is there any way one can delete a thread one posted?

June 6, 2002 1:14 PM

is there any way one can delete a thread one posted? i am the idiot behind the daniel pearl video rationalization thread that's clogging up the front page and had i realised the page i linked to included screen grabs i would have marked it as such. i shouldn't have linked to it anyway and i would really like to end my own embarrassment by taking it down.
posted by pxe2000 to Etiquette/Policy at 1:14 PM (39 comments total)

I wouldn't take it personally, pxe ... that daniel pearl video is such a hot-button issue, it was bound to offend some people regardless of what you linked to or how you posted about it.
posted by crunchland at 1:27 PM on June 6, 2002

It was a good post, and a good topic. You shouldn't have "not made the post", in my opinion. You just screwed up, although in a major way for some people.

Don't let the reactionary flamers get to you about it.
posted by SweetJesus at 1:28 PM on June 6, 2002

sweet jesus, you are a kind human. i appreciate your sticking up for me in the thread. like you i was interested in discussing the issues of corporate media coming in on this controversy, and i hoped the thread would generate that kind of discussion. it makes me really angry that i wasn't observant enough to see that yes, there were photos on the site.
posted by pxe2000 at 1:32 PM on June 6, 2002

I wasn't happy to see those disgusting pictures again, but mistakes/misjudgements happen to the best of us, pxe2000. I've endured plenty of embarrasment in my life, enough to know that I just have to grit my teeth and endure it. Time takes the sting out of it.

Not to imply that you should even be embarrassed by your post, only perhaps filter the site you're linking a bit more thoroughly next time is all.
posted by evanizer at 1:38 PM on June 6, 2002

pxe, you could email Matt about it, he might delete it or add a warning to the link. I already have emailed him.
There is no need for calling yourself an idiot, everyone makes mistakes.
What gets me is that you are more concerned about your own embarrassment than the fact that people are being caught out by the link.
posted by Catch at 1:48 PM on June 6, 2002

pxe2000, I believe that it was a genuine mistake. Chalk this one up to a learning experience. I think that some of us, myself included, got hung up of the force of Matteo's words--he was very upset and rightly so. Given time to cool off, perhaps you guys can have a little chat. Maybe send him an email or something? Just a thought.

Maybe this gives you a reason to go high speed? :)
posted by ashbury at 1:50 PM on June 6, 2002

Oops, you already have emailed Matt. How did I miss that in the thread?
posted by Catch at 1:51 PM on June 6, 2002

pxe2000: I'm a great believer in intentions and in conscience. On both scores you rate 100% on the good guys' side. As does Matteo. Thanks for being brave twice.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 1:57 PM on June 6, 2002

i don't think pxe has anything to apologize for. "the boston phoenix ... has decided to post the daniel pearl snuff video on their website." how much more information does someone need to make a judgement call on whether they want to take a look? if the Pearl death video is a sensitive subject for you, then don't take the chance that you may see something that offends you.

whether pxe made an honest mistake or whether her apology is sincere doesn't matter. none of us but her know either way with any certainty, and because of that possibility, she should be given the benefit of the doubt (unless she has a history of such things).

posted by tolkhan at 2:00 PM on June 6, 2002

I just deleted it for you. Don't worry about the blowback, it sounds like you made an honest mistake.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 2:03 PM on June 6, 2002

matthowie: thanks. you are a good man.

catch: my reasons for posting it were because i wanted to discuss the issues related to the phoenix's posting such sensitive and polarizing media under the "first amendment" banner (which the publisher smarmily addressed in his editorial without so much as a mention of what pearl's surviving family must feel). because the print version of this editorial was accompanied with TWO screen grabs from the video, i should have assumed that the web version would have the same even if i didn't see it.

in any event, i'm sorry to the people who were rightfully angered by his death that i unwittingly posted such a disgusting picture. he was a good man and i wish i hadn't unintentionally spit on his grave.
posted by pxe2000 at 2:12 PM on June 6, 2002

Some people have a very strange and disturbing way of interpreting things...

In any case, I think these were thoroughly discussed on the original thread, from both sides.

I am curious, though. Does this mean that any post that the poster later "reconsiders" will be removed if the original poster requests it of you, Matt? And if not, what are the criteria under which it will be done?
posted by rushmc at 3:45 PM on June 6, 2002

I am curious, though. Does this mean that any post that the poster later "reconsiders" will be removed if the original poster requests it of you, Matt? And if not, what are the criteria under which it will be done?

The original thread absolutely sucked. And it wasn't necessarily the link's fault. As soon as pxe2000 posted, out of the 39 comments, 36 were about the link's questionable material and a bunch of yelling and screaming. That thread deserved to be hacked, if only because the content was TERRIBLE. Did you read the thread, rushmc? This wasn't a "judgment call", IMHO, this was simply a necessary act.
posted by BlueTrain at 10:00 PM on June 6, 2002

I am curious, though. Does this mean that any post that the poster later "reconsiders" will be removed if the original poster requests it of you, Matt? And if not, what are the criteria under which it will be done?

I probably only delete the threads that are requested of me about half the time, at most. Here's how I handle them:

- take a look at the post, then the comments on it, and determine if the post is bad or if the comments suck.

- if the post sucks, is there still a good discussion taking place? If so, it stays and I explain to the requesting person that the conversation is good regardless of the weak post.

- if the post is ok and the discussion sucks, it's a judgement call.

- the post sucks and the discussion is pointless, it's gone.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 10:34 PM on June 6, 2002

So there is no special dispensation given to the fact that it is the original poster who makes the request, then? Anyone asking for a post's removal gets the same consideration, according to the criteria you listed?
posted by rushmc at 4:14 AM on June 7, 2002

Sorry I wasn't more clear, I do take into consideration who is asking, and also how many people are asking. If the post is borderline, and some random person is asking, it stays. If the post is borderline and the original person asks, it has a greater chance of going. The point of my last commnet is that I don't automatically delete when someone that posted something asks. If there is something still worthwhile about it, I'll keep it up. I can't give much more detail because this doesn't happen very often and it's never a black and white thing. I've left a lot of controversial things up that many have asked for removal of (usually not the original poster), and in some cases kept them up even when the original poster asked for removal (they were usually harmless links or the original poster misinterpretted comments about it).
posted by mathowie (staff) at 5:28 AM on June 7, 2002

Fair enough. I guess what I'm not clear on is why you would give precedence to the original poster at all, given that you have declined to provide a "delete post" option. In these cases, not only does the poster get to delete his/her own original post, but often a lengthy thread full of OTHER people's posts (most of whom, one can presume, would not want their posts deleted), which even a "delete post" button would not allow.

This bugs me, but at the same time, I see your reasoning, and in the final analysis it is still you making the decision to delete, even while influenced by the original poster.

Thanks for answering the question.
posted by rushmc at 9:31 AM on June 7, 2002

the thread turned into crap. i was glad to have my comments gone. i think in this case it makes total sense that pxe would be granted her wish to have the thread pulled -- she didn't want to be unwittingly responsible for people seeing extremely violent images. it didn't seem like it was just a "wow, this thread blows. let's get rid of it!" situation.
posted by pikachulolita at 9:35 AM on June 7, 2002

Why would you be glad to see your comments gone, pika? Unless you are admitting that you knowingly posted "crap?" I can understand (but disagree with) being glad to see the thread as a whole go, but presumably your comments, when posted, were intended to redeem the thread, not add to its crapification? (I give you the benefit of the doubt here, not having seen the entire thread before it was deleted.) If individual posters were responsible for crapping in the thread, then it is they who should be held responsible for their actions, and perhaps punished, not the Metafilter community at large.

In any case, it has been clearly established in the previous thread that not everyone feels the same way about "extremely violent images," particularly this one, so deleting the thread as a service to the Mefi community seems a poor justification to me.
posted by rushmc at 11:09 AM on June 7, 2002

In any case, it has been clearly established in the previous thread that not everyone feels the same way about "extremely violent images," particularly this one, so deleting the thread as a service to the Mefi community seems a poor justification to me.

You're fishing for the censorship argument rushmc, and it has become tiresome. You still haven't answered my question, "Did you read the thread in question?"

There was only ONE comment of redeeming value in that thread, and it was posted by SweetJesus. The thread devolved from there, when matteo went on a bit of a rant, and never showed any signs of returning to any semblance of order or intelligence.

This has nothing to do with censorship because Matt did not delete anything of value. There were no motivations other than removing crap (that I'm aware of anyway). Why do you continue to argue censorship? As Matt has already stated, he rarely does this, if ever. He rarely, if ever, deletes individual comments. And the bottom line is, he's allowed to do so, because this entire site's content is under his discretion.
posted by BlueTrain at 11:28 AM on June 7, 2002

i posted to the thread because matteo was completely out of line, in my opinion. i saw people dogpiling on pxe and i really disagreed that that was the right thing to do (and it all probably should have been taken to metatalk anyway). i am glad to see it gone because the whole thing shouldn't have happened in the first place. nothing of value was said about the link, only a bunch of fighting. while the comments i made were of value at the time, the thread was still crap and i'm still glad it's gone.
posted by pikachulolita at 12:14 PM on June 7, 2002

There was only ONE comment of redeeming value in that thread

Opinion.

The thread devolved from there, when matteo went on a bit of a rant, and never showed any signs of returning to any semblance of order or intelligence.

Opinion.

Matt did not delete anything of value.

Opinion (while you are certainly entitled to your opinions, it might be nice if you stated them as such, rather than inarguable edicts handed down to us mere mortals).

This has nothing to do with censorship because Matt did not delete anything of value.

Bizarre definition of "censorship."

There were no motivations other than removing crap (that I'm aware of anyway

I direct you to the earlier comments (particularly Matt's) in this thread.

And the bottom line is, he's allowed to do so, because this entire site's content is under his discretion.

Irrelevant, as that has not been disputed.
posted by rushmc at 12:58 PM on June 7, 2002

And you STILL haven't answered my question, "Did you read the thread in question?"
posted by BlueTrain at 1:03 PM on June 7, 2002

Obviously you haven't read this one, since I did, in fact, answer that already.
posted by rushmc at 1:37 PM on June 7, 2002

My fault.

However, that explains why your argument is so weak. How can you argue for a thread that you haven't seen? For all of my claims that you deemed "opinions", do you have an opinion? Did you read those comments?

Further, and probably more importantly, at one point Matt claimed to delete things, like haikus and pancakes, because first-time visitors to the site may be turned off by the in-jokes. I believe the same applies to this thread. It devolved into petty arguments. A first-time visitor might get the impression that MeFi isn't a very intelligent forum based upon this thread, which, as we all know, is not the case.

BTW, my opinions are the edict of God. Didn't you get the memo?
posted by BlueTrain at 1:51 PM on June 7, 2002

I delete things that are a blight on the site. I imagine what the site would look like to someone hitting it for the first time, and remove things that would give me a negative view of the site. - mathowie
posted by BlueTrain at 2:02 PM on June 7, 2002

How can you argue for a thread that you haven't seen?

On the principles involved. I'm not arguing for this particular thread on it's particular merits, or lack thereof. I should have thought that was apparent. I think maybe you have misunderstood the intent of my comments here and need to take another look at them.

For all of my claims that you deemed "opinions", do you have an opinion?

I never claimed to have an opinion about them. It's quite possible that my opinion would coincide with yours, in at least some cases.

A first-time visitor might get the impression that MeFi isn't a very intelligent forum based upon this thread

If he is going to delete all threads that might give that impression, he's going to be kept very busy.
posted by rushmc at 2:46 PM on June 7, 2002

Opinion.

Opinion.

Opinion.

Well, of course it's opinion. Any fool can see that. Why bother pointing it out three times?

while you are certainly entitled to your opinions, it might be nice if you stated them as such, rather than inarguable edicts handed down to us mere mortals

Dude, if we had to preface every opinion we stated with "It is my opinion that," we would quickly become an even sadder bunch of pretentious gasbags than we already are.
posted by kindall at 4:50 PM on June 7, 2002

Well, of course it's opinion. Any fool can see that. Why bother pointing it out three times?

Because it is presented not as opinion but as irrefutable fact. No one is suggesting that all comments must be prefaced with a disclaimer (though it helps sometimes). Basing your entire argument on facts which are in fact only your opinion quickly becomes circular and renders your argument meaningless. To make a statement such as "This has nothing to do with censorship because Matt did not delete anything of value" begs the entire question ostensibly under discussion. And stating the opinion over and over doesn't suddenly transform it into fact, either. I am perfectly content to admit the validity of anyone's opinions; I'd just like some indication from time to time that they are sensitive to the difference between those opinions and an objective, demonstrable, universally-agreed upon fact (which is a much rarer and more precious bird).

posted by rushmc at 6:20 PM on June 7, 2002

Basing your entire argument on facts which are in fact only your opinion quickly becomes circular and renders your argument meaningless.

Well, that's one opinion.
posted by willnot at 7:23 PM on June 7, 2002

Presumably if the reader can tell it's opinion, the writer knows it too.
posted by kindall at 6:07 AM on June 8, 2002

Presumably if the reader can tell it's opinion, the writer knows it too.

You would think, but apparently things aren't always quite so simple as that:

BlueTrain: For all of my claims that you deemed "opinions"
posted by rushmc at 3:22 PM on June 8, 2002

Never assume anything rushmc; I heard that a very long time ago and still haven't mastered the lesson.
posted by BlueTrain at 9:28 PM on June 8, 2002

I agree with the sentiment behind the thought, BlueTrain, but in reality it's not very practical advice, is it? We are able to function only because of the thousands of assumptions we make every day. But certainly, any assumption should be the first step, not the last.
posted by rushmc at 9:44 PM on June 8, 2002

Is it Sanctimonious Day over at your house today, Rush?
posted by crunchland at 10:10 PM on June 8, 2002

?
posted by rushmc at 4:18 AM on June 9, 2002

'Sanctimonious Day' thats around Arbor Day, yes.
posted by clavdivs at 7:48 AM on June 9, 2002

i thought every day was sanctimonious day 'round these parts.
posted by pikachulolita at 8:56 AM on June 9, 2002

Hot: Sanctimonious Day
Not: Festivus
posted by euphorb at 10:46 AM on June 9, 2002