's hard work. I am essentially lying, as far as I'm concerned.

my reputation is a large part of what induces people to click on the links I put up, and to come back to my website; and since I've worked very hard to become a positive part of the weblog community, I guard my integrity.

justgary, there are a few popular weblogs who are known for stealing links, but that's no reason to emulate them. they are generally known (and even looked down on by some) in the community for this practice.

why not emulate the best?
posted by rebeccablood at 10:30 AM on October 26, 2001

...genuinely web-illiterate question...

Oh. Does that mean you honestly don't know how to edit a URL (web address) in order to find the front page of a site? Maybe someone with more patience than I can explain this to Miguel, or at least point him at a decent explanation.
posted by harmful at 10:31 AM on October 26, 2001

I don't we've discussed this enough. Let's just go on and on and on...until zombie kitties are no more fun.

For god's sake: won't someone think of the kitties?
posted by ColdChef at 10:32 AM on October 26, 2001

How does one go about properly citing a link's source anyway? I mean, sure he may have found the link via xyz.org, but I'm willing to bet that xyz.org probably found the link via abc.com who found it via joeshouseofpancakes.com who found it via.. you see my point? Miguel alludes in his posts to knowing exactly the site that Spoon got the link from, but I've seen this numerous places in my daily reads & don't presume to know what webpages Spoon reads at all. For all we know, Spoon typed "cats with sparks shooting out of their eyes" into Google & came up with this page.
posted by zempf at 10:35 AM on October 26, 2001

I've misplaced my calendar. Can somebody remind when A Day Without Miguel is again?
posted by rodii at 10:36 AM on October 26, 2001

Aaaaugh!

<clueless newbie> What? What? </clueless newbie>
posted by Aaaugh! at 10:36 AM on October 26, 2001

jeez, what did Miguel do to piss all of you off? back down, please, and return to nice-ness.
posted by msacheson at 10:38 AM on October 26, 2001

[via] has introduced me to lots of good sites that I wouldn't have discovered otherwise. It's the triangulation of a hyperlink. It's "reading for the footnotes". It's nice, but its lack is not an offence.
posted by holgate at 10:40 AM on October 26, 2001

zempf: tried Google, didn't quite work
posted by msacheson at 10:41 AM on October 26, 2001

Avogadro Once again, Miguel. MeFi is NOT about you, or at least, it is not JUST about you.

That actually hasn't been proven yet, and we have strong reasons to believe it's not true.
posted by signal at 10:55 AM on October 26, 2001

The basic problem here is that not everyone reads all the weblogs, or even blogdexes. I saw konstruktiv politburo two weeks ago, via an insane friend of mine. God only knows where he got it (actually, based on experience, there's a slight possibility he made that kitten thing, but it's doubtful).

If you find something cool, you want to post it. I want to post this, but I don't, because I'm sure it's been around before. But if it were slightly more interesting, I might consider posting it after only having done a search on Metafilter (notorious as they are).

And it looks like www.MiguelFilter.com is still available...

posted by j.edwards at 11:05 AM on October 26, 2001

My first post:
Please cite your source, Spoon. It's only fair. Doesn't subtract from the fun and doesn't make us look like jerks to the people who originally posted it. You know the site I mean :-) Thank you.

My second post, when Spoon responded he'd found it on "the website it's on":

Which is? There's a good tradition here of acknowledging our sources. All it takes is a "via X" or "from Y" or even "stolen from Z". If you omit this basic courtesy "the website that it's on" will quite justifiably think we're too insecure or arrogant to give credit where it's due.

How is this bashing, Avogadro? Spoon was polite; so was I. I even included a smiley. And, when Kafkaesque banished me to MetaTalk, I went. There was no name-calling, no sarcasm, no friction at all. I honestly don't understand how this constitutes bashing.

It may be naive or pointless - OK, perhaps pedantic, but I was following an example of attribution which is the norm here on MetaFilter - but it's certainly not aggressive.

Skallas, if I remember correctly, never fails to credit his sources. Nor do any of you.

What'd I do wrong? I know a lot of you can't stand me but this is just silly, specially as Skallas's point, about who actually creates stuff we enjoy and share, is so relevant to web culture. I happen to think that those who discover and transmit those creations should also be credited. Correction: not I. Our common culture frowns upon non-attribution. All the best weblogs are not only stringent on this but happy to give credit. It creates traffic. I always click through to the credited site. And it's fun. You live, you share, you spread it around.
Isn't that something worth mentioning politely in a kitty thread, while agreeing it was a fun post?
Mountains out of molehills, if you ask me.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 11:11 AM on October 26, 2001

Just for the record I wasn't really banishing you, Miguel.

And anyone who clicked the link knew what site they were on. What is the point of all this, my happy Portuguese mammajamma?

If I may be so bold, I think you are rubbing people the wrong way because your tone tends to be overly authoritative for a relative newbie here.
posted by Kafkaesque at 11:18 AM on October 26, 2001

More! More! Let's talk about this more!

BTW, j. edwards: Lobster magnet? I think I pissed on myself, just a teensy-tiny bit.

I loved it. It was much better than "Cats." I'm going to see it again, and again.
posted by ColdChef at 11:19 AM on October 26, 2001

Hey Miguel, I personally don't mind you at all, but intimating that people are jerks because they lack your personal sense of etiquette is rude, same as you claim Spoon's lack of credit was. I'm generally down with Rebecca

if I do not credit where I find links (if, indeed, I find the the link by way of another weblog), I am building my reputation on someone else's hard work.

....and I try to credit where I saw the link, and if those people credit someone else, whatever. The reader can figure out how derivative I am on their own. In short, while I agree with you that credit is nice to give, calling someone out for it seems excessive, especially on MeFi. But I'm nutty, I even credit people who email me links. I think it's just that it came down to a judgement call on manners and people disagree. You think?
posted by jessamyn at 11:19 AM on October 26, 2001

when did this stop being fun and become so much work.


Mountains out of molehills, if you ask me.

Sure is. But you threw the first shovel full.
posted by metafilter at 11:22 AM on October 26, 2001

MiguelCardoso - perhaps you didn't notice, but the guy found the item without help. Linking to it was giving credit. Not giving credit would have been mirroring the page on his own server and posting a link it.

I think it's important not to forget here that it is wholly possible for two or even ten people to stumble across the same article/item at different times without once ever seeing it referenced between them.

There are a lot of people out there. And when you all frequent the same stores, it's inevitable that folks are going to come out having bought the same little black dress. Which is notorious for resulting in cat-fights at cocktail parties. Cocktail party or MeFi, accusing someone the way you did Spoon was inappropriate.

As for citing where you found a link: if it wasn't found at the actual, original source, I'm all for it... otherwise, the link itself serves as more-than-adequate credit. It's acknowledging that not only did someone find it before you did, but that they are the reason why you found it. That is worthy of giving credit. (Not doing it would be equivalent to walking into someone's house, stumbling across something they discovered, and then stealing the notes and publishing them as your own. It's fraud.)
posted by precocious at 11:22 AM on October 26, 2001

How is this bashing, Avogadro?

Perhaps "bashing" was a strong word to use, but to say that the way someone posts makes us look like jerks (which actually means, in this case, makes Spoon look like a jerk) doesn't exactly endear you to others. Whenever you are saying "we", you are saying "you, Spoon", because you are talking about Spoon's post.

If you want to make a point about posting, it is generally done here, not in the thread.

Mountains out of molehills, if you ask me.

*sigh* There are a hell of a lot of molehills, if you ask me.
posted by Avogadro at 11:26 AM on October 26, 2001

I don't have a blog. When I cite a source, its not in the hopes of getting any link-backs, but because I want a record for myself. (Also, I have a habit of footnoting even mundane things.) At MeFi, I once cited Yahoo! and twice cited dead-wood newspapers. I use 'via' tags mostly for my personal 'point of reference,' or as someone would fold the corner of a book/stick a book-mark in between pages.

Unless we are making our own news, everything we post to MeFi are originally from somewhere else. It's nice to have a source, but, as holgate said, lack thereof is not a crime.
posted by tamim at 11:26 AM on October 26, 2001

(Not doing it would be equivalent to walking into someone's house, stumbling across something they discovered, and then stealing the notes and publishing them as your own. It's fraud.)

What a terrible analogy. If the person claimed the site was hers when it really wasn't then yes the analogy works. Providing a link is like providing the ISBN of the book, its not stealing content.

Nothing is being stolen, and you're really misusing the word 'discovery.' Its one thing for someone to discover a cure for cancer and another to "discover" a link on boingboing.net.

There is no IP in linking.
posted by skallas at 11:45 AM on October 26, 2001

There is such a thing as discovering something first. And there is merit to that.

No.
posted by walrus at 11:47 AM on October 26, 2001

i'm confused. it seems like there are two issues. 1 - crediting the site you found it through, and 2 - crediting the creator. i'm with rebecca on the former, but confused about the latter. tracking down who made it seems a little too scoobie for me. if the creator doesn't put his/her/their name on it for all to see, isn't that their issue?
posted by heather at 11:51 AM on October 26, 2001

Hey Miguel--

If you want to know the "source" (at least as far as most people are concerned), pay close attention to the url:

www.konstruktiv.net/kitty_02.html

See where it says konstruktiv.net? That's the source! And if the fine folks at konstruktiv didn't create this kitty, than we may NEVER know who did. Is that so agonizing? Anyone with eyes can see that Spoon made no attempts to mask the url or hide his intentions. He linked *directly* to the site he found it on!

MetaTalk has really turned into a big jackoff lately. Now I feel like 'Takin' It to Metafilter' to cool down!
posted by Karl at 12:19 PM on October 26, 2001

Complete MetaFilter Citation Guide:

Title: Daybreak; by: Maxfield Parrish; found in: All Posters.com (home page), via: Esoteric Art.com (home page); from: my bookmarks, made after attending a Parrish exhibit at the Brooklyn Museum of Art.

My feable attempt to clarify things for heather.
posted by tamim at 12:23 PM on October 26, 2001

As a guy who hasn't posted any links, I kind of like it when people cite where they got links from because then I can go to those sites directly and view other good links. I think it's a good practice. Someone did this recently with an article linked from the weblog Little Green Footballs that I've been enjoying tremendously. Whoever you are, thank you.

But I do agree that this whole thing about who links first is pretty uninteresting. It's not about you, it's about the creator and the audience and anything else sounds suspiciously like wanking.
posted by rks404 at 12:24 PM on October 26, 2001

I kind of like it when people cite where they got links from because then I can go to those sites directly and view other good links.

My thoughts exactly. If I see three interesting links coming "via xxxxxx.com" I will probably check out xxxxxxx.com itself. No need to harp on it, but giving props to other sites helps hold this whole subculture together.
posted by jpoulos at 12:40 PM on October 26, 2001

hmmm, jpoulos, not content with XXX goes straight to XXXXXXX!

You dirty bird!
posted by Kafkaesque at 1:08 PM on October 26, 2001

i'm sorry, but was I the only who just noticed that Metafilter posted a comment? in Metatalk, no less...
posted by lotsofno at 1:44 PM on October 26, 2001

I like it when I find stuff on my site that shows up afterwards on weblogs, whether or not I get credit.

Weblogging is so easy no one deserves to be credited for posting a link that other people use on their own weblogs. There are exceptions, but the idea that a hyperlink to a weird kitty picture is substantive enough that it can be "plagiarized" is ludicrous.

And if anyone else uses the word "ludicrous" to describe this, I expect to receive credit for using the word first.
posted by rcade at 1:46 PM on October 26, 2001

tamin, thank you. most informative. and not at all ludicrous.*
posted by heather at 2:12 PM on October 26, 2001

skallas - I found the analogy fitting. Our weblogs generate a reputation for us. If you constantly provide links to high-quality content, then you generate the reputation (unspoken or otherwise) of being able to find high quality content.

If you aren't doing a bit of the researching yourself (and it can be difficult to find unique, interesting links that haven't already been covered), then you are building your reputation on someone else's work. That is what it amounts to.

The argument may seem anal, but fundamentally, it's about being truthful. No-one (except MiguelCardoso, I suppose) is saying that you have to trace a link back through everyone who linked it in a long chain of 'via' links; that's ridiculous and tangential. I believe there is some obligation to tell where you got the link.

The fact that YOUR source didn't give credit/got the link from somewhere else is moot; point is, if you found the content through someone else, putting up an uncredited link to it is misleading to your audience.
posted by precocious at 2:13 PM on October 26, 2001

A hyperlink cannot be copyrighted, yo.
posted by gleemax at 2:21 PM on October 26, 2001

I want to post this, but I don't, because I'm sure it's been around before.

And please accept my unkowing gratitude therefore before ever clicking thereon.

And anotha thing....

I must make the observation that a lot of the testiness displayed towards MiguelCardoso seems to be derived in part out of the underlying clash of the Two Cultures, by extension herein, between the web literate versus the literate literate. Which smacks of sour grapes, to say the least, and beating up on someone for arrogance out of resentment for eloquence, this is how it seems to me, as illiterate as I am in either case. Then there is this whole oldbie versus newbie tension wherein the former can get as precious as like the mc of some Rocky Horror show instructing the out of towners that We don't throw rice at the weeding scene here," or teenage girls at a speaking in a private language of tropes upon injokes...


That said, I must say I find these little navel lint picking sessions as informative and entertaining as anything else. I learn more about HTML in threads like these. And applause in passing for rebeccabloood. Well said.

posted by y2karl at 2:38 PM on October 26, 2001

oops, hit post instead of preview: D'oh!
posted by y2karl at 2:40 PM on October 26, 2001

Interesting point x2 by y2karl (lord knows it's probably been discussed before I got here, adding to the irony), but the distinction between web literate and literature literate (not that literature litereate necessarily implies eloquence, but maybe it helps) is something of an issue... Although I would debate the comparision to the distinction between long-time memebers and newbies.

The basic issue becomes whether or not a point can be successfully argued, and whether it can be properly argued. If I were to validly argue, say, for the sake of argument (there's that irony again), that Foucalt could kick Chomsky's ass from here to Kalamazoo (it's just a figure of speech), but in process made a typographical error, screwed up a tag, and offended someone, my statement could be considered moot.

The mission has to be to argue successfully while maintaining certain standards for expression and skill in expressing those arguments -- just as no one worthwhile will take you seriously shouting on a street corner, wearing only a plastic garbage bag and a green feather boa, and mispronouncing words. There is a mapping (isomorphism) between those standards of judgement and the standards we use here and elsewhere on the web, and we're not going to be able to change them, so we have to take the responsibilty of at least trying to standardize them, even if only so that this community can function without resorting to "childish name-calling." Et cetera.
posted by j.edwards at 2:54 PM on October 26, 2001

Yeah, well, that was wedding scene and 'teenage grils at a party,' to be sure, but...

An alternate and perhaps less pejorative way to express the thought is that it's the tension between those moldy chestnuts of human potential seminars everywhere:

Reality is a function of agreement,

which implies preordained aquiescence with the concepts of standards of usage and decorum, and

You make yourself right by making other people wrong!

The latter is impossible for even saints to avoid, unless solely judged on the scale of the malice beforehand involved, and yet something universally denied--Why me? Never!
posted by y2karl at 3:16 PM on October 26, 2001

Big words make kafka ANGRY! nnnnnngggh!
posted by Kafkaesque at 3:27 PM on October 26, 2001

Such a weird discussion. The people who made the kitty picture, as Karl said, are at the URL housing the kitty picture. So, by linking it, you're acknowledging the creator. To think that a person has to say what weblog they found a link on is absurd. Who cares? I mean, if you're seriously concerned with either your reputation within the weblog community, or the reputation of other people in the weblog community, you just need to go outside a bit. Maybe ride a bike. Something. The person you "stole" the link from "stole" it from someone else, most likely. Or stumbled upon it accidentally. It's no big deal either way. If you're making a weblog to show the world how cool you are, cause of all the neat links you can find, you're a huge dork, so give up.
It's an inconsequential kitty animation, found on an inconsequential site. Good for a few giggles, and should cause no stress.
Via MetaTalk
posted by Doug at 3:46 PM on October 26, 2001

If you dream alone, it's just a dream. If you dream together, it's reality.
(Brazilian folk song)

Quoted in Bolo'Bolo by P.M. in SEMIOTEXT(E)

posted by worldsystema at 4:34 PM on October 26, 2001

I can't wait till people start posting
"Afghanistan gives up (via #bc @ dalnet.com)",
"Say hello in many different languages (via google)",
"Funny flash (via that creepy guy on AIM)"
posted by geoff. at 5:05 PM on October 26, 2001

There is no Spoon.

Then with whom did the dish run away?
posted by rushmc at 5:13 PM on October 26, 2001

I am also confused about who is arguing what here.

I am in favor of [via], but not of [via] [via] [via].

I support the right of creators to be recognized. I decry theft and unacknowledged repurposing.

I also recognize that the medium of the web is innovative and strong precisely because of the nature of hyperlinks, and feel that permission should not be required to link to ANY publicly posted site. Permission, no...citation? Depends, I guess. I think the filtering of MetaFilter is stronger with attribution...yet, does anyone really care how many hops it took me to get to SITE X that I have posted a link to?

I remain somewhat confused. But I salute the efforts of MiguelCardoso, rebeccablood, y2karl and j.edwards in this thread.
posted by rushmc at 5:21 PM on October 26, 2001

Never satisfied, K. Never satisfied.
posted by jpoulos at 5:25 PM on October 26, 2001

Rebecca, well said. y2karl, well said.

Being a student I spend an innordinate ammount of time reading academic journals and dry history books. These are always copiously footnoted with where they found their stuff. For many reasons:

• It's polite not to steal your ideas (i appreciate this is different for a link)
• It helps others who want to go deeper into that field of study.
• It allows them to be more discursive, think David Foster Wallace.

I think posting links to where you find things is cool because it fulfils the basic point of MeFi, to find and reccomend cool links! Otherwise what would be the point of banning self linking? (ok, apart from the, free advertising) Because if somebody refers to a site it gains a bit of prestige, and that's nice.
posted by nedrichards at 5:57 PM on October 26, 2001

rushmc: to alleviate (or encourage) your confusion - Spoon posted a link to kitties bent on world domination. Miguel accosted him and told him to give credit where it was due. Spoon rather confusedly said that he found the kitties on K-Pax (rather, he came across the kitties himself) (in a purely non-exploitative way).

The original issue - which seemed to be Miguel's rudeness in accusing Spoon - became the issue of how it's our moral duty to combat egotism and crush megalomania, both of which are, apparently, nurtured through crediting someone else over a link you saw on their site.

Some feel that even though in most other endeavors undertaken in polite society, one is almost demanded to give credit to someone from whom they borrowed an idea, large or small (and in some cases, it is illegal not to), doing so in this case

To take the focus off of why this is shady, they keep bringing up the tangential--and ridiculous--notion of giving a 'via' byline to anyone who linked anyone else, leaving room for many more misleading jokes and making the original argument seem so cluttered and inane that the only viable option is to resort to hurling some of the most over-used words and phrases on MeFi.

I hope this clarifies things for you. And I hope you'll think twice before you begin spouting any alarmist, ad hominem claptrap designed to prompt a knee-jerk response from the Leftists. Nooch.
posted by precocious at 6:49 PM on October 26, 2001

ha!

love it, precocious.
posted by Kafkaesque at 7:00 PM on October 26, 2001

And I hope you'll think twice before you begin spouting any alarmist, ad hominem claptrap designed to prompt a knee-jerk response from the Leftists.

That'll be about enough out of you, you anti-American, double-posting troll!!
posted by rushmc at 7:51 PM on October 26, 2001

lol, i can already imagine douple-posting as grounds for mccarthy-esque interrogation.
posted by lotsofno at 9:00 PM on October 26, 2001

rushmc: you're lucky I'm a self-policing pacifist. Grr.
posted by precocious at 9:45 PM on October 26, 2001

If you really are a pacifist, what's to police?
posted by rcade at 7:08 AM on October 28, 2001

Emotions, feelings, tendencies. Anything that "excites the blood."
posted by j.edwards at 1:21 PM on October 28, 2001

I hate all of you.
posted by solistrato at 1:54 PM on October 29, 2001