Double your posting; double your fun May 2, 2010 2:20 PM Subscribe
What's the standard for avoiding double-posting? About a week ago I made an FPP on the Gulf oil spill. It was not top news at the time and not many people outside the area knew about it. My post ground to about 90+ comments and stalled. This morning, another FPP came up about the same spill.
I saw the thread about half an hour after it was posted and it was about 20+ comments deep. I noted there was already an open thread and flagged it as a double. I posted a couple more links to the open thread to commenters who asked about news items that had been addressed in the April 26 thread. Then I got mad and whined and Rumple told me to take it to MeTa. So here I am. (All comments except the first have since been scrubbed).
I'm not sure that I'm actually asking for anything here, since empath's thread is like twice as long as mine, and much livelier. But now there are two decent threads on the same (timely) topic, and no relationship between them. Maybe another reminder for those making FPPs to do a search and see if there's already an open thread.
I saw the thread about half an hour after it was posted and it was about 20+ comments deep. I noted there was already an open thread and flagged it as a double. I posted a couple more links to the open thread to commenters who asked about news items that had been addressed in the April 26 thread. Then I got mad and whined and Rumple told me to take it to MeTa. So here I am. (All comments except the first have since been scrubbed).
I'm not sure that I'm actually asking for anything here, since empath's thread is like twice as long as mine, and much livelier. But now there are two decent threads on the same (timely) topic, and no relationship between them. Maybe another reminder for those making FPPs to do a search and see if there's already an open thread.
The standard should be that if the previous thread of which you think the new thread is a double was actually posted by you, you should stay out of any discussion of whether the new thread should be allowed and all. Just like one of the reasons that self-links aren't allowed is because the poster is too close to the material to be able to judge effectively.
When I think things should count as doubles, I'll add a "previously" comment if no one else has. Otherwise, I flag them and move on. I think it is really a judgment call and I'm happy to leave that up to the mods.
posted by grouse at 2:33 PM on May 2, 2010 [1 favorite]
When I think things should count as doubles, I'll add a "previously" comment if no one else has. Otherwise, I flag them and move on. I think it is really a judgment call and I'm happy to leave that up to the mods.
posted by grouse at 2:33 PM on May 2, 2010 [1 favorite]
There's a discussion going on right now a few threads down about 'updating' threads, it'll be interesting to see how this facet (double posting) factors into that.
I'm not sure that I'm actually asking for anything here, since empath's thread is like twice as long as mine, and much livelier.
As to this, all I can say is that it is no longer your thread. Nor is this morning's empath's. Once you hit that post button a thread is its own beast that will die or thrive or morph according to fate's obscure reckoning, beholden to nobody not even they who bore it into existence. Wrap your mind around that and much of your wahmbulations will quiet right up.
posted by carsonb at 2:35 PM on May 2, 2010 [6 favorites]
I'm not sure that I'm actually asking for anything here, since empath's thread is like twice as long as mine, and much livelier.
As to this, all I can say is that it is no longer your thread. Nor is this morning's empath's. Once you hit that post button a thread is its own beast that will die or thrive or morph according to fate's obscure reckoning, beholden to nobody not even they who bore it into existence. Wrap your mind around that and much of your wahmbulations will quiet right up.
posted by carsonb at 2:35 PM on May 2, 2010 [6 favorites]
It's fine to politely note that there's a previous/recent related thread, and if you feel like it's a situation where it's functionally a double/repeat post flagging is also a-okay. (I did indeed remove your followup comments (and Rumple's reply to them) because that was moving into the realm of obnoxiousness and should, indeed, have been taken to Metatalk immediately if you needed to talk about it. And, hey, here we are, so okay!)
There's no bright-line rule for when a followup to a related thread is or isn't okay. We have to make a judgment call on it from modland, based on things like how big of news, and how big the developments of that news, are since the last post, how active the previous post is, how people are responding to the new post (is it getting flagged a bunch, is the content of the new thread in large part people objecting to the new post), whether the previous post went well or really poorly and how the new one reflects or plays off that, etc.
So it's pretty qualitative stuff. In this case I think the situation has really kind of gotten bigger and proved itself to be more than just a quickly-contained blip, and so there's a lot more material available and a lot of attention being turned to it in such a way that the new post a week later feels like it's probably alright.
posted by cortex (staff) at 2:37 PM on May 2, 2010 [3 favorites]
There's no bright-line rule for when a followup to a related thread is or isn't okay. We have to make a judgment call on it from modland, based on things like how big of news, and how big the developments of that news, are since the last post, how active the previous post is, how people are responding to the new post (is it getting flagged a bunch, is the content of the new thread in large part people objecting to the new post), whether the previous post went well or really poorly and how the new one reflects or plays off that, etc.
So it's pretty qualitative stuff. In this case I think the situation has really kind of gotten bigger and proved itself to be more than just a quickly-contained blip, and so there's a lot more material available and a lot of attention being turned to it in such a way that the new post a week later feels like it's probably alright.
posted by cortex (staff) at 2:37 PM on May 2, 2010 [3 favorites]
empath's thread is like twice as long as mine, and much livelier.
I think Freud had a name for that...
posted by gman at 2:38 PM on May 2, 2010 [1 favorite]
I think Freud had a name for that...
posted by gman at 2:38 PM on May 2, 2010 [1 favorite]
could I get a beer with my wahmbulance? my throat is dry from whining.
also it says here I need a hug
posted by toodleydoodley at 2:59 PM on May 2, 2010 [4 favorites]
also it says here I need a hug
posted by toodleydoodley at 2:59 PM on May 2, 2010 [4 favorites]
I don't think a double is that big a deal, but I do think if it is a specific site or what have you then I think a "previously" is a nice hat tip. I saw something that was pretty darn close to being a double of something I posted without any mention of my previous post and I thought that was weaksauce, so I kind of know where your coming from. People enjoyed the post and it got twice the exposure so in the end I was shruggy about it, but I still think it's at least a nice gesture to have that pointer.
posted by P.o.B. at 3:02 PM on May 2, 2010 [2 favorites]
posted by P.o.B. at 3:02 PM on May 2, 2010 [2 favorites]
thanks, everyone, for filling me in.
posted by toodleydoodley at 3:03 PM on May 2, 2010
posted by toodleydoodley at 3:03 PM on May 2, 2010
You're complaining about 90 comments?
posted by graventy at 3:15 PM on May 2, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by graventy at 3:15 PM on May 2, 2010 [1 favorite]
And yeah, there's always going to be the angle of folks not so much Making Another Post because they've weighed the situation and decided it's merited as Making A Post without knowing that it's not the first recent post on the subject. And sometimes that's an issue (we remove a fair number of things like that) and sometimes it's not really a problem because the new post is worthwhile in any case. Another judgement call thing.
Failure to search (and its trickier cousin, failure to find) is a human problem that's always going to be with us. The link checker helps with some outright doubles, and we're hoping to make the already-decent search functionality on the site better and more granular over time, but at a certain point even amazing search tools are going to break down because (a) we can't force people to use the search tools or get the most of them and (b) we can't expect every previous post to be marked up optimally. I sometimes go back and add tags to original posts when doubles show up, hoping better metadata will help prevent future occurrences, but there's a lot of potential failure points in the search-before-posting routine.
So it happens, and it'll keep happening, and it can be a little annoying for all involved but it's kind of a That's Life situation that's probably not worth letting get to you.
posted by cortex (staff) at 3:16 PM on May 2, 2010 [2 favorites]
Failure to search (and its trickier cousin, failure to find) is a human problem that's always going to be with us. The link checker helps with some outright doubles, and we're hoping to make the already-decent search functionality on the site better and more granular over time, but at a certain point even amazing search tools are going to break down because (a) we can't force people to use the search tools or get the most of them and (b) we can't expect every previous post to be marked up optimally. I sometimes go back and add tags to original posts when doubles show up, hoping better metadata will help prevent future occurrences, but there's a lot of potential failure points in the search-before-posting routine.
So it happens, and it'll keep happening, and it can be a little annoying for all involved but it's kind of a That's Life situation that's probably not worth letting get to you.
posted by cortex (staff) at 3:16 PM on May 2, 2010 [2 favorites]
You're complaining about 90 comments?
posted by graventy at 6:15 PM on May 2 [+] [!]
see, that's exactly *not* what I'm complaining about. I'm not keeping score, or trying to get paid by the comment.
What I am saying is that, if MeFi was a really big party, there was already a good conversation about the Gulf spill. Good comments were made and good links were posted. Then a whole 'nother conversation started on the other side of the room, about the exact same spill, with, as far as I can tell a completely different group of people.
If the people who joined the second conversation had known about the first conversation, then all the people could have conversated together. Isn't that how we do what we do?
posted by toodleydoodley at 3:39 PM on May 2, 2010 [2 favorites]
posted by graventy at 6:15 PM on May 2 [+] [!]
see, that's exactly *not* what I'm complaining about. I'm not keeping score, or trying to get paid by the comment.
What I am saying is that, if MeFi was a really big party, there was already a good conversation about the Gulf spill. Good comments were made and good links were posted. Then a whole 'nother conversation started on the other side of the room, about the exact same spill, with, as far as I can tell a completely different group of people.
If the people who joined the second conversation had known about the first conversation, then all the people could have conversated together. Isn't that how we do what we do?
posted by toodleydoodley at 3:39 PM on May 2, 2010 [2 favorites]
This is best dealt with by a snarky "double post" at the beginning. Get's 'em arguing over whether it is a double and kills the thread.
posted by Ironmouth at 3:40 PM on May 2, 2010
posted by Ironmouth at 3:40 PM on May 2, 2010
This is best dealt with by a snarky "double post" at the beginning. Get's 'em arguing over whether it is a double and kills the thread.
posted by Ironmouth at 6:40 PM on May 2 [+] [!]
I got there too late. That sucker was already blowing 5k comments/hour.
posted by toodleydoodley at 3:43 PM on May 2, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by Ironmouth at 6:40 PM on May 2 [+] [!]
I got there too late. That sucker was already blowing 5k comments/hour.
posted by toodleydoodley at 3:43 PM on May 2, 2010 [1 favorite]
toodleydoodley: "see, that's exactly *not* what I'm complaining about. I'm not keeping score, or trying to get paid by the comment."
I'm sorry, but comments and length seemed to be a big part of your complaint.
For a lot of users, threads are dead once they leave the front page. (Hell, or even the 24 hour period.) If there's enough new information or links to warrant a new thread, and the mods are ok with it, then it should stand. Post a link to the new thread in the old.
posted by graventy at 3:47 PM on May 2, 2010
I'm sorry, but comments and length seemed to be a big part of your complaint.
For a lot of users, threads are dead once they leave the front page. (Hell, or even the 24 hour period.) If there's enough new information or links to warrant a new thread, and the mods are ok with it, then it should stand. Post a link to the new thread in the old.
posted by graventy at 3:47 PM on May 2, 2010
For a lot of users, threads are dead once they leave the front page.
That doesn't stop doubles from getting nuked, even weeks and weeks later. And the reason I mentioned length is that both of the threads on the Gulf spill had a lot of comments and so obviously it wouldn't be productive at that point to kill either one and put a pointer to the other. I just thought it was too bad that there were a lot of good comments on the first thread that pretty much got lost, even though the topic is still hot.
posted by toodleydoodley at 3:55 PM on May 2, 2010
That doesn't stop doubles from getting nuked, even weeks and weeks later. And the reason I mentioned length is that both of the threads on the Gulf spill had a lot of comments and so obviously it wouldn't be productive at that point to kill either one and put a pointer to the other. I just thought it was too bad that there were a lot of good comments on the first thread that pretty much got lost, even though the topic is still hot.
posted by toodleydoodley at 3:55 PM on May 2, 2010
The hugs are in a bucket by the door.
posted by Sailormom at 4:14 PM on May 2, 2010 [3 favorites]
posted by Sailormom at 4:14 PM on May 2, 2010 [3 favorites]
The hugs are in a bucket by the door.
posted by Sailormom at 7:14 PM on May 2 [+] [!]
you mean I have to lean over and pick them up? also, are you kicking me out of my own thread?
posted by toodleydoodley at 4:18 PM on May 2, 2010
posted by Sailormom at 7:14 PM on May 2 [+] [!]
you mean I have to lean over and pick them up? also, are you kicking me out of my own thread?
posted by toodleydoodley at 4:18 PM on May 2, 2010
The hugs were in a bucket carefully balanced atop the slightly-ajar door. Now it's like a Carebear Carrie in here.
posted by cortex (staff) at 4:21 PM on May 2, 2010 [10 favorites]
posted by cortex (staff) at 4:21 PM on May 2, 2010 [10 favorites]
aaaaah, it's like a nice, relaxing bubble bath of...blood?
posted by toodleydoodley at 4:25 PM on May 2, 2010
posted by toodleydoodley at 4:25 PM on May 2, 2010
...twice as long as mine.../...my own thread...
I think MeFi might work better for you if you let go of this feeling of ownership. Think of it more like a timeshare.
posted by donnagirl at 4:32 PM on May 2, 2010 [1 favorite]
I think MeFi might work better for you if you let go of this feeling of ownership. Think of it more like a timeshare.
posted by donnagirl at 4:32 PM on May 2, 2010 [1 favorite]
I think MeFi might work better for you if you let go of this feeling of ownership. Think of it more like a timeshare.
posted by donnagirl at 7:32 PM on May 2 [+] [!]
for the sake of expedience, could you just rent me some different pronouns?
posted by toodleydoodley at 4:34 PM on May 2, 2010
posted by donnagirl at 7:32 PM on May 2 [+] [!]
for the sake of expedience, could you just rent me some different pronouns?
posted by toodleydoodley at 4:34 PM on May 2, 2010
If I had a choice of superpowers I would have to seriously take some time if the Care Bear powers were part of my choice. Inivisibility? Meh. Flying? I suppose that's cool. Shooting hearts, rainbows, or stars out of my chest and making people have a good time like Funshine Bear? Shit, where do I sign up?!
posted by P.o.B. at 4:34 PM on May 2, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by P.o.B. at 4:34 PM on May 2, 2010 [1 favorite]
Yeah, Funshine Bear is allright but check out those villains!
Shreeky: No Heart's niece who wants to follow in his footsteps, she has a magical mirror that she can use to make everything miserable, and if that's not enough, she has a screech that can cause No Heart to change shape. She has purple and teal hair tied in a ponytail.
oh, on second thought, don't
posted by toodleydoodley at 4:42 PM on May 2, 2010
Shreeky: No Heart's niece who wants to follow in his footsteps, she has a magical mirror that she can use to make everything miserable, and if that's not enough, she has a screech that can cause No Heart to change shape. She has purple and teal hair tied in a ponytail.
oh, on second thought, don't
posted by toodleydoodley at 4:42 PM on May 2, 2010
I had a dream about Captain America and the Metafilter logo was on his shield. The Red Skull, an arch nemesis, was some Yahoo.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 4:45 PM on May 2, 2010
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 4:45 PM on May 2, 2010
Double double post in trouble, users flame and grar-up bubbles!
posted by The Whelk at 4:48 PM on May 2, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by The Whelk at 4:48 PM on May 2, 2010 [1 favorite]
That doesn't stop doubles from getting nuked, even weeks and weeks later.
We're a lot more double-post-delete-happy if the thread is about something already on the front page or nearby. If it's a huge news story where a lot has happened since the last post, sometimes a new post makes sense. If people are going to call out doubles, it helps if they link to the original thing [just FYI, not saying anyone did or did not do this]. People who use Recent Activity will see comments in the old and/or new post, depending on what they commented in. Really the double-delete thing is pretty approximate. Newsish stories are less likely to be deleted as doubles because there's likely to be updates. "Check out this art exhibit" may be deleted even though the original post was two years old. Sometimes with a big story there will be one big thread that we'll direct people to because people start a zillion little threads instead of commenting in the main one.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 4:55 PM on May 2, 2010
We're a lot more double-post-delete-happy if the thread is about something already on the front page or nearby. If it's a huge news story where a lot has happened since the last post, sometimes a new post makes sense. If people are going to call out doubles, it helps if they link to the original thing [just FYI, not saying anyone did or did not do this]. People who use Recent Activity will see comments in the old and/or new post, depending on what they commented in. Really the double-delete thing is pretty approximate. Newsish stories are less likely to be deleted as doubles because there's likely to be updates. "Check out this art exhibit" may be deleted even though the original post was two years old. Sometimes with a big story there will be one big thread that we'll direct people to because people start a zillion little threads instead of commenting in the main one.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 4:55 PM on May 2, 2010
If it's a huge news story where a lot has happened since the last post, sometimes a new post makes sense.
ok, but the original FPP had comments on it that were less than 12 hours old, the last (not from me) from just before midnight yesterday.
If people are going to call out doubles, it helps if they link to the original thing [just FYI, not saying anyone did or did not do this]
ok, I did that, too, but the post was already ~1/2 hour and 20-ish posts on.
In other words, "New study suggests life unfair - Film at 11"
posted by toodleydoodley at 5:16 PM on May 2, 2010
ok, but the original FPP had comments on it that were less than 12 hours old, the last (not from me) from just before midnight yesterday.
If people are going to call out doubles, it helps if they link to the original thing [just FYI, not saying anyone did or did not do this]
ok, I did that, too, but the post was already ~1/2 hour and 20-ish posts on.
In other words, "New study suggests life unfair - Film at 11"
posted by toodleydoodley at 5:16 PM on May 2, 2010
As someone who posted in the original thread I understand. I don't like it when what precious wattage I possess is spent illuminating an abandoned cave but I don't want to repeat myself in a new thread or post an "I (or they) said this over here" comment either. Too bad for me.
I do think that recent developments and the magnitude of the potential impact warranted a new post. A "previously" would have been nice and if you type "oil" into the Mefi search box the original post is the second result. So, lame on empath but I think it was just an oversight.
Heh, That's Life indeed.
posted by vapidave at 5:22 PM on May 2, 2010 [1 favorite]
I do think that recent developments and the magnitude of the potential impact warranted a new post. A "previously" would have been nice and if you type "oil" into the Mefi search box the original post is the second result. So, lame on empath but I think it was just an oversight.
Heh, That's Life indeed.
You're riding high in April,I look forward to your June posts toodleydoodley. Till then there is always alcohol, where doubles are a good thing.
Shot down in May
But I know I'm gonna change that tune,
When I'm back on top, back on top in June.
posted by vapidave at 5:22 PM on May 2, 2010 [1 favorite]
I just thought it was too bad that there were a lot of good comments on the first thread that pretty much got lost, even though the topic is still hot.
yeah, that bothers me as well, and it just seems one of those things that is generally accepted. i try not to be a post-whore, speaking my mind on everything that hits the front page; i pick a topic and reflect on it and what has already been posted in the thread, and i try to draw out the issues of debate that i find the most interesting. as it is, i construct many comments that i eventually do not post, sometimes because the process of constructing it answers my own question or just goes off a bad tangent. and the ones i do post, i edit pretty heavily. (not that i don't post the occasional offhand or funny comment, though.) but sometimes i'll stay away from the subject altogether, even if it spawns a lively discussion, if there's a vague risk somebody is going to throw the secret rulebook at it.
i don't know if it is because the way i use the site is unusual, but i think there is a disregard for the reality that threads around here decay rather quickly, and beyond a particular point it's like why spend the time on something nobody's around to discuss; so the 'oh, just go comment in the topic from last week' thing becomes kind of silly. this bothers me in the 'news update' sense, because often an update to a story actually changes the relevant points of discussion; some issue of debate will be resolved or rendered irrelevant, and another might rise to take its place; and i tend to be fascinated with how ethical and logical arguments shift in response to that. but there doesn't seem to be a good mechanism here to revitalize the discussion; the old playground is empty, and the new one won't let you bring any old toys.
posted by fallacy of the beard at 5:26 PM on May 2, 2010 [2 favorites]
yeah, that bothers me as well, and it just seems one of those things that is generally accepted. i try not to be a post-whore, speaking my mind on everything that hits the front page; i pick a topic and reflect on it and what has already been posted in the thread, and i try to draw out the issues of debate that i find the most interesting. as it is, i construct many comments that i eventually do not post, sometimes because the process of constructing it answers my own question or just goes off a bad tangent. and the ones i do post, i edit pretty heavily. (not that i don't post the occasional offhand or funny comment, though.) but sometimes i'll stay away from the subject altogether, even if it spawns a lively discussion, if there's a vague risk somebody is going to throw the secret rulebook at it.
i don't know if it is because the way i use the site is unusual, but i think there is a disregard for the reality that threads around here decay rather quickly, and beyond a particular point it's like why spend the time on something nobody's around to discuss; so the 'oh, just go comment in the topic from last week' thing becomes kind of silly. this bothers me in the 'news update' sense, because often an update to a story actually changes the relevant points of discussion; some issue of debate will be resolved or rendered irrelevant, and another might rise to take its place; and i tend to be fascinated with how ethical and logical arguments shift in response to that. but there doesn't seem to be a good mechanism here to revitalize the discussion; the old playground is empty, and the new one won't let you bring any old toys.
posted by fallacy of the beard at 5:26 PM on May 2, 2010 [2 favorites]
Sometimes news events are so big that a whole bunch of posts will be made about it. The Gulf of Mexico oil disaster is one of those (see also: elections, financial crises, kittens).
Breaking kitten news!
posted by homunculus at 5:53 PM on May 2, 2010 [11 favorites]
Breaking kitten news!
posted by homunculus at 5:53 PM on May 2, 2010 [11 favorites]
"Check out this art exhibit" may be deleted even though the original post was two years old.
Yeah. That drives me nuts. If it's interesting, why not leave it up? It like saying, "No, we covered that in first grade. We won't cover it again. What, you were in diapers then? Well, too bad, go look it up."
Yeah. It's exactly like that.
+1 for more double posts.
posted by SLC Mom at 6:01 PM on May 2, 2010
Yeah. That drives me nuts. If it's interesting, why not leave it up? It like saying, "No, we covered that in first grade. We won't cover it again. What, you were in diapers then? Well, too bad, go look it up."
Yeah. It's exactly like that.
+1 for more double posts.
posted by SLC Mom at 6:01 PM on May 2, 2010
SLC Mom, those kind of double posts 'slip through' all the time. Generally, if there's something new and fresh about the link or if it really was posted in like 2003 and not mentioned again since then, a double can stand. This mostly happens when one slips under the radar (of a community that's been scrutinizing all things cool on the web for quite some time now, and its mods) but moderator approval before or after posting happens occasionally too.
Here is everything the FAQ has to say about doubles. Here is a relevant portion:
posted by carsonb at 6:15 PM on May 2, 2010
Here is everything the FAQ has to say about doubles. Here is a relevant portion:
There is no hard and fast rule on when a post is not a double anymore. For an identical URL and a site that hasn't changed in content "a few years" is a good guideline. For a site with the same URL and new content, indicating the previous post in your new post is a good idea. If there is a post on a similar topic still on the front page, please post your link into the open thread instead of starting a new post.Doesn't exactly clear much up, but it provides an idea or two for the curious MeFite.
posted by carsonb at 6:15 PM on May 2, 2010
If it's interesting, why not leave it up?
Sometimes we do, sometimes we don't, as carsonb says. Usually if it's something older than a few years, well leave it since MeFi is a bigger site, "can't walk in the same river twice" bla bla.
But the reason the rule is there generally is because MeFi's for neat stuff you've seen on the web. If it's already been here, people have seen it. Now there are a lot of people for whom MeFi is a place they stop by sometimes, and don't really read every post every day. Totally fine. But, there are a lot of people who "hang out" here, and the site was sort of created originally for people who hang out here and so the "no double post" mechanism sort of date back to that.
More to the point, we sort of need to have good guidelines that make sense to us and to the people posting. If we allow doubles generally, then can someone post the same site they really like every week? Every month? Every year? We definitely have some anniversary style posts [CAPS LOCK, flander's field, talk like a pirate] but not many. So our guidelines is "don't post the same thing in a 2-3 year period" but even with that there's wiggle room but we'd rather have a tighter rule and be more permissive with it than the other way around.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 6:31 PM on May 2, 2010 [1 favorite]
Sometimes we do, sometimes we don't, as carsonb says. Usually if it's something older than a few years, well leave it since MeFi is a bigger site, "can't walk in the same river twice" bla bla.
But the reason the rule is there generally is because MeFi's for neat stuff you've seen on the web. If it's already been here, people have seen it. Now there are a lot of people for whom MeFi is a place they stop by sometimes, and don't really read every post every day. Totally fine. But, there are a lot of people who "hang out" here, and the site was sort of created originally for people who hang out here and so the "no double post" mechanism sort of date back to that.
More to the point, we sort of need to have good guidelines that make sense to us and to the people posting. If we allow doubles generally, then can someone post the same site they really like every week? Every month? Every year? We definitely have some anniversary style posts [CAPS LOCK, flander's field, talk like a pirate] but not many. So our guidelines is "don't post the same thing in a 2-3 year period" but even with that there's wiggle room but we'd rather have a tighter rule and be more permissive with it than the other way around.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 6:31 PM on May 2, 2010 [1 favorite]
empath's thread might be twice as long & much livelier, toodleydoodley, but i learned a helluva lot from yours. and i thank you for the original post! i think you should jump in on the 2nd thread & edumacate some folks there, too.
posted by msconduct at 6:48 PM on May 2, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by msconduct at 6:48 PM on May 2, 2010 [1 favorite]
i learned a helluva lot from yours. and i thank you for the original post! i think you should jump in on the 2nd thread & edumacate some folks there, too.
awww!
but I thought the slugfest btw you & anonymous$5sockpuppet was most enlightening.
see? see what you're missing, people?
posted by toodleydoodley at 7:05 PM on May 2, 2010
awww!
but I thought the slugfest btw you & anonymous$5sockpuppet was most enlightening.
see? see what you're missing, people?
posted by toodleydoodley at 7:05 PM on May 2, 2010
homunculus: Breaking kitten news!
That's a crucial kitten new update! That needs to be brought to the attention of the wider community. A textbook case of an important new development to a well known story.
posted by Kattullus at 7:18 PM on May 2, 2010
That's a crucial kitten new update! That needs to be brought to the attention of the wider community. A textbook case of an important new development to a well known story.
posted by Kattullus at 7:18 PM on May 2, 2010
my post got ninety comments
but your was twice as long
those shoulda been in my thread
lord knows i been done wrong
but if this thread was whisky
and if i was a duck
i'd dive down to the bottom
and i'd never come up
posted by flapjax at midnite at 7:26 PM on May 2, 2010 [1 favorite]
but your was twice as long
those shoulda been in my thread
lord knows i been done wrong
but if this thread was whisky
and if i was a duck
i'd dive down to the bottom
and i'd never come up
posted by flapjax at midnite at 7:26 PM on May 2, 2010 [1 favorite]
Well sure, but who are all these new people? I don't know them, I'm a-scared. Why you new people gotta be in my webzone scary me? Some of these new people are clever, I didn't know that would happen, I thought the new people would be from dumbtown. WTF, new people?
posted by nola at 8:08 PM on May 2, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by nola at 8:08 PM on May 2, 2010 [1 favorite]
WTF, new people?
posted by nola at 11:08 PM on May 2 [+] [!]
WTF NOLA, why aren't you down at the beaches reporting instead of leaving up these stale-ass pictures from yesterday? Don't you care about Louisiana atall?
posted by toodleydoodley at 8:17 PM on May 2, 2010
posted by nola at 11:08 PM on May 2 [+] [!]
WTF NOLA, why aren't you down at the beaches reporting instead of leaving up these stale-ass pictures from yesterday? Don't you care about Louisiana atall?
posted by toodleydoodley at 8:17 PM on May 2, 2010
EMBRACE THE NEW FLESH!
Ok Cronenberg. You know what's hard to stop doing once you start doing it? Copenhagen long cut. I go through 5 cans of this shit a week. There is more than just tabacco in there I assure you.
WTF NOLA, why aren't you down at the beaches reporting instead of leaving up these stale-ass pictures from yesterday?
Jesus, it's all just to depressing. The gulfcoast is just getting over the last few years of trouble and BP makes things even worse. It breaks my heart, it's no joke. I just wish the gulfcoast could catch a break, seriously.
posted by nola at 8:20 PM on May 2, 2010
Ok Cronenberg. You know what's hard to stop doing once you start doing it? Copenhagen long cut. I go through 5 cans of this shit a week. There is more than just tabacco in there I assure you.
WTF NOLA, why aren't you down at the beaches reporting instead of leaving up these stale-ass pictures from yesterday?
Jesus, it's all just to depressing. The gulfcoast is just getting over the last few years of trouble and BP makes things even worse. It breaks my heart, it's no joke. I just wish the gulfcoast could catch a break, seriously.
posted by nola at 8:20 PM on May 2, 2010
why is it so greasy?
posted by The Whelk at 11:10 PM on May 2 [+] [!]
it lives in Boston and prefers not to shower until the boil-water order is over.
posted by toodleydoodley at 8:21 PM on May 2, 2010
posted by The Whelk at 11:10 PM on May 2 [+] [!]
it lives in Boston and prefers not to shower until the boil-water order is over.
posted by toodleydoodley at 8:21 PM on May 2, 2010
Breaking kitten news!
That bobcat news ends like you'd expect: the mother gets up and walks away, the bobcat kittens fight like bobcat kittens, and the housecat kittens sit there and wait for death.
Needs more Pinky.
posted by pracowity at 8:27 PM on May 2, 2010 [1 favorite]
That bobcat news ends like you'd expect: the mother gets up and walks away, the bobcat kittens fight like bobcat kittens, and the housecat kittens sit there and wait for death.
Needs more Pinky.
posted by pracowity at 8:27 PM on May 2, 2010 [1 favorite]
and we got a foiled car bomb in NYC the same day as the Joker's plan from Batman The Movie is unleashed on Boston! It's been a great start for cartoonish supervilliany . I full expect weather machines and shrink rays by week's end.
"Soon THE UNIVERSE.." no .."SOON the universe.." no no ..."SOON the UNIVERSE will be MINE!" ah that's it, that's the take.
posted by The Whelk at 8:28 PM on May 2, 2010 [1 favorite]
"Soon THE UNIVERSE.." no .."SOON the universe.." no no ..."SOON the UNIVERSE will be MINE!" ah that's it, that's the take.
posted by The Whelk at 8:28 PM on May 2, 2010 [1 favorite]
Breaking kitten news!
That bobcat news ends like you'd expect: the mother gets up and walks away, the bobcat kittens fight like bobcat kittens, and the housecat kittens sit there and wait for death.
oh, wow, you haven't seen the gang initiation one yet, where the 8-week-old bobkitten is cued up for her first kill. I'll give you a hint - it starts with chopped raw chicken and it ends with
posted by toodleydoodley at 8:31 PM on May 2, 2010
That bobcat news ends like you'd expect: the mother gets up and walks away, the bobcat kittens fight like bobcat kittens, and the housecat kittens sit there and wait for death.
oh, wow, you haven't seen the gang initiation one yet, where the 8-week-old bobkitten is cued up for her first kill. I'll give you a hint - it starts with chopped raw chicken and it ends with
posted by toodleydoodley at 8:31 PM on May 2, 2010
Soylent Yellow is Peep!
posted by Hardcore Poser at 8:56 PM on May 2, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by Hardcore Poser at 8:56 PM on May 2, 2010 [1 favorite]
toodleydoodley: “I'm not keeping score, or trying to get paid by the comment.”
Damned right you're not. You can bloody well be satisfied with getting paid by the Lady Gaga reference, just like the rest of us.
posted by koeselitz at 9:41 PM on May 2, 2010
Damned right you're not. You can bloody well be satisfied with getting paid by the Lady Gaga reference, just like the rest of us.
posted by koeselitz at 9:41 PM on May 2, 2010
Damned right you're not. You can bloody well be satisfied with getting paid by the Lady Gaga reference, just like the rest of us.
posted by koeselitz at 12:41 AM on May 3 [+] [!]
even Dickens had more scruples
posted by toodleydoodley at 10:38 PM on May 2, 2010
posted by koeselitz at 12:41 AM on May 3 [+] [!]
even Dickens had more scruples
posted by toodleydoodley at 10:38 PM on May 2, 2010
This thread has more toodlyoodly than any thread in history.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:59 PM on May 2, 2010
posted by five fresh fish at 10:59 PM on May 2, 2010
*stands there with arms wide open for toodleydoodley's hug*
er, gaga, oil, chernobyl and kittens
posted by infini at 1:39 AM on May 3, 2010 [1 favorite]
er, gaga, oil, chernobyl and kittens
posted by infini at 1:39 AM on May 3, 2010 [1 favorite]
Generally, I think the lifetime of a post is about 3-5 days at the most. After that, discussion starts to drop off pretty severely. My posting an update isn't what killed the previous thread, it was pretty much already dead.
I think enough new stuff about the oil spill had come out in the past few days that it was worth posting an update, since it had gone from "An oil spill in the Gulf Coast" to "Possibly the worst ecological disaster of all time".
posted by empath at 1:59 AM on May 3, 2010
I think enough new stuff about the oil spill had come out in the past few days that it was worth posting an update, since it had gone from "An oil spill in the Gulf Coast" to "Possibly the worst ecological disaster of all time".
posted by empath at 1:59 AM on May 3, 2010
"Possibly the worst ecological disaster of all time".
Kayne West thinks you're doing a great job and all, but the Exxon Valdez was the worst oil spill OF ALL TIME.
No, this one probably has it beat, but I just couldn't help myself.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 3:25 AM on May 3, 2010 [3 favorites]
Kayne West thinks you're doing a great job and all, but the Exxon Valdez was the worst oil spill OF ALL TIME.
No, this one probably has it beat, but I just couldn't help myself.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 3:25 AM on May 3, 2010 [3 favorites]
i don't know if it is because the way i use the site is unusual, but i think there is a disregard for the reality that threads around here decay rather quickly, and beyond a particular point it's like why spend the time on something nobody's around to discuss; so the 'oh, just go comment in the topic from last week' thing becomes kind of silly
There is a dedicated core of us who use the Recent Activity button and follow conversations for weeks. The Human Centipede post started 3 weeks ago and people are still commenting and adding new links. Sometimes the most interesting stuff comes up later because after a day or two of hot, fast discussion most of the casual, snarky commenting dries up and only the most enthusiastic continue on linking.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 6:24 AM on May 3, 2010 [1 favorite]
There is a dedicated core of us who use the Recent Activity button and follow conversations for weeks. The Human Centipede post started 3 weeks ago and people are still commenting and adding new links. Sometimes the most interesting stuff comes up later because after a day or two of hot, fast discussion most of the casual, snarky commenting dries up and only the most enthusiastic continue on linking.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 6:24 AM on May 3, 2010 [1 favorite]
It was not top news at the time and not many people outside the area knew about it.
Um, this story has been the page one since the fire started. The facts that it came on the heels of the coal mine disaster and Obama's loosening the drilling regs positioned it as a lead national (and international) news story long before the full extent of the ecological disaster really broke.
posted by Pollomacho at 7:16 AM on May 3, 2010 [1 favorite]
Um, this story has been the page one since the fire started. The facts that it came on the heels of the coal mine disaster and Obama's loosening the drilling regs positioned it as a lead national (and international) news story long before the full extent of the ecological disaster really broke.
posted by Pollomacho at 7:16 AM on May 3, 2010 [1 favorite]
I had managed to completely wipe all traces of that movie from my mind, Secret Life of Gravy, but now it's right back.
Don't mind me, I'll be under the covers. Whimpering. In a shower. Of bleach.
posted by Kattullus at 7:29 AM on May 3, 2010
Don't mind me, I'll be under the covers. Whimpering. In a shower. Of bleach.
posted by Kattullus at 7:29 AM on May 3, 2010
Hey, if it makes you feel any better toodleydoodley, I was going to make a post about the oil spill the other day and found that you had beat me to it. :)
posted by dabitch at 12:19 PM on May 3, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by dabitch at 12:19 PM on May 3, 2010 [1 favorite]
Um, this story has been the page one since the fire started.
relative to your consumption of media. it was pretty low on NYT and not even on TampaBay.com (st pete times) except inside (like in a news blog), until it became clear that oil was coming to florida. Major coverage was limited to the north/west Gulf area. It did not become top story on MSM news/tainment sites (ABC/ESPN), etc, until like Friday. I concede that international coverage was on top since the beginning but IDK anyone but me/you/us who reads BBC/Guardian etc.
In fact, I told several people (in west coastal florida counties) about it IRL friday and they were like, Really?
posted by toodleydoodley at 12:21 PM on May 3, 2010
relative to your consumption of media. it was pretty low on NYT and not even on TampaBay.com (st pete times) except inside (like in a news blog), until it became clear that oil was coming to florida. Major coverage was limited to the north/west Gulf area. It did not become top story on MSM news/tainment sites (ABC/ESPN), etc, until like Friday. I concede that international coverage was on top since the beginning but IDK anyone but me/you/us who reads BBC/Guardian etc.
In fact, I told several people (in west coastal florida counties) about it IRL friday and they were like, Really?
posted by toodleydoodley at 12:21 PM on May 3, 2010
Generally, I think the lifetime of a post is about 3-5 days at the most. After that, discussion starts to drop off pretty severely. My posting an update isn't what killed the previous thread, it was pretty much already dead.
and here's me thinking you just forgot to search for active posts on the same topic.
Really? and not even a "previously" to tie our conversations together?
that's kinda weak, don't you think?
posted by toodleydoodley at 12:24 PM on May 3, 2010
and here's me thinking you just forgot to search for active posts on the same topic.
Really? and not even a "previously" to tie our conversations together?
that's kinda weak, don't you think?
posted by toodleydoodley at 12:24 PM on May 3, 2010
Major coverage was limited to the north/west Gulf area.
No, really, it wasn't. Here's a lead article on NPR before the rig even sunk.
It did not become top story on MSM news/tainment sites (ABC/ESPN), etc, until like Friday.
And Friday was three whole days before your FPP. That's like months in the 24 hour news cycle!
posted by Pollomacho at 12:39 PM on May 3, 2010
No, really, it wasn't. Here's a lead article on NPR before the rig even sunk.
It did not become top story on MSM news/tainment sites (ABC/ESPN), etc, until like Friday.
And Friday was three whole days before your FPP. That's like months in the 24 hour news cycle!
posted by Pollomacho at 12:39 PM on May 3, 2010
and here's me thinking you just forgot to search for active posts on the same topic.
Really? and not even a "previously" to tie our conversations together?
that's kinda weak, don't you think?
Why do you care?
posted by empath at 12:44 PM on May 3, 2010
Really? and not even a "previously" to tie our conversations together?
that's kinda weak, don't you think?
Why do you care?
posted by empath at 12:44 PM on May 3, 2010
Pollomacho: my FPP was April 26, a month ago in dog years. when I posted, it wasn't a top story in googlenews. I know, because I had to go to the actual newspaper sites in affected areas to get links, as well as, of course, BBC.
empath: Why do I care? because there were a bunch of people in the May 2 thread asking questions that were already addressed in the April 26 thread. that's what "previously" is for - so you can go see what information was covered/discussed -- wait for it -- previously.
posted by toodleydoodley at 12:56 PM on May 3, 2010
empath: Why do I care? because there were a bunch of people in the May 2 thread asking questions that were already addressed in the April 26 thread. that's what "previously" is for - so you can go see what information was covered/discussed -- wait for it -- previously.
posted by toodleydoodley at 12:56 PM on May 3, 2010
There's no reward in heaven for newsfilter posts.
posted by Burhanistan at 3:54 PM on May 3 [+] [!]
that is *so* the real lesson here.
posted by toodleydoodley at 12:56 PM on May 3, 2010
posted by Burhanistan at 3:54 PM on May 3 [+] [!]
that is *so* the real lesson here.
posted by toodleydoodley at 12:56 PM on May 3, 2010
Why do I care? because there were a bunch of people in the May 2 thread asking questions that were already addressed in the April 26 thread. that's what "previously" is for - so you can go see what information was covered/discussed -- wait for it -- previously.
You seem more invested than that. If it was just about that, you'd have posted a 'previously' link in the comments and left it at that.
posted by empath at 1:11 PM on May 3, 2010
You seem more invested than that. If it was just about that, you'd have posted a 'previously' link in the comments and left it at that.
posted by empath at 1:11 PM on May 3, 2010
If I may butt in here for a sec, it seems like I'd kill a goat for those powers of divination you got, empath.
posted by carsonb at 1:22 PM on May 3, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by carsonb at 1:22 PM on May 3, 2010 [1 favorite]
In related news, toodleydoodley I think this is likely another thread of yours to move on from. It seems to me that you're not going to get anything resembling a satisfying response out of empath (eponyironical), and it also seems like you're over/understanding of the whole situation. Can't close it, but it can be removed from activity.
posted by carsonb at 1:26 PM on May 3, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by carsonb at 1:26 PM on May 3, 2010 [1 favorite]
He's the one who said in his OP way up above that he 'got mad and whined'. Sounds like he's just a bit emotionally invested for whatever reason.
I've had stuff of mine get reposted and all I ever do is flag it as a double or link to the old thread if I can find it easily. I've also had made double posts that get deleted. If it happens, it happens. I just don't get the need to call it out in MeTa after it didn't get deleted, and then keep whining about it.
posted by empath at 1:28 PM on May 3, 2010
I've had stuff of mine get reposted and all I ever do is flag it as a double or link to the old thread if I can find it easily. I've also had made double posts that get deleted. If it happens, it happens. I just don't get the need to call it out in MeTa after it didn't get deleted, and then keep whining about it.
posted by empath at 1:28 PM on May 3, 2010
I know, because I had to go to the actual newspaper sites in affected areas to get links, as well as, of course, BBC.
Really? On the 26th? Here's ABC national news from April 22. It's the second story!
posted by Pollomacho at 1:32 PM on May 3, 2010
Really? On the 26th? Here's ABC national news from April 22. It's the second story!
posted by Pollomacho at 1:32 PM on May 3, 2010
You seem more invested than that. If it was just about that, you'd have posted a 'previously' link in the comments and left it at that.
posted by empath at 4:11 PM on May 3 [+] [!]
that's actually your job.
don't get defensive empath - I'm just pointing out that the reason we have rules about doubles is because the highest quality conversations occur when the most people are in the same thread, or have access to/awareness of a prior thread, especially one that is so recent.
I'm moving on now and I've made my last comment on this topic. I think you made a great FPP, and I already said so. I think it would have been nice if you had acknowledged the prior FPP - not to salve my feelings but to acknowledge the other 90+ comments that people besides me put time and thought into - newer readers might have been interested.
posted by toodleydoodley at 1:36 PM on May 3, 2010
posted by empath at 4:11 PM on May 3 [+] [!]
that's actually your job.
don't get defensive empath - I'm just pointing out that the reason we have rules about doubles is because the highest quality conversations occur when the most people are in the same thread, or have access to/awareness of a prior thread, especially one that is so recent.
I'm moving on now and I've made my last comment on this topic. I think you made a great FPP, and I already said so. I think it would have been nice if you had acknowledged the prior FPP - not to salve my feelings but to acknowledge the other 90+ comments that people besides me put time and thought into - newer readers might have been interested.
posted by toodleydoodley at 1:36 PM on May 3, 2010
that's actually your job.
No, it's really not. If he didn't do it, you're entitled to do so. But it isn't like he's required to or anything.
posted by zarq at 1:39 PM on May 3, 2010
No, it's really not. If he didn't do it, you're entitled to do so. But it isn't like he's required to or anything.
posted by zarq at 1:39 PM on May 3, 2010
I know you said you're done commenting, but really toodley, you're completely over the top with this ownership bit. The other thread isn't "yours" in any way and empath owes you exactly nothing. You seem to be new, so maybe you're just not aware of how things work. empath's post was not a double, so quoting the "rules" (which are actually more like guidelines) doesn't actually apply here, and you seem to misunderstand the reason we have guidelines about doubles, anyway. carsonb gave you great advice above, maybe it's worth pondering a bit.
posted by donnagirl at 2:11 PM on May 3, 2010
posted by donnagirl at 2:11 PM on May 3, 2010
Such DRAMA!
posted by five fresh fish at 2:25 PM on May 3, 2010
posted by five fresh fish at 2:25 PM on May 3, 2010
the reason we have rules about doubles is because the highest quality conversations occur when the most people are in the same thread, or have access to/awareness of a prior thread, especially one that is so recent.
What? No it isn't. At the risk of opening this up again, the whole double posting ruleset was mostly implemented before MeFi became so newsheavy [relative to how it is now which is not THAT newsheavy but is where we have to have conversations like this apparently]. The rule was literally so that people didn't post things that have been posted before.
that's actually your job.
Outside of what are actually rules, what we have are guidelines and etiquette. It may be etiquette to indicate a "previously" link, but it's not a rule. If we think someone's doing it maliciously to slight someone who did something previously who they are sending a subtle "fuck you" to, we'll deal with it, but otherwise we sort of need people to both assume good faith and also realize that in an imperfect world, things aren't going to always go your way. I'm sorry this didn't go your way toodleydoodley.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 2:29 PM on May 3, 2010 [1 favorite]
What? No it isn't. At the risk of opening this up again, the whole double posting ruleset was mostly implemented before MeFi became so newsheavy [relative to how it is now which is not THAT newsheavy but is where we have to have conversations like this apparently]. The rule was literally so that people didn't post things that have been posted before.
that's actually your job.
Outside of what are actually rules, what we have are guidelines and etiquette. It may be etiquette to indicate a "previously" link, but it's not a rule. If we think someone's doing it maliciously to slight someone who did something previously who they are sending a subtle "fuck you" to, we'll deal with it, but otherwise we sort of need people to both assume good faith and also realize that in an imperfect world, things aren't going to always go your way. I'm sorry this didn't go your way toodleydoodley.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 2:29 PM on May 3, 2010 [1 favorite]
Meanwhile, I'm making my first comment on the topic. Let's see if my involvement is as entertaining and contentious! I'm betting it will be!
posted by SpiffyRob at 2:31 PM on May 3, 2010
posted by SpiffyRob at 2:31 PM on May 3, 2010
It seems to me that you're not going to get anything resembling a satisfying response out of empath (eponyironical)
Carsonb, darn you! That's what I wanted to say!
But will say on my own, empath, that toodleydoodley is right -- the poster is supposed to try not to double, and at least to add a "previously" link so the rest of us can be involved in one conversation at a time instead of two. (And would it kill you to say sorry, will try not to do that again?)
posted by bearwife at 2:38 PM on May 3, 2010
Carsonb, darn you! That's what I wanted to say!
But will say on my own, empath, that toodleydoodley is right -- the poster is supposed to try not to double, and at least to add a "previously" link so the rest of us can be involved in one conversation at a time instead of two. (And would it kill you to say sorry, will try not to do that again?)
posted by bearwife at 2:38 PM on May 3, 2010
Sorry, was drafting while jessamyn's latest went up. Even if it isn't true that poster is supposed to try not to double a current topic, though, still think it is good etiquette to attempt to avoid doing so, mostly as a courtesy to all the rest of us.
posted by bearwife at 2:42 PM on May 3, 2010
posted by bearwife at 2:42 PM on May 3, 2010
don't get defensive empath
btw, i really don't have hard feelings about the callout and i wasn't being defensive, I just think you have the wrong idea of what metafilter is about. Once your fpp is done, you gotta let it go. You don't need to curate it, or moderate it or protect it. If it gets deleted, it gets deleted, if someone reposts it, then the sin is just flooding the front page with stuff we've already seen, and its the readers who should be calling it out, not the previous poster.
If your justification for anything includes the words 'the discussion', you're probably doing it wrong.
posted by empath at 2:45 PM on May 3, 2010
btw, i really don't have hard feelings about the callout and i wasn't being defensive, I just think you have the wrong idea of what metafilter is about. Once your fpp is done, you gotta let it go. You don't need to curate it, or moderate it or protect it. If it gets deleted, it gets deleted, if someone reposts it, then the sin is just flooding the front page with stuff we've already seen, and its the readers who should be calling it out, not the previous poster.
If your justification for anything includes the words 'the discussion', you're probably doing it wrong.
posted by empath at 2:45 PM on May 3, 2010
(And would it kill you to say sorry, will try not to do that again?)
None of our tags or links matched up, so his post didn't come up when I posted mine. I might not have even posted it, if it had.
posted by empath at 2:47 PM on May 3, 2010 [1 favorite]
None of our tags or links matched up, so his post didn't come up when I posted mine. I might not have even posted it, if it had.
posted by empath at 2:47 PM on May 3, 2010 [1 favorite]
I think it's about time for another FPP about the same spill. Whaddaya say?
posted by flapjax at midnite at 2:49 PM on May 3, 2010
posted by flapjax at midnite at 2:49 PM on May 3, 2010
I'll let toodley do it.
posted by empath at 2:53 PM on May 3, 2010 [4 favorites]
posted by empath at 2:53 PM on May 3, 2010 [4 favorites]
Meanwhile, I'm making my first comment on the topic
Holy crap SpiffyRob, what's your deal? I made a first comment earlier, and I tried to be entertaining, and was taken contentiously. Would it have killed you to link to it with a "previously"? It's the rules, you know.
posted by donnagirl at 2:59 PM on May 3, 2010
Holy crap SpiffyRob, what's your deal? I made a first comment earlier, and I tried to be entertaining, and was taken contentiously. Would it have killed you to link to it with a "previously"? It's the rules, you know.
posted by donnagirl at 2:59 PM on May 3, 2010
There are going to be a couple of dozen threads about this spill eventually. It's ecological and economic Armageddon for the Gulf Coast, and despite some poo-pooing in the more recent thread, I will urge you to mark my words before you get off my lawn. It's too late for it to be anything but the worst such catastrophe to hit the mainland US in anyone's memory. Think Dust Bowl.
I could be wrong. I hope I'm wrong. But I know that part of the world (though more over toward Texas) quite well. Life there always seems tenuous, and it's seemed even more so in the last few years (as far as I can tell from a distance). People can only take so much. No one is even talking about the atmospheric consequences of this much yet, but this spill is going to dump a mighty cloud of toxins and carcinogens on the southeast in coming months. As I recall, life expectancy on the industrialized Gulf Coast is the worst in the nation except for Indian reservations and Alaska Native communities.
I guess my point is who gives a fuck who posted first, really? Mostly the discussion in both threads has been pretty tense and muted because I think all of us who are paying attention can see something awful coming slowly ashore, and we're all in slack-jawed disbelief. There's not even a lot of energy in the blame game yet. There will be time enough and trouble enough for all that.
Just one point no one is yet mentioning. It's spring. The shorebirds are all sitting on eggs. They won't leave their eggs. Two generations will die in one massive wave. Teetering populations will collapse. Even if they don't their food supply (and ours too) is deeply contaminated. Extinctions are a real possibility. It's fucking ecocide. And I think it matters more that we bear witness than whether we do it in one thread or thirty threads.
This is 9/11 for the dreamworld we've been living in.
posted by fourcheesemac at 3:12 PM on May 3, 2010 [12 favorites]
I could be wrong. I hope I'm wrong. But I know that part of the world (though more over toward Texas) quite well. Life there always seems tenuous, and it's seemed even more so in the last few years (as far as I can tell from a distance). People can only take so much. No one is even talking about the atmospheric consequences of this much yet, but this spill is going to dump a mighty cloud of toxins and carcinogens on the southeast in coming months. As I recall, life expectancy on the industrialized Gulf Coast is the worst in the nation except for Indian reservations and Alaska Native communities.
I guess my point is who gives a fuck who posted first, really? Mostly the discussion in both threads has been pretty tense and muted because I think all of us who are paying attention can see something awful coming slowly ashore, and we're all in slack-jawed disbelief. There's not even a lot of energy in the blame game yet. There will be time enough and trouble enough for all that.
Just one point no one is yet mentioning. It's spring. The shorebirds are all sitting on eggs. They won't leave their eggs. Two generations will die in one massive wave. Teetering populations will collapse. Even if they don't their food supply (and ours too) is deeply contaminated. Extinctions are a real possibility. It's fucking ecocide. And I think it matters more that we bear witness than whether we do it in one thread or thirty threads.
This is 9/11 for the dreamworld we've been living in.
posted by fourcheesemac at 3:12 PM on May 3, 2010 [12 favorites]
Great comment, fourcheesemac. Now could you please link to it from both threads?
No hamburger, and no pun on your name there either, you are so right.
posted by bearwife at 3:56 PM on May 3, 2010
No hamburger, and no pun on your name there either, you are so right.
posted by bearwife at 3:56 PM on May 3, 2010
I've got my neck and a paper cutter who is with me?
posted by The Whelk at 7:21 PM on May 3, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by The Whelk at 7:21 PM on May 3, 2010 [1 favorite]
The Whelk: I've got my neck and a paper cutter who is with me?
Those are the least well-thought-out parameters for a duel since Busby Berkeley challenged Albert Camus to a fight to the death and Camus chose cyanide jello in Shakopee, Minnesota. A hungry boy scout troop came across what they thought was a set table, and perished one and all.
On the brighter side, a local news report of the event gave suicidal housewife Eleanor Crocker the idea for jello salad, which made her decide that maybe life was worth living after all. She died a happy lady, thanks to Busby Berkeley, Albert Camus, a deceased boy scout troop, jello salad and a late-in-life addiction to percocet.
posted by Kattullus at 7:41 PM on May 3, 2010 [1 favorite]
Those are the least well-thought-out parameters for a duel since Busby Berkeley challenged Albert Camus to a fight to the death and Camus chose cyanide jello in Shakopee, Minnesota. A hungry boy scout troop came across what they thought was a set table, and perished one and all.
On the brighter side, a local news report of the event gave suicidal housewife Eleanor Crocker the idea for jello salad, which made her decide that maybe life was worth living after all. She died a happy lady, thanks to Busby Berkeley, Albert Camus, a deceased boy scout troop, jello salad and a late-in-life addiction to percocet.
posted by Kattullus at 7:41 PM on May 3, 2010 [1 favorite]
What? DO I HAVE TO START SHOOTING RAINBOWS AND STARS UP IN THIS MU'FUCKA?
posted by P.o.B. at 8:48 PM on May 3, 2010
posted by P.o.B. at 8:48 PM on May 3, 2010
So, who will make an FPP out of fourcheesemac's comment?
posted by dabitch at 12:10 AM on May 4, 2010
posted by dabitch at 12:10 AM on May 4, 2010
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by Kattullus at 2:31 PM on May 2, 2010 [2 favorites]