Why was my post about someone having sex with a goat deleted?

February 7, 2002 6:19 PM

Why is a post about someone having sex with a goat not worthy of discussion. The story had everything - intrigue, surpise, excitement, passion, shock, and much more. I know why it was delete - because mat thought it was 'sophmoric' to post something like that - well I didn't post it in a sophmoric manner, I posted it because it is a very interesting story. I have never heard of anything like it in my life. It makes me wonder whether you even bother to read past the headline before cracking the sensorship whip.
posted by RobertLoch to Etiquette/Policy at 6:19 PM (21 comments total)

Check the MeFi sidebar... Mr Haughey seems to have had enough. (Not soon enough for me!)
posted by Marquis at 6:23 PM on February 7, 2002

it is a very interesting story

It was a guy who was seen having sex with a goat! Please tell me how that is at all interesting. Should I run a poll? Are you honestly going to sit here and defend a wacky news link about a guy shagging an animal?

you even bother to read past the headline

I read the entire thing. Guy has sex with a goat, people on a train saw and called the police, guy walking his dog also called the cops. Did I miss something?

Maybe you didn't read the article, here's the synopsis: guy has sex with goat, gets caught, the end.

before cracking the sensorship whip.

99% of the people that email me personally say I should delete more things on the site. I occasionally ax the utterly pointless things (I think there were 3 today: this, the thing about the finger, the train/car wreck). I'm saying either post them to your own site or put them on Fark.com, not here. If you find the deletion of completely dumb things offensive, you're welcome to start your own blog or find somewhere more fitting.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 6:32 PM on February 7, 2002 [1 favorite]

The story was deemed news worth by a British national paper read by 3 million people and was featured on a BBC programme watched by 10 million.

- ok, fair enough I hadn't seen that, and if I had of I wouldn't have posted it. I'll take back my previous 'sensorship whip' comment.
posted by RobertLoch at 6:32 PM on February 7, 2002

I'll take back my previous 'sensorship whip' comment.

No, please, call me MetaFührer
posted by mathowie (staff) at 6:39 PM on February 7, 2002 [2 favorites]

In defense - notwithstanding the fact that it had huge coverage in the UK today - the guys friends reaction seemed somewhat strange to me - the quote by the policeman was interesting to say the least - and one could also raise the issue of why a gay person would choose a female rather than male goat to shag. (perhaps this defense is beginning to get off base)

Anyhow you may deem the story stupid but media people and editors hugely more qualified than you deemed it news worth and of interest - and equally importantly, of interest to an adult audience, not just sophmoric individuals. Maybe the BBC director was having an off day....or maybe you make a direct link between 'wacky' and juvenile when there shouldn't be one.
posted by RobertLoch at 6:43 PM on February 7, 2002

"No, please, call me MetaFührer."

Matt a Führer?
posted by mr_crash_davis at 6:46 PM on February 7, 2002

media people and editors hugely more qualified than you

I think Matt's record shows he's clearliy hugely more qualified than they are. We're not all Murdoch fans.
posted by anildash at 6:49 PM on February 7, 2002

editors hugely more qualified than you

No one is more qualified than Matt on his own web site. He defines "qualified." Disagreeing is totally fine. Not accepting his word as final will not get you anywhere.

Matt, I think you also deleted the one about the hilarious schizophrenic.
posted by jessamyn at 6:49 PM on February 7, 2002

The story was deemed news worth by a British national paper read by 3 million people and was featured on a BBC programme watched by 10 million.

Perhaps MeFi should have higher standards than those media outlets. Just because the a BBC programme jumps off of a bridge....

Keep hacking away, Matt...gotta get MeFi down to its fighting weight.
posted by jkottke at 6:50 PM on February 7, 2002

one could also raise the issue of why a gay person would choose a female rather than male goat to shag

If you've chosen to have sex with an animal, I think you have bigger problems than questioning your own sexuality. I read it and thought it implied gay people --> perverted behavior, when this case sounded more like fucked up individual --> perverted behavior.

Anyhow you may deem the story stupid but media people and editors hugely more qualified than you

Whatever. I could also ask why someone that seems like a good writer would find this type of news thought provoking.

and equally importantly, of interest to an adult audience

I don't see any adult angle besides the beavis and butthead giggling one.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 6:53 PM on February 7, 2002

Why does this remind me of Brian Fellows Safari Planet from SNL? "He had sex with a goat? That's craaaaazy! I'm Brian Fellows!"
posted by owillis at 7:00 PM on February 7, 2002

Uhhuh huhhuhh hhh...he said 'angle'.
posted by obiwanwasabi at 7:02 PM on February 7, 2002

Besides, the BBC's audience (also mandate, goals, purpose, methods) isn't the same as MetaFilter's. This isn't simply a news show.

(BTW, if "Why is a post about someone having sex with a goat not worthy of discussion." was sarcastic, it woulda been hilarious.)
posted by Marquis at 7:18 PM on February 7, 2002

I never tried to imply that this story was funny, or did I present it as a joke. Which is kind of my point that I'm making, that sometimes people assume that because you post to something like this that you are necessarily accrediting it as funny or whatever.

I wasn't. For instance I agree with you that they were wrong to present it as a gay thing, or at least irresponsible to do so.

I suppose what I found interesting about it was that the comments made by the guy just didn't seem to fit with the event. Him saying casually that his mates had been really taking the piss out of him for doing it, as if it was just some normal embarrassing incident, struck me as very odd.

Anyhow I apologise - I'll stop posting wacky news. Also I'm glad to see that the lameness of my 'media people defense' was spotted for what it is.

Marquis - very true.



posted by RobertLoch at 7:36 PM on February 7, 2002

Also I'm glad to see that the lameness of my 'media people defense' was spotted for what it is.

and so you made that defense three times...why?

also, (honest question) is censorship spelled differently in the UK than it is here? I don't think I've seen that before.
posted by rebeccablood at 7:59 PM on February 7, 2002

I'll stop posting wacky news

Now if we could only get everyone to sign such a statement in blood when they join!
posted by daveadams at 8:09 PM on February 7, 2002

Go Matt go. If we could slow down the endless parade of news links, especially the wacky ones, the S/N ratio here would go way up.
posted by rodii at 8:13 PM on February 7, 2002

Well, although lame, it is still arguably valid. I just tend to agree with those that have been pointing out that mat is actually very good at editing this place, and certainly the best qualified to do so.

I just thought that on this occasion he'd jumped in based on a wrong assumption. Now that I've seen that he has been asking for less news of this kind, I'm happy to stand corrected.

'is censorship spelled differently in the UK' - No

'find this type of news thought provoking' I tell you there is a lot of thought provoking stuff in this. The context is just all wrong. Further to what I've already mentioned, the guy has even posed for a photo - he appears shameless.

posted by RobertLoch at 8:36 PM on February 7, 2002

Heh, S/N = signal/noise = something/nothing, I did not notice that before.... [pause for cogitation] But everything/nothing's the phrase. Still.
posted by EngineBeak at 9:52 PM on February 7, 2002

Something/Nothing is nicely analagous to Signal/Noise, of course.

Robert, it's obvious you disagreed with Matt's decision. Doesn't matter, though, cause it's Matt's decision. I think you have made your point thoroughly clear.
posted by daveadams at 7:48 AM on February 8, 2002

daveadams I don't disagree with Mat's decision. His policy (which I wasn't aware of at the time of posting) is to limit 'wacky' news posts. My post fitted that bill and therefore fair play to him for deleting it. Now that I'm up to speed, in the future I will look to posts things that better fit the style that mat wishes this place to have.

I think that it is very important that he steers this place, as without him it could go anywhere. I will certainly try not to make this task any harder than it already is for him.


posted by RobertLoch at 10:37 AM on February 8, 2002