How about a little meat to go with that book? July 20, 2002 2:32 PM Subscribe
Well, it triggered one of Dhartung's closely reasoned SuperComments, so that made it worthwhile.
posted by artifex at 4:20 PM on July 20, 2002
posted by artifex at 4:20 PM on July 20, 2002
Any reason my comment was deleted? it basically said The thread is worthwhile just for some of the better comments...
posted by madmanz123 at 4:22 PM on July 20, 2002
posted by madmanz123 at 4:22 PM on July 20, 2002
I didn't delete anything madmanz123, are you sure you posted it? It seems to be a pretty frequent problem that people preview something a bunch of times and don't hit the post button the last time.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 6:01 PM on July 20, 2002
posted by mathowie (staff) at 6:01 PM on July 20, 2002
Well, it triggered one of Dhartung's closely reasoned SuperComments, so that made it worthwhile.
True. Can I change my vote?
posted by rcade at 7:10 PM on July 20, 2002
True. Can I change my vote?
posted by rcade at 7:10 PM on July 20, 2002
It seemed like a timely post, but perhaps better presented as a link to reviews of the book, rather than promotional material.
posted by PrinceValium at 7:10 PM on July 20, 2002
posted by PrinceValium at 7:10 PM on July 20, 2002
I'm not seeing the harm in this. Would it have been diferent if the link was to the Washington Post review, first chapter available for free?
It spawned a worthwhile discussion, there was no affiliate code included and like them or not Amazon remains a worthwhile source for anyone interested in purchasing a book. I also find that the information Amazon provides useful when I request a book from the library.
posted by cedar at 7:21 PM on July 20, 2002
It spawned a worthwhile discussion, there was no affiliate code included and like them or not Amazon remains a worthwhile source for anyone interested in purchasing a book. I also find that the information Amazon provides useful when I request a book from the library.
posted by cedar at 7:21 PM on July 20, 2002
Complaining about a front page post, simply for street cred. Weaker.
posted by jcterminal at 8:01 PM on July 20, 2002
posted by jcterminal at 8:01 PM on July 20, 2002
Oh, yeah. With a user number like that, I'm sure jjg needs to work on street cred.
posted by crunchland at 8:20 PM on July 20, 2002 [1 favorite]
posted by crunchland at 8:20 PM on July 20, 2002 [1 favorite]
I'm not seeing the harm in this. Would it have been diferent if the link was to the Washington Post review, first chapter available for free?
Yes. At least that would have given us something on the linked site to serve as fodder for discussion. When you just link directly to a book, musical group, movie, or the like, the only reason to post the link is to give you an excuse to start a discussion on that subject. That's not normally how the place works.
posted by rcade at 8:45 PM on July 20, 2002
Yes. At least that would have given us something on the linked site to serve as fodder for discussion. When you just link directly to a book, musical group, movie, or the like, the only reason to post the link is to give you an excuse to start a discussion on that subject. That's not normally how the place works.
posted by rcade at 8:45 PM on July 20, 2002
Okay, I'm not trying to be difficult, really I'm not.
You say,"...the only reason to post the link is to give you an excuse to start a discussion on that subject." Isn't that the entire point of posting, to start a discussion?
The discussion part seemed to turn out okay, at least a few people are interested. Those who have at least a passing interest in the subject could easily have done what I did and googled up another link to extend the conversation.
After all, isn't it their thread? Looking over the front page it seems to fall in the middle in terms of response, and in the upper part of the curve for eloquence. The Amazon thing strikes me as lazy (when I blog a book or movie or cd, Amazon is certainly the shortest route to a picture and number), but not insurmountable when taken in context.
posted by cedar at 9:48 PM on July 20, 2002
You say,"...the only reason to post the link is to give you an excuse to start a discussion on that subject." Isn't that the entire point of posting, to start a discussion?
The discussion part seemed to turn out okay, at least a few people are interested. Those who have at least a passing interest in the subject could easily have done what I did and googled up another link to extend the conversation.
After all, isn't it their thread? Looking over the front page it seems to fall in the middle in terms of response, and in the upper part of the curve for eloquence. The Amazon thing strikes me as lazy (when I blog a book or movie or cd, Amazon is certainly the shortest route to a picture and number), but not insurmountable when taken in context.
posted by cedar at 9:48 PM on July 20, 2002
Still, pretty darn weak.
That's all that jjg said, and it's not really something that can be disputed. Always nice when a good discussion eventuates from a poor front page post, but that doesn't excuse posting laziness.
Of course, for my part, as I've mentioned before, I never bother with following Amazon links. So another link would have increased the value of the post for me from zero to, well, something more than zero, I guess.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 10:08 PM on July 20, 2002
That's all that jjg said, and it's not really something that can be disputed. Always nice when a good discussion eventuates from a poor front page post, but that doesn't excuse posting laziness.
Of course, for my part, as I've mentioned before, I never bother with following Amazon links. So another link would have increased the value of the post for me from zero to, well, something more than zero, I guess.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 10:08 PM on July 20, 2002
Isn't that the entire point of posting, to start a discussion?
It's only 50 percent of the point of posting. The other half is presenting material for discussion.
When there's a link to Amazon, with only snippets of reviews and mostly publisher's blurbs, you get two types of comments - those who have read the book and can actually discuss it, and those who have not read the book, have preconceived opinions on the subject matter, and go off on tangents.
If there's a link to a review, or other third party analysis, those who haven't read the book (i.e. most of us) but with preconceived opinions (some of us) can apply their opinions to the content of the link in the post. Good discussion and world peace ensues.
posted by PrinceValium at 10:08 PM on July 20, 2002
It's only 50 percent of the point of posting. The other half is presenting material for discussion.
When there's a link to Amazon, with only snippets of reviews and mostly publisher's blurbs, you get two types of comments - those who have read the book and can actually discuss it, and those who have not read the book, have preconceived opinions on the subject matter, and go off on tangents.
If there's a link to a review, or other third party analysis, those who haven't read the book (i.e. most of us) but with preconceived opinions (some of us) can apply their opinions to the content of the link in the post. Good discussion and world peace ensues.
posted by PrinceValium at 10:08 PM on July 20, 2002
mathowie, re: deleted comment
Musta been (I'm usually good about this sort of thing). Sorry to waste your time.
posted by madmanz123 at 10:12 PM on July 20, 2002
Musta been (I'm usually good about this sort of thing). Sorry to waste your time.
posted by madmanz123 at 10:12 PM on July 20, 2002
When there's a link to Amazon, with only snippets of reviews and mostly publisher's blurbs, you get two types of comments - those who have read the book and can actually discuss it, and those who have not read the book, have preconceived opinions on the subject matter, and go off on tangents.
I think there is a third type.
What about people, such as myself, who were not previously familiar with the work but saw enough (yes, even via Amazon) to do a little bit of research and learn something new?
Despite possible breaches of etiquette, I learned something from the post and added to my reading list. I'll leave this alone now and read some more; maybe I'll figure out what it is I'm missing or maybe I won't... but I found a book and that always makes me happy.
posted by cedar at 10:27 PM on July 20, 2002
I think there is a third type.
What about people, such as myself, who were not previously familiar with the work but saw enough (yes, even via Amazon) to do a little bit of research and learn something new?
Despite possible breaches of etiquette, I learned something from the post and added to my reading list. I'll leave this alone now and read some more; maybe I'll figure out what it is I'm missing or maybe I won't... but I found a book and that always makes me happy.
posted by cedar at 10:27 PM on July 20, 2002
sorry, i meant 'reinforcing' street cred.
posted by jcterminal at 10:33 PM on July 20, 2002
posted by jcterminal at 10:33 PM on July 20, 2002
Isn't that the entire point of posting, to start a discussion?
Nope. MetaFilter is not a discussion board. It's a weblog that supports discussions, and Matt has actively discouraged it from being used as a discussion board.
He says as much in the guidelines, when he states the definition of a good post: "most people haven't seen it before, there is something interesting about the content on the page, and it might warrant discussion from others." (Emphasis mine)
posted by rcade at 10:52 PM on July 20, 2002
Nope. MetaFilter is not a discussion board. It's a weblog that supports discussions, and Matt has actively discouraged it from being used as a discussion board.
He says as much in the guidelines, when he states the definition of a good post: "most people haven't seen it before, there is something interesting about the content on the page, and it might warrant discussion from others." (Emphasis mine)
posted by rcade at 10:52 PM on July 20, 2002
The front page post could have done with more research, and the metatalk post could have done with less snarkiness (and, IMO, cut more slack for the prompting of reasonable discussion).
Can we call it a tie and move on?
Oh, and crunchland, don't you know it's not the size of your usernumber but what you post with it that counts? :-)
posted by sennoma at 1:11 AM on July 21, 2002
Can we call it a tie and move on?
Oh, and crunchland, don't you know it's not the size of your usernumber but what you post with it that counts? :-)
posted by sennoma at 1:11 AM on July 21, 2002
hear hear, rcade. and jjg was absolutely correct in starting this thread. there's nothing snarky about calling out a post which violates the site guidelines, it's called 'enforcing community standards', also known as 'self-policing', something we've been doing here (as the tagline will remind you) since 1999.
posted by mlang at 3:21 AM on July 21, 2002
posted by mlang at 3:21 AM on July 21, 2002
What a laugher! Amazon.com has been used as the main or only link thirty times in the last twelve months, over seventy times since day one. Of course it fits the site guidelines or Matt wouldn't have used it March 15, 2001. I tried to find a CNN link since that seems much more appropriate to the poster of this police action but they just have news stories everyone has already seen on teevee. In sum, I find the critisim hypocritical and lame.
posted by Mack Twain at 11:04 AM on July 21, 2002
posted by Mack Twain at 11:04 AM on July 21, 2002
Amazon.com has been used as the main or only link thirty times in the last twelve months ...
Got some examples? I just went back four months and found only one. Almost all Amazon links are used to supplement another link.
As for Matt's post, he linked to Amazon because of the prank reviews on a page. That's not the same thing as linking to an eight-month-old book's Amazon page as a reason to talk about the book.
posted by rcade at 11:38 AM on July 21, 2002
Got some examples? I just went back four months and found only one. Almost all Amazon links are used to supplement another link.
As for Matt's post, he linked to Amazon because of the prank reviews on a page. That's not the same thing as linking to an eight-month-old book's Amazon page as a reason to talk about the book.
posted by rcade at 11:38 AM on July 21, 2002
Matt's Amazon link was about spoof reviews on Amazon, something that would be pretty hard to document without an Amazon link.
posted by timeistight at 11:40 AM on July 21, 2002
posted by timeistight at 11:40 AM on July 21, 2002
Crap. Missed rcade's post on preview.
posted by timeistight at 11:42 AM on July 21, 2002
posted by timeistight at 11:42 AM on July 21, 2002
Here's my point: Give me something to work with. If I haven't read the book, and I don't have dhartung's or tamim's background in the subject matter, this page doesn't provide me with anything to react to. Find me an excerpt, or an interview with the author, or an essay on the subject -- something more substantial than a 400-word snapshot of the author's thesis. Otherwise, it feels like you're not really all that interested in what I think, but just want me to know what you think. Which is weak.
posted by jjg at 12:02 PM on July 21, 2002
posted by jjg at 12:02 PM on July 21, 2002
While it was a weak post, the discussion saved the thread. I don't think that calling Mack Twain out was necessary, however, this: "In sum, I find the critisim hypocritical and lame." we can definitely do without. It's not hypocritical. It would be if jjg, or anyone criticizing you, posted Amazon links to the front page. However, as I said before, you have to admit, Mack, it was a weak post, and its only purpose was to generate discussion. Bring something better to the table and you'd never see a complaint.
posted by BlueTrain at 12:05 PM on July 21, 2002
posted by BlueTrain at 12:05 PM on July 21, 2002
Damnit, now i seem like an echo. Nice working slipping in there jjg. Carry on.
posted by BlueTrain at 12:07 PM on July 21, 2002
posted by BlueTrain at 12:07 PM on July 21, 2002
Here's my point: I've never seen linking to Amazon discussed, must less criticised. (Going to this page reveals the many times Amazon has been used as the primary or only link). I thought the Amazon page showing the spotlight reviews and pointing to the editorial reviews was sufficient. I've read ten books in the last year which I found out about at MeFi. Someone suggested I posted just to start a discussion and someone else suggested it was to give my opinion (which I didn't do). Actually, I posted because it's a very good book that I thought people might be interested in. That's it.
posted by Mack Twain at 1:28 PM on July 21, 2002
posted by Mack Twain at 1:28 PM on July 21, 2002
Weren't we just talking about the idea of raising the level of discussion recently? I think the idea here wasn't to provoke a bunch of posts about cool books on Amazon, it was flushing out whether anyone has any expertise to direct us to more in-depth web resources about how the Middle East got carved up the way it is.
Given the current discussions with Turkey regarding support for an invasion of Iraq (and the horrifying details regarding this prospect which I find far too disturbing to cite here), it seems reasonable to regard general knowledge about the Ottoman Empire as a potentially relevant and timely topic, one that requires a more thorough treatment than a quick soundbite. I believe the first book posted is well-regarded as basic reading on its subject, and well worth pointing out for us non-specialists. I understand that some members are annoyed by substantive material, but isn't that why we have a diversity of links on the front page to begin with?
posted by sheauga at 5:59 PM on July 21, 2002
Given the current discussions with Turkey regarding support for an invasion of Iraq (and the horrifying details regarding this prospect which I find far too disturbing to cite here), it seems reasonable to regard general knowledge about the Ottoman Empire as a potentially relevant and timely topic, one that requires a more thorough treatment than a quick soundbite. I believe the first book posted is well-regarded as basic reading on its subject, and well worth pointing out for us non-specialists. I understand that some members are annoyed by substantive material, but isn't that why we have a diversity of links on the front page to begin with?
posted by sheauga at 5:59 PM on July 21, 2002
(Going to this page reveals the many times Amazon has been used as the primary or only link).
Where? I see a bunch of links to Amazon that are supplemental to other links or not linking product pages at all.
posted by rcade at 6:01 PM on July 21, 2002
Where? I see a bunch of links to Amazon that are supplemental to other links or not linking product pages at all.
posted by rcade at 6:01 PM on July 21, 2002
Orthogonal to this topic, I'd like it if Amazon links had an affiliate code for Metafilter in them. I occasionally buy from Amazon, and it would be an easy way to donate a bit.
posted by theora55 at 9:04 PM on July 21, 2002
posted by theora55 at 9:04 PM on July 21, 2002
I think the idea here wasn't to provoke a bunch of posts about cool books on Amazon, it was flushing out whether anyone has any expertise to direct us to more in-depth web resources
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that a great many people here are missing the bigger picture of MetaFilter. There is a reason you cannot post to the front page without a link. This site is based upon excellent links; intelligent discussion is an effect. A thread can have zero comments and still be a stellar example of what to post here; however, as has already been seen dozens of times, threads that have 100+ comments tend to be news/survey oriented, and are not necessarily what the site was originally designed for.
I believe, sheauga, that the idea behind your comment is selfish. When posting here, the goal is not to flush out intelligent conversation or more in-depth links. The goal was to bring a rare gem to the table; something the community has not seen before. This ideal has been lost over time, which is why we see so many rather shallow links anymore. The site has become thoroughly focussed upon discussion; the links have become secondary, which, again, was not how the site was founded.
I don't know if this is a positive direction for MetaFilter. I can't be sure that perhaps, as a community site, chatter is simply necessary to keep the populace cheery. However, what I do know is that shallow links should not be posted to the front page. They take away from the rarities of the web.
posted by BlueTrain at 9:57 PM on July 21, 2002
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that a great many people here are missing the bigger picture of MetaFilter. There is a reason you cannot post to the front page without a link. This site is based upon excellent links; intelligent discussion is an effect. A thread can have zero comments and still be a stellar example of what to post here; however, as has already been seen dozens of times, threads that have 100+ comments tend to be news/survey oriented, and are not necessarily what the site was originally designed for.
I believe, sheauga, that the idea behind your comment is selfish. When posting here, the goal is not to flush out intelligent conversation or more in-depth links. The goal was to bring a rare gem to the table; something the community has not seen before. This ideal has been lost over time, which is why we see so many rather shallow links anymore. The site has become thoroughly focussed upon discussion; the links have become secondary, which, again, was not how the site was founded.
I don't know if this is a positive direction for MetaFilter. I can't be sure that perhaps, as a community site, chatter is simply necessary to keep the populace cheery. However, what I do know is that shallow links should not be posted to the front page. They take away from the rarities of the web.
posted by BlueTrain at 9:57 PM on July 21, 2002
I think I have to agree with BlueTrain, rather than sheauga, here. It's always nice to bring additional web research to the table, something at which sheauga clearly excels, and that should be encouraged; and it's nice to bring an original comment to even (or especially) a weak thread, something at which I, um, find appreciated. But that doesn't excuse the post for being weak in the first place, and MeFi really should be about the rara avis.
Well, it triggered one of Dhartung's closely reasoned SuperComments, so that made it worthwhile.
I refuse to wear the shirt. The "S" clashes with my Contrarian University alumni pin.
posted by dhartung at 11:21 PM on July 21, 2002
Well, it triggered one of Dhartung's closely reasoned SuperComments, so that made it worthwhile.
I refuse to wear the shirt. The "S" clashes with my Contrarian University alumni pin.
posted by dhartung at 11:21 PM on July 21, 2002
What BlueTrain and dhartung said. Bet you thought you'd never hear me say that, huh?
*blows kisses*
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 11:38 PM on July 21, 2002
*blows kisses*
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 11:38 PM on July 21, 2002
Orthogonal to this topic, I'd like it if Amazon links had an affiliate code for Metafilter in them. I occasionally buy from Amazon, and it would be an easy way to donate a bit.
posted by theora55
Seconded...although, I'd prefer Powell's Books.
posted by dejah420 at 12:02 AM on July 22, 2002
posted by theora55
Seconded...although, I'd prefer Powell's Books.
posted by dejah420 at 12:02 AM on July 22, 2002
Contrarian University alumni
The reunions must be a riot ;-)
posted by i_cola at 8:04 AM on July 22, 2002
The reunions must be a riot ;-)
posted by i_cola at 8:04 AM on July 22, 2002
Fine, I'll stick to unselfish rarities like "Homeless cats find refuge in feng shui," and "Pirhanas in Iowa" from now on if that's all this audience is up for.
posted by sheauga at 8:42 AM on July 22, 2002
posted by sheauga at 8:42 AM on July 22, 2002
This audience is up for intelligent discussion, sheuga, as long as people do a little work fishing for good links. If Mac had also linked to this list of the best books on the Middle East and/or a article that talks about the book, I don't think the post would have attracted the attention of us mopes in MetaTalk.
posted by rcade at 9:04 AM on July 22, 2002
posted by rcade at 9:04 AM on July 22, 2002
I always wondered how these threads seemed to take on a life of their own and now I understand. I just have two things to say: 1.OPINIONS.. Upon reflection I understand that the post would have been better with supporting links.
2. FACTS..: I've never seen linking to Amazon discussed, must less criticised. Using Amazon as the Only Link and for Reviews has been done here from the beginning.
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/16148 software review
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/16000 only link
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/15562 toy review
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/14962 only link
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/14197 book review
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/13542 only link
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/13173 buying info
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/12869 book review
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/12728 cd review
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/12512 buying info
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/10840 only link
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/10074 only link
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/9591 book review
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/9796 book reviews
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/9049 book review
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/8514 only link
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/8556 book review
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/8192 cd review
http://www.metafilter.com/.mefi/8303 only link
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/6391 book review
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/6320 buying info
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/5700 only link
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/5579 buying info
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/5469 buying info
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/4982 wish list
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/4436 only link
http://www.metafilter.com/.mefi/4206 only link
http://www.metafilter.com/.mefi/4030 only link
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/3654 only link
http://www.metafilter.com/.mefi/3283 dvd review
http://www.metafilter.com/.mefi/2840 only link
http://www.metafilter.com/.mefi/2347 book review
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/2327 only link
http://www.metafilter.com/.mefi/1265 only link
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/323 only link
3.Thank you for your opinions on this subject. I've learned a lot from this thread.
posted by Mack Twain at 12:06 PM on July 22, 2002
2. FACTS..: I've never seen linking to Amazon discussed, must less criticised. Using Amazon as the Only Link and for Reviews has been done here from the beginning.
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/16148 software review
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/16000 only link
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/15562 toy review
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/14962 only link
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/14197 book review
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/13542 only link
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/13173 buying info
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/12869 book review
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/12728 cd review
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/12512 buying info
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/10840 only link
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/10074 only link
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/9591 book review
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/9796 book reviews
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/9049 book review
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/8514 only link
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/8556 book review
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/8192 cd review
http://www.metafilter.com/.mefi/8303 only link
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/6391 book review
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/6320 buying info
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/5700 only link
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/5579 buying info
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/5469 buying info
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/4982 wish list
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/4436 only link
http://www.metafilter.com/.mefi/4206 only link
http://www.metafilter.com/.mefi/4030 only link
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/3654 only link
http://www.metafilter.com/.mefi/3283 dvd review
http://www.metafilter.com/.mefi/2840 only link
http://www.metafilter.com/.mefi/2347 book review
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/2327 only link
http://www.metafilter.com/.mefi/1265 only link
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/323 only link
3.Thank you for your opinions on this subject. I've learned a lot from this thread.
posted by Mack Twain at 12:06 PM on July 22, 2002
A lot of those Amazon links aren't relevant to this discussion at all, because they aren't a link to a product:
Eleven's a big enough number to make your point, though. So I'm changing my vote to Not Weak. We appear to have been a little hasty about your lynching.
posted by rcade at 9:32 PM on July 22, 2002 [1 favorite]
- 16000 - link to content on Amazon
- 14962 - link to content on Amazon
- 14197 - link to typo on Amazon
- 13542 - not a link to Amazon at all -- goes to AmazonScan.Com
- 10840 - link to Amazon itself
- 10074 - link to Amazon 9/11 donation page
- 8514 - link to Amazon itself
- 8556 - link to review by Jeff Bezos
- 8303 - link to Amazon purchase circles
- 6391 - link to Amazon reviews
- 5700 - link to service on Amazon
- 5469 - link to spoof sale page about "Ginger/IT"
- 4982 - link to Mass. gunman's wish list
- 4436 - link to Amazon itself
- 4206 - link to Amazon Florida ballot spoof
- 4030 - link to new used-sale feature on Amazon
- 3654 - link to reviewer on Amazon
- 2840 - link to navigational demo
- 2327 - link to Amazon itself
- 1265 - link to Amazon itself
- 323 - link to Amazon itself
Eleven's a big enough number to make your point, though. So I'm changing my vote to Not Weak. We appear to have been a little hasty about your lynching.
posted by rcade at 9:32 PM on July 22, 2002 [1 favorite]
MetaTalk: We appear to have been a little hasty about your lynching.
That's beautiful, rcade.
posted by sennoma at 12:19 AM on July 23, 2002
That's beautiful, rcade.
posted by sennoma at 12:19 AM on July 23, 2002
« Older Whoah, when did TrackBack get added to posts? | metafilter stopped pinging weblogs.com Newer »
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by waxpancake at 2:46 PM on July 20, 2002