This post was deleted for the following reason: op-ed blah blah blah February 21, 2003 8:08 AM Subscribe
"And so the 'high-signal territory' posse was born." I'd like to apologize in advance for being annoying, but I think that it's important (in a relative sense, at least) to do this.
I agree with oissubke, it is a horrible thing to do. Who does actually think that and op-ed piece is good posting material?
Well, hands up who do.
posted by sebas at 8:19 AM on February 21, 2003
Well, hands up who do.
posted by sebas at 8:19 AM on February 21, 2003
Well, oissubke, you get points for guts, I guess. I'm waiting till I've been a member for at least a year before I announce my first crusade (and then it will probably be about something completely silly).
oissubke, you do realize, don't you, that some people may think your beef against Iraq posts is a partisan bias. After all, your politics are Right-Wing Christian, and the majority of the Iraq posts are Anti-War.
(By the way, I didn't need the Political Compass to know what oissubke's beliefs are, so please don't blame my comment on our fun new toy.)
posted by Shane at 8:24 AM on February 21, 2003
oissubke, you do realize, don't you, that some people may think your beef against Iraq posts is a partisan bias. After all, your politics are Right-Wing Christian, and the majority of the Iraq posts are Anti-War.
(By the way, I didn't need the Political Compass to know what oissubke's beliefs are, so please don't blame my comment on our fun new toy.)
posted by Shane at 8:24 AM on February 21, 2003
Shoot! I left a [small] tag unclosed in that last comment! (FYI)
posted by Shane at 8:26 AM on February 21, 2003
posted by Shane at 8:26 AM on February 21, 2003
oissubke, you do realize, don't you, that some people may think your beef against Iraq posts is a partisan bias. After all, your politics are Right-Wing Christian, and the majority of the Iraq posts are Anti-War.
For the record, though I may sometimes play devil's advocate, I don't endorse the war in Iraq. I'm hoping the current administration knows something I don't, because otherwise they've got pretty weak reasons for wanting to take Iraq.
posted by oissubke at 8:31 AM on February 21, 2003
For the record, though I may sometimes play devil's advocate, I don't endorse the war in Iraq. I'm hoping the current administration knows something I don't, because otherwise they've got pretty weak reasons for wanting to take Iraq.
posted by oissubke at 8:31 AM on February 21, 2003
I'm antiwar and deeply concerned about it, and I'm also deeply fed up with the incessant parade of minimally differentiated front-page posts about the coming war and related issues (how many people were at those demonstrations? what's up with those wacky French and their consumer products? who knew what when, and are they lying about it?). What many people do not seem to realize is that posting on MetaFilter is not equivalent to voting, or marching, or writing your congressman. It accomplishes nothing except making you feel like a person of consequence. But you're not. This is only a website.
In short, on this matter if on nothing else, I'm with Oissubke.
posted by languagehat at 8:31 AM on February 21, 2003
In short, on this matter if on nothing else, I'm with Oissubke.
posted by languagehat at 8:31 AM on February 21, 2003
oissubuke and anyone else who takes part in this, please do post a few examples say 25 days from now, so we know how you're doing.
posted by riffola at 8:32 AM on February 21, 2003
posted by riffola at 8:32 AM on February 21, 2003
for what it's worth, I'm with.
And thanks for naming it after me guys!
posted by signal at 8:35 AM on February 21, 2003
And thanks for naming it after me guys!
posted by signal at 8:35 AM on February 21, 2003
Those who are with the posse:
This is a non-violent protest, so hopefully we can accomplish this (at least to some extent) with little more than a simple, courteous statement along the lines of "Please don't post these sorts of editorials, because..." and give a simple, respectable reason why we shouldn't be posting these things.
No need for sarcasm or unpleasantness. If we play nice, hopefully the notion will catch on. There will still be occasional posts from people who don't get it, of course, but at least we can try to get the signal ratio back up.
Also, this isn't directed at any particular agenda -- it applies equally to pro- and anti-war editorials, or pro- or anti-Bush editorials -- and it doesn't apply blindly to all political posts other. If something's different, interesting, or useful, let it be.
But generally speaking, it's time to take out the trash.
posted by oissubke at 8:41 AM on February 21, 2003
This is a non-violent protest, so hopefully we can accomplish this (at least to some extent) with little more than a simple, courteous statement along the lines of "Please don't post these sorts of editorials, because..." and give a simple, respectable reason why we shouldn't be posting these things.
No need for sarcasm or unpleasantness. If we play nice, hopefully the notion will catch on. There will still be occasional posts from people who don't get it, of course, but at least we can try to get the signal ratio back up.
Also, this isn't directed at any particular agenda -- it applies equally to pro- and anti-war editorials, or pro- or anti-Bush editorials -- and it doesn't apply blindly to all political posts other. If something's different, interesting, or useful, let it be.
But generally speaking, it's time to take out the trash.
posted by oissubke at 8:41 AM on February 21, 2003
I'm hoping the current administration knows something I don't, because otherwise they've got pretty weak reasons for wanting to take Iraq.
Okay, you get my support [plus points in general, if that's worth anything ; ) ]
But I don't think we can eliminate ALL Iraq posts, and I think it would be a waste of time to try. You can all hate me for this, but I think that, when there is occasionally a major development, there should be one post representing it even if it is in all the major newspapers. I'm not talking about every time Blix scratches his ass, though. I mean, if/when War breaks out, there should be one post about it, and there is no way to squelch that.
By the way, the kid across the street from me shipped out the other day, first to Ft Bragg to pick up his chem/bio defense suit, and then to an undisclosed location.
You know this kid, right? He's the one who doesn't like "Towelheads" and uses that word, but he never intended to fight them. He's only in the Army because he doesn't know what else to do and he never wanted to be in a war...
posted by Shane at 8:44 AM on February 21, 2003
Okay, you get my support [plus points in general, if that's worth anything ; ) ]
But I don't think we can eliminate ALL Iraq posts, and I think it would be a waste of time to try. You can all hate me for this, but I think that, when there is occasionally a major development, there should be one post representing it even if it is in all the major newspapers. I'm not talking about every time Blix scratches his ass, though. I mean, if/when War breaks out, there should be one post about it, and there is no way to squelch that.
By the way, the kid across the street from me shipped out the other day, first to Ft Bragg to pick up his chem/bio defense suit, and then to an undisclosed location.
You know this kid, right? He's the one who doesn't like "Towelheads" and uses that word, but he never intended to fight them. He's only in the Army because he doesn't know what else to do and he never wanted to be in a war...
posted by Shane at 8:44 AM on February 21, 2003
I'm still very cold after the last time Matt told us all to Chill Out. brrr..
posted by Stan Chin at 8:46 AM on February 21, 2003
posted by Stan Chin at 8:46 AM on February 21, 2003
(PS --it goes without saying that "Towelhead" is not my terminology. I want to be absolutely clear on that.)
posted by Shane at 8:48 AM on February 21, 2003
posted by Shane at 8:48 AM on February 21, 2003
This type of self policing cycles. Plenty of people jump on the bandwagon, others start telling you to shut up and ignore posts you don't like, things get ugly, Matt posts in MetaTalk saying the self-policing has gotten out of hand and to please cool it.
Some people love to talk about current events here. Other love to argue. Others (I'm guessing) get shunned in real life because they are pontificating assholes and they have a captive audience here. Others find this is the place they can vent their spleen without repercussions.
I hate it.
But, I have to admit, it's part of what Metafilter is. I spend time on other discussion boards where arguing isn't allowed at all. They are very informative, but they lack character. They lack the sense of community we have here. So I think we're stuck with it.
Another problem with your posse (and I say this because I've tried to do the same thing many times) people will hate you and shout at you and write you off as a crank. Why are you disrupting things? We're having a conversation. Go somewhere else if you don't like it. Your task is a thankless one. People who agree with you will give you a silent thumbs up, but those who prefer news and arguing will attack you in the comments.
I and another user here have started putting together a daily "best of" list that filters out all the noise. In our opinion anyway. It's not quite ready for prime time, but after doing it every day for a couple weeks I think it will actually fly. It's wild to see a list of the best 6-8 threads from everyday. There is some great stuff here, but you have to wade through so much I/P, Iraq, Bush, news, that you miss the forest for the trees.
So good luck oissubke. You'll be getting a thumbs up from me. Don't let the pontificating assholes beat you down, 'cause they like to run the place.
posted by y6y6y6 at 8:51 AM on February 21, 2003
Some people love to talk about current events here. Other love to argue. Others (I'm guessing) get shunned in real life because they are pontificating assholes and they have a captive audience here. Others find this is the place they can vent their spleen without repercussions.
I hate it.
But, I have to admit, it's part of what Metafilter is. I spend time on other discussion boards where arguing isn't allowed at all. They are very informative, but they lack character. They lack the sense of community we have here. So I think we're stuck with it.
Another problem with your posse (and I say this because I've tried to do the same thing many times) people will hate you and shout at you and write you off as a crank. Why are you disrupting things? We're having a conversation. Go somewhere else if you don't like it. Your task is a thankless one. People who agree with you will give you a silent thumbs up, but those who prefer news and arguing will attack you in the comments.
I and another user here have started putting together a daily "best of" list that filters out all the noise. In our opinion anyway. It's not quite ready for prime time, but after doing it every day for a couple weeks I think it will actually fly. It's wild to see a list of the best 6-8 threads from everyday. There is some great stuff here, but you have to wade through so much I/P, Iraq, Bush, news, that you miss the forest for the trees.
So good luck oissubke. You'll be getting a thumbs up from me. Don't let the pontificating assholes beat you down, 'cause they like to run the place.
posted by y6y6y6 at 8:51 AM on February 21, 2003
I'd like to apologize in advance for being annoying
Not nearly as annoying as the Iraq posts, I assure you. After raaka's post I was naive enough to believe they would subside, but no. Yesterday there was a flood of scare tactics fpps and today we're back to the same well-trodden subjects: Bush, demonstrations etc etc etc.
I guess we underestimated the fact that, at this point, the war anxiety is so ingrained in people's subconscious that they can't help but express themselves about it. Pity they insist on using this particular site to do it.
posted by 111 at 8:51 AM on February 21, 2003
Not nearly as annoying as the Iraq posts, I assure you. After raaka's post I was naive enough to believe they would subside, but no. Yesterday there was a flood of scare tactics fpps and today we're back to the same well-trodden subjects: Bush, demonstrations etc etc etc.
I guess we underestimated the fact that, at this point, the war anxiety is so ingrained in people's subconscious that they can't help but express themselves about it. Pity they insist on using this particular site to do it.
posted by 111 at 8:51 AM on February 21, 2003
Oh, fine. Once again some few control freaks feel it necessary to disrupt a thread right from the very beginning because the post is something they do not like to see, instead of letting Matt take the initiative and deleting it on his own. So now, anyone new coming to MeFi reads your hostile reaction and can immediately assume that this community is unfriendly overall. Talk about exclusivity, and you call yourselves liberals and libertarians. Hah, hypocrites!
posted by mischief at 8:54 AM on February 21, 2003
posted by mischief at 8:54 AM on February 21, 2003
I don't think a posse is a good idea. I think Matt needs to make it a little more clear that posting about Iraq is usually a very, very bad idea and anyone who posts an op-ed piece will not meet the 72 virgins after dead.
posted by sebas at 8:56 AM on February 21, 2003
posted by sebas at 8:56 AM on February 21, 2003
people will hate you and shout at you and write you off as a crank.
Actually, only mischief does that. But he does it enough everytime this conversation is around that it seems that way.
posted by Stan Chin at 8:57 AM on February 21, 2003
Actually, only mischief does that. But he does it enough everytime this conversation is around that it seems that way.
posted by Stan Chin at 8:57 AM on February 21, 2003
This is pretty much exactly contrary to the rules and spirit of the way the site works. If you have a problem with a tread, you bring it to MeTa. You do not ever have permission, authority, etc. to intentionally "derail" a thread within the thread itself, no matter how righteous you think your cause is.
The reason is obvious to anyone who has been around longer than, say, five months. Lots of people, at lots of different times, have decided that a particular type of post was "noise." If each group had formed a "posse" to intentionally derail those threads, the site would have collapsed in derailment and counter-derailment.
posted by Mid at 9:01 AM on February 21, 2003
The reason is obvious to anyone who has been around longer than, say, five months. Lots of people, at lots of different times, have decided that a particular type of post was "noise." If each group had formed a "posse" to intentionally derail those threads, the site would have collapsed in derailment and counter-derailment.
posted by Mid at 9:01 AM on February 21, 2003
You do not ever have permission, authority, etc. to intentionally "derail" a thread within the thread itself, no matter how righteous you think your cause is.
Agreed. This is essentially a scorched earth strategy. If someone makes an inapropriate post, the Posse will hijack it. Another analogy would be filibustering.
I think one or two polite warning shots in crap posts would be good. But there's no way to make that happen. If it becomes apparent that vigilateism can be appropriate, a non-trivial number of MeFites will deputize themselves vigilantes. I did it myself last time. And the means will mootify the ends.
posted by gsteff at 9:13 AM on February 21, 2003
Agreed. This is essentially a scorched earth strategy. If someone makes an inapropriate post, the Posse will hijack it. Another analogy would be filibustering.
I think one or two polite warning shots in crap posts would be good. But there's no way to make that happen. If it becomes apparent that vigilateism can be appropriate, a non-trivial number of MeFites will deputize themselves vigilantes. I did it myself last time. And the means will mootify the ends.
posted by gsteff at 9:13 AM on February 21, 2003
Er, vigilanteism.
Mootify, of course, is entirely correct.
posted by gsteff at 9:14 AM on February 21, 2003
Mootify, of course, is entirely correct.
posted by gsteff at 9:14 AM on February 21, 2003
"Lots of people, at lots of different times, have decided that a particular type of post was noise."
The difference is that we have a clear consensus on this topic. Matt has even advised people to not post on the topic. Matt has said that threads on this topic are ruining Metafilter.
The problem is that it's the same thing day after day. Nothing new. Same arguments from the same people. Metafilter = Novel, new, interesting.
posted by y6y6y6 at 9:15 AM on February 21, 2003
The difference is that we have a clear consensus on this topic. Matt has even advised people to not post on the topic. Matt has said that threads on this topic are ruining Metafilter.
The problem is that it's the same thing day after day. Nothing new. Same arguments from the same people. Metafilter = Novel, new, interesting.
posted by y6y6y6 at 9:15 AM on February 21, 2003
Talk about exclusivity, and you call yourselves liberals and libertarians.
I do?
posted by oissubke at 9:19 AM on February 21, 2003
I do?
posted by oissubke at 9:19 AM on February 21, 2003
For perhaps the only time in my brief but noisy Mefi life, I'm with y6y6y6 AND oissubke. I will now mentally frame this post as proof that everyone can find at least ONE point of commonality.
posted by jonson at 9:22 AM on February 21, 2003
posted by jonson at 9:22 AM on February 21, 2003
Also, oissubke, you can ignore mischief, he's just being a dick.
posted by jonson at 9:27 AM on February 21, 2003
posted by jonson at 9:27 AM on February 21, 2003
Some people love to talk about current events here. Other love to argue. Others (I'm guessing) get shunned in real life because they are pontificating assholes and they have a captive audience here. Others find this is the place they can vent their spleen without repercussions.
That was bloody brilliant!
posted by Ufez Jones at 9:28 AM on February 21, 2003
That was bloody brilliant!
posted by Ufez Jones at 9:28 AM on February 21, 2003
Don't let the pontificating assholes beat you down, 'cause they like to run the place.
Are you describing the posse? It seems like that's their mission, to run the place as they see fit (based on their interpretation of what Matt has said).
A couple of todays Iraq posts were weak, granted, but overall I still appreciate most of them. And the noise in the signal to noise ratio is increasingly being generated by those complaining about the noise. The posse will be like the loud radio turned up to disguise the broken muffler. The important issue of Iraq will still be there no matter how you try to drown it out.
posted by vito90 at 9:32 AM on February 21, 2003
Are you describing the posse? It seems like that's their mission, to run the place as they see fit (based on their interpretation of what Matt has said).
A couple of todays Iraq posts were weak, granted, but overall I still appreciate most of them. And the noise in the signal to noise ratio is increasingly being generated by those complaining about the noise. The posse will be like the loud radio turned up to disguise the broken muffler. The important issue of Iraq will still be there no matter how you try to drown it out.
posted by vito90 at 9:32 AM on February 21, 2003
I don't think the issue is so much that the Iraq situation isn't important, it's just that people aren't finding new or interesting ways to highlight how important it is.
posted by Cyrano at 9:38 AM on February 21, 2003
posted by Cyrano at 9:38 AM on February 21, 2003
I'm sick of Iraq posts too and agree that there is a clear majority of users who would like most of them gone, but I'm very uncomfortable with the idea of a small group of people going out and defining what they believe is a worthy thread. there are (very) occasionally some very useful posts on Iraq after all. also what y6y6y6 said about sterilizing the site.
posted by gravelshoes at 9:41 AM on February 21, 2003
posted by gravelshoes at 9:41 AM on February 21, 2003
If you're going to make a post related to Iraq and the impending war, please reconsider, as the topic has been discussed previously many times.
--Matt Haughey
Those of you who have not taken Matt's own words into consideration before posting, much less the considerations of bandwidth that is sucked up daily due to these nauseatingly predictable slugfests, deserve to be harassed by a posse.
It's been said before: there are hundreds of other forums that handle politics and repetitive war debates better than Metafilter. Go find them. To keep posting the same stories over and over is disrespectful to the person who gives us the freedom to post here in the first place.
posted by dhoyt at 9:47 AM on February 21, 2003
--Matt Haughey
Those of you who have not taken Matt's own words into consideration before posting, much less the considerations of bandwidth that is sucked up daily due to these nauseatingly predictable slugfests, deserve to be harassed by a posse.
It's been said before: there are hundreds of other forums that handle politics and repetitive war debates better than Metafilter. Go find them. To keep posting the same stories over and over is disrespectful to the person who gives us the freedom to post here in the first place.
posted by dhoyt at 9:47 AM on February 21, 2003
I'm very uncomfortable with the idea of a small group of people going out and defining what they believe is a worthy thread. there are (very) occasionally some very useful posts on Iraq after all
To quote myself from earlier: "It doesn't apply blindly to all political posts either. If something's different, interesting, or useful, let it be."
posted by oissubke at 9:48 AM on February 21, 2003
To quote myself from earlier: "It doesn't apply blindly to all political posts either. If something's different, interesting, or useful, let it be."
posted by oissubke at 9:48 AM on February 21, 2003
To those opposed to Iraq posts and supportive of all things Duhbya, might I suggest you boycott posting to the threads you find offensive?
I just glanced this post by nofundy and think there's no better example of someone so royally missing the point. It is just as bad as conservatives assuming that if you don't support a war, you must sympathize with Hussein. Yes nofundy, because I hate all these Iraq posts, I sympathize with "Duhbya".
Grow up.
posted by dhoyt at 9:51 AM on February 21, 2003
I just glanced this post by nofundy and think there's no better example of someone so royally missing the point. It is just as bad as conservatives assuming that if you don't support a war, you must sympathize with Hussein. Yes nofundy, because I hate all these Iraq posts, I sympathize with "Duhbya".
Grow up.
posted by dhoyt at 9:51 AM on February 21, 2003
but that is your decision, and that's what I don't like
posted by gravelshoes at 9:51 AM on February 21, 2003
posted by gravelshoes at 9:51 AM on February 21, 2003
oops, thats in reply to oissubke btw
posted by gravelshoes at 9:53 AM on February 21, 2003
posted by gravelshoes at 9:53 AM on February 21, 2003
"The important issue of Iraq will still be there no matter how you try to drown it out."
I spend lots of time at the DPReview discussion forum. It's much busier than Metafilter. That forum (like this one) has a purpose. That purpose does not include discussions which mainly revolve around someone's political agenda or current events. Same with Metafilter. Maybe one post in a hundred will bring up Iraq/politics and it will get shouted down.
My point? Just because something is in the news and people want to talk about it, that doesn't mean you have to talk about it here. It's not what Metafilter is for.
Yes, it's important. Which is why it's all over the TV news. And the radio news. And the newspaper. And the many of the magazines I read. We don't need it here. Metafilter is for cool stuff on the web. I realize you want to make it a general discussion board, and I think that idea sucks.
Just because you want to talk about it doesn't mean you have to talk about it here. In fact, please don't talk about it here.
posted by y6y6y6 at 9:55 AM on February 21, 2003
I spend lots of time at the DPReview discussion forum. It's much busier than Metafilter. That forum (like this one) has a purpose. That purpose does not include discussions which mainly revolve around someone's political agenda or current events. Same with Metafilter. Maybe one post in a hundred will bring up Iraq/politics and it will get shouted down.
My point? Just because something is in the news and people want to talk about it, that doesn't mean you have to talk about it here. It's not what Metafilter is for.
Yes, it's important. Which is why it's all over the TV news. And the radio news. And the newspaper. And the many of the magazines I read. We don't need it here. Metafilter is for cool stuff on the web. I realize you want to make it a general discussion board, and I think that idea sucks.
Just because you want to talk about it doesn't mean you have to talk about it here. In fact, please don't talk about it here.
posted by y6y6y6 at 9:55 AM on February 21, 2003
If the Iraq-thread-posters do not back away from their Editorials of Mass Annoyance, and the Benevolent Dictator continues his slide toward irrelevance, then the High-Signal-Territory Posse will have no choice but to form a Coalition of the Fed-Up to derail the posters. Make no mistake, the High-Signal-Territory Posse has the means, the will, and the fortitude to Go It Alone if need be.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 10:03 AM on February 21, 2003
posted by mr_crash_davis at 10:03 AM on February 21, 2003
ha!
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 10:06 AM on February 21, 2003
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 10:06 AM on February 21, 2003
I'm sorry, but however noxious you all think the Iraq threads are, this harebrained idea to usurp Matt's authority and shout-down war posters is worse.
Oissubke: I must have missed your coronation as Supreme Mullah and Dispenser of The Holy Justice, but I hope the catering was good, and I hope you'll forgive me for not joining this dopey "crusade" of yours against the unbelievers. If you really want to control the content here at Metafilter, I suggest you ask Matt to elevate you to the status of moderator. If he agrees, or if he gives you the go-ahead to go beserker in Iraq threads, then you'll find no opposition here or elsewhere. (In fact, I'll gladly join. Do we get member cards? What about armbands?) But if he doesn't bless this "posse" of OCD-sufferers, then you'll simply have to stomach the affront and not look back in anger.
posted by Ljubljana at 10:09 AM on February 21, 2003
Oissubke: I must have missed your coronation as Supreme Mullah and Dispenser of The Holy Justice, but I hope the catering was good, and I hope you'll forgive me for not joining this dopey "crusade" of yours against the unbelievers. If you really want to control the content here at Metafilter, I suggest you ask Matt to elevate you to the status of moderator. If he agrees, or if he gives you the go-ahead to go beserker in Iraq threads, then you'll find no opposition here or elsewhere. (In fact, I'll gladly join. Do we get member cards? What about armbands?) But if he doesn't bless this "posse" of OCD-sufferers, then you'll simply have to stomach the affront and not look back in anger.
posted by Ljubljana at 10:09 AM on February 21, 2003
Oissubke: I must have missed your coronation as Supreme Mullah and Dispenser of The Holy Justice
I don't have any more authority than anyone else. I'm not hijacking, I'm not banning, I'm not censoring. I'm just a guy stating his opinion.
This site is essentially run by its members. Matt has generally taken a hands-off approach, which is a good thing. Being a reasonably active member, I'd like to try to help steer things in a certain direction. If it's a bad direction, I'm sure that the other members will smack me down, and it'll come to naught. Otherwise, it may just help to make the site a little better.
It's just part of the self-maintenance cycle that keeps this site working.
posted by oissubke at 10:16 AM on February 21, 2003
I don't have any more authority than anyone else. I'm not hijacking, I'm not banning, I'm not censoring. I'm just a guy stating his opinion.
This site is essentially run by its members. Matt has generally taken a hands-off approach, which is a good thing. Being a reasonably active member, I'd like to try to help steer things in a certain direction. If it's a bad direction, I'm sure that the other members will smack me down, and it'll come to naught. Otherwise, it may just help to make the site a little better.
It's just part of the self-maintenance cycle that keeps this site working.
posted by oissubke at 10:16 AM on February 21, 2003
This has been tried before. A bunch of people said "ok, let's stop complaining about bad posts, and instead let's not comment in them, and post better links ourselves."
As far as I know, I was the only one who didn't take this plan as a joke. I tried for about three months not to post in political threads, made a few FPPs, et cetera, and absolutely nothing came of it. I think hama7 made a joke about it once and then continued the flamewar. Someone else might have sent an instant message saying, "hey, good idea." Finally, I just gave up.
Basically, the problem is, many people are willing to say they don't like noise, but very few can resist taking part in it. Good luck, though, seriously.
posted by Hildago at 10:19 AM on February 21, 2003
As far as I know, I was the only one who didn't take this plan as a joke. I tried for about three months not to post in political threads, made a few FPPs, et cetera, and absolutely nothing came of it. I think hama7 made a joke about it once and then continued the flamewar. Someone else might have sent an instant message saying, "hey, good idea." Finally, I just gave up.
Basically, the problem is, many people are willing to say they don't like noise, but very few can resist taking part in it. Good luck, though, seriously.
posted by Hildago at 10:19 AM on February 21, 2003
If you really want to control the content here at Metafilter, I suggest you ask Matt to elevate you to the status of moderator.
Speaking of people missing the point...
I don't see it as "controlling content", I see it as "informing people". Given the sheer volume of these posts, it really does seem as if Matt's message is being ignored. If anyone is controlling the content, it is those people who stubbornly push MeFi into a narrow corner where the only thing discussed are politics & war.
Let's show some objectivity, self-policing and common courtesy for the site.
posted by dhoyt at 10:21 AM on February 21, 2003
Speaking of people missing the point...
I don't see it as "controlling content", I see it as "informing people". Given the sheer volume of these posts, it really does seem as if Matt's message is being ignored. If anyone is controlling the content, it is those people who stubbornly push MeFi into a narrow corner where the only thing discussed are politics & war.
Let's show some objectivity, self-policing and common courtesy for the site.
posted by dhoyt at 10:21 AM on February 21, 2003
Let's show some objectivity, self-policing and common courtesy for the site.
Thank you! That's all I'm trying to say!
posted by oissubke at 10:30 AM on February 21, 2003
Thank you! That's all I'm trying to say!
posted by oissubke at 10:30 AM on February 21, 2003
Being a reasonably active member, I'd like to try to help steer things in a certain direction.
Well, so do the people posting the Iraq threads. They want to steer this site in a certain direction too: towards Iraq. In a community of equals, where does that leave us?
In the end, this all boils down to either respecting the Iraq contingent or not. If you can't stand them, perhaps a "community" web site isn't the right place to be.
If it's a bad direction, I'm sure that the other members will smack me down.
No, they won't. It'll just be one big, long, perpetual stalemate. There will always be people supporting you, and others arguing with you. The ensuing noise will never be resolved. It'll be like an Iraq thread, except more pathetic, because instead of people arguing about war, they'll be arguing about whether to argue about war.
I don't see it as "controlling content", I see it as "informing people".
Maybe a new ministry is in order then, something along the lines of "The Ministry of Enlightenment." Sorry, but that sounds really pretentious. I think most people who talk about Iraq know that it's not encouraged but choose to do so anyway. I mean, there's a gigantic warning on the posting page for the love of God. How much more information do people need?
posted by Ljubljana at 10:38 AM on February 21, 2003
Well, so do the people posting the Iraq threads. They want to steer this site in a certain direction too: towards Iraq. In a community of equals, where does that leave us?
In the end, this all boils down to either respecting the Iraq contingent or not. If you can't stand them, perhaps a "community" web site isn't the right place to be.
If it's a bad direction, I'm sure that the other members will smack me down.
No, they won't. It'll just be one big, long, perpetual stalemate. There will always be people supporting you, and others arguing with you. The ensuing noise will never be resolved. It'll be like an Iraq thread, except more pathetic, because instead of people arguing about war, they'll be arguing about whether to argue about war.
I don't see it as "controlling content", I see it as "informing people".
Maybe a new ministry is in order then, something along the lines of "The Ministry of Enlightenment." Sorry, but that sounds really pretentious. I think most people who talk about Iraq know that it's not encouraged but choose to do so anyway. I mean, there's a gigantic warning on the posting page for the love of God. How much more information do people need?
posted by Ljubljana at 10:38 AM on February 21, 2003
self-policing has "self" in it for a reason...start with yourself before you start policing others.
This posse idea is terrible--why can't you just ignore the posts you're not interested in? It's incredibly simple.
See, here's what you do:
1) load the front page
2) read a post
3) decide if you are interested in following the link
4) if not, move on to another post
should I repeat that, or are we clear?
posted by amberglow at 10:38 AM on February 21, 2003
This posse idea is terrible--why can't you just ignore the posts you're not interested in? It's incredibly simple.
See, here's what you do:
1) load the front page
2) read a post
3) decide if you are interested in following the link
4) if not, move on to another post
should I repeat that, or are we clear?
posted by amberglow at 10:38 AM on February 21, 2003
I feel a little uncomfortable with a rag-tag group self-proclaiming they are taking back mefi by derailing any thread they don't like. I understand the thinking behind it, you're tired of people posting stupid stuff, so it's time to start an education mission. That said, the best possible thing to do is either ignore the threads you don't like, or post intelligent, discourse-inducing commentary on the ones you feel are substandard. You might want to add additional sources to beef up the weak post as well.
There seem to be more positive avenues to register your protest besides means you employed today.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 11:03 AM on February 21, 2003
There seem to be more positive avenues to register your protest besides means you employed today.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 11:03 AM on February 21, 2003
"should I repeat that, or are we clear?"
Repeat all you want. And you do. But I think your solution leads inevitably to an increase in crappy posts. Ignoring the crap isn't easy. Having a high percentage of crap makes the site less useful. Crap attracts crap, good posts don't seem to attract good posts.
posted by y6y6y6 at 11:17 AM on February 21, 2003
Repeat all you want. And you do. But I think your solution leads inevitably to an increase in crappy posts. Ignoring the crap isn't easy. Having a high percentage of crap makes the site less useful. Crap attracts crap, good posts don't seem to attract good posts.
posted by y6y6y6 at 11:17 AM on February 21, 2003
Voting on posts soon, please.
Amen. I'd love to see some kind of threshold system. I'm sure the idea has been debated and shot down ("You don't like it? Go to K5!") before, though.
posted by oissubke at 11:35 AM on February 21, 2003
Amen. I'd love to see some kind of threshold system. I'm sure the idea has been debated and shot down ("You don't like it? Go to K5!") before, though.
posted by oissubke at 11:35 AM on February 21, 2003
This has been tried before. A bunch of people said "ok, let's stop complaining about bad posts, and instead let's not comment in them, and post better links ourselves." As far as I know, I was the only one who didn't take this plan as a joke.
Hildago, you are not the only one. I don't do the Iraq post thing either. Hell, at least 16,500 registered members don't participate in those threads. Plus thousands of additional lurkers.
Usually the only indication that there's anything awry comes when I read the Metatalk thread about it.
Oissubke, I admire your desire to make this a better place, but the end result of your efforts will be half resentment and half ego-massaging, and I'd rather voluntarily read an Iraq thread in place of any of that.
posted by PrinceValium at 11:39 AM on February 21, 2003
Hildago, you are not the only one. I don't do the Iraq post thing either. Hell, at least 16,500 registered members don't participate in those threads. Plus thousands of additional lurkers.
Usually the only indication that there's anything awry comes when I read the Metatalk thread about it.
Oissubke, I admire your desire to make this a better place, but the end result of your efforts will be half resentment and half ego-massaging, and I'd rather voluntarily read an Iraq thread in place of any of that.
posted by PrinceValium at 11:39 AM on February 21, 2003
But I think your solution leads inevitably to an increase in crappy posts. Ignoring the crap isn't easy. Having a high percentage of crap makes the site less useful.
I would argue that crap would eventually bring about good posts. Kinda like composting. If the site doesn't measure up it will die. If it does it will flourish.
Amberglow is right though. If one doesn't like the looks of a thread, ignore it. If one doesn't like a television program on one channel, then change to another channel. If one doesn't like this community site, then find or start a new one.
But as for deputised content police, count me out.
posted by terrapin at 11:50 AM on February 21, 2003
I would argue that crap would eventually bring about good posts. Kinda like composting. If the site doesn't measure up it will die. If it does it will flourish.
Amberglow is right though. If one doesn't like the looks of a thread, ignore it. If one doesn't like a television program on one channel, then change to another channel. If one doesn't like this community site, then find or start a new one.
But as for deputised content police, count me out.
posted by terrapin at 11:50 AM on February 21, 2003
either ignore the threads you don't like, or post intelligent, discourse-inducing commentary on the ones you feel are substandard
Or... lead by example. I know I've said this before, so please excuse the boring, repetitive nature of my comment. Lead by example.
posted by iconomy at 11:51 AM on February 21, 2003
Or... lead by example. I know I've said this before, so please excuse the boring, repetitive nature of my comment. Lead by example.
posted by iconomy at 11:51 AM on February 21, 2003
Killfile, killfile, my kingdom for a killfile...
(I'm not asking, Matt, I'm begging... The simple addition of this tried-and-true technology solution could render this entire relentlessly repeated subject moot.)
posted by JollyWanker at 11:52 AM on February 21, 2003
(I'm not asking, Matt, I'm begging... The simple addition of this tried-and-true technology solution could render this entire relentlessly repeated subject moot.)
posted by JollyWanker at 11:52 AM on February 21, 2003
Oissubke, I admire your desire to make this a better place, but the end result of your efforts will be half resentment and half ego-massaging, and I'd rather voluntarily read an Iraq thread in place of any of that.
MetaFilter: Half Resentment, Half Ego-Massaging. :-)
posted by oissubke at 12:01 PM on February 21, 2003
MetaFilter: Half Resentment, Half Ego-Massaging. :-)
posted by oissubke at 12:01 PM on February 21, 2003
Metafilter: Ignoring the Crap Isn't Easy
posted by hackly_fracture at 12:16 PM on February 21, 2003
posted by hackly_fracture at 12:16 PM on February 21, 2003
To quote the Metafilter tagline I just got on the front page of MeFi:
"You're wrong! No, you're wrong!"
posted by metaxa at 12:19 PM on February 21, 2003
"You're wrong! No, you're wrong!"
posted by metaxa at 12:19 PM on February 21, 2003
leads inevitably to an increase in crappy posts. Ignoring the crap isn't easy. Having a high percentage of crap makes the site less useful. Crap attracts crap, good posts don't seem to attract good posts.
life's a bitch. then you die.
posted by quonsar at 12:22 PM on February 21, 2003
life's a bitch. then you die.
posted by quonsar at 12:22 PM on February 21, 2003
"I'm not asking, Matt, I'm begging"
I built a page that acts as a killfile filter for Metafilter. Trust me, it doesn't work. Everyone riffs off everyone else too much. You seriously get the feeling you're missing most of the conversation. Even filtering out pure noise like quonsar hurts the continuity.
I used it for a while, but it hurt more than helped.
posted by y6y6y6 at 12:37 PM on February 21, 2003
I built a page that acts as a killfile filter for Metafilter. Trust me, it doesn't work. Everyone riffs off everyone else too much. You seriously get the feeling you're missing most of the conversation. Even filtering out pure noise like quonsar hurts the continuity.
I used it for a while, but it hurt more than helped.
posted by y6y6y6 at 12:37 PM on February 21, 2003
I'm gonna add voting real soon, I swear. I have a system worked out in my head, and in code on ticketstubs that I just need to implement.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 12:39 PM on February 21, 2003
posted by mathowie (staff) at 12:39 PM on February 21, 2003
common sense would be to ignore the posts you don't like, and hope matt will delete the most egregious op-ed flame wars. why expend so much energy on trying make metafilter something it isn't? why try to transmogrify mefi into your own, idealized image? why take it personally?
anyway, all of this editorializing will be meaningless after the actual war starts. i wonder what metafilter will look like then? although i absolutely prefer those "diamond-in-the-rough," non-news posts, when the bombs start dropping, i will come to metafilter and hope to find information about the war that i wouldn't find by searching the net myself.
posted by _sirmissalot_ at 12:52 PM on February 21, 2003
anyway, all of this editorializing will be meaningless after the actual war starts. i wonder what metafilter will look like then? although i absolutely prefer those "diamond-in-the-rough," non-news posts, when the bombs start dropping, i will come to metafilter and hope to find information about the war that i wouldn't find by searching the net myself.
posted by _sirmissalot_ at 12:52 PM on February 21, 2003
While I'm not comfortable with the Posse idea, neither do I care for the direction that MeFi has been going in, especially the last few weeks. The problem as I see it is that while those of us who dislike having to deal with the topic can ignore those threads, the threads (and the posters behind them) spill out into other threads as well, and you end up in a situation where the topic is brought up even where it's not appropriate, and where certain members will belittle anything certain other members say, whether or not it's in an Iraq-blah-blah thread.
posted by deadcowdan at 1:10 PM on February 21, 2003
posted by deadcowdan at 1:10 PM on February 21, 2003
Translated as:
I will come to metafilter and hope to find information about the war that i wouldn't find by visiting CNN, BBC, MSNBC, or NY Times myself.
posted by y6y6y6 at 1:13 PM on February 21, 2003
I will come to metafilter and hope to find information about the war that i wouldn't find by visiting CNN, BBC, MSNBC, or NY Times myself.
posted by y6y6y6 at 1:13 PM on February 21, 2003
I'm gonna add voting real soon, I swear. I have a system worked out in my head, and in code on ticketstubs that I just need to implement.
Code is always better than a posse.
posted by oissubke at 1:14 PM on February 21, 2003
Code is always better than a posse.
posted by oissubke at 1:14 PM on February 21, 2003
I built a page that acts as a killfile filter for Metafilter. Trust me, it doesn't work. Everyone riffs off everyone else too much. You seriously get the feeling you're missing most of the conversation. Even filtering out pure noise like quonsar hurts the continuity.
How about a killfile that works at the thread level, rather than the user level? Just filter out any front page posts containing the keywords "Iraq", "Sadaam", "Bush", etc. or links to CNN.com or Yahoo News. Functionally the same as ignoring the posts that don't interest you, but without having to notice how low the signal-to-noise ratio is getting.
posted by mr_roboto at 1:17 PM on February 21, 2003
How about a killfile that works at the thread level, rather than the user level? Just filter out any front page posts containing the keywords "Iraq", "Sadaam", "Bush", etc. or links to CNN.com or Yahoo News. Functionally the same as ignoring the posts that don't interest you, but without having to notice how low the signal-to-noise ratio is getting.
posted by mr_roboto at 1:17 PM on February 21, 2003
y6y6y6, is there any way for you to share your killfile page? Not that I don't trust your judgement, but I'd love to see for myself.
posted by frykitty at 1:32 PM on February 21, 2003
posted by frykitty at 1:32 PM on February 21, 2003
I will come to metafilter and hope to find information about the war that i wouldn't find by visiting CNN, BBC, MSNBC, or NY Times myself.
that is somewhat what i meant, y6y6y6, although i would add sfgate.com, washingtonpost.com, and guardian.co.uk to the list.
here's my point: sometimes a very good news post occurs when someone posts the relevant story of the day, and then adds lots of interesting background/sideground links that illuminate significant facts and issues that aren't covered in a typical AP feed story. i often find those kind of posts interesting, and am smart enough to take into consideration the biases of the post(er)--as I feel confident most of us are. this isn't mefi at it's finest, but it is an aspect of mefi that i enjoy and would hate to see babysitted to death.
posted by _sirmissalot_ at 1:39 PM on February 21, 2003
that is somewhat what i meant, y6y6y6, although i would add sfgate.com, washingtonpost.com, and guardian.co.uk to the list.
here's my point: sometimes a very good news post occurs when someone posts the relevant story of the day, and then adds lots of interesting background/sideground links that illuminate significant facts and issues that aren't covered in a typical AP feed story. i often find those kind of posts interesting, and am smart enough to take into consideration the biases of the post(er)--as I feel confident most of us are. this isn't mefi at it's finest, but it is an aspect of mefi that i enjoy and would hate to see babysitted to death.
posted by _sirmissalot_ at 1:39 PM on February 21, 2003
" Just filter out any front page posts containing the keywords "Iraq", "Sadaam", "Bush", etc."
That would be even easier. Unfortunately, as Matt has pointed out repeatedly, some news/war posts are very good. I've never actually noticed any news posts that I thought were "very good" but I'll admit it's possible.
It would take me about 50 lines of code to build a filter that would allow a reader to have a persistent list that would filter out whatever keywords and/or users they wanted. But what would be the point? If I just wanted to ignore things I didn't like then I can just use my brain and ignore them. I'd much rather try and do things to make the place better instead of trying to code out the crap.
I hate the Slashdot model which just gives in to the idea that most of the people contributing are boring dorks who are best ignored. It doesn't have to be that way. Take the DRReview model. It's busier than Metafilter, run by one admin, is crammed with good stuff, and is friendly. People have passionate ideological debates where the participants actually learn things. There is almost zero noise. Membership is wide open and people rarely get banned.
How do they do that? They have rules, they have a focus, and everyone loves the guy who runs the place.
Here we all love Matt, but we have no rules and no focus. I have no doubt Matt is better at this than I am, but it seems to me we could use a few more rules around here.
"is there any way for you to share your killfile page?"
I'd rather not. Not right now at least.
posted by y6y6y6 at 1:48 PM on February 21, 2003
That would be even easier. Unfortunately, as Matt has pointed out repeatedly, some news/war posts are very good. I've never actually noticed any news posts that I thought were "very good" but I'll admit it's possible.
It would take me about 50 lines of code to build a filter that would allow a reader to have a persistent list that would filter out whatever keywords and/or users they wanted. But what would be the point? If I just wanted to ignore things I didn't like then I can just use my brain and ignore them. I'd much rather try and do things to make the place better instead of trying to code out the crap.
I hate the Slashdot model which just gives in to the idea that most of the people contributing are boring dorks who are best ignored. It doesn't have to be that way. Take the DRReview model. It's busier than Metafilter, run by one admin, is crammed with good stuff, and is friendly. People have passionate ideological debates where the participants actually learn things. There is almost zero noise. Membership is wide open and people rarely get banned.
How do they do that? They have rules, they have a focus, and everyone loves the guy who runs the place.
Here we all love Matt, but we have no rules and no focus. I have no doubt Matt is better at this than I am, but it seems to me we could use a few more rules around here.
"is there any way for you to share your killfile page?"
I'd rather not. Not right now at least.
posted by y6y6y6 at 1:48 PM on February 21, 2003
Regarding "skipping over the Iraq posts if you don't like it":
When 90% of FPPs these days are about politics or war, that leaves only 10% non-war threads remaining. In other words if I were to skip every Iraq slugfest post, THERE WOULD HARDLY BE ANY POSTS LEFT TO READ. The obscure/rare/curious posts have been pared down to nothing in the last six months.
should I repeat that, or are we clear?
posted by dhoyt at 1:53 PM on February 21, 2003
When 90% of FPPs these days are about politics or war, that leaves only 10% non-war threads remaining. In other words if I were to skip every Iraq slugfest post, THERE WOULD HARDLY BE ANY POSTS LEFT TO READ. The obscure/rare/curious posts have been pared down to nothing in the last six months.
should I repeat that, or are we clear?
posted by dhoyt at 1:53 PM on February 21, 2003
good posts don't seem to attract good posts.
I don't agree as post do seem to go in themes from members coming up with subjects from a previous post.
Unfortunately, it's harder to find the good.
posted by thomcatspike at 1:56 PM on February 21, 2003
I don't agree as post do seem to go in themes from members coming up with subjects from a previous post.
Unfortunately, it's harder to find the good.
posted by thomcatspike at 1:56 PM on February 21, 2003
THERE WOULD HARDLY BE ANY POSTS LEFT TO READ.
Take joy in the simple. Fewer links, well thumbed, can be a greater attraction than the same old links we already have our responses for, yes?
posted by Wulfgar! at 2:26 PM on February 21, 2003
Take joy in the simple. Fewer links, well thumbed, can be a greater attraction than the same old links we already have our responses for, yes?
posted by Wulfgar! at 2:26 PM on February 21, 2003
Ah yes. The block wars. This party against this one, with a few poor souls in between getting scalded and tossed aside. Who wants to be Hatfields, and who McCoys?
Sorry, but I am really fucking sick of this kind of stuff.
posted by lazaruslong at 3:19 PM on February 21, 2003
Sorry, but I am really fucking sick of this kind of stuff.
posted by lazaruslong at 3:19 PM on February 21, 2003
THERE WOULD HARDLY BE ANY POSTS LEFT TO READ.
In truth, I skip over 99.9% of all the frontpage posts anyway -- whether they're about Iraq, or terrorism, or freakin' friday flash fun.
I just come here for the love.
posted by crunchland at 4:04 PM on February 21, 2003
In truth, I skip over 99.9% of all the frontpage posts anyway -- whether they're about Iraq, or terrorism, or freakin' friday flash fun.
I just come here for the love.
posted by crunchland at 4:04 PM on February 21, 2003
When 90% of FPPs these days are about politics or war...
What is all the shouting about???
As of 4:10 PST there were 27 FPPS. I counted 6 of them that were even remotely concerned with politics or war or terrorists (based on the FPP alone, I didn't check the comments). Let's see...carry the three...goes into ...that's about...yep, 90%.
PCs in toasters...What will they think of next?
posted by jaronson at 4:28 PM on February 21, 2003
What is all the shouting about???
As of 4:10 PST there were 27 FPPS. I counted 6 of them that were even remotely concerned with politics or war or terrorists (based on the FPP alone, I didn't check the comments). Let's see...carry the three...goes into ...that's about...yep, 90%.
PCs in toasters...What will they think of next?
posted by jaronson at 4:28 PM on February 21, 2003
That was 27 FPPS today, mind you, so far today. Heh.
posted by jaronson at 4:42 PM on February 21, 2003
posted by jaronson at 4:42 PM on February 21, 2003
oissubke: "I'm getting annoyed by the political signal-to-noise ratio on MeFi, and I'm going to start crusading to steer it back into high-signal territory. I encourage others to join me."
as long as you understand that any op-ed political FPP is fair game for said treatment.
posted by DBAPaul at 4:43 PM on February 21, 2003
as long as you understand that any op-ed political FPP is fair game for said treatment.
posted by DBAPaul at 4:43 PM on February 21, 2003
I think he's made it clear that he does. What a wonderful world Mefi would be if it were nothing but interesting, quirky posts, devoid of political trolls and slugfests.
posted by jonson at 5:26 PM on February 21, 2003
posted by jonson at 5:26 PM on February 21, 2003
Is it too late for me to declare jihad against something again?
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:01 PM on February 21, 2003
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:01 PM on February 21, 2003
Is it too late for me to declare jihad against something again?
I suppose a crusade and a jihad go hand-in-hand...
posted by Shane at 6:10 PM on February 21, 2003
I suppose a crusade and a jihad go hand-in-hand...
posted by Shane at 6:10 PM on February 21, 2003
Is it too late for me to declare jihad against something again?
Hell no! I'm declaring a jihad against that ass-monkey who didn't know what he wanted to order even though he was in the exact same line I was for 25 freaking minutes earlier today!
McNuggets you bastard! Just get some f*cking McNuggets and move the hell on!
*pant* *pant* *wheez*
posted by Cyrano at 9:20 PM on February 21, 2003
Hell no! I'm declaring a jihad against that ass-monkey who didn't know what he wanted to order even though he was in the exact same line I was for 25 freaking minutes earlier today!
McNuggets you bastard! Just get some f*cking McNuggets and move the hell on!
*pant* *pant* *wheez*
posted by Cyrano at 9:20 PM on February 21, 2003
the one thing i'd hate to see more than all Iraq posts, is NO Iraq posts. This place would quickly develop a creepy Donny and Marie / Lawrence Welk feel to it. And I'd hate to think that someone with a really juicy, underreported facet of the war-to-be would be cowed into not posting it by a vocal minority.
The guideline on the posting page is right on target: Iraq posts have to meet an even higher standard than other posts.
posted by condour75 at 2:09 PM on February 22, 2003
The guideline on the posting page is right on target: Iraq posts have to meet an even higher standard than other posts.
posted by condour75 at 2:09 PM on February 22, 2003
i like quonsar .
posted by sgt.serenity at 3:02 PM on February 22, 2003
posted by sgt.serenity at 3:02 PM on February 22, 2003
And a one-a, and a two-a : I'm forever blowing bubbles. Pretty bubbles in the air! They fly so high! They reach the sky, and like my dreams, they fade and die! Fortune's always hiding... I've looked everywhere, so I'm forever blowing bubbles! Pretty bubbles.. in.. the.. air!
posted by crunchland at 3:07 PM on February 22, 2003
posted by crunchland at 3:07 PM on February 22, 2003
Not that I'm proposing an absolute ban on Iraq posts, but condour, would you really prefer a Mefi with 100% ALL Iraq posts to one with NO Iraq posts? Or was that just hyperbole? Cause seriously, that would fucking drive me nuts, a site I would never ever return to.
posted by jonson at 4:34 PM on February 22, 2003
posted by jonson at 4:34 PM on February 22, 2003
hyperbole, my bad. between the number we have now, and none, i'd prefer the number we have now. And crunchland -- YOU READ MY MIND. That's Jefferson Airplane, right? Crown of Creation. Julie Andrews and bubbles
posted by condour75 at 5:22 PM on February 22, 2003
posted by condour75 at 5:22 PM on February 22, 2003
lest ye all think i'm nuts:
I realize the song with the bubbles isn't the jefferson airplane song i was thinking of, which has the lyrics:
Someone stood at a window & cried
'One tear I thought that should stop a war
But someone is killing me'
& that's the last hour to think anymore
Julie Andrews and bubbles - bubbles on the floor
Referring to the lawrence welk show, i always thought. Although apparently the line "Julie Andrews and bubbles" might actually be "Jelly and Juice and bubbles". I don't know what that means. I'll shut up now.
posted by condour75 at 5:48 PM on February 22, 2003
I realize the song with the bubbles isn't the jefferson airplane song i was thinking of, which has the lyrics:
Someone stood at a window & cried
'One tear I thought that should stop a war
But someone is killing me'
& that's the last hour to think anymore
Julie Andrews and bubbles - bubbles on the floor
Referring to the lawrence welk show, i always thought. Although apparently the line "Julie Andrews and bubbles" might actually be "Jelly and Juice and bubbles". I don't know what that means. I'll shut up now.
posted by condour75 at 5:48 PM on February 22, 2003
Condour, I didn't think you were nuts until I read those last two sentences... now I'm not as sure :-)
posted by jonson at 10:37 PM on February 22, 2003
posted by jonson at 10:37 PM on February 22, 2003
First photo of "High Signal Posse"
Next month you guys can do security for the Stones at Altamont.
posted by filmgoerjuan at 2:24 PM on February 23, 2003
Next month you guys can do security for the Stones at Altamont.
posted by filmgoerjuan at 2:24 PM on February 23, 2003
Where'd you find that nifty old picture of Jared Spool?
posted by adamgreenfield at 7:16 AM on February 24, 2003
posted by adamgreenfield at 7:16 AM on February 24, 2003
The "High Signal Territory Posse" was doomed--from the moment it chose its name. (Future aspiring vigilantes take note.)
posted by Shane at 8:10 AM on February 24, 2003
posted by Shane at 8:10 AM on February 24, 2003
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by machaus at 8:17 AM on February 21, 2003