Self Linking in the Green? June 3, 2007 1:58 AM   Subscribe

Is there a policy about possibly slipping self-links in via AskMe instead of the blue? For an example, see this post
posted by Justinian to Etiquette/Policy at 1:58 AM (92 comments total)

The question links to the guys personal site on the main page and contains the immortal line "you may want to listen to a few shows first to get an idea of what it is that I do."
posted by Justinian at 1:58 AM on June 3, 2007


Oh, and my understanding is that the green gets as many if not more hits than the blue, so if you're looking to drive traffic to your site this may well be a better way to do it that a direct self-link in the blue. Or am I overthinking it?
posted by Justinian at 2:00 AM on June 3, 2007


I just replied there, noting that I didn't listen to the podcasts. You have a good point, but I'm not sure of the rules. It might be better suited for Projects, but it seems to be more of a personal problem that needs resolving.
posted by The Deej at 2:07 AM on June 3, 2007 [1 favorite]


The standard procedure is to link to your site from your profile and mention that in the post (as links in profiles don't have google juice), unless you're specifically asking a HTML question and you're linking to a proof of concept or demonstration page.

Frankly, I think the fuss over "they're getting traffic" is overblown. I'd be surprised if you got more than several hundred one-time hits from promoting a site in AskMe. But, the potential pagerank boost still exists.
posted by Rhomboid at 3:02 AM on June 3, 2007


I don't think there's any intention here to game AskMe but the self-link should probably be taken off the front page. After that it would probably just about fall on the right side of the line.
posted by teleskiving at 4:39 AM on June 3, 2007


We've seen that Jessamyn is unequivocally ruthless. She shoots first and writes the askme later. So you've got to know that if there is anything wrong with an askme post, it'll get yanked faster than you can open a can of beans.
posted by Dave Faris at 4:54 AM on June 3, 2007


We've seen that Jessamyn is unequivocally ruthless. She shoots first and writes the askme later. So you've got to know that if there is anything wrong with an askme post, it'll get yanked faster than you can open a can of beans.

Excuse me?

I removed the link to the podcast. The OP can put it in his profile which is how we do things here. Generally any sort of "how can I drive traffic to my X?" question pretty well needs to pass the smell test as to whether the question itself it an attempt to drive traffic to the content. I don't think jim.christian is trying to do this, but links to personal content in AskMe questions unless they are specifically illustrative ["what is this rash?"] are against the rules.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 5:05 AM on June 3, 2007


My point was that making a post to meta about something is probably a waste of time, because you delete everything (and I mean everything) that's not completely up to muster.
posted by Dave Faris at 5:10 AM on June 3, 2007


Dave Faris, I think you're digging yourself deeper. Try digging up.
posted by piratebowling at 6:19 AM on June 3, 2007


I remove links to people's sites if they're not 100% pertinent to the question (I would have in this case). "How do I get people to listen to my podcast?" is a valid question and you don't even need to have your URL to answer that.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 6:35 AM on June 3, 2007


You know, I took what Dave said as a compliment.
posted by absalom at 6:55 AM on June 3, 2007


I really don't understand this policy. The question itself is legitimate, the link could help people provide better answers, and there's actually nothing in Jim's question about wanting more traffic.

What possible harm does a few people clicking through do to Metafilter?
posted by cillit bang at 7:21 AM on June 3, 2007


You know, I took what Dave said as a compliment.

You know, I didn't. If you want to say stuff like "you're doing a good job" you use words like "good" not just leave it up to random readers to interpret whether deleting "everything (and I mean everything)" is a postive or negative assertion.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:22 AM on June 3, 2007


What possible harm does a few people clicking through do to Metafilter?

It has nothing to do with harm. It has to do with having clear guidelines about self-linking that are easy to enforce with a minimum of fuss. Otherwise every "hey how do I increase traffic to MY WEBSITE" question would be suspect.

We don't want to have to worry about why you're linking to your site, whether you're making up bullshit questions to get more incoming links from MeFi, or whether you're using the question to increase page impressions for ads if your site is even ad-based. It's easy to put a link to your site or your content in your profile (which is automagically linked to and also has NOFOLLOW tags) and then it's crystal clear what is going on.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:32 AM on June 3, 2007


What possible harm does a few people clicking through do to Metafilter?

It has a huge potential for abuse, which is why we discourage it in other places. These things aren't black and white and we've had a full range of self-promotional stuff. In this case it's minor but I would remove it to remove any doubt that the guy's question wasn't an attempt to do that.

But we've had really thin "questions" that were merely EVERYBODY COME LOOK AT MY SITE AND BUY THINGS and I have a tiny css issue that could be solved just as easily if they put up a simple demo page instead of using their company site.

So we have to err on the side of safety here so that it doesn't become a problem, because that quickly snowballs once you let a few go.

I still contend that you can ask how to get traffic to your site/blog/podcast without providing your URL and get loads of answers. If people ask for clarification and want to know your URL, then it's fine to share it, but putting it on the front page sets a bad precedent that others may follow.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 7:34 AM on June 3, 2007


But is it ethnically wrong to self-link in the Green?
posted by klue at 7:36 AM on June 3, 2007 [1 favorite]


I agree with deleting the link. I have no idea if my answer is any good or not, but I didn't feel the need to click the link to give it. Nor would I invest the time to listen to a podcast in order to give an answer. Think of how much retro-tagging I could do in that time. :)
posted by The Deej at 7:37 AM on June 3, 2007


The original post here was: Is there a policy? The FAQ is pretty clear on the policy, even with specifics on the blue vs. the green.
posted by smackfu at 7:37 AM on June 3, 2007


My point was that making a post to meta about something is probably a waste of time, because you delete everything (and I mean everything) that's not completely up to muster.

And for the maintenance of a strong, good community of users, thank goodness she does so.

This place would be a shithole if not for the moderators.
posted by five fresh fish at 7:37 AM on June 3, 2007


But is it ethnically wrong to self-link in the Green?

Yes. White people should know better.
posted by danb at 7:42 AM on June 3, 2007


I still contend that you can ask how to get traffic to your site/blog/podcast without providing your URL and get loads of answers

The question is about how to improve it, nothing whatsoever about traffic. It might have been more useful for him to provide a description rather than a link, but without either it's impossible to answer properly.

So we have to err on the side of safety here so that it doesn't become a problem, because that quickly snowballs once you let a few go.

Seriously, let them all go. I think you're worrying over nothing.
posted by cillit bang at 7:57 AM on June 3, 2007


You know, I took what Dave said as a compliment.
You know, I didn't.


You know, it wasn't meant as either. It was an observation. Whether I think Jess's moderation of AskMe is heavy handed or not is irrelevant. The point was that it was a waste of time to call out something on AskMe, because her swift hand will take care of it.
posted by Dave Faris at 8:01 AM on June 3, 2007


But Justinian's post isn't "I am reporting a known violation, see here, that is all". You're saying there's no use in having a metatalk thread other than the one we have.
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:11 AM on June 3, 2007


Four hours ago, when I made my original comment, it looked like a call out about a self-poster to me. It's evident that I made a bad call. I still don't know that there's much room for discussion about it, since the policy is to delete anything to err on the side of caution.
posted by Dave Faris at 8:24 AM on June 3, 2007


The policy, sir, is to delete the things we decide to delete. Jess, Matt and I; often with collaboration and discussion before doing so. This "Blame (or not, I'm just, you know, saying) Jess, and she MAY or MAY NOT be HEAVYHANDED, and it's SHOOT FIRST" thing seems like kind of a misapprehension.
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:28 AM on June 3, 2007


Who am I to question authority?
posted by Dave Faris at 8:32 AM on June 3, 2007


Just don't be such a presumptuous jerk about it. I'm not the one declaring that the metatalk threads shouldn't exist.
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:34 AM on June 3, 2007


javol, mein capitan.
posted by Dave Faris at 8:36 AM on June 3, 2007 [1 favorite]


A self-styled gadfly?
posted by dersins at 8:37 AM on June 3, 2007


Seriously, let them all go. I think you're worrying over nothing.

No thanks, I've seen what it does here and other places when you do, and it's not something I want to encourage.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 8:41 AM on June 3, 2007


javol, mein capitan.

Seriously dude, you're being sort of a dick here.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 8:44 AM on June 3, 2007 [2 favorites]


Look. If I ruffled your feathers with my crack about your moderation, I'm sorry. I didn't realize you were so sensitive about it.
posted by Dave Faris at 8:46 AM on June 3, 2007


If it was a crack, it didn't come off as one. It came off as a pissed off user that claims one moderator deletes EVERYTHING and implies that she is doing a bad job.

Might want to work on the comedic delivery next time.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 8:49 AM on June 3, 2007


Well, if anyone wants my take on it, I would have thought that this sort of link on AskMeFi would have been okay, and that on the normal MeFi pages it was frowned upon.

What jessamyn did by removing the link just made me raise my eyebrows and go "Whoops, I screwed up.", because the last thing I want is to gain any sort of reputation as a self-linking traffic junkie.

Nor do I personally disagree with the action taken. Had it been me moderating, I would have probably done the same thing to err on the side of caution.

My 2 cents and lesson learned.
posted by jim.christian at 8:51 AM on June 3, 2007


If people want to see the damn site they can click on his username and click on the link to the site. That is one click more than clicking on the link to the site in the post itself. If one click is all that is seperating people using AskMe for legitmate purposes and people using AskMe to be all "HAY LOOK AT MY SITE IT HAZ PROBLEMZ KTHNXBAI" then I'm more than happy to make the extra click.

And Jessamyn, I really have to disagree with you on this one: Dave, you're being a total dick. "Javol, mein captain"?? Seriously? Fucking classy shit, that's what that is.

I'm really waiting for one of the dynamic trio to tell you to take a week off, but something tells me my desires will not be sated.
posted by CitrusFreak12 at 8:58 AM on June 3, 2007


If you're going to be a total dick, at least try to get the spelling right, ok?
posted by signal at 9:20 AM on June 3, 2007


I'm just a lurker here and don't know much, but it seems pretty obvious to me what's going on. "Dave Faris", is not in fact Dave Faris (whoever he is), but rather someone else who has appropriated his name to establish in the Internet's collective opinion that "Dave Faris is a bit of a dick". Clever. Devilish cunning.
posted by ~ at 9:49 AM on June 3, 2007


Hey ~ it's not too hard to get a bit more info on this Dave Faris character. If indeed what you propose is the fact of the matter, it's been going on for quite some time now. FWIW I appreciate Dave Faris's contributions here at MeTa as another perspective on criticizing the Moderation Triumvirate (as in, one that's not quonsar's). He provides the hot drama.

No wonder you're a lurker. It's damn awkward addressing you as ~.
posted by carsonb at 9:59 AM on June 3, 2007


Hey, are you related to ~ Swindon?
posted by The Deej at 10:00 AM on June 3, 2007 [4 favorites]


Cars, you're probably right. Except about Dave Faris. I sort of stand by my theory.
posted by ~ at 12:15 PM on June 3, 2007


~'s mom named him Tilde. When he got to grade school, the guys started calling him Tilly. This damaged his self image and was so embarrassing that he now hides behind a symbol. Hey we all hide behind our nicks, except crunchland.
posted by Cranberry at 12:18 PM on June 3, 2007


At least ~ isn't like the question mark kid.
posted by ericb at 12:53 PM on June 3, 2007




Thanks for the info. I didn't think it was kosher but didn't want to be too much of an ass about it in MetaTalk since I have such delicate sensibilities.
posted by Justinian at 1:39 PM on June 3, 2007


Carsonb's wiser and righter than me for appreciating a divergent view in "Dave" "Faris". No earnest aspersions cast. & the rest of you can let me know when you've got a key named after you.
posted by ~ at 2:58 PM on June 3, 2007


Damn, is it pick on crunchland Dave Faris day and nobody told me? I would have thought people who have been here a long time would have read that comment in the context of his other contributions here, but I guess we should ensure that each comment we make stands on its own these days.
posted by dg at 4:31 PM on June 3, 2007


This place would be a shithole if not for the moderators.

Yes, that is quite possibly true. A possible corollary, that more active moderation is necessarily good, however, is a suggestion that could bear a bit of examination.

Not that I think that's what Dave Faris was doing, mind you, and not that I think modifying the post in question was a wrong thing to do.

Just in principle, you know.

There's a feedback loop to be wary of -- that if it is assumed that moderation is vigilant, quick and relatively merciless, then some people will tend to throw up any old crappy post or comment, assuming rightly that 'the mods will take care of it if they don't like it'. The results of this include a) a userbase that doesn't care enough about the community aspect to try and actively make the place better b) a slightly creepy deference to perceived authority c) overworked mods and d) a slowly-but-steadily growing minefield of crapbombs to tiptoe through, as the userbase continues to grow and d) a self-reinforcing feeback loop that exacerbates all three of the above.

It's not something that can be avoided, probably, given the nature of the beast, but with the Athena-from-the-forehead-of-mathowie creation of new moderators (god bless their hearts, I hasten to add), the tenor has shifted a little from the old (and little-heard these days) 'self-policing since 1999' ethos to 'what do m/j/c think'. That's a shame, a bit, but like I said, probably inevitable.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:01 PM on June 3, 2007 [2 favorites]


Note that I used 'd' twice because I really like the letter 'd'.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:11 PM on June 3, 2007


Seriously dude, you're being sort of a dick here.

If you want to ban Dave for some reason, then go ahead and do it. But I think it is silly for a person who holds that power to go calling someone a dick. You are in such a position that if someone called you a dick (or equivelant) that you could just ban them. So people can't respond to any name-calling you do. It is similar to the amount of courage it takes a policeman to call some guy on the street an asshole.
posted by flarbuse at 5:23 PM on June 3, 2007


It's even better when cortex and mathowie join in her defense.
posted by smackfu at 5:34 PM on June 3, 2007


I don't think you could be more wrong, flarbuse. The way in which m/j/c try, I assume deliberately, to be normal users of the community site who happen to have super powers, rather than distant, banhammer-wielding Eldritch Gods, is important to try and guard against the kind of thing I was talking about above. It's not a perfect solution, but it's the best one available, maybe, given the situation.

And DF was being a bit of a dick (and has been a member since the very early days, so knows precisely where he and everyone else stands), which is fine.

Banning for mod-sass would be sophomoric, SA-style jackbootery. Let's hope we haven't gotten to that point yet.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:45 PM on June 3, 2007 [2 favorites]


Actually, I really don't see where he was being a dick at all. I thought he was making an honest statement that gave credit to the admin team (and jessamyn in particular) for keeping AskMe clean and green. I also saw a knee-jerk response by jessamyn, followed by what seemed to be an automatic defence by mathowie and cortex of their fellow team member.

None of the above fit in with my usual perceptions of what goes on around here, so I don't discount the possibility that all of the above actually happened in a tiny universe inside my head. If, in fact, it did really happen in the actual world, I'm sure it was an anomaly of some sort.
posted by dg at 6:13 PM on June 3, 2007


Banning for mod-sass would be sophomoric, SA-style jackbootery. Let's hope we haven't gotten to that point yet.

Exactly, yeah. There's been a long, long history of conversational reactions to shitty behavior, ranging from "hey, maybe cool it a little" to "you are being an asshole"; even the most unkind of those responses seems yards better than the idea of banning for being hostile.

And on the flip side, turning the other cheek is a good plan and I do try for deep-breath zenlike balance when I can, but to imagine that we'd be completely immune info-automatons instead of calling someone on their shit isn't all that realistic (or, if you ask me, even desirable).

The thing is, Dave Faris is too long-time a user to be plausibly naive about any of this stuff; he's smart, he's a great poster, and he knows the site history. He's spent ample goddam time in Metatalk, arguing policy and administrative direciton. If you really want to argue the line between Mod and User, he's probably more comfortable flinging shit at Matt et al than 99% of the registered userbase. This isn't exactly an isolated case of crankiness. So horrid breakdown of communication or not—I'm a little too close to the interaction to be able to judge vs. dg's read on it—I don't think any of us, Dave Faris included, are weeping in a bubble bath about this, or contemplating bannery.

It's even better when cortex and mathowie join in her defense.

Yeah, we really should have slagged on her or pretended we didn't think Dave was being a jerk, because otherwise people might suspect we're colluding or something. ?
posted by cortex (staff) at 6:24 PM on June 3, 2007


Dave Faris should have heeded piratebowling's 'digging upward' advice . Perhaps some kind of handy quick-reference guide was needed, because the 'mein capitan' stuff that followed was decidedly not upward.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 6:25 PM on June 3, 2007


Quite the contrary, Cortex. I've been bothered about what happened here all day.

I don't really see what I'd done wrong, aside from being completely insensitive to an issue that Jessamyn is apparently very touchy about -- something for which I apologized once I realized too late.

And I got overly defensive about it when I felt like I was being tag-teamed. When Matt added his two-cents, it was clear that I had to step away. You guys hold all the cards.

I think we can all agree that we all got too defensive and we all over-reacted. And I'm willing to forgive you guys.
posted by Dave Faris at 7:40 PM on June 3, 2007


Fair cop, Dave. I'm sorry you were upset; I was mostly annoyed, but then it's been damned hot all weekend and that couldn't have helped.

It sounds like bad readings on all sides, yeah. I'd say that, in general, it's dicey deciding to tell people in strident terms how someone else is, but I can understand the instinct—I've definitely philosophized on what goes on under the hood around here for years; it comes with watching and knowing the site over time, so, hey.

So yeah, maybe lay off the "this is how foo thinks/acts" stuff some. The Nazi-authoritarianism shit's not really endearing either; questioning authority seems pretty kosher around here to anyone paying attention. That it's you, and not some fresh-faced Yahoo! transplant snarking out of his depth, makes both M.O. assertions and the dismissive kissoffs seem a lot more personal and presumptuous than they would otherwise.

And it sounds like you're saying this was in uncondescending earnest:

I didn't realize you were so sensitive about it.

If this is a new one by you, lesson learned: in an exchange with any heat in it, that doesn't come off as an apology, it comes off as a bitchslap. It's not a phrase that gets thrown around in a conciliatory fashion online, in my experience.

So no harm meant, and thanks for your explanation. The tag team thing is kind of a tricky one, because, hey, we all kind of watch this part of the site, and we're probably going to have a better idea of where one another are coming from than where (what reads like) a nasty jab is.

If nothing else, I hope some of the back and forth later in this thread makes it damned clear, if there was any doubt, that none of us really cares to play the admin-with-a-stick over a disagreement. Give me a yelling match and some cool-headed denouement over banhammer taunts any day.
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:39 PM on June 3, 2007


Fair cop, Dave.

You thought that was a fair cop? Looked like rationalize-like-hell-to-avoid-apologizing from here.
posted by mediareport at 10:16 PM on June 3, 2007


Fair cop? He said that he didn't do anything wrong except that he didn't know Jessamyn was "very touchy" about her admin style. Like "I'm sorry you're such a bitch." Give me a break.
posted by puke & cry at 10:22 PM on June 3, 2007


You are in such a position that if someone called you a dick (or equivelant) that you could just ban them.

That never happens and is pretty much against the rules. People call me (and mathowie, and cortex, and each other) names here all the time. This thread is clearly an exchange that's open to differing interpretations, but I don't really see "...I'm sorry. I didn't realize you were so sensitive about it." as much of an apology, especially from someone who has been here as long as DF has.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 11:39 PM on June 3, 2007


This is a thread-jack, to the matter at hand anyway, but since the self-link topic was in the middle of being addressed better here than in another thread... (?)

This self link seems especially egregious. A lot of us are computer professionals, but don't use axme as an advertising platform. Or at least not as blatantly without any answer to the question... at all.
posted by maniactown at 11:42 PM on June 3, 2007


It's your prerogative to take what I said out of context. What I said was "If I ruffled your feathers with my crack about your moderation, I'm sorry."
posted by Dave Faris at 4:44 AM on June 4, 2007


And, in any case, I wasn't trying to insult you or hassle you. And furthermore, I can't even remember the last comment of mine that was deleted on the green.

So how about this?

I'M SORRY.
posted by Dave Faris at 5:00 AM on June 4, 2007


Dave, I suspect my opinion wasn't one of the ones that troubled you, but if it was I'm sorry to have called you a dick. (It was in josh. Christ, the comment, I mean, not the dick.) I think you were being a bit dickish, though, by suggesting the moderation was fascist, or "delete-first-ask-questions-later".

Not that the moderation is fair, correct or optimal; but it feels fairly sincere. I think you're wrong in your suggestion that the moderation is lazy - although I was a bit of a putz to engage in anonymous internet namecalling.
posted by ~ at 5:15 AM on June 4, 2007


I'd say that, in general, it's dicey deciding to tell people in strident terms how someone else is,

Ha! That's all we do on MetaTalk.
posted by smackfu at 5:30 AM on June 4, 2007


"If I ruffled your feathers with my crack about your moderation, I'm sorry."

"I'm sorry IF..." after clearly going over the line doesn't cut it.

I'M SORRY.

There. That wasn't so bad, was it?
posted by mediareport at 6:44 AM on June 4, 2007


Fair cop?

Giving the guy the benefit of the doubt? I'm not accepting any apologies for anyone else; I'm willing to believe Dave Faris didn't actually mean to sound like a dick until after he felt like he was being slapped for nothing; and I do think there's some validity to the appearance, at least, of some sort of administrative wall of power, even if I find that a little bizarre (especially from an oldschooler) and think Dave could have (and knows he could have) avoided the whole thing by not being so tone-deaf and snipey.

So, yeah. Fair cop. I hate that people chase each other around the site with grudges and demands, and I'm not going to try that myself if I can help it.
posted by cortex (staff) at 6:46 AM on June 4, 2007


I think it is silly for a person who holds that power to go calling someone a dick. You are in such a position that if someone called you a dick (or equivelant) that you could just ban them. So people can't respond to any name-calling you do.

Don't be ridiculous. Anybody who thinks it's possible to get banned for mouthing off at mathowie et al 1) hasn't been around here longer than five minutes or 2) is a moron. Dave Faris has been around here forever, he knows damn well he's not going to get banned for being dickish (since he's been dickish as long as he's been here, which is not incompatible with being an excellent poster), and he doesn't need you to hold his hand.

I've been bothered about what happened here all day.

Gee, maybe you should quit being so dickish? And if you can't tell when you're being a dick, put some serious study into the matter. Everybody else can.
posted by languagehat at 7:12 AM on June 4, 2007


Oh the irony.
posted by smackfu at 7:52 AM on June 4, 2007


I think there are plenty of dicks on Metatalk who have no wiggle room to criticize me whatsoever, Languagehat.
posted by Dave Faris at 7:53 AM on June 4, 2007


There. That wasn't so bad, was it?

And yes, it was, because I still have to deal with assholes like you who feel the need to rub my face in it.
posted by Dave Faris at 8:02 AM on June 4, 2007


Calling someone sensitive is one of the best ways to "win" an argument, because any way they respond, it's just proof of their being sensitive. It's like asking someone why they're getting so defensive- there's no good way to respond. Use either of these, and I feel I have no way to respond other than sitting on my hands and muttering at the computer, "Bah! Curses! Boo! Grrrrrr!!!"
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 9:01 AM on June 4, 2007 [1 favorite]


what is this, a support group? oh noes your feeling got hurt on the internet. dont apologize for being a dick dave faris. you can speak an opinion if you want. you are allowed to, sheesh. if they get defensive you are allowed to point it out how sensitive they are. its not "shitty behaivor", its saying what you think. no one got hurt. except maybe cortex and jessamyns feelings. and come on, do they really need contsant validation from every member of the community? i mean come on. 90% of people here are constantly fawning over jessamyn and cortez anyways (when they arent wetting themselves over their own cleverness, frankly). as an outsider this is WEIRDD behaivor. with two ds. the bizzarre type of sucking up one finds only on the internet. where the lower nerds idolize the slightly higher up nerds who have illusionary positions of nerd authority. like, remember how powerful it felt to have "ops" on an irc channel? LOL

Anyways, from my perspective, or the assumed perspective of most people-who-dont-really-give-a-shit-about-metafilter or at least see it as just one of many other places to visit on the internet, theres no incentive to fawn over the admins. from our perspective you're just someone who deletes what other people write. whoop de doo. no offense, but i hate that. i like the internet because of its open democracy.. everyone has the freedom to say what they want. so i sort of instintively distrust people who take it upon themselves to decide what gets to be discussed and what shouldnt. thats just me. side note: if its not- check out reddit.com, its awesome, or at least used to be
posted by petsounds at 9:28 AM on June 4, 2007


Oh the irony.

I think there are plenty of dicks on Metatalk who have no wiggle room to criticize me whatsoever, Languagehat.


See, the difference is that I know when I'm being a dick, and I try to reserve my dickishness for those who deserve it. It always amuses me to see those who have no problem dealing out unpleasantries get all hurt when they are on the receiving end. If you can't take the heat...

Note to petsounds: Perhaps, like many, you have trouble seeing the difference between "fawning" and "not being a dick."
posted by languagehat at 9:41 AM on June 4, 2007


I suggest that you don't always know, languagehat. Especially when you're making a point that you may not realize is open to different interpretations. In this thread, you've seen that several people took what I wrote as an insult to Jess, several people read it as a compliment, and still others saw it as I actually meant it. (One person even completely misunderstood and somehow thought I made the exact opposite point I was trying to make.)

We can't always know (or, frankly, be responsible for) the ways that people misinterpret the things we write. But then, you're the language expert. I suppose you choose each and every word with meticulous thought beforehand, and you never, ever make a mistake.
posted by Dave Faris at 10:35 AM on June 4, 2007


who feel the need to rub my face in it.

Learn to apologize without insulting people, then.
posted by mediareport at 11:39 AM on June 4, 2007


I didn't realize you were such an expert on apologizing. Thanks.
posted by Dave Faris at 11:49 AM on June 4, 2007


The tragedy of the MetaTalk: Plenty of dicks who have no wiggle room.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 12:20 PM on June 4, 2007


I didn't realize you were such an expert on apologizing. Thanks.

Seriously?

You're really using that line?
posted by CitrusFreak12 at 1:20 PM on June 4, 2007


I suggest that you don't always know, languagehat. Especially when you're making a point that you may not realize is open to different interpretations.

Quite true, and if I did misread you on this occasion, I apologize. I will not apologize for pointing out that such misreading (if it was misreading) was heavily influenced by years' worth of your dickish comments; you can hardly expect to be given the benefit of the doubt when you're so consistently abrasive and reluctant to admit being in the wrong.

I didn't realize you were such an expert on apologizing. Thanks.

Now, see, I'm interpreting that as dickish. I could be wrong, but I'm just playing the odds.
posted by languagehat at 1:58 PM on June 4, 2007


With much fanfare, the estimable Fundercrust entered into the conquered plaza. With enormous peacock feather headresses bouncing in perfect synchrony, the Gemstone Legions marched behind him in shining and jingling ranks.

One small child, held over the crowd by his parents, stared out at the entourage and piped, tiny voice surprisingly audible above the din: "Papa, why is that man's nose so very red? And what happened to his chin?"
posted by freebird at 2:29 PM on June 4, 2007


90% of people here are constantly fawning over jessamyn and cortez anyways

<announcer>We've secretly replaced MetaFilter's newest administrator with a Spanish conquistador. Let's see if they notice a difference...</announcer>
posted by Rhomboid at 3:09 PM on June 4, 2007 [1 favorite]


Ima gonna hafta ask you, freebird, to explain your comment.
Is it applicable to the current thread? Is it an allegory? Does it have a morale? A point?
posted by Catfry at 3:45 PM on June 4, 2007


It can has a morale.
posted by cortex (staff) at 3:59 PM on June 4, 2007


I was stupid for asking some of those because I see the morale, but the first question is genuine.
posted by Catfry at 4:17 PM on June 4, 2007


I'm not sure if the answer to this kind of thing is more beer or less.

I'm going to have to go with 'more'.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 10:47 PM on June 4, 2007


The answer is always more beer.
posted by CitrusFreak12 at 10:56 PM on June 4, 2007


Now, see, I'm interpreting that as dickish.

Congratulations. Your astuteness and keen insight apparently knows no bounds. By your own admission, it's fine to offer this sort of response to someone who deserves it. When I went to the trouble of providing an unequivocal apology, and mediareport was still giving me shit about it, I'd say he qualifies.
posted by Dave Faris at 11:23 PM on June 4, 2007


Sometimes, the best thing is to just step back, shake your head, and walk away. If you have an enormous need to have the last word, that can sometimes be difficult.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 4:17 AM on June 5, 2007


Good advice. Thank you.
posted by Dave Faris at 10:16 AM on June 5, 2007




In response to the moral/point of my comment, I will have to go with Einstein's response when asked about the religious implications of relativity, which was something like "None that I'm aware of, but I suppose it's certainly possible."

While it may not have a moral, it has very high morale. It's never run under fire, always followed orders, and has so much team spirit it sweats out little drips of metablue colored gatorade.
posted by freebird at 1:26 PM on June 5, 2007


I just hoped there was something to learn if I understood your comment and it's connection to the context. But there is certainly hope in the fact that your comment is of such high caliber
I remain
yours in faith
posted by Catfry at 3:34 PM on June 5, 2007


« Older wanna come over and watch a movie?   |   Anonymous Follow-Ups and Respondents Newer »

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