Joined at the typo

July 22, 2011 7:20 AM

The premise of this FPP was pretty much debunked in the comments. Time for a do-over?

No offense meant to the OP -- it just seems like he got hung up on a particular line in the article that was in all likelihood a journalistic embellishment.

posted by schmod to Etiquette/Policy at 7:20 AM (59 comments total)

I feel like people pretty well hashed it out overnight, but people did seem to have a strong reaction to the (well-intentioned but likely wrong) phrasing of the post. That said, the post is half a day old and I'd be leaning towards not deleting it, personally.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:30 AM on July 22, 2011

I always presume that Daily Mail links are going to be links to something sensationalistic. There's a good chance they also have a position on whether or not being a conjoined twin causes or cures cancer.
posted by cjorgensen at 7:43 AM on July 22, 2011 [2 favorites]

One causes it, the other cures it.
posted by griphus at 7:46 AM on July 22, 2011 [4 favorites]

I notice that you didn't post a MeTa in May, schmod. Were you on holiday that month?
posted by veedubya at 7:54 AM on July 22, 2011

I notice that you didn't post a MeTa in May, schmod. Were you on holiday that month?

Knock this off, please.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:57 AM on July 22, 2011 [5 favorites]

I'm more concerned that this is how rumors spread. Particularly given that we're talking about two individuals who are barely legal adults, and are intellectually disabled.
posted by schmod at 7:59 AM on July 22, 2011 [7 favorites]

Jessamyn, why? I thought that this part of the site was for a serious purpose, not for the chosen few to entertain themselves with their current thought du jour.
posted by veedubya at 8:01 AM on July 22, 2011

Hmm. That's really odd. I promise that I don't have a quota, and am not here to start fights!

_{But, if it is a fight that you're looking for, veedubya, please take this to MetaMetaTalk.}
posted by schmod at 8:04 AM on July 22, 2011

Jessamyn, why?

Because of you are asking a serious question, you can ask it without being snarky about it. Otherwise, it's taking a decently-posed MeTa thread and turning it into some sort of referendum on the OPs use of the system. We need this system to exist and be usable for people. For this to work for the majority of people, it needs to not be a place where you show up to ask a legit question and people needle you. If you've got a question, ask.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 8:13 AM on July 22, 2011 [5 favorites]

If every active user decided to find something once a month to post about to MeTa, will the system still be usable?
posted by veedubya at 8:21 AM on July 22, 2011

Also it is creepy to keep track of other people's site history to the point where you notice something they do only once a month and then comment when they don't do it.

It's like seeing your neighbor take out his recycling and saying "hey, had some ice cream this week, guess that Atkins thing isn't working out".

:(
posted by the young rope-rider at 8:22 AM on July 22, 2011 [12 favorites]

Yup, you're right. Noticing a pattern is *exactly* the same as going through my neighbour's bins.
posted by veedubya at 8:25 AM on July 22, 2011

> Yup, you're right. Noticing a pattern is *exactly* the same as going through my neighbour's bins.

Why are you still talking?
posted by Horselover Phattie at 8:27 AM on July 22, 2011 [9 favorites]

It's similar to noticing what's in your neighbor's bins (perhaps accidentally, perhaps not, I never said either way) and then commenting on it in a rude way.
posted by the young rope-rider at 8:31 AM on July 22, 2011 [1 favorite]

So you're comparing metatalk to garbage?
posted by inigo2 at 8:33 AM on July 22, 2011

Hey, recycling is not garbage, and I'll fucking fight the next person who says it is.

Not really, I'm a big wimp.
posted by FelliniBlank at 8:35 AM on July 22, 2011

It's not the heat so much, it's the humidity.
posted by Sailormom at 8:37 AM on July 22, 2011 [1 favorite]

Can we get back to the original subject? How is conjoined twins w/ different sexual orientations not a great premise for a sitcom?
posted by found missing at 8:40 AM on July 22, 2011 [1 favorite]

If every active user decided to find something once a month to post about to MeTa, will the system still be usable?

If everyone posted a question to AskMe every week we'd have chaos. Absolute chaos.

I'll take a thread like this with an actual question about an FPP over an "I'm leaving, look at me, look at me!" thread any day.

Cats and dogs living together type chaos.
posted by ODiV at 8:40 AM on July 22, 2011 [1 favorite]

No, it's definitely the heat.

I can't stand it; I'm getting out of the kitchen.
posted by Curious Artificer at 8:43 AM on July 22, 2011

I really do not like the new policy of not referring to posting histories, but you are doing a very good job of showing me why it exists, veedubya.
posted by jamjam at 8:46 AM on July 22, 2011

Noticing a pattern is *exactly* the same as going through my neighbour's bins

It's EXACTLY THE SAME as going through your neighbour's bins in the crepuscular gloom and finding a severed human arm tossed casually among seemingly infinite numbers of cardboard boxes from a disreputable chinese take-away, and thinking to yourself, "my God! Jankovitz has killed again - I knew he could not be trusted, that his lust for murder and dismemberment would out him!" and then - pausing only to look about you furtively; suddenly desperately concerned that the vile Jankovitz might have left his abode of evil and is stalking your investigations even as you stalk his refuse - hurrying back into your house, carrying the decaying, incriminating body-part with you, and then you find yourself noticing that it is the arm of a woman, a woman with slender fingers and a dimly-recognisable watch, and could it even be the arm of your sweetheart, Abigail ... ? In horror you drop the evidence upon the floor of the kitchen and back away from it, as a totem of unimaginable dread ... moving backwards, you crash into the small table upon which sits the telephone, and fall to the floor, catching your head on the radiator and opening up a ghastly cut across your cheek ... now in a blood-stained panic, you fumble for the phone, intending to call the police immediately and impart in a trembling, pleading voice a grave accusation against Jankovitz, but - the phoneline is dead! And then you hear it - the unmistakeable tread of your nemesis in YOUR OWN HOUSE - moving behind you - and indeed, had he been in your living room the whole time? Apoplectic with fear, you turn to face the monster and the terrifying reality that he has wrought upon you and all that you have loved, and at that very moment you start to see pinpricks of light at the corners of your vision, and you realise that you are on the verge of passing out, and that you will surely never see another sunrise, and suddenly you are overwhelmed by a desire to live - to survive - and a new strength surges through you and you yell out, "Jankovitz! By GOD, I will kill you!" and you leap to you feet and suddenly realise that you are just a comment on a MetaTalk thread, and no-one has read this far. FUCK.
posted by the quidnunc kid at 8:51 AM on July 22, 2011 [35 favorites]

There's a time and a place for comment fables, and my goodness the graring hour is upon us early this week.
posted by psoas at 9:08 AM on July 22, 2011

jamjam writes "I really do not like the new policy of not referring to posting histories, but you are doing a very good job of showing me why it exists, veedubya."

This is not new policy.
posted by Mitheral at 9:34 AM on July 22, 2011 [1 favorite]

If every active user decided to find something once a month to post about to MeTa, will the system still be usable?

To be fair, it's a valid question in and of itself, but I think you torpedoed your credibility by phrasing it in the form of an insult the first time. I know it's hard to resist using your Statler & Waldorf voice on MeTa, but please try a little harder. If you have a chronic problem with someone's behavior, that's what the mod contact form is for. Public shaming has a 100% backfire rate here, I'm happy to say.
posted by mykescipark at 9:41 AM on July 22, 2011 [1 favorite]

veedubya: "If every active user decided to find something once a month to post about to MeTa, will the system still be usable?"

You seem to have assumed that making a MeTa post is inherently a negative act. This is false.

Further, while one purpose of MeTa is to point out problems to the mods, they actually keep pretty close tabs on what users are posting. If they felt schmod was causing issues with his MeTa posts, I think they'd mention it to him.
posted by Chrysostom at 9:47 AM on July 22, 2011

I really do not like the new policy of not referring to posting histories, but you are doing a very good job of showing me why it exists, veedubya.

To explain: It was an FPP of mine that was the subject of schmod's regular MeTa column last month. In that MeTa he/she happened to mention that they'd checked my posting history and it seemed ok. Because I thought that that was a weird thing to point out, I did something that I very rarely do: I had a look at their posting history. I noticed the frequency of the posting, and also noticed that most of those MeTas occurred in the middle of the month. So, for the last few days I've been trying to guess what this month's would be about.

That is all.

but I think you torpedoed your credibility by phrasing it in the form of an insult

Heaven forbid I should torpedo my credibility.
posted by veedubya at 9:50 AM on July 22, 2011

Pubic shaving has a 100% backfire rate here

Totally agree with this. Keep 'em hirsuit, I say. A bald wang is a bad thang - that's my motto. "I like my women like I like my Sasquatch", if you get me. A healthy thatch of brown hairs is a wealthy patch downstairs, as the Bard wrote. "Cut not my pubes, O you razor-fingered harpies" - the last words of Socrates, wisest of men. "Fairies and foxes love hairy boxes", as is well known. Yup.
posted by the quidnunc kid at 9:59 AM on July 22, 2011 [12 favorites]

I find no mention of the mens sexual orienatation in the link, why is it up again?
posted by clavdivs at 10:04 AM on July 22, 2011 [1 favorite]

This will create an interesting precident.
posted by clavdivs at 10:05 AM on July 22, 2011

Totally agree with this. Keep 'em hirsuit, I say. A bald wang is a bad thang - that's my motto.

I guess we'll find out what the MeFi community consensus is when those nude calendars finally come out.

The word is hirsute.
posted by mykescipark at 10:07 AM on July 22, 2011

I thought that didn't look right. Thanks, mykescipark!
posted by the quidnunc kid at 10:10 AM on July 22, 2011

The word is hirsute.

His suit or her suit, either works, why split hairs?
posted by juv3nal at 10:11 AM on July 22, 2011 [1 favorite]

To explain: It was an FPP of mine that was the subject of schmod's regular MeTa column last month. In that MeTa he/she happened to mention that they'd checked my posting history and it seemed ok. Because I thought that that was a weird thing to point out, I did something that I very rarely do: I had a look at their posting history

This is what schmod said: I'm trying to have a discussion; not an argument. I'm sorry if that's how it came across. You're fine, veedubya, and not the only person guilty of framing posts this way. (And your posting history is pretty good, so it'd be a shame if this deterred you from future FPPs!)

You took a compliment from schmod and used it as a starting point to attack them. Let it go.
posted by Lemurrhea at 10:14 AM on July 22, 2011 [4 favorites]

it needs to not be a place where you show up to ask a legit question and people needle you

but OT shit like this is A-OK!
posted by banshee at 10:18 AM on July 22, 2011

I find no mention of the mens sexual orienatation in the link, why is it up again?

The OP explained it in-thread. The post was made late last night. This MeTa is here. I'm not super-psyched about the post but editing it 12 hours after the fact, even with the OPs request is unlikely to be something we'd do. Our other option is to delete the post which seems to be the way some people are leaning and not really the way we are leaning.

but OT shit like this is A-OK!

Yes, off-topic stuff in MeTa is okay where personal attacks are not.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 10:20 AM on July 22, 2011

I thought it was a fairly reasonable analogy, actually. *sniff*
posted by the quidnunc kid at 10:22 AM on July 22, 2011 [1 favorite]

I notice that you didn't post a MeTa in May, schmod. Were you on holiday that month?

So it's a pattern of behaviour, except when it's not?

To explain: It was an FPP of mine that was the subject of schmod's regular MeTa column last month.

Ah. Petty vendetta. Thanks for clarifying.
posted by Sys Rq at 10:29 AM on July 22, 2011

veedubya writes "It was an FPP of mine that was the subject of schmod's regular MeTa column last month. "

That explains how you noticed a pattern of 6 innocuous posts over eight months. I was in awe of your pattern matching abilities.
posted by Mitheral at 10:31 AM on July 22, 2011

Whoops...sorry I interrupted . I was heading for metafiltr and evidently landed in 8th grade instead.... I hate it when the doors aren't marked!
posted by tomswift at 10:33 AM on July 22, 2011 [2 favorites]

Wait.....! It was SIX posts over EIGHT months!? So that "monthly" comment was just an outright lie!
posted by tomswift at 10:35 AM on July 22, 2011

Okay. Since an explanation was called for, I'll offer one, even though I don't think it's entirely necessary.

I like to be very careful when I make an etiquette-related post on MeTa. For starters, I'm not going to call out a new user, and I let the mods deal with users that post obvious spam/flamebait, because there's really not much "discussion" to be had in those cases.

MeTa is not for tattle-tailing; I flag things that are obvious crap and move on. If the thing I flagged is something that really bothers me enough to check to see if it's still there 1-2 days later, I'll start a MeTa thread. Which is exactly what I did here.

The callout in that thread was referring to a practice that I didn't care for, which had grown to be acceptable on this site (that is, FPPs that contain misleading headlines and nothing below the fold). I mentioned that veedubya had a good posting history, because I believe it's true, and because I wanted to make it clear that the post had nothing to do with him personally, and did not want to dissuade him from making FPPs in the future (which was his initial response to that MeTa).

So, yes. If I want to discuss a practice on this site that I disagree with, I make sure to read the first few things on the profile of the user that made the offending post/comment, so that I can better understand the situation before turning it into a community discussion. Veedubya's FPPs all fit onto a single page, so they were pretty easy to skim.

There are also bylines under every single comment and post on this site. I like to pay attention to those to get a better feeling of the individuals in this community. You don't need to dig through your neighbors' garbage in order to get to know them, especially if you speak with them every day.

Maybe I do make too many MeTa posts. I'll try to cut back on that in the future -- especially the negative ones. However, I'll offer in my defense that even in hindsight, I don't believe that any of them were particularly fighty or directed against a single user. Perhaps the "Queen is Dead" callout was a bit silly, because I'd evidently been deprived of that slice of pop culture...however, I don't particularly believe that it was inappropriate for MeTa.

Also, I'd be remiss if I didn't thank Jessamyn for once again earning her gold star (even though I still respectfully disagree with the moderation decision in this particular instance).
posted by schmod at 10:41 AM on July 22, 2011 [1 favorite]

schmod: "Maybe I do make too many MeTa posts. I'll try to cut back on that in the future -- especially the negative ones. "

You've posted 6 times in nearly 8 months. None of them have been about trivial or awful topics.

IMO, you're not posting too many MeTas.
posted by zarq at 10:50 AM on July 22, 2011 [6 favorites]

Sounds like an innocent mistake on OP and re-editing is a bit late and there are clarifying links. plus, the info has been confirmed in other stories. Thanks for the reply jessamyn.

The guys play a heck of a fiddle.

schmod is 'all good' as we say, this is why meta is here and this issue, while at first seems really out of place even misleading has been clarified 'quick like' which is more then i can say for many media/web sites.
posted by clavdivs at 11:06 AM on July 22, 2011

What fascinates me about this thread at this point is that the question posted still hasn't been discussed since first three comments. As for me, I don't see the harm in an FPP which is phrased erroneously. Everyone who reads the links -- and shouldn't we all if we're going to comment? -- is going to find the error. If the FPP as a whole is just not up to MetaFilter standards, I have faith our mods will take care of it. (I realize they can't stay up all night to take care of the midnight and beyond postings, but they still zap egregious ones.)
posted by bearwife at 12:07 PM on July 22, 2011

When they get around to blowing the Daily Mail away then all this will be irrelevant; Dacre's rag should go the same way as NoW. Any FPP with a link from that comic should be nuked straight out of the gate. You might as well link from the National Enquirer.
posted by adamvasco at 1:10 PM on July 22, 2011

schmod, you're in my cool book insofar as MeTa goes.

veedubya, consider decaf.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 1:19 PM on July 22, 2011

So you're comparing metatalk to garbage?

MetaTalk : We're only happy when it rains.
posted by mannequito at 1:27 PM on July 22, 2011 [4 favorites]

MetaTalk: It's All Over But The Crying
posted by ryanrs at 2:23 PM on July 22, 2011

MetaTalk: "Jankovitz! By GOD, I will kill you!"
posted by Pastor of Muppets at 2:34 PM on July 22, 2011 [1 favorite]

mykescipark: I guess we'll find out what the MeFi community consensus is when those nude calendars finally come out.

This must happen. Someone get on this. I think this is a job for... Team MeFiMag!

I volunteer for October.
posted by troll at 2:54 PM on July 22, 2011

clavdivs: "Sounds like an innocent mistake on OP and re-editing is a bit late and there are clarifying links. plus, the info has been confirmed in other stories."

This is why I really, really think the original post should be deleted. There's nothing that confirms the information except other stories which either reference or straight up copy the originally linked story. But, by leaving the post up, people continue to believe info that is at best unconfirmed, and at worst a lie. And a cursory googling leaves one with the impression that the story is true, because you have to click around more than a bit to discover there's only one source of information being disseminated by all other sources.

Really, I should have done a MeTa myself last night instead of posting in the thread, and maybe this whole off-topic metahistory kerfluffle would have been avoided.
posted by lesli212 at 3:22 PM on July 22, 2011 [3 favorites]

At least people don't think they're blind.
posted by doublehappy at 3:33 PM on July 22, 2011

The "one's gay/one's straight" story would be much more interesting if they were joined at the head of the penis.
posted by Sys Rq at 4:50 PM on July 22, 2011 [2 favorites]

Metatalk (especially for people in this post): Turn off your computers and go outside.
posted by TheBones at 5:51 PM on July 22, 2011

Can we get back to the original subject? How is conjoined twins w/ different sexual orientations not a great premise for a sitcom?

Yeah, only one of the conjoined twins is a loud obnoxious homophobe who's brain always gets more alcohol exposure than the gay twin who's got one more kidney (yeah, this makes no sense). So the gay twin knocks back everclear while the homophobic twin isn't looking and then has his lover come in while... wait this is horrifically unfunny... it'd make a PERFECT premise for a sitcom.
posted by BrotherCaine at 6:13 PM on July 22, 2011

The post about the twins' sexual orientation appears to not be based in verifiable fact. It seems like an honest mistake, but these are real people so it's probably better that we don't contribute to their particular rumor mill problem.
posted by Winnemac at 12:28 PM on July 23, 2011

The post about the twins' sexual orientation appears to not be based in verifiable fact. It seems like an honest mistake, but these are real people so it's probably better that we don't contribute to their particular rumor mill problem.

I agree with this. Doesn't matter for mefites who are reading it now, it matters because that post will come up in google searches about these kids and could end up being a source of further difficulty or mean-spirited attention. It seems like it was simple error of over-reading, doesn't make sense to enshrine it.
posted by LobsterMitten at 5:03 PM on July 23, 2011

I agree with the deletion proposal. The Daily Mail article doesn't mention sex at all. I have no idea why it would be in the headline of the post. Even if it is true, we already know twins can have different sexuality so it's not exactly an interesting insight. If it is mentioned in a different article, then the linkage is messed up making it a flawed post.
posted by chairface at 8:17 AM on July 25, 2011