SubscribeAdvertise here: Contact FM.
If something dramatic or new happenedLet's take a look..
and then he walked me upstairs and then he pushed me against the wall. I'm assuming there are cameras everywhere and anyways the camera will explain the rest and I don't really care about anything. I mean I started crying, I was crying, I told him I survived cancer 11 years and I, someone assaults me ... I don't care about rape I care about survival and he says 'survival ain't going to do your problem a bit,' so you'll see this stuff on camera if they have a camera.
Were there cameras?
posted by LarryC at 11:24 PM PST on October 19 [+] [!]
The Lancet study is full of holes and has been debunked.
posted by LarryC at 8:19 PM PST on October 16 [+] [!]
Maf54: Do I make you a little horny?
Teen: A little.
Maf54: Cool.
Maf54: What ya wearing?
Teen: tshirt and shorts
Maf54: Love to slip them off of you
What was he thinking?!!
posted by LarryC at 4:26 PM PST on September 29 [+]
Kirth Gerson's comment deserves to be quoted almost in entirety and responded to:Except that it doesn't, because "This mere "interesting" test that is implicit in your argument" is not accurate. I said the OP was informative. I did not argue that its being interesting was the reason it's good enough to be here (although it is interesting, to me). My argument is not that because I find something interesting, it should be allowed. I am saying - and I am not alone in saying it - I would not have known that that information even existed, if it wasn't posted here, because none of the other sites I visit had it. That makes it one of those diamonds you mentioned. Where I talked about it being interesting, was in my suggestion to those who think it isn't - that they should ignore it.
"It seems as though matthowie and a lot of other people are saying, 'We know what's going on in Iraq, and we don't want to keep hearing about it.' So go on ignoring those posts. None of the defenders are saying 'You must read all the posts about Iraq.' just the opposite. Every one of us is saying to skip them if you don't want to know more than you already do. All of us skip things that don't interest us. I skipped whole days full of elephant stuff. It didn't hurt. (And I did not make any comments in any of those posts about how much I disliked them, either.)
Calling the Iraq posts 'preaching to the choir' is wrong. It is not preaching to offer information that is not readily available. It is useful and valuable to see material that I'd have to spend a lot more time than I have available finding on my own. It doesn't make me an imbecile that I don't keep up with the National Journal; I just don't have time. If a post is just an opinion or advocation, it should be deleted, and just about always is. The post that spawned this discussion is not preaching, it's informative, just like most of the posts about Iraq."
posted by Kirth Gerson
. . .
Given that, I've never found the "skip it" argument valid if the protest is based on a "this post doesn't qualify for posting" basis. If a post is a quality post but not interesting to a particular person, then of course "skip it" applies and no one has the right to the expectation that every post be interesting to them. If a post is not a quality post, then it shouldn't have been posted even if it is interesting to a large number of mefites.
This mere "interesting" test that is implicit in your argument, and many other peoples' arguments, is simply not a useful test. I think it can be accurately said that probably nothing that is posted to MeFi is interesting to the overwhelming majority of mefites—this is almost certainly true of these political and news posts. So there are probably a great many subjects that are as interesting to as large a contingent of mefites as these posts are. I know that there's a number of topics that I am interested in that could post about frequently if the criteria was only that I found a site interesting. (Actually, something I've not made explicit and/or expressed tersely is that news/politics is one of the subjects I find most interesting and if I believed that the bar for posting something was set as low as apparently do the people I'm arguing with, then I'd be posting news/political stuff all the time. If you look at my posting history, you'll see that about half of my few posts have been news/political and, importantly, I feel that they were crappy posts that I now regret.)
I feel like people are profoundly ignoring the one thing that distinguishes MetaFilter from almost all of the other group blogs. Most of them have much more loose standards about posting and posts are basically just what people are advocating here: here's something I find interesting and I want to talk about it. This is also what distinguishes it from one's own personal blog and why we have that acronym. What belongs on the front page of MeFi isn't the sort of thing that one casually thinks about posting several times a day, usually with some news item or website acting as the excuse for the post. In theory, posts to MeFi are supposed to be true discoveries, small diamonds found out there in the wild web
. . .
What I've written responds to the bulk of your two paragraphs . . .
posted by Ethereal Bligh
Aren't you bored of saying the same old shit over and over again?
They lied! And they suck at war! We fucking know! Jesus. And yet you keep taking up the front page with your crap, and then posting endless self-satisfied rants on the subject in the comments. WE FUCKING KNOW ALREADY. GIVE IT A SODDING REST.
posted by reklaw
I'd at least like to see the troll waste it's time over hear and let the grown-ups talk about Iraq and the up-coming elections and such without further bull shit.
posted by taosbat at 12:00 PM on October 21, 2006