Give the gaddamned snide comments a break! February 8, 2002 1:10 AM Subscribe
Give the gaddamned snide comments a break. It's a flippin' discussion and some tend to add anecdotals. Yes! That is what some people do. To add to DISCUSSION. Would you be like this during a conversation at the pub? To hell with being personable!
I saw nothing wrong with Zach's anecdote, but I am an anecdote kind of guy. And what else is there to say?
"I have read the WeeklyWorldNews and found it bad"
YAWN. What a snooze! I think what makes people interesting is their wide and divergent experiences. Simply stating opinion is really boring.
Jeez. Someone bothers trying to add something to a discussion and ZONK!
posted by evanizer at 1:36 AM on February 8, 2002
"I have read the WeeklyWorldNews and found it bad"
YAWN. What a snooze! I think what makes people interesting is their wide and divergent experiences. Simply stating opinion is really boring.
Jeez. Someone bothers trying to add something to a discussion and ZONK!
posted by evanizer at 1:36 AM on February 8, 2002
Almost every time someone is unnecessarily rude and gets called on it, someone else jumps to their defense, dismissing the rudeness as kindly humor. Rudeness is rudeness & in most cases (including this one) is neither warranted or necessary.
J.edwards says "no doubt it would be nice if we could stop with the snarkiness" -- well why don't we just cut out the snarkiness? cut it out, that's all it takes.
snide, snarky comments add nothing to discussion. (might I add that anecdotes do)
posted by palegirl at 2:08 AM on February 8, 2002
J.edwards says "no doubt it would be nice if we could stop with the snarkiness" -- well why don't we just cut out the snarkiness? cut it out, that's all it takes.
snide, snarky comments add nothing to discussion. (might I add that anecdotes do)
posted by palegirl at 2:08 AM on February 8, 2002
Well, see, I can't find much wrong with either comment. Zachsmind's chummy comment was chum for any snarky shark, and rodii was hungry. Both comments were interesting - the most interesting in the thread. In fact, the possibility for a squabble is what kept me tuning into an otherwise head-dead thread. Crass, my friend, this is quintessential pub repartee, and if the combatants share reasonably equal mental, physical, and emotional (st)abilities, it can be fun to watch. Often, these little tussles leap to life under boring FPPs, as if MeFi herself were investing a keep-alive behaviour into her remora.
Digital Evolution. Let it be.
posted by Opus Dark at 2:34 AM on February 8, 2002
Digital Evolution. Let it be.
posted by Opus Dark at 2:34 AM on February 8, 2002
I'm with crasspastor. It's in the guidelines, anyway. Anecdotes and personal experience are a big part of what makes MetaFilter so interesting. You know, wildly different people, ages, experiences, opinions. Rodii's comment, as I judge it, is a funny joke with that essential iota of truth without which all falls flat. It's openly satirical and self-referential as everybody tends to appropriate each thread. And that's as it should be.
I do feel, however, that practically everything is becoming forbidden on MetaFilter. You can't be in a bad mood, can't be snide, can't be sarcastic without appending tags. I hate to say this but I'm beginning to understand y6y6y6's reservations - and he's my arch-enemy, according to him.
I just wish, for a week, we'd all go back to "Anything goes" - whether personal anecdotes, overlong comments, obscenities, unfair appraisals, derailments - in the best Cole Porter, "inch of stocking" spirit. Otherwise we risk MetaFilter becoming too unbearably close for comfort. Can't say this; can't do that; shouldn't be so snarky or self-centered or thin or thick-skinned...
Give it a rest! We all enjoy MetaFilter. Threads should be judged as a whole - whether interesting or not - and not broken down into its constituent, necessarily feeble parts.
We're all in this together - allow people to be as they are, for the love of all we hold dear. Or not!
We shall be released(I wish)...
posted by MiguelCardoso at 3:46 AM on February 8, 2002
I do feel, however, that practically everything is becoming forbidden on MetaFilter. You can't be in a bad mood, can't be snide, can't be sarcastic without appending tags. I hate to say this but I'm beginning to understand y6y6y6's reservations - and he's my arch-enemy, according to him.
I just wish, for a week, we'd all go back to "Anything goes" - whether personal anecdotes, overlong comments, obscenities, unfair appraisals, derailments - in the best Cole Porter, "inch of stocking" spirit. Otherwise we risk MetaFilter becoming too unbearably close for comfort. Can't say this; can't do that; shouldn't be so snarky or self-centered or thin or thick-skinned...
Give it a rest! We all enjoy MetaFilter. Threads should be judged as a whole - whether interesting or not - and not broken down into its constituent, necessarily feeble parts.
We're all in this together - allow people to be as they are, for the love of all we hold dear. Or not!
We shall be released(I wish)...
posted by MiguelCardoso at 3:46 AM on February 8, 2002
What's wrong with snark? What's wrong with snide? Sorry, my eggshells are all smashed to smithereens.
posted by owillis at 4:03 AM on February 8, 2002
posted by owillis at 4:03 AM on February 8, 2002
~The last time I remember ever reading a snide comment on Metafilter was a decade ago when I worked in talk radio. It was sent to us for free and I was paid to read it, along with a bunch of other weblogs every morning. Part of my job was to xerox anything that the on air personalities would want to talk about on the show.
I scanned MetaFilter for maybe like one or two weeks, never found anything snide enough for our show, and dumped it in favor of real snide news articles from real snide newspapers. The free copies they sent us went straight to the trash after that. So if the MetaFilter stopped publishing tomorrow, it's ten years too late, and I couldn't care less.~
posted by iceberg273 at 4:59 AM on February 8, 2002
I scanned MetaFilter for maybe like one or two weeks, never found anything snide enough for our show, and dumped it in favor of real snide news articles from real snide newspapers. The free copies they sent us went straight to the trash after that. So if the MetaFilter stopped publishing tomorrow, it's ten years too late, and I couldn't care less.~
posted by iceberg273 at 4:59 AM on February 8, 2002
Opus : "as if MeFi herself were investing a keep-alive behaviour into her remora".
MeFi is she ? =)
(not that I mind about it, really, it's just that... oooh well..)
posted by XiBe at 6:08 AM on February 8, 2002
MeFi is she ? =)
(not that I mind about it, really, it's just that... oooh well..)
posted by XiBe at 6:08 AM on February 8, 2002
That was a cheap shot, Rodii. I hate contributing to this thread, because MetaTalk is being used these days to air grievances so small they can only be viewed with a microscope. However, his comment was on topic.
posted by rcade at 6:28 AM on February 8, 2002
posted by rcade at 6:28 AM on February 8, 2002
No it wasn't. The thread was trying to be about the particular point that WWN was making by taking (seriously or not) their content offline. Zach's comment was about how much WWN sucks, and it derailed the thread, in my opinion, into people talking about WWN in general.
This was one of three threads in a row (others: the Howard Stern thread and the (second) Tiffany thread, which seems to have deleted) that he did this in. In all of them, Zach, instead of talking about the topic that the poster raised, basically said THEY SUCK. Weekly World News sucks, Howard Stern sucks, Tiffany sucks. He said it at great length and backed up his points, but it wasn't on topic and did lead anywhere.
Look: if there was a thread on, say, a news item involving Bush, and someone basically just said BUSH SUCKS, and told a story about how he used to have to deal with Bush decisions at a job he had ten years ago, and had nothing to say about the actual news item, you all would be quick to dismiss him as a troll or a shit-stirrer. That's what Zach was about last night. EVERYTHING he posted was a grumpy, pissy rant about how much someone sucks.
I realize "on topic" is a judgment call, but I also reserve the right to make that judgment for myself. By and large, I try to be constructive here, and god knows I bite my tongue a lot, so consider this my decision to blow a couple karma points on making a point that I consider to be valid.
posted by rodii at 6:54 AM on February 8, 2002
This was one of three threads in a row (others: the Howard Stern thread and the (second) Tiffany thread, which seems to have deleted) that he did this in. In all of them, Zach, instead of talking about the topic that the poster raised, basically said THEY SUCK. Weekly World News sucks, Howard Stern sucks, Tiffany sucks. He said it at great length and backed up his points, but it wasn't on topic and did lead anywhere.
Look: if there was a thread on, say, a news item involving Bush, and someone basically just said BUSH SUCKS, and told a story about how he used to have to deal with Bush decisions at a job he had ten years ago, and had nothing to say about the actual news item, you all would be quick to dismiss him as a troll or a shit-stirrer. That's what Zach was about last night. EVERYTHING he posted was a grumpy, pissy rant about how much someone sucks.
I realize "on topic" is a judgment call, but I also reserve the right to make that judgment for myself. By and large, I try to be constructive here, and god knows I bite my tongue a lot, so consider this my decision to blow a couple karma points on making a point that I consider to be valid.
posted by rodii at 6:54 AM on February 8, 2002
Aren't you overthinking this a little? It's a link about the Weekly World News and he described his opinion of the paper in perhaps the only thread all year in which it would be appropriate. That's not quite the same as turning every Bush thread into a referendum on his suckitude.
posted by rcade at 7:17 AM on February 8, 2002
posted by rcade at 7:17 AM on February 8, 2002
The problem,as I see it, is that in any healthy and interesting community disagreeing with someone's opinion is fine and probably necessary. However, not having respect for someone's opinion and letting everyone know about it is dangerous.
Dangerous, in my opinion, because in such an atmosphere people will be less likely to talk honestly, which in turn makes for very boring and mediocre conversation. As far as taking everything in MetaFilter with "a grain of salt", I'm not sure what that means. That we should take nothing we read here seriously? That we need to parse each response for sarcasm?
I guess we all need to shake off our flame-proof suits when posting to Metafilter.
posted by jeremias at 7:23 AM on February 8, 2002
Dangerous, in my opinion, because in such an atmosphere people will be less likely to talk honestly, which in turn makes for very boring and mediocre conversation. As far as taking everything in MetaFilter with "a grain of salt", I'm not sure what that means. That we should take nothing we read here seriously? That we need to parse each response for sarcasm?
I guess we all need to shake off our flame-proof suits when posting to Metafilter.
posted by jeremias at 7:23 AM on February 8, 2002
Aren't you overthinking this a little?
Yes, no, maybe. I wasn't thinking deeply about it at all, just expressing my irritation. Last night, one thread: HOWARD STERN SUCKS. Next thread, same poster: TIFFANY SUCKS. Next thread, same poster: WEEKLY WORLD NEWS SUCKS. I mean, come on.
That's not quite the same as turning every Bush thread into a referendum on his suckitude.
There are two elements here, the poster and the thread. Case 1 is when every thread on some topic (Bush) gets derailed by somebody. That's bad. Case 2 is when one poster derails every thread he or she posts to. That's also bad. If you only look at the one thread, you don't see the whole pattern.
I don't want to beat this into the ground. It was snarky and probably unnecessary. Point taken. It was also serious. I won't apologize for that.
posted by rodii at 7:38 AM on February 8, 2002
Yes, no, maybe. I wasn't thinking deeply about it at all, just expressing my irritation. Last night, one thread: HOWARD STERN SUCKS. Next thread, same poster: TIFFANY SUCKS. Next thread, same poster: WEEKLY WORLD NEWS SUCKS. I mean, come on.
That's not quite the same as turning every Bush thread into a referendum on his suckitude.
There are two elements here, the poster and the thread. Case 1 is when every thread on some topic (Bush) gets derailed by somebody. That's bad. Case 2 is when one poster derails every thread he or she posts to. That's also bad. If you only look at the one thread, you don't see the whole pattern.
I don't want to beat this into the ground. It was snarky and probably unnecessary. Point taken. It was also serious. I won't apologize for that.
posted by rodii at 7:38 AM on February 8, 2002
This is probably obvious now, but had you mentioned the triple infraction, your comment would have made more sense. I didn't go near the Tiffany and Stern threads, so what you said appeared out of line.
posted by D at 7:43 AM on February 8, 2002
posted by D at 7:43 AM on February 8, 2002
I hate contributing to this thread
You always do, rcade. It must hurt you more than us, right? Will all due respect, you never miss a chance to be negative in a judgemental but pseudo-objective way, as if you were somehow outside MetaFilter. Can I be quite honest? You've given me the creeps ever since you offered to take MetaFilter off Matt's hands and I can only shudder at the prudish, Miss Manners-like hash you'd make of it.
What the hell do you mean by "overthinking", anyway? Perhaps you yourself should just think a bit more - say a little over your average quota - before making your holier-than-thou pronouncements.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 7:53 AM on February 8, 2002
You always do, rcade. It must hurt you more than us, right? Will all due respect, you never miss a chance to be negative in a judgemental but pseudo-objective way, as if you were somehow outside MetaFilter. Can I be quite honest? You've given me the creeps ever since you offered to take MetaFilter off Matt's hands and I can only shudder at the prudish, Miss Manners-like hash you'd make of it.
What the hell do you mean by "overthinking", anyway? Perhaps you yourself should just think a bit more - say a little over your average quota - before making your holier-than-thou pronouncements.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 7:53 AM on February 8, 2002
i see nothing wrong with rodii's comment. it was too the point and reflected his opinion. Zach would have to be pretty thinned-skinned to take offense at it ... and Zach is anything but thin-skinned.
i've been on the receiving end of a similar crasspastor comment -- in my case i think crasspastor was right and it may be a better example of what he is talking about here.
crasspastor's point, in my case, was it is generally best "to let every member's contribution speak for itself". of course, i think he would do well to practice what he preaches sometimes.
posted by danOstuporStar at 7:55 AM on February 8, 2002
i've been on the receiving end of a similar crasspastor comment -- in my case i think crasspastor was right and it may be a better example of what he is talking about here.
crasspastor's point, in my case, was it is generally best "to let every member's contribution speak for itself". of course, i think he would do well to practice what he preaches sometimes.
posted by danOstuporStar at 7:55 AM on February 8, 2002
by the way, what's up with putting two one-letter links at the end of a Front-Page-Post? messing with the standard linking convention makes the crowded front-page even harder to read IMO.
/off-topic nitpick
posted by danOstuporStar at 8:06 AM on February 8, 2002
/off-topic nitpick
posted by danOstuporStar at 8:06 AM on February 8, 2002
Miguel, you know I love you, but that probably should have been taken to email. We're not here to attack each other personally.
And I support rodii's comment. I agree that a reference to the other threads would have made it more appropriate, but in principle he's right on.
posted by jpoulos at 8:11 AM on February 8, 2002
And I support rodii's comment. I agree that a reference to the other threads would have made it more appropriate, but in principle he's right on.
posted by jpoulos at 8:11 AM on February 8, 2002
Y'all gonna keep on till I start thinking I am back on usenet or something......
posted by bunnyfire at 8:16 AM on February 8, 2002
posted by bunnyfire at 8:16 AM on February 8, 2002
I can only shudder at the prudish, Miss Manners-like hash you'd make of it.
Are you nuts? You can agree or disagree with rcade, but "prudish" and "Miss Manners-like" are just about the last adjectives I'd ever apply to him.
posted by Skot at 8:42 AM on February 8, 2002
Are you nuts? You can agree or disagree with rcade, but "prudish" and "Miss Manners-like" are just about the last adjectives I'd ever apply to him.
posted by Skot at 8:42 AM on February 8, 2002
Let's all remember that Miguel posted that pretty late at night, and was probably feeling the effects of one or two port-bongs. Either that or he was hallucinating after viewing one too many pages about lingerie and marital aids.
I agree with jp. Take it to email, funky brother.
posted by Kafkaesque at 8:56 AM on February 8, 2002
I agree with jp. Take it to email, funky brother.
posted by Kafkaesque at 8:56 AM on February 8, 2002
What the hell do you mean by "overthinking", anyway? Perhaps you yourself should just think a bit more - say a little over your average quota - before making your holier-than-thou pronouncements. - miguelcardoso
Whoa! That's pretty harsh, coming from you. Are you okay? Is there anything you want to talk about? Long day at the factory? C'mon, give it up.
posted by ashbury at 8:56 AM on February 8, 2002
Whoa! That's pretty harsh, coming from you. Are you okay? Is there anything you want to talk about? Long day at the factory? C'mon, give it up.
posted by ashbury at 8:56 AM on February 8, 2002
Thanks, Skot. For that comment, and for your public offer the other day to sex me up.
Miguel: It seems a little odd to me that I could give you the creeps only a few weeks after you joined this site, but maybe you're a quick study.
I don't hate to participate in MetaTalk. I've used it to such an embarrassing degree that it invites comparisons to you. However, as the complaints expressed here become ever smaller, I am beginning to think I contributed to a cure that's infinitely worse than the disease.
In fact, I'm beginning to think I should quit MetaTalk in a public and vaingloriously overdramatic way. All I need is the knowledge that someone will step in to let people know, in my absence, how much I will be missed. Any takers?
posted by rcade at 9:04 AM on February 8, 2002
Miguel: It seems a little odd to me that I could give you the creeps only a few weeks after you joined this site, but maybe you're a quick study.
I don't hate to participate in MetaTalk. I've used it to such an embarrassing degree that it invites comparisons to you. However, as the complaints expressed here become ever smaller, I am beginning to think I contributed to a cure that's infinitely worse than the disease.
In fact, I'm beginning to think I should quit MetaTalk in a public and vaingloriously overdramatic way. All I need is the knowledge that someone will step in to let people know, in my absence, how much I will be missed. Any takers?
posted by rcade at 9:04 AM on February 8, 2002
OK, I take it back. It's just that rcade sometimes seems so Big Brotherish. Sorry rcade and everyone else. There's no need to take it to email. It was a heat-of-the-moment thing. It was unfair and uncalled for. I sincerely apologize. Perhaps he gets my goat for being right so often. ;)
posted by MiguelCardoso at 9:10 AM on February 8, 2002
posted by MiguelCardoso at 9:10 AM on February 8, 2002
NO, ROGERS, DON'T GO!!
*falls to the ground and clutches rcade's knees*
(Miguel, Rogers and I are cool--no need to be offended on my behalf.)
posted by rodii at 9:16 AM on February 8, 2002
*falls to the ground and clutches rcade's knees*
(Miguel, Rogers and I are cool--no need to be offended on my behalf.)
posted by rodii at 9:16 AM on February 8, 2002
rcade: I just read your comment and now feel even worse. Of course you don't give me the creeps. It's just that if I write when I'm hot - and I did think your judgement of rodii's comment was unfair - I exhibit all my worst over-the-top, hysterical tendencies.
In real life you'd just laugh and I'd realize how childish I was being. Please forgive me. It was all bullshit - sincere at the moment, but no truth in it at all.
Honestly!
posted by MiguelCardoso at 9:16 AM on February 8, 2002
In real life you'd just laugh and I'd realize how childish I was being. Please forgive me. It was all bullshit - sincere at the moment, but no truth in it at all.
Honestly!
posted by MiguelCardoso at 9:16 AM on February 8, 2002
Thanks, rcade. You're a gentleman and a scholar. And I was a Neapolitan Anna Magnani on crack. As for Skot, it looks like he'll take anything he can get... ;)
posted by MiguelCardoso at 9:45 AM on February 8, 2002
posted by MiguelCardoso at 9:45 AM on February 8, 2002
Not to be too Winerish, but I appreciate getting "pushback" on the things I do here. They force me to examine my behavior and fix it, or accept it, depending. As a very wise man once said, it makes things more complicated, and that's good. ~Plus, now I know who to hate!~
posted by rodii at 9:45 AM on February 8, 2002
posted by rodii at 9:45 AM on February 8, 2002
I appreciate getting "pushback" on the things I do here. They force me to examine my behavior and fix it, or accept it, depending.
Of course, if the same went for ZM, this whole bleeping thread (and the comment that started it) would never have been necessary.
posted by mattpfeff at 10:02 AM on February 8, 2002
Of course, if the same went for ZM, this whole bleeping thread (and the comment that started it) would never have been necessary.
posted by mattpfeff at 10:02 AM on February 8, 2002
snide, snarky comments add nothing to discussion.
Sometimes they're funny. Sometimes, not as often, they enlighten.
(eyes welling up)
But this huge, wicked fight you're all having just makes me feel so...so... (turns and runs to room. Sound of door slamming, Bon Jovi music turned up way loud.)
posted by Ty Webb at 11:26 AM on February 8, 2002
Sometimes they're funny. Sometimes, not as often, they enlighten.
(eyes welling up)
But this huge, wicked fight you're all having just makes me feel so...so... (turns and runs to room. Sound of door slamming, Bon Jovi music turned up way loud.)
posted by Ty Webb at 11:26 AM on February 8, 2002
snide, snarky comments add nothing to discussion.
Au contraire. They add snide, snarky comments to the discussion. Like just now. See?
posted by kindall at 11:39 AM on February 8, 2002
Au contraire. They add snide, snarky comments to the discussion. Like just now. See?
posted by kindall at 11:39 AM on February 8, 2002
Here's the real problem with MeFi. It seems that everyone gets called out in MeTa for some tiny infraction. Then everyone argues over whether or not it was an infraction and no one ever notices how the MeTa thread becomes a love-in towards the end and all seems to be right in the world.
Chill people. This is a house of discussion. Shit boils overtime once in a while. I know that there are some thin-skinned folks, but every conversation enjoys a little snarkasm here and there, it keeps the blood moving. kindall's spot on with that^. rodii's comment ranks down in the lower 1,200,300,500 of snarky comments I've seen on this site. It's hardly a blip.
And if it was such a problem, why didn't Zach call him out? Why isn't he the author of this thread?
posted by eyeballkid at 1:02 PM on February 8, 2002
Chill people. This is a house of discussion. Shit boils overtime once in a while. I know that there are some thin-skinned folks, but every conversation enjoys a little snarkasm here and there, it keeps the blood moving. kindall's spot on with that^. rodii's comment ranks down in the lower 1,200,300,500 of snarky comments I've seen on this site. It's hardly a blip.
And if it was such a problem, why didn't Zach call him out? Why isn't he the author of this thread?
posted by eyeballkid at 1:02 PM on February 8, 2002
if we are overrun with rabbits here don't come crying to me.
posted by bunnyfire at 1:56 PM on February 8, 2002
posted by bunnyfire at 1:56 PM on February 8, 2002
"One of the world's most specialised careers would have to be chicken sexing."
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 11:40 PM on February 8, 2002
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 11:40 PM on February 8, 2002
True.
The only more specialized career I can think of off the top of my head is whatever the five or six women who sleep with Hugh Hefner call doing that.
posted by dong_resin at 12:54 AM on February 9, 2002
The only more specialized career I can think of off the top of my head is whatever the five or six women who sleep with Hugh Hefner call doing that.
posted by dong_resin at 12:54 AM on February 9, 2002
whatever the five or six women who sleep with Hugh Hefner call doing that.
"Career advancement"
posted by kindall at 12:31 PM on February 9, 2002
"Career advancement"
posted by kindall at 12:31 PM on February 9, 2002
I'd have gone with "taxidermy", but who's to say.
posted by dong_resin at 1:39 PM on February 9, 2002
posted by dong_resin at 1:39 PM on February 9, 2002
Stuff taxidermy. The question is, when he dies, will they allow themselves to be buried with him? That would prove they really do love the guy.
That's how it used to be before the liberals took over the world. Every horse, household appliance, treasury bond, concubine and Apache server would accompany the master to the grave.
It's no wonder people knew how to grieve in those days. ;)
posted by MiguelCardoso at 2:00 PM on February 9, 2002
That's how it used to be before the liberals took over the world. Every horse, household appliance, treasury bond, concubine and Apache server would accompany the master to the grave.
It's no wonder people knew how to grieve in those days. ;)
posted by MiguelCardoso at 2:00 PM on February 9, 2002
Very Egyptian.
I see Hef getting two pyramids, obviously with nipples.
posted by dong_resin at 5:06 PM on February 9, 2002
I see Hef getting two pyramids, obviously with nipples.
posted by dong_resin at 5:06 PM on February 9, 2002
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
Everything here should probably be taken with a grain of salt.. No doubt it would be nice if we could stop with the snarkiness, but rodii's comment seemed more gently jibing than anything else. I know everyone didn't take it that way.
Of course, if'n you're referring to the other part of rodii's comment, that's entirely accurate, since this did happen rather recently.
posted by j.edwards at 1:19 AM on February 8, 2002