Do we need all this alarmist language?

November 15, 2001 12:00 PM

are we FearFilter now? lots of alarmist language used in frontpage posts in the past few months. it seems like we're posting with language forms we've learned from major news sources, which have turned into "all-crisi-all-the-time" media channels. is it appropriate?
posted by patricking to etiquette/policy at 12:00 PM (15 comments total)

...all this and more, when MetaFilter STRIKES BACK returns.
posted by mathowie at 12:02 PM on November 15, 2001

weren't there more comments on that thread a while ago? i could have sworn.
posted by moz at 12:07 PM on November 15, 2001

It's all a big Taliban strategy, run via a giant warehouse of terminals, servers, etc. in a very wired cave in southern Afganistan.
posted by raysmj at 12:09 PM on November 15, 2001

that explains it. 'cause lately reading MeFi is like watching the previouslys for some drama series. wacky.
posted by patricking at 12:13 PM on November 15, 2001

*cue intense music and american flag superimposed over mushroom cloud and george bush's angry face*
posted by starduck at 12:39 PM on November 15, 2001

Perhaps we should START posting with the BIZARRE intonation and RANDOM emphasis of television JOURNALISTS too.
posted by liam at 1:03 PM on November 15, 2001

just like ZIPPY!
posted by moz at 1:19 PM on November 15, 2001

moz, I had posted 2 comments that have been deleted. At the time, they were comments #3 and 4 in that thread. My first comment (about keeping my fingers crossed but not holding my breath) was serious and related to the topic & comments by SDB. The second comment was not serious; I was poking fun at the way I wrote the first comment. It was:
/me talk pretty one day
Maybe that caused 'em both to be deleted, but no big deal.
posted by msacheson at 1:26 PM on November 15, 2001

msacheson, look to the newer thread about metafilter getting too "chatty" for why I axed the actual chat commands that didn't add much to a thread besides a quick "me too!"
posted by mathowie at 1:33 PM on November 15, 2001

Gotcha...thanks for the explanation. (this being another poor example of a "chatty" response, but seriously, thanks, Matt, for the explanation.)
posted by msacheson at 1:56 PM on November 15, 2001

I'm waiting for the inevitable "Metafilter Gone Wild" video, advertised on your local UPN/WB affiliate at 1:30 in the morning...
posted by owillis at 2:42 PM on November 15, 2001

just like ZIPPY!

Shut up, fool!

(hat tip to Carol Anne...)
posted by y2karl at 2:49 PM on November 15, 2001

alarmist language

Kindly explain what, in view of the events of 9/11/01, is to be considered alarmist?
posted by ParisParamus at 3:45 PM on November 15, 2001

Perhaps we should START posting with the BIZARRE intonation and RANDOM emphasis of television JOURNALISTS too.

One of the funniest things I ever saw on television was an interview with a TV-news presenter by another journo. The interview asked the TV Presenter to speak in her "normal" voice, which she did, and it just sounded bizarre. Then she was asked to talk about normal stuff in the "TV annunciation", and it was even more bizarre. So strange listening turn it on and off, on and off. But hilarious too.
posted by Neale at 3:54 PM on November 15, 2001

UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this IMPORTANT Information is ENCOURAGED, ESPECIALLY to COMPUTER BULLETIN BOARDS.
posted by webmutant at 3:19 AM on November 16, 2001