Pointless Bickering.

January 27, 2003 12:20 PM

Pointless Bickering.
posted by rich to etiquette/policy at 12:20 PM (60 comments total)

I would prefer not to post to MetaTalk. I really would. I try to resolve things through e-mail, but I still find it annoying that active users don't have e-mail addresses on their user profiles. I think there is no reason why it shouldn't be mandatory. But, hey, that's my opinion.

Now, more towards the issue.. a recent post I had was deleted for 'pointless bickering'. The pointless bickering it was deleted for had nothing to do with the post, or the potential comments about the post, but because an overactive user decided on the first comment to say that the thread would be deleted.

I've talked against this behavior before, and we've had many threads in MetaTalk about it, as well. And I'm continually annoyed that it continues to happen.

XQUZYPHYR then thinks that it's some user number battle I start with him, which I can't reply to because, well, that wasn't the point of the thread in the first place, and I would have tried not to even address that problem in the thread, but in e-mail, but now instead it is here.

(and XQ, for the record, your 'thread will be deleted' post was condescending. My point of bringing up that I've been here awhile was to question why you felt you needed to take a condescending tone, let alone post that the thread would be deleted)

As it is, to the testiment of the post, the first few post, which were made just around the posting time of XQ's derailing, were, in fact, on topic and could have ended up being somewhat informative, blah blah blah and so on.

So, two topics; 1: mandatory e-mail for users that are logged in. 2: thread derailing - just don't do it.
posted by rich at 12:21 PM on January 27, 2003

So which thread was it?
posted by inpHilltr8r at 12:43 PM on January 27, 2003

1: mandatory e-mail for users that are logged in.

i think this is a bad idea. in truth, there already is a mandatory email policy for signup -- but you aren't required to show your email. i've been of a different mind about this before, but i think you should not be required to show your email address to others. some people choose to show only their webpage, and you can click through there to find their email address; rcade had a good argument for that, once, because people would often send him anonymous flames and he could use their IP address to help determine who it was since they had to go through his website.

2: thread derailing - just don't do it.

agreed.
posted by moz at 12:44 PM on January 27, 2003

ok
posted by clavdivs at 12:45 PM on January 27, 2003

I would guess that it's the Save Roe thread.
posted by mkelley at 12:51 PM on January 27, 2003

For what it's worth, I didn't have time to read the save roe thread, as I was in and out most of that day, but I got a couple complaints over email saying it was a pointless thing. I took a quick look at it, saw the presumptous bickering and decided to ax it. Hopefully that doesn't look like it's as much of a "XQ was right!" because I do hate it when people act like they're the editor and presume a thread will be deleted because they say so.

I wish I had more time to look it over before I cut it, I probably would have just cut all the bickering out of the thread and let it stay.
posted by mathowie at 12:55 PM on January 27, 2003

moz - I'd probably agree with you if the webpage they used was accessable and you could contact them through there, but in this case, I had neither path open.

Matt - I appreciate that you had to delete the thread, the way it had gone, and wouldn't expect you to go through and edit out the bickering parts.. but I'm still open to ideas on how to manage people who do claim edit rights over threads, causing the problem in the first place.
posted by rich at 1:00 PM on January 27, 2003

I think a prohibition on complaining about the merits of a thread within the mefi thread should be added to the official guidelines. The only exception would be pointing out a double post by linking to the original thread (and being polite about it, in case it's a gray area.)
posted by PrinceValium at 1:24 PM on January 27, 2003

Some of us just don't want 20,000 random strangers to be handed our e-mail addresses. I know most folks on here wouldn't abuse the privilege of seeing my address and I know that most users here wouldn't even use my address if it wasn't a serious issue, but then again there are plenty of people that would bug the shit out of me for something I said on here and I just don't really want to hand them a free chance to wallpaper my mailbox with flaming shit about some comment I made in a Bush post or something with equal sway on the direction of world events.

Its all fun and games until somebody gets an eye put out!
posted by Pollomacho at 1:28 PM on January 27, 2003

Then again, maybe that fear of reprisal would keep people from being dicks/obvious trolls in the posts here...
posted by jonson at 1:30 PM on January 27, 2003

Screw you jonson! kidding, actually that's a good point, but somebody's always got to go and be the motherfucker. Matt's had to kick a few folks off the site all together for abusing the "rules" of site etiquette, I'd hate to just leave it up to "self-policeing" and "self-control" in regards to my inbox. We can barely be civil as it is, I can just imagine what some of the less mannered members of our little club would like to defecate into my mail sometimes!
posted by Pollomacho at 1:36 PM on January 27, 2003

The only exception would be pointing out a double post by linking to the original thread (and being polite about it, in case it's a gray area.)
"Double post" or "Previously discussed here" is succinct.
posted by riffola at 1:37 PM on January 27, 2003

Of the two emails I've received from mefi users, one of them was hate mail directed at me. If I dragged it out here I'm fairly certain everyone would agree it was a gross over-reaction.

Anyway, I can't really blame people for not wanting their email up, and I think it would be a mistake to require it.
posted by malphigian at 1:51 PM on January 27, 2003

Anyway, I can't really blame people for not wanting their email up, and I think it would be a mistake to require it.

don't post the comment if you can't take the flame?
;)
posted by matteo at 1:56 PM on January 27, 2003

Go on Mal, we're waiting...
posted by jonson at 2:04 PM on January 27, 2003

Don't be a tease . . .
posted by yerfatma at 2:14 PM on January 27, 2003

Flame me all you want in here, this is just a recreational site, but I do business, communicate with friends and family and stay connected through e-mail. Why not just post everyone's home phone numbers while we're at it? Its not the flamers (not that there's anything wrong with it) that bother me anyway, its the looney tunes. Its the people that don't have the self-control to not abuse the privilege of my e-mail address and we all know that they are out there. If I really want anyone to have any more information then I'll reveal it, otherwise buzz off, don't take it personally, just buzz off. Matt has my address, if there's a problem he can reach me.
posted by Pollomacho at 2:28 PM on January 27, 2003

First of all- Matt, please be aware that I don't think "I won" in any way. My last comment in the thread shows that the very idea of thinking a post being deleted and then being deleted isn't a victory/loss issue. I don't think I'm an editor and I don't claim clout. I have my own site to do that; this one is yours.

Second. The only reason people are accusing me of a "numbers battle" is because of a comment asking who do I think I am and another telling me that "I should think before lecturing him." A simple decision on where to put emphasis in those sentences construes an aura of condescension, one which I address in part of one sentence- that rich now feels to make an entire MetaTalk thread about.

Third, I'm going to issue my own complaint about this thread. The search box (and the FAQ) yields countless threads addressing derailing, which leaves his request for "mandatory e-mails." rich, there's a link to my homepage right in my user info. Someone obviously as angry with me as you are could have easily had my e-mail in two clicks instead of the one you request. Instead, you used MetaTalk to claim a need for my-email because... you hate using MetaTalk? Sorry, but I smells me a peckin' party.

Fourth, to be flat out honest, I don't want rich to e-mail with me. I'm sorry that I disliked his thread and spoke in a way that obviously offended him. I'm sorry that the biggest nit-pick fight I've ever had on this site has been with someone who's intentions- and the politics of the link he posted- I agree with completely. But I can't say that I care about this anywhere near to the level rich does. He's obviously angry that I called foul on one of his FPPs, he's obviously lingering resentment after three days, and obviously we each think each other "started it" in the bickering war. All e-mailing about this, given the way he's addressing this now, is going to do is start a private flame exchange until one of us decided to just ignore the other's e-mail, which would sort of just be a microcosm of the MetaFilter thread. This was another case of multiple ego-defenses, now spread from the MeFi to the MeTa front, and I'm certainly not interested in spreading it to my inbox.

Fifth, I'm annoyed that people are attacking me for "saying a thread is going to be deleted." As I said in the thread, I thought I was actually being civil about it. I mean, how many times are threads declared DOA with comments about pancakes and vibrating brooms and snarky links to GYWO? I'm NOT the first person to say a thread's gonna die; and I doubt others who did "assumed they were the editor" either.

Sixth, condescension and tone aside, rich's link was still bad (again please note how it's my opinion even though I don't necessarily state in writing as such). I'm sorry that I used a disapproving tone to say so. If I wrote only in proper courtly Victorian English, I would still have said it was a bad link. I pose the honest question here since the thread's open anyway: were any of the non-bickering points I made in my comments ridiculously out of line? Maybe you disagreed with them, but I think they were certainly valid: it was a link to a petition on a generic home page of a widely-known site with not even a subtle but a direct partisan issue, followed by random questions about online petitions that hardly anyone discussed except when it was discussed in earlier threads.

I apologize for stepping on anyone's foot in the movie theater, so to speak. I apologize that the thread was deleted for "pointless bickering," but I certainly don't apologize that the thread was deleted. My first comment, tone regardless, still stands, and still gives three reasons why it was a bad FPP.

Other than that, I apologize for hurting anyone's feelings, especially rich, with a final repetition of my belief that you are really, really, really taking this way too seriously for yourself.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 2:53 PM on January 27, 2003

XQUZYPHYR - it's hard to believe that you don't care about this issue very much given the overall volume & qty of your posts, first in the deleted thread, and now here. If it's really no big deal, why did you engage in the long and tedious argument in the thread in the first place, rather than just letting it drop?
posted by jonson at 2:56 PM on January 27, 2003

i agree with princevalium.
posted by sgt.serenity at 3:16 PM on January 27, 2003

Nah, I won't post it, its settled now and I've got no hard feelings, just mentioned it to back up pollomacho's position.
posted by malphigian at 3:21 PM on January 27, 2003

just say XQUUUUUUUUUUUUZYPHER me!
and move on.
posted by quonsar at 3:21 PM on January 27, 2003

So how do you prononouce XQUZYPHYR?

ex-cue-zee-fur?
posted by inpHilltr8r at 3:41 PM on January 27, 2003

I believe it's a pun on Lucifer. Excuse-A-Fer. A demon that's hard to pin down.
posted by jonson at 3:42 PM on January 27, 2003

it's hard to believe that you don't care about this issue very much given the overall volume & qty of your posts, first in the deleted thread, and now here. If it's really no big deal, why did you engage in the long and tedious argument in the thread in the first place, rather than just letting it drop?

Boy, jabs like that always encourage people to wnt to drop an issue. More egg, anyone?

On preview: inpHilltr8r- you can't.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 3:49 PM on January 27, 2003

Jonson: That makes sense. I'd not even bothered to try and vocalise it until kwon-sarrr did that thing that he did.

...

Having read the thread in question, I can see why it went, although it's a pity, as there was the germ of a non-flamefest discussion there.

...

On preview: well xquz-me, I think I just did, and now it's stuck.
posted by inpHilltr8r at 3:53 PM on January 27, 2003

I don't think I'm an editor

No, but you played one on metafilter. If commenting in a thread "this thread will be deleted, here's why" is not playing editor, then what is? What was the value you were trying to contribute to the discussion with the comment?

The ettiquite is simple: If you can't contribute something positive to a thread, then contribute nothing and let it die the commentless death that a poor thread deserves. If it's really important to you, then bring it to metatalk. Does that not make sense? Is there a better way to handle it?
posted by dchase at 4:03 PM on January 27, 2003

XQ, my only issue is this statement:

I mean, how many times are threads declared DOA with comments about pancakes and vibrating brooms and snarky links to GYWO? I'm NOT the first person to say a thread's gonna die; and I doubt others who did "assumed they were the editor" either.

But they're all clearly bad things to contribute to metafilter. And no, you're not the first to be outed for this. I delete a handful of "I for one, welcome our ___ overlords" comments every day. I used to do the same for vibrating comments. I hate pancake references too. They're all just forms of heckling, attempting to derail any discussion and take attention away, just like an in-the-flesh heckler at a speech. I don't buy the "but other kids were doing it, mom!" because everyone doing it is being a bad citizen by contributing noise to the site.
posted by mathowie at 4:20 PM on January 27, 2003

If you can't contribute something positive to a thread, then contribute nothing and let it die the commentless death that a poor thread deserves... Does that not make sense? Is there a better way to handle it?

You're right, dchase. I guess I was just trying to say "Why don't you ask that on some political discussion board while we share and talk about links to interesting new places on the web?" But you're right, that was rude.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 4:24 PM on January 27, 2003

Other than that, I apologize

translation:

"Ahem. Other than my 700 word six part castigation of my opposition & simultaneous defense of my thread derailing actions that caused someone else's post to be deleted, I apologize."

Well done, sir. Well done. As you can see by the groundswell of support for your actions here and in the primary thread, you are a statesman of rare acumen, and have proven yourself to be beyond reproach.
posted by jonson at 4:25 PM on January 27, 2003

I should be clear, I don't mean to dump on you specifically XQ, I'm only challenging your statement that I found disagreement with. Everyone should chill out, it's getting a little snippy with the back and forth put downs.
posted by mathowie at 4:30 PM on January 27, 2003

Matt,

I was NOT trying to derail the thread. My first comment in it was an opinion as to why I think it's a bad link, which, as I just said above, I guess I will use a lesser version of the "everyone's doing it" defense. After that, I felt I was being attacked, and I chose to respond. I don't consider that heckling. Like I said before, I didn't really feel like dragging it to Talk or through e-mail. I e-mailed you with a complaint about the thread, as it was deleted I assumed it was over, and I forgot about it. Others apparently didn't. Now I'm trying to explain that and I'm getting snarky comments like "if you don't care about it why are you defending yourself here?" and lots of pot/kettle labelling.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 4:30 PM on January 27, 2003

"Ahem. Other than my 700 word six part castigation of my opposition & simultaneous defense of my thread derailing actions that caused someone else's post to be deleted, I apologize."

Well done, sir. Well done. As you can see by the groundswell of support for your actions here and in the primary thread, you are a statesman of rare acumen, and have proven yourself to be beyond reproach.

Okay, this just isn't fair... out of curiosity, is there anything I can tell you that you won't immediately come up with a snarky counter to? Please excuse my outrageous action of defending myself after you called me a dick and a troll before making additional incorrect accusations about why I visit this site.

On preview: Sorry, Matt. I'm not trying to make putdowns with this but I'm sick of getting all these accusations hurled at me. I don't think you're dumping on me specifically. I think a few others are, though.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 4:48 PM on January 27, 2003

"If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging."
posted by inpHilltr8r at 4:56 PM on January 27, 2003

You're right, dchase
No, you're right XQUZYPHYR. That comment of mine was snarky and inappropriate. I'm not ashamed that you pointed it out. I'm only ashamed that it can be used as and excuse by others to behave as poorly as I did. I'm human, I don't always do the right thing, but the best I can do is apologize and try to learn from my mistakes.
posted by dchase at 5:50 PM on January 27, 2003

God, I'm always late to the threads these days. On the email topic I've noticed some users have a seperate email account just for metafilter. Every once in awhile I'll see someones email listed as mefi@wherever or usernamemefi@wherever etc. While I just put my own private, but not professional email, this seems like a good idea and something I may do if I'm not too lazy.
posted by elwoodwiles at 7:19 PM on January 27, 2003

mathowie : I delete a handful of "I for one, welcome our ___ overlords" comments every day. I used to do the same for vibrating comments. I hate pancake references too. They're all just forms of heckling, attempting to derail any discussion and take attention away, just like an in-the-flesh heckler at a speech. I don't buy the "but other kids were doing it, mom!" because everyone doing it is being a bad citizen by contributing noise to the site.

A-fucking-men!

Also, it takes less than 5 minutes to sign up for a Hotmail account or a mail account with another free provider, Pollomacho. There is no requirement for you to use your primary email address here, but it's simple courtesy to provide some way for people to contact you, I reckon.

Me, I use mailshell.com for unlimited redirects, which is great, but I think they've started charging.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:34 PM on January 27, 2003

On the email question, I can see where a pig-headed, obstreperous, opinionated blow-hard who doesn't pull any punches might hesitate to advertise his/her email address to all and sundry. I, on the other hand, have received only complimentary emails. Fun, joking emails. Requests for recipes. Helpful bits of obscure information. Nothing that has ever made me regret posting my address.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 8:06 PM on January 27, 2003

previous discussions of internal messaging
posted by holloway at 8:32 PM on January 27, 2003

I, on the other hand, have received only complimentary emails. Fun, joking emails. Requests for recipes. Helpful bits of obscure information. Nothing that has ever made me regret posting my address.

Shit, I've been here for a little over a year and only received one (non-reply) e-mail due to MeFi, and that was from a now banned member. I just forwarded it to Matt, and that was that. It's not that big of a deal. YMMV, of course.
posted by Ufez Jones at 8:52 PM on January 27, 2003

i loves my mefi mails : )
posted by sgt.serenity at 9:11 PM on January 27, 2003

Matt - apologies in advance.. the length got away from me. Not trying to have a personal discussion, but hopefully this response will apply somewhat generically for everyone to think about their own actions.

XQ,

I did try your site. The link did not work.

As for the numbers battle, you assumed I was saying because I had a low number you should leave me alone. You still have not read what I said, and even my clarification on why I phrased my initial response to you as I did.

Over the past year you've been here (I think it's about a year going by memory), you have had a penchant for assuming things in what people write, not really reading what they say, but getting only what you want to read from it. It detracts from your arguments. Free advice.

As for civility in saying 'this thread will be deleted' - again, you miss the point. The reason 'everyone' is jumping all over you is because, regardless if you put on your best happy face, derailing immediately like you did was wrong, presumptious, and, in the end, wasn't very civil. Even if it was the nicest, happiest, kindest 'this will be deleted' I'd still be annoyed because *you don't decide*. It is *not* your place. (case in point, matt said he would *not* have deleted the thread if you hadn't derailed it right off).

You keep bringing up your politics are like mine. I couldn't care less - no offense - but even if you were my clone I wouldn't give a crap. The point is, *you do not know best*. I don't know why you expect me to cut you any slack because you think we share political views.

My feelings aren't hurt. I'm not thin-skinned. I'm more annoyed that I expected more from you (as I expect more from all the current regulars). I'm annoyed that, in the face of even matt saying it was an ok post, you hold onto your face-saving righteousness and still cloak your actions all in "shared politics" when the post's focus wasn't really about politics at all.

I can understand if you don't read the post that way, but again, you are in the minority on this one but you still protest and scream and yell "why oh why is everyone attacking ME? I was RIGHT!"

As for my 'lingering resentment' over three days.. umm, well, gee, maybe you didn't notice, but I haven't been around much, and I sure don't check metafilter over the weekend usually. I tried to find a way to contact you via e-mail, which you have already stated you wouldn't have liked (I still don't understand that), could, so decided to post to metatalk, as I was surprised at the number of comments the thread still got somewhat on-topic after your comment.

(and as a final note, I searched the site for roe, and there weren't many posts about it, and none from this site 'everyone' supposively knows about. I haven't seen a real on-line petition campaign in awhile, either, so thought it was something odd, unique to the times, and poignient. And since it was about a petition, it was not directly partisan because it didn't ask about the issue, it asked about the petition, the action being taken, and the effectiveness of that course.)
posted by rich at 9:25 PM on January 27, 2003

Regarding e-mail —

My e-mail is on my resume. It's on my web site. I give it to random people that I hardly know. And neither potential employers, nor people reading my site, nor random strangers, IMHO, have any business knowing what I post to MeFi — yet with my e-mail listed on my user page (and yes, I finally broke down and added it) it's trivial to Google the address and then look at what I've written here.

If there were a way to make my e-mail available to people who had my MeFi username without making my MeFi username available to people who had my e-mail, that would make me happy.
posted by IshmaelGraves at 9:39 PM on January 27, 2003

Ishmael, IIRC, e-mail addresses are only available to logged-in members, so a google search for your e-mail address shouldn't provide your MeFi profile.
posted by Ufez Jones at 9:50 PM on January 27, 2003

Even if it was the nicest, happiest, kindest 'this will be deleted' I'd still be annoyed because *you don't decide*. It is *not* your place.

Okay. I'm going to try this one more time. Someone e-mailed me (BTW, it works fine, so I don't know what happened), I said I was going to stop talking in this thread, but you're literally making me scream.

I NEVER DECLARED OR DECIDED THE THREAD WAS GOING TO BE DELETED AS IF I HAD THE POWER TO DO SO. What the hell is wrong with what I'm writing in which you cannot REGISTER that? It was my OPINION. I FELT that the thread was going to be deleted. Do I need to say this a seventh time? Jesus Christ!

(Deep breaths)

The point of me mentioning my politics was to emphasize the fact that people keep accusing me as deliberately trying to derail a thread. I wasn't. 90% of the time political threads are derailed because the person has opposing political views of the subject. That's all I meant. I know people don't like political debate here. I'm not one of those people. I love good political debate and I didn't think that thread was going to lead to it. That's why I thought, not literally indicated as if I actually thought I had the power to inflict as such, the thread was going to die. I have received the message that I was mistaken, thank you.

What I am more annoyed about is this: "when the post's focus wasn't really about politics at all." Ridiculous. You opened the post with a link to a pro-choice organization titling it "Save Roe." You mentioned the funny cartoons about Bush. As a "fellow regular," did you really think no one was going to get political about this? Like I said in the thread, what if you opened a post with a link to the Nuremburg Files and then said "hey, so what do you all think about strikethrough text?" That's a hell of a segue to pretend you didn't intend to spark a political discussion about. Would you believe the poster of that if they shrugged "well, I wasn't trying to be directly partisan about it?"

As for Matt deleting the thread and his decision, if that's the case can't he delete my comments you all hate and re-open/repost the thread anew? It's been done before, I believe (Matt?) I am more than happy to have a discussion on abortion, hell I posted links related to it myself. The reason I didn't have one in yours was A. I indicated in the beginning of the thread that you were making a debate about abortion under the guise of a thread about petitions, and B. I was admittedly continually angered that I got attacked for stating it.

As for "I haven't seen a real on-line petition campaign in awhile," there was a thread about it in November. To the best of my knowledge, the reason the search box shows few threads about Roe I would assume is because Matt keeps deleting them. If so, guess why? Because people don't want to discuss online petitions in them.

I am still asking legitimately what you wanted to debate in the thread: Roe v. Wade or online petitioning. Trying to put the two together is going to make one overpower the other, and if you really wanted "to leave politics out of it," then you can see your wish went ignored within five or six comments.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 10:50 PM on January 27, 2003

And since it was about a petition, it was not directly partisan because it didn't ask about the issue, it asked about the petition, the action being taken, and the effectiveness of that course

Sorry, but this strikes me as naive (at best) or disingenuous (at worst). I don't think I'm going off the deep end by stating that no matter how you framed it, by only including a single link to Planned Parenthood under the exhortation to "Save Roe," the thread was overwhelmingly likely to act as a catalyst to debate abortion, not the pros and cons of online petitions. That was XQUZ's point, as I understood it, regardless of any "this thread will be deleted" presumptiveness (for which he's already apologized) -- a point underscored by the first anti-Roe volley that was fired about six comments in. The "Save Roe" link acted like a red herring/red flag -- and inevitably so, given how extraordinarily high passions run on the issue, especially coming just after its 30th anniversary.

In other words, the content of the link (i.e., defending abortion rights) trumped the context of its function in your post (i.e., "do online petitions really work?"). A different discussion might have been sparked by posting multiple online petitions from different sources and political positions, possibly with a link to the Urban Legends page discussing them as well, etc.. But with all due respect, Rich, the FPP as it stood all but ensured bickering of one sort or the other. You can't post a political link as your only link, and expect to be able to "take the politics out of it." (It strikes me a little like posting a link to the Kurt Cobain diaries and then trying to insist that the discussion center on the pros and cons of journal-keeping.)
posted by scody at 12:36 AM on January 28, 2003

To me the point is that regardless of whether or not XQ's initial comment was (1) politely phrased, (2) mere opinion, (3) not intended to derail the thread, (4) the type of statement lots of people on metafilter make, (5) even in fact completely right -- a statement like "this is a bad post and here's why" doesn't move the discussion forward and probably isn't a helpful metafilter comment. That's all. If XQ would be like dchase, put away the "everyone is doing it defense," and recognize, yeah, that kinda sucked, sorry about that, I think he'd stop catching flack. Maybe that's what he means by "I apologize for stepping on anyone's foot in the movie theater, so to speak," but I can't tell. I don't wish to antagonize him; he make interesting points, but I can see why rich might be frustrated.
posted by onlyconnect at 1:44 AM on January 28, 2003

I NEVER DECLARED OR DECIDED THE THREAD WAS GOING TO BE DELETED AS IF I HAD THE POWER TO DO SO.

"That said, let me explain why this post is going to be deleted."

direct quote. jesus xqueesus, you just don't know when to quit, do ya!?!?
posted by quonsar at 4:36 AM on January 28, 2003

Pointless Bickering

How prescient!
posted by mischief at 4:55 AM on January 28, 2003

Ever go into an apartment building and smell the cooking on each floor?

This thread is like that.. Plus crap!

thank you goldmember!
posted by hama7 at 5:29 AM on January 28, 2003

Ufez Jones: Thanks, you are right. I didn't realize that was the case.
posted by IshmaelGraves at 6:37 AM on January 28, 2003

It takes less than 5 minutes to sign up for a Hotmail account or a mail account with another free provider, Pollomacho.

I, on the other hand, have received only complimentary emails. Fun, joking emails. Requests for recipes. Helpful bits of obscure information. Nothing that has ever made me regret posting my address.

Hotmail? Free e-mail? Wow, you learn something new every day! What exactly would be the point of putting up an e-mail address if it was a bull shit address anyway. I've already got 6 addresses to juggle, now you want me to check another one purely just in case a MeFi member wants to send me recipes? Thank you for the advice, but no.

Judging from the level of polite conversation on this very thread I can tell that there are plenty of people that take MeFi and MeTa discussions WAY too seriously. XQ's (not to pick on you, just an example here) "you're literally making me scream" shows that thread discussions can lead to some explosive emotions. As long as someone has to talk to me, confront me or question me on a very public forum, things have to stay somewhat civil or else there are plenty of people to back me up that someone's being a dick. With e-mail that's not the case, any jackass can come on here, get my address and say whatever the fuck they want. Now, I'm not an unfriendly person, but I do request a certain amount of privacy. I wouldn't mind getting to know more things about some of the more interesting figures I've "met" on here, but I'd rather lose that possibility if it means I also don't have to hear shit from people that haven't even been deemed civil enough for this public forum!
posted by Pollomacho at 8:33 AM on January 28, 2003

Pollomacho, my special-purpose MetaFilter email address forwards to my regular account. I've never had any problems but if I did, I'd delete that address, change the address on the customize pages, and hide it.

Not that you should follow my example, but it works for me.
posted by timeistight at 8:52 AM on January 28, 2003

What exactly would be the point of putting up an e-mail address if it was a bull shit address anyway.

Generally, to get around a registration's requirement to submit a valid address. After that, you can just forget about it; why bother checking it?
posted by mischief at 9:00 AM on January 28, 2003

mischief, if it's a fake address, why bother displaying it on your user page?
posted by timeistight at 9:19 AM on January 28, 2003

Pollomacho; I won't send you e-mail calling you a dick. I priomise. (actually, for owners of a domain, I like the [e-mail] kind of thing - you can filter it out to a certain folder, and if spammers or anyone else got too hot, you can just start rejecting anything sent to that address). I just think that as an active participant in a community like this, there is true value in being able to directly contact people for issues that would otherwise clutter this space and devalue it. Pros and cons. I can understand your points and desire to avoid extra work for a side activity.

XQ: "I FELT that the thread was going to be deleted."

I completely understand your point, and how you personally felt. However, and I'm not sure if you understand this - just because you feel the thread is going to be deleted, there is no justification for you posting a comment to that effect on the thread. Period. And to this point, I don't think that you believe you did anything wrong and I also thing that you would have no qualms in posting a similar comment on a post today that you 'felt' would be deleted.

Again, you seem to be taking this personally, and it's not.

Your argument about strike-out text on the Nuremburg Files is a big stretch of a comparison. Formatting of fonts has nothing to do with the mission of the site.

Let's put it this way - Save Roe is an activist site, meant to try to foster change (or, more accurately, prevent changes to the current status quo on abortion rights). In the course of their campaign, they are using an Online petition to further their goals, while at the same time using cartoonish insults of their opponents. For a high-profile issue, how effective is this use of the web as a tool to forward an agenda of change, from both a tool issue as well as implementation?

My sincere apologies if I give credit to the users of Metafilter to be somewhat rational beings to not use an example for discussion as the focus of the discussion itself, instead.

As witness to the thread, there were a number of users who were able to do just that - make the connection and not focus on the political issue as the key component.

Using other online petitions may or may not have added to the discussion, since I was primarily concerned about that specific implementation. Also, other online petitions don't have such a high-profile focus that I think should mandate a higher standard on implementation and use.

I would point to your specific comment in why the discussion went awry five or six comments in, and only because of your comment. But, hey, that's just my opinion, and you know what opinions are like.
posted by rich at 9:33 AM on January 28, 2003

Okay, this just isn't fair... out of curiosity, is there anything I can tell you that you won't immediately come up with a snarky counter to?

You've got to be kidding.
posted by xammerboy at 6:02 PM on January 28, 2003

pm: Isn't displaying the address the default?
posted by mischief at 6:32 PM on January 28, 2003

Nope, I guess not. Well, displaying it is one way of desfusing call-outs for not displaying it.
posted by mischief at 6:36 PM on January 28, 2003

Let's just say that there is at least one person who doesn't want to leave an e-mail address and leave it at that. I don't want to, and as long as I don't have to, I'm not going to, case closed. Thanks for asking.
posted by Pollomacho at 11:33 AM on January 29, 2003