Comments on: Some people don't like Kottke

Some people don't like Kottke

ZachsMind — Mon, 10 Dec 2001 21:04:31 -0800

"Anyone who posts Kottke.org to Metafilter.com should die. heh. uhh?" Feel free to post any derogative posts about this MeFi post which are not helpful to the actual thread here. "I'm tired of Kottke." "Zach's a loser." All that stuff goes right here. I reserve the right to defend myself.

By: snarkout

snarkout — Mon, 10 Dec 2001 21:10:52 -0800

Given both the marginal interest of yet another Kottke link to the MeFi populace and the precedent of posting media mentions of weblogging to MetaTalk, wouldn't it have fit better in MeTa's "general weblog-related"?

By: Doug

Doug — Mon, 10 Dec 2001 21:11:04 -0800

I think posting in a way that seems antagonistic was a poor start Zach.

By: signal

signal — Mon, 10 Dec 2001 21:14:24 -0800

The fact that you felt the need to start a pre-emptive MeTa thread 17' after the FPP is also quite telling.

By: whatnotever

whatnotever — Mon, 10 Dec 2001 21:19:02 -0800

Hm... I think you're misquoting.

I assumed that Kottke was the one who is supposed to die. I could be wrong.

And come now, can't one make light jest over another's choice of reading material? Certainly a little snobbish mockery of a commoners' guide to the 'net (we musn't let them spoil the exclusive A-list haunts!) can be deflected with ease.

Or maybe I'm misreading... Ah well, could I at least get a cookie for having never visited this Kottke fellow's site?

By: sawks

sawks — Mon, 10 Dec 2001 21:21:42 -0800

i *like* kottke, but he has his own site to discuss this kind of thing
i dont think tired is the best word to describe how mefi feels about kottke postings either (then again i still get a chuckle from the ascii art goatse man when it shows up on slashdot)

i (personally) dont feel like the post was really frontpage material, which makes it read like a troll, an impression which is only enhanced by this whole 'taking yourself to meta' thing

By: Kafkaesque

Kafkaesque — Mon, 10 Dec 2001 21:23:48 -0800

Personaly, I'm not convinced all of the above posters aren't merely pseudonyms of Zachsmind.

By: ZachsMind

ZachsMind — Mon, 10 Dec 2001 21:24:37 -0800

Oops. Perhaps I should have worded it thusly:

"And yes. I do read Yahoo Internet Life. Religiously."

You still don't hear the sarcasm and playful self-deprecation? Okay. I'll keep working on it.

I feel the FPP is very justified. However there are people here in MeFi who, were I to post a link announcing that a city in France just turned mauve mysteriously for no unforseen reason and this is causing general consternation among that city's populous, people would complain about how it wasn't interesting enough or that perhaps I should have posted it while standing on my head.

I'm simply trying to accomodate those who enjoy such behavior while still accomplishing the task of posting this new news item about Kottke's inevitable world domination... or is that Lance? I get those two mixed up.

By: mattpfeff

mattpfeff — Mon, 10 Dec 2001 21:26:38 -0800

Is it news that smart-ass fpps get smart-ass comments in the thread? Is it news that koffke fpps get smart-ass comments in the thread?

Is Zachsmind at all kafkaesque? (After all, it is a sloppily used adjective.)

And what's a koffke, anyway?

By: signal

signal — Mon, 10 Dec 2001 21:26:38 -0800

But wait, you were reading Yahoo! Internet Life?

By: Kafkaesque

Kafkaesque — Mon, 10 Dec 2001 21:29:01 -0800

You just couldn't resist, could you matt?

By: xiffix

xiffix — Mon, 10 Dec 2001 21:29:24 -0800

I predict the phrase 'taking myself to meta' will soon become the euphemism du jour for onanists everywhere.

By: crasspastor

crasspastor — Mon, 10 Dec 2001 21:32:41 -0800

You're taking an awful lot of liberties here Zachary. If you grated on my nerves as much as certain other incessant posters and commenters I'd never have clicked on the link. But < drops to knees>I like pretty much everything you ever do around here < /drops to knees> < /slurp>

Wait. . .would I ever make a front page zachsmind post?

Jesus Christ Zach! Clean yourself up.

By: mathowie

mathowie — Mon, 10 Dec 2001 21:32:41 -0800

The link went to an old post that had little to do with your more comment. It was something more appropriate to the weblog category of metatalk, if it was rewritten.

By: mattpfeff

mattpfeff — Mon, 10 Dec 2001 21:32:56 -0800

apparently not. I was laughing too hard.... oh well.

By: sylloge

sylloge — Mon, 10 Dec 2001 21:33:22 -0800

> I'm simply trying to ...

Call attention to yourself?
Create a nonsense controversy so you can perpetuate your persecution complex?
Get yourself into the member-who-must-get-mentioned-in-at-least-50%-of-all-threads role that Miguel finally vacated?

Zach, this was just obnoxious. If you need to post kottke.org to MeFi you can at least wait for someone else to create the MeTa thread.

By: perplexed

perplexed — Mon, 10 Dec 2001 21:36:42 -0800

In case you were wondering what the post was.

Click me.

By: ZachsMind

ZachsMind — Mon, 10 Dec 2001 21:42:20 -0800

So the fact he's listed as one of the top 100 sites in a magazine is not interesting and thought provoking? I find that hard to believe. Particularly how Kottke.org, while an impressive blog and one of the better ones out there, is not necessarily THE best blog on the planet. I think this deserves more attention than being sequestered to "general weblog related." I'm not just talking about kottke here. I'm talking about a magazine that claims to have its pulse on the Internet and is only recently getting a handle on weblogs? They practically missed the online diary thing entirely, and barely give weblogs lip service.

I would also like to point out that when I find a topic of interest and post it, and have absolutely no unwritten rule faux pas potential whatsoever, at best I am ignored.

Case In Point.

There's simply no pleasing you people.

By: ZachsMind

ZachsMind — Mon, 10 Dec 2001 21:47:56 -0800

Matt? It was not an old post. The [more] was a quote from a magazine that just came out. I also didn't just post to the domain name. The link referred to the entry that got him recognition from Yahoo Internet Life, where Jason listed other websites featuring personal reactions to the WTC incident. I feel he deserved this attention, but Yahoo Internet Life is also showing their short-sightedness in regards to weblogs. They admitted in the piece that they didn't know about Kottke prior to 911, yet they claim to know what's going on with the Internet. It's hilarious. This is funny, and thought provoking, and deleting the thread is an insulting, knee-jerk reaction.

By: crasspastor

crasspastor — Mon, 10 Dec 2001 21:49:07 -0800

I was just being a smart-ass. I couldn't give a shit actually. Zach? Zach?

God you're hot.

Seriously though. . .I need to get out of this house!

By: chaz

chaz — Mon, 10 Dec 2001 21:55:05 -0800

However there are people here in MeFi who, were I to post a link announcing that a city in France just turned mauve mysteriously for no unforseen reason and this is causing general consternation among that city's populous, people would complain about how it wasn't interesting enough or that perhaps I should have posted it while standing on my head

bullshit. this is the fairest community I've ever seen, and i've seen a lot. you sink or swim here on your posts, if they're good, someone will say so. If they're not, they won't. If they're really bad, they might respond with hostility.

It's the same rules for everyone, no one has a grudge against you, end of story. This thread is a waste of time but I felt the need to respond because it's beyond annoying.

By: ZachsMind

ZachsMind — Mon, 10 Dec 2001 22:03:31 -0800

Chaz I've looked through my old contributions to this site and I admit I by no means am up for any awards of greatness, but there is a consistency of either saying something bad or saying nothing at all among the MeFi community. The links I find are things that interest me which I feel compelled to share with others, thinking others might find them interesting as well.

I tried to make this point in another MeTa thread earlier: if you don't personally find a post of interest to you, ignore it. I prefer being ignored to being raked over hot coals regularly just for participating.

My sin is participating. Bite me.

By: Doug

Doug — Mon, 10 Dec 2001 22:23:35 -0800

It's not that you're participating that annoys people, Zach, it's how. Your post was a troll, and you know it.

"the obligatory monthly Jason Kottke MeFi FPP"

I wish Matt hadn't deleted the post, so that people could see how little it resembles the way you're now describing it.

Maybe if you'd taken a little more time in wording your post (and not tried to be sarcastically funny, which everyone interpreted, right or wrong, as you being obnoxious), we wouldn't be having this discussion. Or maybe you just like to be the center of attention?

By: judith

judith — Mon, 10 Dec 2001 22:46:10 -0800

They admitted in the piece that they didn't know about Kottke prior to 911, yet they claim to know what's going on with the Internet.

this is shocking!

By: owillis

owillis — Mon, 10 Dec 2001 23:42:09 -0800

Jiminy Christmas, I'll get the cross and y'all get the nails -- 'cause somebody sure wants to be crucified.

By: skallas

skallas — Tue, 11 Dec 2001 00:14:42 -0800

I think posting in a way that seems antagonistic was a poor start Zach.

Lately it seems Zach has been doing nothing but annoying testing the limits of metafilter. He likes people to disagree with him and he's becoming more disagreable and antagonistic to the point where I just ignore him. Shame, he used to be a decent contributor.

By: anildash

anildash — Tue, 11 Dec 2001 00:35:13 -0800

Dear J Ko, I am sorry your popularity died.

By: stavrosthewonderchicken

stavrosthewonderchicken — Tue, 11 Dec 2001 02:16:34 -0800

*Gives whatnotever a cookie*

By: headspace

headspace — Tue, 11 Dec 2001 03:18:36 -0800

I would also like to point out that when I find a topic of interest and post it, and have absolutely no unwritten rule faux pas potential whatsoever, at best I am ignored.

If you don't personally find a post of interest to you, ignore it. I prefer being ignored to being raked over hot coals regularly just for participating.

You really can't have it both ways. Choose "feeling snubbed" or "feeling persecuted," but please choose something. As someone who posts random obscurities to MeFi, I'm just happy if I haven't accidentally double posted. Nobody knows my name, I will not show up in Glassdog's next opus about Matt, but I still get just as much out of MetaFilter as the imaginary cabal must. Comfort yourself with the thought (provable by my referrer logs): Just because people don't comment in great volumes doesn't mean they don't read.

By: MiguelCardoso

MiguelCardoso — Tue, 11 Dec 2001 03:34:36 -0800

Get yourself into the member-who-must-get-mentioned-in-at-least-50%-of-all-threads role that Miguel finally vacated?

Yeah! Get your own role, you thieving magpie!

By: Carol Anne

Carol Anne — Tue, 11 Dec 2001 03:56:20 -0800

Reminds me of: "The well-balanced [x] has a chip on each shoulder!"

By: Dagobert

Dagobert — Tue, 11 Dec 2001 06:26:06 -0800

Getting harder to separate the wheat from the chaff.

I am reminded of the old adage: Just because I don't laugh doesn't mean I don't understand it.

By: TacoConsumer

TacoConsumer — Tue, 11 Dec 2001 18:10:56 -0800

TacoConsumer must die... no, wait...