Two Small Questions July 1, 2002 1:14 PM Subscribe
Two itsy-bitsy questions and one trivial, infinitesimal footnote:
1)On MetaTalk's front page it says "There have been no links and no comments posted since your last visit". Since posts here aren't required to have links wouldn't it be better to say posts or, following the wording on the posting box, threads?
2)Why, when you go back to revise your new post, does the category selected always jump back to bugs? (Some posts mistakenly attributed to bugs are impossible to find through the category archives).
Footnote: Does anyone else feel slightly disappointed when they check in on MeTa and there haven't been any new posts for what seems like ages? Is this ethically deplorable in any way? ;)
1)On MetaTalk's front page it says "There have been no links and no comments posted since your last visit". Since posts here aren't required to have links wouldn't it be better to say posts or, following the wording on the posting box, threads?
2)Why, when you go back to revise your new post, does the category selected always jump back to bugs? (Some posts mistakenly attributed to bugs are impossible to find through the category archives).
Footnote: Does anyone else feel slightly disappointed when they check in on MeTa and there haven't been any new posts for what seems like ages? Is this ethically deplorable in any way? ;)
Of course we do. And of course it is.
Now stand aside for the parade of people preparing to deride your excessive emotional attachment to the site and foreign-devil self-aggrandizement.
posted by rushmc at 1:28 PM on July 1, 2002
Now stand aside for the parade of people preparing to deride your excessive emotional attachment to the site and foreign-devil self-aggrandizement.
posted by rushmc at 1:28 PM on July 1, 2002
Does anyone else feel slightly disappointed when they check in on MeTa and there haven't been any new posts for what seems like ages?
Oh, good heavens, no. Given that the bulk of what winds up here tends to be coarse language and rude names thrown about without regard for anyone's feelings or without respect for the participants' differing viewpoints, I'm -- somewhat disingenuously -- thrilled to see there are no great dust-ups hereabouts.
I know that doesn't mean everyone's getting along famously or having exclusively polite discussions on the blue side but...the MetaTalk quiet is nice. Enjoy the silence.
posted by bradlands at 1:35 PM on July 1, 2002
Oh, good heavens, no. Given that the bulk of what winds up here tends to be coarse language and rude names thrown about without regard for anyone's feelings or without respect for the participants' differing viewpoints, I'm -- somewhat disingenuously -- thrilled to see there are no great dust-ups hereabouts.
I know that doesn't mean everyone's getting along famously or having exclusively polite discussions on the blue side but...the MetaTalk quiet is nice. Enjoy the silence.
posted by bradlands at 1:35 PM on July 1, 2002
You know what's ethically deplorable to me? When someone posts a link that has nothing to do with the discussion currently taking place.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 1:37 PM on July 1, 2002
posted by mr_crash_davis at 1:37 PM on July 1, 2002
i agree with bradlands. a quiet metatalk is a less-embarassing one.
posted by Ufez Jones at 1:39 PM on July 1, 2002
posted by Ufez Jones at 1:39 PM on July 1, 2002
So -- 1) and 2) were just camouflage; we're really supposed to talk about 3)?
Okay then. That's twice now that we've come this close to having no posts visible on MeTa, and Miguel's been the one to spoil it. Self-aggrandizing foreign devil.
how was that, rushmc?
posted by ook at 1:43 PM on July 1, 2002
Okay then. That's twice now that we've come this close to having no posts visible on MeTa, and Miguel's been the one to spoil it. Self-aggrandizing foreign devil.
how was that, rushmc?
posted by ook at 1:43 PM on July 1, 2002
Same here. So much more than MeFi, metatalk is what we make of it. Very often in the past it's been crap, and it was our fault. The last few threads weren't that bad. So what if a couple days go by and nobody post a new thread?
posted by matteo at 1:43 PM on July 1, 2002
posted by matteo at 1:43 PM on July 1, 2002
MetaTalk is my favorite soap-opera, and the point of origin of some of the best language on this site. So yes, Miguel, I am disappointed when there's nothing here. What's a community without a little drama?
But Miguel, couldn't you at least have linked to a thread on MeFi somewhere that we could all get contentious about? I love those.
posted by rocketman at 1:53 PM on July 1, 2002
But Miguel, couldn't you at least have linked to a thread on MeFi somewhere that we could all get contentious about? I love those.
posted by rocketman at 1:53 PM on July 1, 2002
This is the world's longest six-word post. You need to get your editor over here, Miguel.
posted by MarkAnd at 2:26 PM on July 1, 2002
posted by MarkAnd at 2:26 PM on July 1, 2002
I have been mildly relieved to not see a new whiny post on MeTa. Also, I was not at all surprised to see that Miguel was the one to break the silence.
Let's see how long 'til the next MeTa post. Reminder: silence can be a beautiful thing.
And, what ook said, tongue only partly in cheek. Not to be whiny or anything.
posted by rio at 2:30 PM on July 1, 2002
Let's see how long 'til the next MeTa post. Reminder: silence can be a beautiful thing.
And, what ook said, tongue only partly in cheek. Not to be whiny or anything.
posted by rio at 2:30 PM on July 1, 2002
All worth it for mr_crash_davis's link. Ta.
PS Miguel - space after brackets... 1)Not this... 2) This
;-)
posted by i_cola at 3:13 PM on July 1, 2002
PS Miguel - space after brackets... 1)Not this... 2) This
;-)
posted by i_cola at 3:13 PM on July 1, 2002
Does anyone else feel slightly disappointed when they check in on MeTa and there haven't been any new posts for what seems like ages? Is this ethically deplorable in any way?
What's the matter, Miguel? 9622.net isn't enough to quench your thirst for chatter?
posted by BlueTrain at 3:14 PM on July 1, 2002
What's the matter, Miguel? 9622.net isn't enough to quench your thirst for chatter?
posted by BlueTrain at 3:14 PM on July 1, 2002
Also, I was not at all surprised to see that Miguel was the one to break the silence.
Nah, I had my money on Su. I guess he/she was on vacation.
posted by Ufez Jones at 3:16 PM on July 1, 2002
Nah, I had my money on Su. I guess he/she was on vacation.
posted by Ufez Jones at 3:16 PM on July 1, 2002
one trivial, infinitesimal footnote:
I think Miguel is confusing an infinitesimal with its reciprocal. This is all about Miguel, right?
posted by vacapinta at 5:30 PM on July 1, 2002
I think Miguel is confusing an infinitesimal with its reciprocal. This is all about Miguel, right?
posted by vacapinta at 5:30 PM on July 1, 2002
Silence will certainly be golden for someone if this comes to pass. Handily, this is also the MeFi post that Miguel could link to for rocketman, as well!
posted by Lynsey at 8:48 PM on July 1, 2002
posted by Lynsey at 8:48 PM on July 1, 2002
Miguel, I am only dissappointed that you still don't understand that there can be a front page withour your name on it , and it's not harmful. Many have attempted to explain this to you. Shit for shit's sake is not entertaining or enjoyable. Despite your prolific typing fingers and enomous ego and desire to see your name in print, qualirty over quantity is still a reasonable goal.
posted by scottymac at 12:01 AM on July 2, 2002
posted by scottymac at 12:01 AM on July 2, 2002
Oof, and 2 misspellings in that comment. My apologies...
posted by scottymac at 12:04 AM on July 2, 2002
posted by scottymac at 12:04 AM on July 2, 2002
new posts for what seems like ages? Is this ethically deplorable in any way? ;)
I did, and struck out, even though it was my first, :P
Honestly, it was fun, and it did get going, once I pulled the marbles from my mouth. So by ethically? are you looking for a post, regardless of the quality in the content.
Few is a good thing, you know. ;)
posted by thomcatspike at 8:34 AM on July 2, 2002
I did, and struck out, even though it was my first, :P
Honestly, it was fun, and it did get going, once I pulled the marbles from my mouth. So by ethically? are you looking for a post, regardless of the quality in the content.
Few is a good thing, you know. ;)
posted by thomcatspike at 8:34 AM on July 2, 2002
"once I pulled the marbles from my mouth."
Thom, the modern day Demosthenes.
posted by insomnyuk at 8:48 AM on July 2, 2002
Thom, the modern day Demosthenes.
posted by insomnyuk at 8:48 AM on July 2, 2002
Input your credit card number here:
___ ___ ___ ___ exp. ______
posted by rushmc at 10:11 AM on July 2, 2002
___ ___ ___ ___ exp. ______
posted by rushmc at 10:11 AM on July 2, 2002
MetaTalk now carries the last 5 posts, instead of the previous 4 days of posts, so there's no need to post to keep the page alive any longer.
Also: I like no new MetaTalk posts, it means less work for me.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 1:27 PM on July 2, 2002
Also: I like no new MetaTalk posts, it means less work for me.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 1:27 PM on July 2, 2002
Rats, I was just going to post one about a bug in MetaTalk preview mode. The anchor links for each post read http://metatalk.metafilter.com/contribute/metadetail.cfm?link_ID=2323#40097 when clicking on them in preview mode.
posted by insomnyuk at 1:32 PM on July 2, 2002
posted by insomnyuk at 1:32 PM on July 2, 2002
And the bugs?
posted by MiguelCardoso at 1:41 PM on July 2, 2002
posted by MiguelCardoso at 1:41 PM on July 2, 2002
fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck
fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck
fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck
posted by mlang at 2:07 PM on July 2, 2002
fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck
fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck
posted by mlang at 2:07 PM on July 2, 2002
Not another fucking haiku!
posted by Ufez Jones at 2:14 PM on July 2, 2002
posted by Ufez Jones at 2:14 PM on July 2, 2002
MetaTalk now carries the last 5 posts, instead of the previous 4 days of posts
See what you've done!
Now, we'll never see an empty MetaTalk page ever again - a thing of cleansed and unwritten beauty, like a crisp sheet of paper as its rolled into a typewriter or a newly-painted wall before the graffiti vandals arrive.
*sniff*
Thanks Miguel.
posted by vacapinta at 2:28 PM on July 2, 2002
See what you've done!
Now, we'll never see an empty MetaTalk page ever again - a thing of cleansed and unwritten beauty, like a crisp sheet of paper as its rolled into a typewriter or a newly-painted wall before the graffiti vandals arrive.
*sniff*
Thanks Miguel.
posted by vacapinta at 2:28 PM on July 2, 2002
Anybody (aside from me) prefer MetaTalk to MetaFilter? For one thing, I can keep up with MetaTalk.
posted by timeistight at 2:52 PM on July 2, 2002
posted by timeistight at 2:52 PM on July 2, 2002
and the bugs?
1)On MetaTalk's front page it says "There have been no links and no comments posted since your last visit". Since posts here aren't required to have links wouldn't it be better to say posts or, following the wording on the posting box, threads?
Perhaps. I know what it means though. *shrugs*
2)Why, when you go back to revise your new post, does the category selected always jump back to bugs? (Some posts mistakenly attributed to bugs are impossible to find through the category archives).
I don't know if something has been changed, but this does not happen to me (IE 6 / Win 2K). If it's a browser thing, then Matt's as powerless as the rest of us to stop it.
posted by Darth Vader at 2:56 PM on July 2, 2002
1)On MetaTalk's front page it says "There have been no links and no comments posted since your last visit". Since posts here aren't required to have links wouldn't it be better to say posts or, following the wording on the posting box, threads?
Perhaps. I know what it means though. *shrugs*
2)Why, when you go back to revise your new post, does the category selected always jump back to bugs? (Some posts mistakenly attributed to bugs are impossible to find through the category archives).
I don't know if something has been changed, but this does not happen to me (IE 6 / Win 2K). If it's a browser thing, then Matt's as powerless as the rest of us to stop it.
posted by Darth Vader at 2:56 PM on July 2, 2002
Thanks, Darth Vader. Though I'm on IE6/Win 2K too. Quite a few etiquette, metafilter-related, etc. threads show up in the "bugs" category so I thought it might be happening to others.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 4:09 PM on July 2, 2002
posted by MiguelCardoso at 4:09 PM on July 2, 2002
Oddly enough, I once read a story about a guy named Miguel Cardoso waking up one day and discovering that he had turned into a metafilter bug.
posted by gluechunk at 5:06 PM on July 2, 2002
posted by gluechunk at 5:06 PM on July 2, 2002
Miguel:
1) you're right, but like the dark lord above states, everyone kind of knows what it means, which is why it hasn't come up in two years. I'll change it to something better.
2) the 'bugs' problem is due to browser caching. I never got around to making the metatalk new post preview work like metafilter's. The metatalk version of it requires that you hit your back button if you want to edit your post. After a set time, anywhere from a few minutes to twenty minutes, your browser forgets some of its settings. I've noticed in other applications that password fields automatically clear when you go back, and apparently form selects do as well. This will be fixed when I finally get around to rewriting the Metatalk post page.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 5:24 PM on July 2, 2002
1) you're right, but like the dark lord above states, everyone kind of knows what it means, which is why it hasn't come up in two years. I'll change it to something better.
2) the 'bugs' problem is due to browser caching. I never got around to making the metatalk new post preview work like metafilter's. The metatalk version of it requires that you hit your back button if you want to edit your post. After a set time, anywhere from a few minutes to twenty minutes, your browser forgets some of its settings. I've noticed in other applications that password fields automatically clear when you go back, and apparently form selects do as well. This will be fixed when I finally get around to rewriting the Metatalk post page.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 5:24 PM on July 2, 2002
Cheers, Matt!
posted by MiguelCardoso at 12:53 AM on July 3, 2002
posted by MiguelCardoso at 12:53 AM on July 3, 2002
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by yhbc at 1:20 PM on July 1, 2002