Writing posts that adhere to MF style/content rules

October 19, 2007 12:03 AM

I have a question about Metafilter post content/style. I've just had a post deleted and can't understand why even though there was a brief explanation given.

I've asked for a more detailed one fr. the mod. But I wanted to ask more experienced hands here to look at my post & tell me if the post violated Metafilter format/etiquette, how it could've been worded in order to to adhere to such a format.

I'm not even conceding that this post did violate any guidelines since I've looked them over & I don't see any problem. But I'd be curious what others have to say. I have a sneaking suspicion that the person who deleted it merely didn't like the views I expressed though that of course wasn't the reason given for the deletion.

And if you'd rather e mail directly rather than use the forum pls. do via my profile.

posted by richards1052 to etiquette/policy at 12:03 AM (94 comments total)

The post reads more like a blog than a Metafilter post. It seems the point of the post is your opinion more than the link. These are bad things around here. If you really think that a similar yet pro-Bush post would not have been deleted, then I'm not sure what to tell you. Well, except that you would be wrong.
posted by Bookhouse at 12:23 AM on October 19, 2007

Editorializing in the FPP is frowned upon: the point of the post should be to bring attention to something on the web, not to post your own thoughts ("GYOFB"). I think a bit of editorializing in the "more inside" is more acceptable, but the post still needs to be strong enough to stand on its own without that.
posted by hattifattener at 12:27 AM on October 19, 2007

That kind of post is sometimes referred to as "AxeGrindFilter".
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 12:31 AM on October 19, 2007

Huh? I thought Bush had already declared the GWOT to be WWIII.
posted by Effigy2000 at 12:37 AM on October 19, 2007

Here are a couple other posts that set a biased tone for comments to follow. The deletion reasons for those might help clarify why your post was deleted. Here's a post about Iran that didn't get deleted.
posted by Locative at 12:49 AM on October 19, 2007

It's kind of a gestalt thing:
1) Iran
2) Bush
3) One link
4) 3 paragraph opinion
5) No LOL-cats

Neither one is a really a "rule breaker" but each successive one sets the bar higher and higher for you. (And hello!)
posted by Jofus at 12:53 AM on October 19, 2007

Single link posts better be to a really compelling, interesting or funny link. The article you link to is another in a long line of "look, Bush is lying again". Something that anybody with a functional frontal lobe already knows.

And, yeah, don't editorialize on the blue. It's bad form.
posted by doctor_negative at 12:58 AM on October 19, 2007

I think your question is basically answered here by everyone.

But perhaps (after reading good post, bad post, guidelines) a little snip (moreso, anyway) about not over-editorialising needs to be added?
posted by peacay at 1:01 AM on October 19, 2007

MeFi is not for editorializing FPPs. The link is pretty weak, too, but it would have stood a much better chance of sliding by if you hadn't made it a podium for your views.
posted by Joseph Gurl at 1:11 AM on October 19, 2007

Your post essentially read, "look at this guy, he sure is acting like an asshole isn't he?" which is not an appropriate tone. You're supposed to be pointing us to good things to read, not stating your opinion on the matter. And despite how it seems to have been recently, the label newsfilter was originally a derogatory word -- there are hundreds of things in the news each day so just the mere fact that something happened doesn't necessarily mean it would make a good post.
posted by Rhomboid at 1:11 AM on October 19, 2007 [1 favorite]

Oh and as to:

I have a sneaking suspicion that the person who deleted it merely didn't like the views I expressed though that of course wasn't the reason given for the deletion.

That is complete nonsense. Cortex just happened to be the first to arrive at the scene, because it's pretty obvious that any of them would have deleted it without much deliberation.
posted by Rhomboid at 1:19 AM on October 19, 2007

Wow, you seem to have fallen down a very dark, deep well.

People have a way of stating the obvious, sometimes.

Why editorialize in your posts? Just present the links. There's usually plenty of room to opine in threads.
posted by loquacious at 2:17 AM on October 19, 2007

"I have a sneaking suspicion that the person who deleted it merely didn't like the views I expressed though that of course wasn't the reason given for the deletion."

If this stays open I bet practically no one shows up and claims this was a good post that should have stayed. The heavy editorializing alone was enough to doom the post.
posted by Mitheral at 2:33 AM on October 19, 2007

Congratulations! You've hit K3 and K4 in your MeTa post here.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 2:44 AM on October 19, 2007 [3 favorites]

You know who else's posts set a biased tone for comments to follow? (The answer being anyone who over-editorialises from an entirely partisan position) However this post is not vastly different to your first FPP, which did fine, so I don't think you can be blamed for getting this one wrong.
posted by roofus at 2:53 AM on October 19, 2007

Posts are supposed to be links to the best of the web. News items are sometimes tolerated, but not encouraged. Getting on a soapbox and telling us how you feel is not tolerated.
posted by knave at 3:10 AM on October 19, 2007 [2 favorites]

I think cortex has summed up the problems with the post perfectly in the explanation for the deletion.
posted by fire&wings at 3:16 AM on October 19, 2007

The difference between the greybeards post and this one:

The letter in the good post was noteworthy, it had impressive names attached and it's about a major world issue. You presented it without attaching your personal opinion. You framed the issue. It was good – it had to be! Normally one-link Israel/Palestine posts would get instantly deleted because it's often just going to make people mad.

The bad post starts off, first word, with your opinion: "dishonorable". Rhetorical questions are also practically always a sign that you're doing it wrong. On top of that, it requires more framing than you gave it. Single links to news need some meat, unless it is a very special event.

Admittedly the US president discussing WW3 is scary as hell, but we can all read the news ourselves, so unless you have something special to link to about it, it's not going to fly as an FPP.

Metafilter is not your blog, it is not a platform; it is a place to link to other parts of the internet. If you would like to express your own personal opinions, you need to either get your own personal blog, or post it in a comment to a (good) post.
posted by blacklite at 3:25 AM on October 19, 2007 [1 favorite]

As a rule of thumb, if your post contains the word "I", there's a fair chance it's heading in the wrong direction. MetaFilter posts are about the links, not about the poster.
posted by chrismear at 3:25 AM on October 19, 2007 [3 favorites]

In fact, I see that you already have got YOFB on the exact topic of your post. As others have said, MeFi isn't a place to recreate your own blog posts.
posted by patricio at 3:35 AM on October 19, 2007

um, this is the part where you call everyone a bunch of hypocritical bush lovers, declare metafilter to be a hidden enclave of rabid republicanism, sputter some spittle about censorship and then say goodbye forever. then we engage in a thorough corpse-raping for 600 comments or so.

*sigh*

can't you do anything right?
posted by quonsar at 3:51 AM on October 19, 2007 [3 favorites]

I have a Bush. In my pants.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 3:56 AM on October 19, 2007 [1 favorite]

I'm trying to imagine what an unthorough corpse-raping might be. It seems like a category so distant from any central point on a continuum of human behaviour that characterising it as thorough or not seems almost superfluous. Perhaps one needs to roger the eye sockets to qualify as thorough?

Or maybe one needs to follow Dracula's line in that 80s schlock movie 'Blood for Dracula', where a slow closeup scene shows the nearly orgasmic protagonist methodically slit open the corpse's abdomen following which his assistant, Otto, lowers one end of the table while Dracula unzips and mounts his anatomical conquest and the table is brought back to the horizontal as Dracula says:
"To know life Otto, you have to fuck death in ze gallbladder"
(with Transylvanian accent of course)
That. That would be a thorough raping, no doubt.
posted by peacay at 4:03 AM on October 19, 2007 [2 favorites]

"To know life Otto, you have to fuck death in ze gallbladder"

Oh I love you, man -- that was one of the eleventy-million quotes me and my gang of swell drinking pals would pull out back in the day to make each other laugh, and I'd totally forgotten it after all these these diaspora years. Yay!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:10 AM on October 19, 2007

Dude, peacay. Flesh for Frankenstein! They're almost the same ('70s) movie, though.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 4:40 AM on October 19, 2007

I have a sneaking suspicion that the person who deleted it merely didn't like the views I expressed though that of course wasn't the reason given for the deletion.

This makes me think you're either a baby or a douchebag.
posted by OmieWise at 4:43 AM on October 19, 2007 [1 favorite]

kFORb, I admit I hesitated. Should have checked. John Carpenter movies weren't they? Anyway, you'll allow me my day's allowance of poetic license on the switcheroo. Or I'll ream your foramen magnum when you're gone. If not before.
posted by peacay at 4:55 AM on October 19, 2007

I have a Bush. In my pants.

I refer you to this askme.
posted by probablysteve at 5:33 AM on October 19, 2007

kFORb, I admit I hesitated. Should have checked. John Carpenter movies weren't they? Anyway, you'll allow me my day's allowance of poetic license on the switcheroo. Or I'll ream your foramen magnum when you're gone. If not before.

Heh heh! I have to check, but I think both movies are Paul Morrissey, who was some variety of Andy Warhol hanger-on (Blood was at one point retitled Andy Warhol's Dracula, and I think Flesh for Frankenstein got the same treatment).
posted by kittens for breakfast at 5:49 AM on October 19, 2007

The number of first-person singular pronouns used in a post is almost always inversely proportional to the quality of the post to the community at large.
posted by beaucoupkevin at 5:53 AM on October 19, 2007

Single link posts better be to a really compelling, interesting or funny link.

This is nonsense. Single link posts are, in the opinion of many, likely to be better than multilink extravaganzas; they certainly are not held to some higher standard.

richards1052: I trust you've gotten the essential points by now, but yeah, as soon as I started reading your post it was clear it was doomed. MeFi is not about propagandizing, it's about sharing cool links. Stick around and pay attention to the kind of posts that people compliment; you'll get the picture. Good luck!
posted by languagehat at 6:11 AM on October 19, 2007 [1 favorite]

Oh yeah. You're right I'm sure. The depth of my knowledge is obviously inversely proportional to the magnitude of my search laziness. Always good value at home - long drawn out arguments which the web or a book would quickly decide but you keep on speculating because it's more funner.
posted by peacay at 6:13 AM on October 19, 2007

pay attention to the kind of posts that people compliment

dear god no
posted by matteo at 6:15 AM on October 19, 2007 [2 favorites]

Single link posts better be to a really compelling, interesting or funny link.
I would say this is true. It's just that multilink posts should also better include really compelling, interesting, or funny links.
posted by Wolfdog at 6:57 AM on October 19, 2007

richards1052, folks in the thread here have done a pretty great job of elaborating on the problem with the post. Mefi is not your blog; soapboxing very rarely works well; and the bar for posts about news need to be a bit higher, and the presentation better, than what you managed with that post.

I have a sneaking suspicion that the person who deleted it merely didn't like the views I expressed though that of course wasn't the reason given for the deletion.

Politics have nothing to do with it. If the guy that aggrieved posters have accused me of being ever met me in a political debate, we'd have a pretty tremendous argument, I can tell you that. I can and do agree with people and still delete their posts when they're bad for Metafilter.
posted by cortex at 7:06 AM on October 19, 2007

Please find us some interesting links.
posted by caddis at 7:15 AM on October 19, 2007

This makes me think you're either a baby or a douchebag.

Don't rule out a baby douchebag. They make the worst FPPs.
posted by mullacc at 7:17 AM on October 19, 2007 [1 favorite]

The deletion reason given was perfectly clear:

A thin newsfilter link as the premise for a three paragraph statement of personal opinion is pretty much exactly the wrong way to make a post to Metafilter.

Are you really to thick to understand that, or did you just want to get more exposure for your editorial?
posted by timeistight at 7:29 AM on October 19, 2007

perhaps...a little snip...about not over-editorialising needs to be added?

I'll second that; it should be added to the "tips about content" section on the good posts page of the wiki and added to the guidelines as well.

As a rule of thumb, if your post contains the word "I", there's a fair chance it's heading in the wrong direction.

Worth seeing again.

Also, richards1052, for slightly less axe-grindy posts, try finding a quote from the linked article that expresses your opinion rather than editorializing yourself. Not everyone will agree with you, but if you pull the strong opinion from the article itself, the disagreement will be aimed at the content, not at the poster for inserting himself into the discussion in such a juvenile way.
posted by mediareport at 7:34 AM on October 19, 2007

metatalk: nursing the baby douchebag
posted by quonsar at 7:34 AM on October 19, 2007 [1 favorite]

Don't rule out a baby douchebag. They make the worst FPPs.

But they're so adorable!
posted by kittens for breakfast at 7:47 AM on October 19, 2007

richards1052, I think the error here is that you feel the issues and news in the link you posted is really, really important, but that doesn't automatically make it worthy of being a good post. Something can be vitally important and still not get posted here.
posted by mathowie at 7:51 AM on October 19, 2007

Don't listen to them, richards1052! It's a vast conspiracy to crush the truth! This cortex fellow is Karl Rove's frontman. In a diabolical role-reversal, Rove is the deformed gnome, while his flunky cortex is normal-looking. More or less. Anyway, the right-wing cabal that pulls the MetaFilter strings will never allow a post that spills the overthought beans!
posted by Kirth Gerson at 7:56 AM on October 19, 2007

"I'm trying to imagine what an unthorough corpse-raping might be."

The current defense of Orange Taylor III, accused of murdering Laura Dickenson at Eastern Michigan University, is that he found her in her dorm room dead, then jerked off onto her corpse. That's how his semen got on her.

Or, the unthorough corpse-raping defense.
posted by klangklangston at 8:14 AM on October 19, 2007 [3 favorites]

This cortex fellow is Karl Rove's frontman.

Someone actually said almost precisely that in an accusatory email a while back. Of all the things I didn't expect from adminhood, being taken for a skulking Bushie ranks damned high.
posted by cortex at 8:27 AM on October 19, 2007 [1 favorite]

On the other hand, wouldn't Skulking Bushie be a great band name?

/DaveBarry
posted by yhbc at 8:30 AM on October 19, 2007

Skulking Bushie was a great album.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 8:31 AM on October 19, 2007

Heh, commish.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 8:32 AM on October 19, 2007

cortex, was the email from Lou Dobbs? He seems to think Bush is a liberal. A "a one-world neo-liberal," in fact.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 8:44 AM on October 19, 2007

I'm trying to imagine what an unthorough corpse-raping might be.

So am I, my dear. So am I.
posted by The corpse in the library at 9:02 AM on October 19, 2007 [3 favorites]

teehee!
posted by taz at 9:36 AM on October 19, 2007

in an accusatory email a while back

I smell a new subsite...
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 10:03 AM on October 19, 2007

I have a sneaking suspicion that the person who deleted it merely didn't like the views I expressed though that of course wasn't the reason given for the deletion.

I have a sneaking suspicion that you think that admins are annoying people blocking your way in your quest for exposure on the MetaFilter front page. In case you haven't noticed yet, admins are professionals whose job is to protect the coolness and integrity of the place.

Calling for the opinion of "more experienced hands" is not only bad manners (admins are the more experienced hands around here), it shows that you have absolutely no idea where you are, how it works and why it works so beautifully.

If you were on a forum where I am an admin, I would question your right to post in a community that you obviously don't understand.
posted by bru at 10:05 AM on October 19, 2007

I'm pretty sure he meant "more" experienced relative to hisself, not to the admins, you baby douchebag.
posted by found missing at 10:08 AM on October 19, 2007

What found missing said, except for the baby douchebag part which he only said because he's such a baby douchebag.

Seriously, "baby douchebag" is a pretty weird image when you actually think about it.
posted by cortex at 10:10 AM on October 19, 2007

A douchebag for a baby? Or a douchebag that is a baby?

Or a douchebag in the shape of a baby, perhaps?
posted by koeselitz at 10:27 AM on October 19, 2007 [1 favorite]

It's a kaleidoscope of madness!
posted by cortex at 10:34 AM on October 19, 2007 [1 favorite]

"Douching With A Baby" is going to be the name of my new death-metal band.
posted by koeselitz at 10:35 AM on October 19, 2007

*Prepares picket signs*
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 10:39 AM on October 19, 2007

As they all have said: it's an editorial.

However, it is true that some other somewhat editorial posts do stick. "I just love the music of Mom's Musty Handbag, and here is a link and here is another link and I saw them in concert in 1976 and here is a link to the video." That's more likely to stay, even though it's in the first person, as long as there are no self-links. The difference in tone seems obvious to me, but I can't describe it offhand.

A style-related personal story:

I once posted something about a mom being convicted over a piercing gone wrong, and ended the post with "What are your piercing / tattoo experiences?" which now I see was probably not the best way to wrap it up, since it could have turned the thread into a deleted mess.
posted by The Deej at 10:49 AM on October 19, 2007

But I'd be curious what others have to say. I have a sneaking suspicion that the person who deleted it merely didn't like the views I expressed though that of course wasn't the reason given for the deletion.

Oh, FFS. Your user account dates back two years, have you not read the site at all during that time?

Clearly, your post was deleted not because of its content, but because Power-Mad Cortex thinks you're a horrible person. I suspect that at this very moment HE'S HACKING INTO YOUR COMPUTER.
posted by mkultra at 10:51 AM on October 19, 2007

This has also been getting done to death for two solid days. It's been all over Digg, reddit, and every big lefty blog (Raw Story, Crooks and Liars, Think Progress... hell, I'd challenge you to come up with a prominent left-wing blog that didn't cover it.)

There are very few explicit guidelines for posting here (the Guidleines could really be beefed up, in my opinion, with some brief discussion of things like Opinionfilter), which is why we get the joy of one god damned deletion complaint after another on Metatalk. Nevertheless, front-page over-editorializing (particularly on an otherwise thin post) gets deleted frequently on all sides of the political spectrum. And while the image of cortex as the wild-eyed conservative censor of Metafilter was good for a laugh, it doesn't change the fact that accusing him of grinding a personal axe (the irony) in his editing choices was an asshole move.
posted by nanojath at 10:51 AM on October 19, 2007

I suspect that at this very moment HE'S HACKING INTO YOUR COMPUTER.

cortex works for hotmail?
posted by timeistight at 10:57 AM on October 19, 2007 [3 favorites]

“Also, richards1052, for slightly less axe-grindy posts, try finding a quote from the linked article that expresses your opinion rather than editorializing yourself. Not everyone will agree with you, but if you pull the strong opinion from the article itself, the disagreement will be aimed at the content, not at the poster for inserting himself into the discussion in such a juvenile way.”

Hmm. That implies that the real, underlying problem is “inserting yourself into the discussion in such a juvenile way” and thus doing it in an adult way is okay. Why does using a quote make a difference? No, what's actually wrong with these posts is that MeFi posts aren't opinion pieces, they're not supposed to be opportunities to display what you think about something, to orate, to argue, or to persuade. They're supposed to be something interesting to the MeFi community.

Obscuring that you're making a GYOBF type post doesn't make it acceptable. In a way, it makes it worse.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 11:08 AM on October 19, 2007

Yeah, way too much editorializing in the original FPP. The accepted method:

Post the newsfilter link, with no editorializing. Bring in your second, sockpuppet account and go off on a complete rant, editorializing to the nth degree, after a few comments have posted.

Naturally, someone (I'm thinking EB or languagehat) will sit down and write a thoughtful, measured response to the over-the-top editorializing. Others, without worrying about such superfluous nonsense as "facts" and "civility" will gleefully join in on one side of the other, egging each of you on arbitrarily, continuously contributing fuel to the fire in the hopes of a spectacular flameout from your sockpuppet.

At some point during the tirade, an ADDITIONAL post will show up here in Metatalk, either:

1. Defending the pitifully overwhelmed special snowflake sockpuppet's right to editorialize on the blue without being attacked by all you meanies and hey, why can't we all be friends around here anyway?

OR

2. Demanding the immediate closure of your original post, banning of the sockpuppet account from Mefi for all eternity, the annihilation of your friends, your family, your family's friends and your friends' families.

Either way, the comments will go on ad infinitum, the favorites start piling up, and Bob's your uncle, you've got a successful post!
posted by misha at 11:09 AM on October 19, 2007

Gosh, you sound cynical, misha. Here, have a piece of pie.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 11:13 AM on October 19, 2007 [2 favorites]

"cortex, was the email from Lou Dobbs? He seems to think Bush is a liberal. A "a one-world neo-liberal," in fact."

Well, he is, kinda.

As with anything political, it's complicated, but "neo-liberal" is generally used by folks in developing nations to describe the "free marketeering" and pro-globalization forces. Bush does, as many Republicans (and Clintonian Democrats) favor easing restrictions on trade, broadly. He'll get all protectionist when voters get threatened by the movement of trade (like the steel workers in Pennsylvania), and he's a moderate regarding immigration (to truly be on the neo-liberal fringe, you should allow anyone to move wherever they please). But "neo-liberal" is most often applied to the Breton Woods organizations (IMF and WTO), which Bush supports. But he also supports subsidies here that undermine the free-trade ideology.

One of my biggest beefs with Kerry was that he was, in my opinion, needlessly oppositional to modifying trade restrictions (especially subsidies), which seemed primarily to give a rhetorical distinction between himself and Bush.
posted by klangklangston at 11:16 AM on October 19, 2007

Why do I doubt he'll ever even come back to read all this wonderful cortex-love, much less respond in a proper flameout?

Only enthusiastically raped baby douche bags start a flameout thread, then walk away without a single comment posted.
posted by nomisxid at 11:17 AM on October 19, 2007

Oh, ps— The "liberal" in "neo-liberal" refers to "liberalizing" or "opening up" trade, and the traditional "liberal" (here "libertarian") position of eschewing governmental interference in markets. It makes a lot more sense abroad, where they don't have the American baggage on "liberal."
posted by klangklangston at 11:18 AM on October 19, 2007

That totally could've made for a good post if used to explore how nations have used the threat of nuclear proliferation domestically, the historical/international effects of 'getting the bomb', etc.

As it was, it was weak-tea NewsFilter presented with a lethal dose of personal rhetoric. And criticizing the administration is something up which with we here at MetaFilter shall not put.
The admins, on the other hand...
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 11:21 AM on October 19, 2007

He's been a member for two years, but the only comments he has ever posted were made a half-hour before he made his first FPP a few days ago. Giving him the benefit of the doubt, I'd say he's just an axe-grinder. With less benefit and more doubt, I'd say he's trying to drive traffic to his blog.
posted by mzurer at 11:28 AM on October 19, 2007

“to truly be on the neo-liberal fringe, you should allow anyone to move wherever they please”

Ah, it's nice over here on the fringe. Oddly, I'd just finished reading a NYT piece on Polish immigration to Britain, which has worked out very well.

Scene: Beach at Sunset

“Mom, can I ask you a question?”

“Yes, dear?”

“Remember when I was a baby and you douched my little baby vagina twenty times a day?”

“Uh-huh.”

“I was wondering...WHY ARE YOU SO FUCKING CRAZY YOU FREAKY BITCH!?”

*Daughter begins hammering on mother's face.*

Massengill: Not Just For Grown-Ups
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 11:30 AM on October 19, 2007 [2 favorites]

Does your baby ever have that not so fresh feeling?

this thread has taken a disturbing turn
posted by found missing at 11:37 AM on October 19, 2007

"Ah, it's nice over here on the fringe. Oddly, I'd just finished reading a NYT piece on Polish immigration to Britain, which has worked out very well."

I have more practical reservations about it than political or ideological, but I recognize that my position is not the mainstream, even among neo-liberals.
posted by klangklangston at 11:41 AM on October 19, 2007

Are we making baby douche jokes? Excellent. Let me go get some tea, and I'll tell you some great ones.
posted by dios at 12:05 PM on October 19, 2007

I didn't even know it was a genre.
posted by found missing at 12:15 PM on October 19, 2007

Don't make posts to political news at all. There are political sites on the net where you can ride your hobby horse to your hearts content.
posted by LarryC at 12:20 PM on October 19, 2007 [1 favorite]

I don't know which is worse, that y'all are making baby douche jokes or that I'm really disappointed that someone already made the one I wanted to make.
posted by Bookhouse at 12:24 PM on October 19, 2007

Let me go get some tea

code for "used vinegar-and-water solution"
posted by Hat Maui at 12:41 PM on October 19, 2007

A douchebag for a baby? Or a douchebag that is a baby?

Or for douching the baby out. A month-after bag if you will.
posted by and hosted from Uranus at 12:44 PM on October 19, 2007

What I'm wondering, really, and maybe somebody from R & D can help me out here, because I think I see a real avenue for profit here, but would it be possible to... well, here, let me draw this out on the dry-erase board here...

ABORTED FETUSES

...which will be in high supply, right? I mean, because of all the abortions people are getting now and everything. So it's not like there'll be a huge overhead there. Anyway, it's like...

ABORTED FETUSES -> REMOVAL OF ENTRAILS, TOUGHENING OF SKIN

...shouldn't be too tough, I mean, they're pretty, er, flexible, right? Pretty soft? So maybe somebody can do a study on that. Anyway, then...

ABORTED FETUSES -> REMOVAL OF ENTRAILS, TOUGHENING OF SKIN + GOOD MARKETING

...and I've got some ideas on that that I'll get to in a moment, we just build up some urgency around cleaning the vaginas of youngsters, which is easy, since it's easy to make people think things are dirty down there...

ABORTED FETUSES -> REMOVAL OF ENTRAILS, TOUGHENING OF SKIN + GOOD MARKETING = BABY DOUCHEBAG

...see? Because it's a douchebag made of babies, but it's also for babies. In fact, I felt like that might be a good tagline we could work with, something like Baby Douchebag: Made Of Babies, For Babies. Or maybe take the humanitarian angle, really get them emotionally involved, maybe hit them with Baby Douchebag: The One You Didn't Keep Can Clean The One You Did. There are a lot of ways to spin this, anyway, and we can lock up the anti-abortionists through the "vaginas are dirty, dirty, dirty" angles, while the pro-choicers, well, everybody knows that their vaginas are filthy, so marketing will just be a matter of education there.

Anyway, I see a lot of potential here. I can call my ex-girlfriend and put together a mockup for tomorrow if we all feel like this would be worth pursuing. What does everybody else think?

*crickets*
posted by koeselitz at 1:16 PM on October 19, 2007 [1 favorite]

Great plan, koeselitz. Good luck with it.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 1:51 PM on October 19, 2007

Rule of thumb: any metafilter fpp that includes the word "I" is probably not a good one. If you have an opinion about the link, put it in a comment. If you think the FPP is pointless without your editorializing, you're right. And it's also pointless with it.
posted by empath at 2:17 PM on October 19, 2007

You're just part of the problem, cortex. Just flippin' admit it already.
posted by rudster at 3:14 PM on October 19, 2007 [1 favorite]

er, Richard, are you gonna respond to all this feedback?
posted by five fresh fish at 5:49 PM on October 19, 2007

Congratulations! You've hit K3 and K4 in your MeTa post here.

I would just like to say *something really nasty* to DevilsAdvocate for posting the above which in turn led me to the ban-me-or-psychics-don't-exist thread — trust me, don't look it up — which turned out to be the waste of an entire hour on a nearly-entertainingless thread discussion subject matter.

So here it is:

DevilsAdvocate, I believe your name does you justice.

I feel as if I have been newly exposed to a variant form of goatse. Bloatse.]
posted by humannaire at 7:19 PM on October 19, 2007

“Douching With A Baby”

Is that what they're calling childbirth nowadays?
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 7:22 PM on October 19, 2007 [1 favorite]

I suspect that at this very moment HE'S HACKING INTO YOUR COMPUTER.

OMG, mkultra is reklaw?!
posted by humannaire at 7:31 PM on October 19, 2007

I think cortex has summed up the problems with the post perfectly in the explanation for the deletion.

Yeah, I thought so too. A very clear and cogent deletion reason, that was.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 7:54 PM on October 19, 2007

what some others said--leave out your thoughts on it or phrase them less personally--a link to the lies about Iraq or to something pointing out the similarities in the sales job would have helped too

(more importantly from that press conf, i thought, was that the standard for attack is now "possessing or trying to attain the knowledge to someday build nukes", not "having the capacity to build nukes"--a much lower standard that every non-nuke country is guilty of)
posted by amberglow at 1:06 PM on October 20, 2007

Aren't we all just a little bit reklaw? And a bit rock and roll?
posted by mkultra at 1:06 PM on October 20, 2007

Thanks for the pie, EB!
posted by misha at 3:15 PM on October 22, 2007

My pleasure. I always like pie after a good movie.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 6:44 AM on October 23, 2007

And there goes the sequel. richards1052, if you do come back in here, what I said upthread about the last post pretty much perfectly applies point-for-point to this one, too:

Mefi is not your blog; soapboxing very rarely works well; and the bar for posts about news need to be a bit higher, and the presentation better, than what you managed with that post.

It doesn't seem like that's really sunk in.
posted by cortex at 6:20 AM on November 2, 2007