Comments on: Pointless post.

Pointless post.

owillis — Sat, 30 Nov 2002 19:22:19 -0800

This post does not seem to have any point, nor do the comments.

By: konolia

konolia — Sat, 30 Nov 2002 19:29:14 -0800

Owillis, if that is the criteria for front page posts, don't you agree there would be far fewer of them? *wink*

By: hama7

hama7 — Sat, 30 Nov 2002 19:32:41 -0800

Agreed. Pointless as a bag of wet mice.

By: RobertLoch

RobertLoch — Sat, 30 Nov 2002 20:01:07 -0800

Yawn. Steve_at_Linnwood even posts like that deserve a minute of freedom.

By: jonson

jonson — Sat, 30 Nov 2002 20:56:56 -0800

hama7 & owillis, aren't you both staunch conservatives? How odd that you would both end up here, decrying the legitimacy of a post with a liberal slant...

By: jbou

jbou — Sat, 30 Nov 2002 21:01:54 -0800

Here we go again. I liked the link, and I had no idea Granny D existed. Maybe the link could have been introduced in a better, but it was still something I hadn't seen before. Matt should decide once, and for all yes, or no on political posts because all this sniping back, and forth over what posts are good, and bad is a waste of time. Oh, if you like politics you should try Plastic.com, they have a whole section dedicated to politics, and the conversations are usually quite civil.

By: eddydamascene

eddydamascene — Sat, 30 Nov 2002 21:21:44 -0800

I liked my comment.

By: gd779

gd779 — Sat, 30 Nov 2002 21:53:20 -0800

hama7 & owillis, aren't you both staunch conservatives?

Ha! You really don't know owillis very well, do you?

By: Slithy_Tove

Slithy_Tove — Sat, 30 Nov 2002 22:21:39 -0800

Hey, I think a bag of wet mice would be cool!

gd779: yep. Only on MeFi would owillis be considered conservative.

By: malphigian

malphigian — Sat, 30 Nov 2002 22:29:56 -0800

hama7 & owillis, aren't you both staunch conservatives?

Since we're tossing around labels, I'll fess up as a dyed-in-the-wool (baa!) liberal that I think the post was lousy, and, while I'm at it, it would be nice if people would lighten up on hama7 and steve_at_linwood already.

It wasn't the link that was necessarily the problem, the same topic could have been done better, something like:

Granny D is a 92 year old campaign finance reform activist who marched across the US prior to the 2000 election. Granny is not just a gimmick, though, she's made some eloquent and provocative speeches.

Not perfect, I know, some folks would object to the multilink style, or the lack of the word "spitfire" which I'm sure belongs in there somewhere, but I believe my version manages to post on the same topic without sounding like an excuse for a rant.

It doesn't have to be "sniping back and forth", metatalk is the place to discuss this stuff, and I'd like think a lot of this could be solved if people thought a bit about posting style in addition to topic.

By: y2karl

y2karl — Sat, 30 Nov 2002 22:36:25 -0800

Only on MeFi would owillis be considered conservative.

Oh, and the Republican party--before Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan, too.

By: mathowie

mathowie — Sat, 30 Nov 2002 23:52:33 -0800

A post about the granny's walk was posted a year ago or so, and yeah, that post didn't really have a point.

By: jonson

jonson — Sat, 30 Nov 2002 23:53:35 -0800

Owillis, my apologies; a brief review of some of your posts caused me to think you were a politically cut from the same cloth as ossibuke, S_@_L, hama7, etc. Next time I'll have to read more carefully!

By: crasspastor

crasspastor — Sun, 01 Dec 2002 00:48:16 -0800

I can't tell, as it is AIDS day here now. But was that Granny D thread killed? I made some really heartfelt comments in there.

And the post "didn't really have a point"?

Granted, the link was one I'd already read more than a month ago. I'd have never dreamt of posting it here. But I was personally intrigued by the discussion. In some cases a lot can be gleaned from the peanut gallery. And if that was who was posting to the link, so be it, I enjoyed it. In fact, I couldn't wait to get home to see what else there was to be read.

Oh well.

I do however pretty much think it's bullshit though, if it's true the thread was nixed..

By: mathowie

mathowie — Sun, 01 Dec 2002 01:01:45 -0800

crasspastor, you can still see the comments here, but I deleted it because the link wasn't all that interesting (uninteresting op-ed pieces make shitty posts, as I've said time and time again) and the polarized, predictable banter that followed as half of the people talked past the other half wasn't all that enlightening.

By: crasspastor

crasspastor — Sun, 01 Dec 2002 01:25:51 -0800

Wow. That really took off while I was gone. . .

By: crasspastor

crasspastor — Sun, 01 Dec 2002 01:29:42 -0800

In a bad way.

By: Eyegore

Eyegore — Sun, 01 Dec 2002 08:53:03 -0800

So if a post generates a lot of controversy, with wildly differing opinions and a political slant one way or another it gets deleted? Is that how this works? I had no idea until now.

By: jmd82

jmd82 — Sun, 01 Dec 2002 09:21:47 -0800

Eve- its not that, I think that its every political post is like that, plus, though they may have different links, their comments all end up sounding alike. Read Matt's posts on the Granny post, and that how just about every politcal post ends up here.

By: malphigian

malphigian — Sun, 01 Dec 2002 09:50:42 -0800

Eyegore: You might want to search past metatalk threads on this.

In general, political posts polarize into the typical camps shouting at each other and not really listening ("talking past each other" as matt said above), with perhaps a few gems buried inside.

Its something metafilter is BAD at, since noise quickly overtakes signal. I believe to have worthwhile political debate in an open forum you really need a moderation system like kuro5hin and/or a restricted membership size.

There are plenty of places on the web to engage in political debate, I'm still hoping metafilter is about something else: interesting, odd, informative, surprising links, with discussion following that, not vice versa.

By: BlueTrain

BlueTrain — Sun, 01 Dec 2002 11:31:48 -0800

a brief review of some of your posts caused me to think you were a politically cut from the same cloth as ossibuke, S_@_L, hama7, etc

I truly appreciate the fact that people here are able to identify the few "conservative" voices. It allows us to recognize the blatant labelling and categorizing that MeFi members enjoy.

By: owillis

owillis — Sun, 01 Dec 2002 11:39:26 -0800

Oh, great, now I'm a conservative!
Can I start kicking the old ladies?

By: Samsonov14

Samsonov14 — Sun, 01 Dec 2002 14:12:11 -0800

Go back to Massachusetts, pinko!

By: rushmc

rushmc — Sun, 01 Dec 2002 21:51:45 -0800

I truly appreciate the fact that people here are able to identify the few "conservative" voices. It allows us to recognize the blatant labelling and categorizing that MeFi members enjoy.

What, exactly, is it that you are objecting to? Every one of those people has self-identified here as a conservative. Are we supposed to pretend that we don't know, like it's some dirty secret?

By: hama7

hama7 — Mon, 02 Dec 2002 02:06:52 -0800

Can I start kicking the old ladies?

Remind me to show you the Geriatric Slide-Tackle™

By: MiguelCardoso

MiguelCardoso — Mon, 02 Dec 2002 03:07:15 -0800

Every one of those people has self-identified here as a conservative. Are we supposed to pretend that we don't know, like it's some dirty secret?

Exactly. If anything, we conservatives are over-eager to label ourselves. Besides, it should be obvious that not only are we not ashamed of it, but, in fact, more than a little proud of instilling some common sense into...*add long conservative rant*

Anyway, our real beef isn't with lefties, it's with the bloody libertarian rationalists like rushmc. ;)

By: walrus

walrus — Mon, 02 Dec 2002 07:37:20 -0800

It allows us to recognize the blatant labelling and categorizing that MeFi members enjoy.

Speaking personally, I try quite hard not to label or categorise people. Should I hand in my membership now?

By: Steve_at_Linnwood

Steve_at_Linnwood — Mon, 02 Dec 2002 09:02:33 -0800

Damn you libertarians!

By: dgaicun

dgaicun — Mon, 02 Dec 2002 09:29:04 -0800

Am I the only one who finds it a little ironic that the FPP was deleted, but thanks to malphigian it is still completely preserved in MetaTalk (where people, incidentally, continue to talk about it)? Don't you see- nothing changed, people? It's madness I tell you.

And don't think I won't remember this convenient loophole.

By: timeistight

timeistight — Mon, 02 Dec 2002 09:38:41 -0800

So if a post generates a lot of controversy, with wildly differing opinions and a political slant one way or another it gets deleted? Is that how this works?

I'd enjoy MetaFilter much more if it worked like that.

By: rushmc

rushmc — Mon, 02 Dec 2002 09:41:40 -0800

Anyway, our real beef isn't with lefties, it's with the bloody libertarian rationalists like rushmc. ;)

Heh. I'm glad to see I have been graduated from "leftie" around here, at least in your mind, Miguel (if I were the hugging type, I might hug you)!

As you know, I loathe labels of any sort, but if one insists upon adhering one to me, I prefer "Optimalist" to all others, as I believe that anything, however good, can--and therefore should--be improved.

By: RylandDotNet

RylandDotNet — Mon, 02 Dec 2002 13:00:30 -0800

but I deleted it because the link wasn't all that interesting (uninteresting op-ed pieces make shitty posts, as I've said time and time again) and the polarized, predictable banter that followed as half of the people talked past the other half wasn't all that enlightening. -- mathowie

Ah, it's all about enlightenment - I didn't realize that. Well, let the enlightenment begin.

By: mark13

mark13 — Mon, 02 Dec 2002 13:38:48 -0800

Yay! Another victory for the Metafilter PC shock troops.

Metafilter's new theme - "If A Few Consider It Objectionable, It Must Be Quashed".

Thank God. It clears the way for more Joe Batchelor threads.