MetaTalk is more for venting than preventing April 12, 2003 7:43 PM Subscribe
The common wisdom is that MetaTalk is more for venting than preventing; that it's read by an (obsessive) minority of users and that its suggestions and strictures are ineffective. And yet...[More inside.]
And a glutton for numbers, too. Are you sure you didn't want to be an accountant (altho as a writer I guess you are a sort of accoutant, aren't you) or a mathematician when you were younger?
<derail>
What do you think Miguel wanted to do when he grew up? Or did he always want to be a writer?
</derail>
posted by ashbury at 8:19 PM on April 12, 2003
<derail>
What do you think Miguel wanted to do when he grew up? Or did he always want to be a writer?
</derail>
posted by ashbury at 8:19 PM on April 12, 2003
miguel wanted to be an princess/ballerina when he grew up, but, alas, no prince came calling, and his misunderstanding of what 3rd position really meant ruined his chances as a prima ballerina forever ; >
posted by amberglow at 8:28 PM on April 12, 2003
posted by amberglow at 8:28 PM on April 12, 2003
Miguel bashing is really quite puzzling to me. Yeah, he talks alot in MetaTalk, but so what? Most of the ideas he brings up are relevant and interesting if you're actually interested in a self-modifying (and therefore inherently introspective) online community.
Maybe it's the last vestige of boyzone. You know how when you were living with guy roomates, and sometimes the apartment chores would get done, sometimes they wouldn't -- but oh boy, if you ever brought it up or tried to set up a system (like the women and their charts or chore wheels), you practically *guaranteed* somebody was going to go on strike and you were going to get called names.
posted by namespan at 8:30 PM on April 12, 2003
Maybe it's the last vestige of boyzone. You know how when you were living with guy roomates, and sometimes the apartment chores would get done, sometimes they wouldn't -- but oh boy, if you ever brought it up or tried to set up a system (like the women and their charts or chore wheels), you practically *guaranteed* somebody was going to go on strike and you were going to get called names.
posted by namespan at 8:30 PM on April 12, 2003
Myself, I often used to (and still do, to an extent) find the Grey more Interesting than the Blue. The way in which a community 'polices itself,' and the interactions that happened here, the triumphs and failures of Matt's experiment...gripping stuff. This is probably why I have actively and vocally fomented against Chatfilter and InjokeFilter in the past (though I think we've achieved a reasonable balance, recently) - it detracted greatly from what was in some ways my favorite part of the site.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:35 PM on April 12, 2003
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:35 PM on April 12, 2003
Miguel is my hero.
After armageddon there will be cockroaches, and Miguel.
Bless him.
posted by Dennis Murphy at 8:36 PM on April 12, 2003
After armageddon there will be cockroaches, and Miguel.
Bless him.
posted by Dennis Murphy at 8:36 PM on April 12, 2003
MetaFilter: MiguelCardoso and a few other people.
posted by The Jesse Helms at 8:38 PM on April 12, 2003
posted by The Jesse Helms at 8:38 PM on April 12, 2003
Se eu poderia ler portuguêses, eu ler provavelmente Pastilhas mais do que Metafilter.
I think MetaTalk combined with a decent portion of snark seems to work, though.
posted by weston at 8:50 PM on April 12, 2003
I think MetaTalk combined with a decent portion of snark seems to work, though.
posted by weston at 8:50 PM on April 12, 2003
...less chat... less outrageous behaviour; less boyzone antics - and more reflection, apologies for rudeness and family hugs.
Um, yeah, we're making such great strides at mature behavior in the blue... Sheesh : )
posted by Shane at 8:56 PM on April 12, 2003
Um, yeah, we're making such great strides at mature behavior in the blue... Sheesh : )
posted by Shane at 8:56 PM on April 12, 2003
Please, people. Surely this question can't be made to rebound back on me. I really would like to discuss the theme of the influence of MetaTalk on MetaFilter, without the usual intrusion of personalities. You've more than had your fun in the past - please treat me as you would any other user here. Please?
posted by MiguelCardoso at 8:58 PM on April 12, 2003
posted by MiguelCardoso at 8:58 PM on April 12, 2003
Miguel bashing is really quite puzzling to me.
Hey, don't get me wrong, I was by no means bashing Miguel. As a matter of fact, (not that he's noticed, the ungrateful wretch) I usually agree with much of what he says. I also like his style, wit and elegant prose. I have even been known to go to his defense.
As with Stavros, I too find the Grey to be more interesting than the Blue. Maybe I shouldn't say "more" interesting, but "different" in a way that is intriguing. I like how issues are discussed, how things get resolved, the way that the passions are displayed, the group hugs and the group hates. The Blue is the bread and butter of the site and what brings people to the Filter, but as far as I'm concerned, the Grey is its lifeblood.
With regards to Miguel's thoughts: I think that to some extent what is discussed in MeTa does slowly trickle onto the front pages. The problem is that when signups are open, the trickle isn't noticeable due to the flood of new people who aren't aware and/or don't care and/or haven't been beaten into submission yet.
And Miguel, I'm sorry. It wasn't my intention to disregard your post. You should know that I have the utmost respect for you.
posted by ashbury at 9:01 PM on April 12, 2003
Hey, don't get me wrong, I was by no means bashing Miguel. As a matter of fact, (not that he's noticed, the ungrateful wretch) I usually agree with much of what he says. I also like his style, wit and elegant prose. I have even been known to go to his defense.
As with Stavros, I too find the Grey to be more interesting than the Blue. Maybe I shouldn't say "more" interesting, but "different" in a way that is intriguing. I like how issues are discussed, how things get resolved, the way that the passions are displayed, the group hugs and the group hates. The Blue is the bread and butter of the site and what brings people to the Filter, but as far as I'm concerned, the Grey is its lifeblood.
With regards to Miguel's thoughts: I think that to some extent what is discussed in MeTa does slowly trickle onto the front pages. The problem is that when signups are open, the trickle isn't noticeable due to the flood of new people who aren't aware and/or don't care and/or haven't been beaten into submission yet.
And Miguel, I'm sorry. It wasn't my intention to disregard your post. You should know that I have the utmost respect for you.
posted by ashbury at 9:01 PM on April 12, 2003
MetaFilter: Tudo bem.
Oh yeah, the topic. My First Metafilter Post. It was:
Two things happened on that first post:
It worked. I got to be a better MeFi citizen. Just observing that MeTalk existed was almost enough for me to realize some people took what MeFi is supposed to be seriously.
So there's my little solipsistic contribution to this discussion.
Also, thanks to the post-hypnotic suggestions, I'm losing weight, I've ditched the green party, my skin is clearer, and I no longer murder puppies. I am sometimes tempted to club a baby seal, though.
posted by namespan at 9:13 PM on April 12, 2003
Oh yeah, the topic. My First Metafilter Post. It was:
- IraqFlter
- NewsFilter
- Had been posted twice already
Two things happened on that first post:
- I was given subtle hints that maybe I had done something wrong.
- I was made aware of Metatalk, where I found discussion of the problem and could reflect on and apologize for my mistake.
- (I'd tell you about the men in
BlackGrey and the reprogramming but *nghh* *ack* there's a post-hypnotic suggestion in my head still)
It worked. I got to be a better MeFi citizen. Just observing that MeTalk existed was almost enough for me to realize some people took what MeFi is supposed to be seriously.
So there's my little solipsistic contribution to this discussion.
Also, thanks to the post-hypnotic suggestions, I'm losing weight, I've ditched the green party, my skin is clearer, and I no longer murder puppies. I am sometimes tempted to club a baby seal, though.
posted by namespan at 9:13 PM on April 12, 2003
Miguel, I'm sorry, but that's total crap. The other day it seemed like every other post was a double; Christ, you even posted one yourself. And there's just as many op-eds and media posts as ever; it varies from day to day, but hasn't been going down over time. It's true that there are fewer deleted threads, but that just means Matt hasn't been bothering to delete doubles (which appears to mean he doesn't care any more, so I'm not bothering to point them out in threads, which should make quonsar happy). And it's true there has been an increase in civility—but we just discussed that the other day.
Finally, of course this question can be made to rebound back on you; with your history you can't possibly expect to make a "say, I've been thinking about MetaFilter and MetaTalk and how they impact each other and our lives..." post and not have it pointed out that you're losing your battle with loquacity. If you don't believe the readers of MeTa are a small minority, I'm not going to take the time and statistical effort that would be necessary to prove it to you, but I'm quite sure it's true. And will you "aww, don't be mean to poor Miguel" people find a puppy to take care of? Migs is a big boy and can defend himself perfectly well.
On preview: What is this strange power Miguel has to get people to apologize for breathing heavily in his general direction? Other people get hods full of bricks dropped on them, pick themselves up, brush off the blood and brick dust, and soldier on. Sigh. If it must be said: yes, Miguel, you are a noble fellow and you post many good things. But you are too talkative and too goddam sensitive. Sem ofensa, camarada!
posted by languagehat at 9:18 PM on April 12, 2003
Finally, of course this question can be made to rebound back on you; with your history you can't possibly expect to make a "say, I've been thinking about MetaFilter and MetaTalk and how they impact each other and our lives..." post and not have it pointed out that you're losing your battle with loquacity. If you don't believe the readers of MeTa are a small minority, I'm not going to take the time and statistical effort that would be necessary to prove it to you, but I'm quite sure it's true. And will you "aww, don't be mean to poor Miguel" people find a puppy to take care of? Migs is a big boy and can defend himself perfectly well.
On preview: What is this strange power Miguel has to get people to apologize for breathing heavily in his general direction? Other people get hods full of bricks dropped on them, pick themselves up, brush off the blood and brick dust, and soldier on. Sigh. If it must be said: yes, Miguel, you are a noble fellow and you post many good things. But you are too talkative and too goddam sensitive. Sem ofensa, camarada!
posted by languagehat at 9:18 PM on April 12, 2003
*drags out her stack of lists, papers, charts and chore wheels, finds the "slim, non-green, pimple-free, puppy-tolerating, seal clubbing men who are susceptible to hypnosis and use the word solipsistic" list, adds namespan to it*
Being a woman, I like things organized.
posted by iconomy at 9:27 PM on April 12, 2003
Being a woman, I like things organized.
posted by iconomy at 9:27 PM on April 12, 2003
It's a help, definetly. The first thing I ever posted as an op-ed, back before there was this sweeping anti-op-ed movement. I didn't get hit over the head with it (or really, with other etiquette-junk), and by reading MeTa I learned what is/isn't acceptable behavior.
Lately, it almost feels like the grey is more a community than the blue; maybe it's because we're all trapped in the ivory tower, but it's more tight knit.
I think Miguel "gets away" with it because, as much as he talks, the only strike against him is that he talks too much. Like, if he were ten users, no one would ever have any problem with them. So it's easy to jump on him, and then be wondering five minutes later what it was that got you so angry.
Preview: iconomy, that's kinda frightening.
posted by Yelling At Nothing at 9:31 PM on April 12, 2003
Lately, it almost feels like the grey is more a community than the blue; maybe it's because we're all trapped in the ivory tower, but it's more tight knit.
I think Miguel "gets away" with it because, as much as he talks, the only strike against him is that he talks too much. Like, if he were ten users, no one would ever have any problem with them. So it's easy to jump on him, and then be wondering five minutes later what it was that got you so angry.
Preview: iconomy, that's kinda frightening.
posted by Yelling At Nothing at 9:31 PM on April 12, 2003
With regards to Miguel's thoughts: I think that to some extent what is discussed in MeTa does slowly trickle onto the front pages. The problem is that when signups are open, the trickle isn't noticeable due to the flood of new people who aren't aware and/or don't care and/or haven't been beaten into submission yet.
ashbury, that's a really good observation. It obviously does come through, and maybe the improvements Miguel has observed are because of the closed membership.
Maybe the answer is to make people wait longer than a week and a more than a few comments before their first FPP -- or require at least one MeTalk comment. Or require their first comment to be a MeTalk comment.
Or when signups are reopened, keep even the paid signups throttled (or tiered -- the liberal in me hates this idea, but 10 new free accounts per day, 10 $5 accounts, 5 $20 accounts, 3 $100 accounts : )?
None of these ideas are essential or brilliant, the important thing is examining the balance between influx of new members and the speed of propogation of community standards...
"aww, don't be mean to poor Miguel" people find a puppy to take care of? Migs is a big boy and can defend himself perfectly well.
languagehat, I suppose I could, but my previous (facetious!)confession of puppy abuse aside, "be nice to Miguel" wasn't my point. I saw the "Miguel, you're a glutton for punishment" comment and just wondered what in Some Burning Netherworld was wrong with Miguel's comments. He's "too talkative" -- OK, is there a reasonable upper bound for MeTalk posts? That kind of criticism is fine. I'm just thinking I'm starting to see people jumping on other people for getting too enthusiastic, articulate, and intelligent. And if you're not all careful, I'm going to bring it up in another MetaTalk post. ; )
On preview: iconomy, I'm blushing. A list!. I made a list!
posted by namespan at 9:34 PM on April 12, 2003
ashbury, that's a really good observation. It obviously does come through, and maybe the improvements Miguel has observed are because of the closed membership.
Maybe the answer is to make people wait longer than a week and a more than a few comments before their first FPP -- or require at least one MeTalk comment. Or require their first comment to be a MeTalk comment.
Or when signups are reopened, keep even the paid signups throttled (or tiered -- the liberal in me hates this idea, but 10 new free accounts per day, 10 $5 accounts, 5 $20 accounts, 3 $100 accounts : )?
None of these ideas are essential or brilliant, the important thing is examining the balance between influx of new members and the speed of propogation of community standards...
"aww, don't be mean to poor Miguel" people find a puppy to take care of? Migs is a big boy and can defend himself perfectly well.
languagehat, I suppose I could, but my previous (facetious!)confession of puppy abuse aside, "be nice to Miguel" wasn't my point. I saw the "Miguel, you're a glutton for punishment" comment and just wondered what in Some Burning Netherworld was wrong with Miguel's comments. He's "too talkative" -- OK, is there a reasonable upper bound for MeTalk posts? That kind of criticism is fine. I'm just thinking I'm starting to see people jumping on other people for getting too enthusiastic, articulate, and intelligent. And if you're not all careful, I'm going to bring it up in another MetaTalk post. ; )
On preview: iconomy, I'm blushing. A list!. I made a list!
posted by namespan at 9:34 PM on April 12, 2003
But you are too talkative and too goddam sensitive.
And some people take this place way too damn seriously, but it sure as hell is entertaining to watch! *sits back and tosses languagehat a puppy to take care of*
posted by jmd82 at 9:55 PM on April 12, 2003
And some people take this place way too damn seriously, but it sure as hell is entertaining to watch! *sits back and tosses languagehat a puppy to take care of*
posted by jmd82 at 9:55 PM on April 12, 2003
please treat me as you would any other user here...
You must mean any other user that has posted, on average once a week to MetaTalk [and every other day to MeFi] the entire time he's been a member here....? That's the statistic that I keep coming back to. Plus, I don't agree. I see people chilling about Iraq as the war itself winds down, I see the boyzone ebb and then flow unabated, and I see Mathowie typing his li'l fingers to the bone deleting stuff that people should really know better than to post in the first place. Maybe Matt's just getting more efficient and everything else is staying the same...?
posted by jessamyn at 9:56 PM on April 12, 2003
You must mean any other user that has posted, on average once a week to MetaTalk [and every other day to MeFi] the entire time he's been a member here....? That's the statistic that I keep coming back to. Plus, I don't agree. I see people chilling about Iraq as the war itself winds down, I see the boyzone ebb and then flow unabated, and I see Mathowie typing his li'l fingers to the bone deleting stuff that people should really know better than to post in the first place. Maybe Matt's just getting more efficient and everything else is staying the same...?
posted by jessamyn at 9:56 PM on April 12, 2003
I sometimes think I detect a snobbish, cliquey attitude on MeTa which actually delights in the illusion of having no influence on the blue. (Against this, though, is the fact that whenever a newbie comes over and posts a naive question, I'm always amazed at how polite and helpful the older users are.)
It's as if certain members think of MeTa as their own private feudal domain. Certainly the standards for posting here, although theoretically defined by the guidelines, are imposed with a harshness that doesn't apply on MeFi.
The fact that people can't be taken to another MeTa here also allows them, if they so wish, to be far ruder and anti-social than they'd ever get away with on MeFi.
I suspect that this state of affairs - which goes against the 100% MeFi/MeTA interconnectivity established by Matt - is maintained by these stalwarts. In some Freudian sense, it's as if they death-wished MeTa not to have any influence, the better to foster their own personal theories of what the ideal MetaFilter should be.
Extreme exponents of this ghettoization (?) of MeTa sometimes give the impression that an ideal MetaTalk would be limited to bugs, feature requests and the beloved "calling out" of fractious posters who had overstepped the limits.
My own impression is that users do read MeTa and take it into account when posting. Specifically, they read Matt's few-and-far-between suggestions. For instance, double posts may not be fewer than before (though my impressionistic opinion is that they are) but the way they're called has become far less agressive, in line with Matt's frequent requests here.
[ On a personal note, no ofensa taken, languagehat - thanks for that persuasive comment - or anyone else. I have been trying for months to post less - I remember when Matt himself complained I was posting 40 times a day on MeFi and MeTa - and have succeeded. Still, my participation here, however repressed, is the fruit of my deep love for MetaFilter (meaning the members, the ethos and the mechanics of it) which I, in my Portuguese way, express through my enthusiasm. I can truthfully say that I now repress myself at least once in every five times I feel like commenting, because I know how annoying and overbearing and perhaps obnoxious it is. But - please - I'm only human and I can't change the way I am. I'm a writer - and this is what I do. Write. Opine. Get worked up about stuff. Care. Express. Engage. Perhaps I can be forgiven if I sometimes feel that, after all this time, all those who hate my guts could somehow overlook me.]
posted by MiguelCardoso at 10:15 PM on April 12, 2003
It's as if certain members think of MeTa as their own private feudal domain. Certainly the standards for posting here, although theoretically defined by the guidelines, are imposed with a harshness that doesn't apply on MeFi.
The fact that people can't be taken to another MeTa here also allows them, if they so wish, to be far ruder and anti-social than they'd ever get away with on MeFi.
I suspect that this state of affairs - which goes against the 100% MeFi/MeTA interconnectivity established by Matt - is maintained by these stalwarts. In some Freudian sense, it's as if they death-wished MeTa not to have any influence, the better to foster their own personal theories of what the ideal MetaFilter should be.
Extreme exponents of this ghettoization (?) of MeTa sometimes give the impression that an ideal MetaTalk would be limited to bugs, feature requests and the beloved "calling out" of fractious posters who had overstepped the limits.
My own impression is that users do read MeTa and take it into account when posting. Specifically, they read Matt's few-and-far-between suggestions. For instance, double posts may not be fewer than before (though my impressionistic opinion is that they are) but the way they're called has become far less agressive, in line with Matt's frequent requests here.
[ On a personal note, no ofensa taken, languagehat - thanks for that persuasive comment - or anyone else. I have been trying for months to post less - I remember when Matt himself complained I was posting 40 times a day on MeFi and MeTa - and have succeeded. Still, my participation here, however repressed, is the fruit of my deep love for MetaFilter (meaning the members, the ethos and the mechanics of it) which I, in my Portuguese way, express through my enthusiasm. I can truthfully say that I now repress myself at least once in every five times I feel like commenting, because I know how annoying and overbearing and perhaps obnoxious it is. But - please - I'm only human and I can't change the way I am. I'm a writer - and this is what I do. Write. Opine. Get worked up about stuff. Care. Express. Engage. Perhaps I can be forgiven if I sometimes feel that, after all this time, all those who hate my guts could somehow overlook me.]
posted by MiguelCardoso at 10:15 PM on April 12, 2003
You've lost me with that last post, Miguel.
Extreme exponents of this ghettoization (?) of MeTa sometimes give the impression that an ideal MetaTalk would be limited to bugs, feature requests and the beloved "calling out" of fractious posters who had overstepped the limits.
With the addition of a small range of other functions, that would be the ideal Metatalk, I think, with perhaps a small larding of jocularity to break things up a bit. Does my conviction that this is the case make me 'an exponent of the ghettoization of MeTa?'
Honestly, just when I think you get it, you say something like this that indicates to me that you don't, and never have, and I'm inclined to want to join the villagers with the torches....
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 10:22 PM on April 12, 2003
Extreme exponents of this ghettoization (?) of MeTa sometimes give the impression that an ideal MetaTalk would be limited to bugs, feature requests and the beloved "calling out" of fractious posters who had overstepped the limits.
With the addition of a small range of other functions, that would be the ideal Metatalk, I think, with perhaps a small larding of jocularity to break things up a bit. Does my conviction that this is the case make me 'an exponent of the ghettoization of MeTa?'
Honestly, just when I think you get it, you say something like this that indicates to me that you don't, and never have, and I'm inclined to want to join the villagers with the torches....
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 10:22 PM on April 12, 2003
(Damn it, I've been pulled into the vortex!)
*backpedals, furiously*
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 10:26 PM on April 12, 2003
*backpedals, furiously*
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 10:26 PM on April 12, 2003
*stomps jmd82's puppy, hands stavros a torch*
posted by languagehat at 10:29 PM on April 12, 2003
posted by languagehat at 10:29 PM on April 12, 2003
Honestly, just when I think you get it, you say something like this that indicates to me that you don't, and never have
Just colour me stupid from now on, stavrosthewonderchicken, and you should have no problems.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 10:33 PM on April 12, 2003
Just colour me stupid from now on, stavrosthewonderchicken, and you should have no problems.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 10:33 PM on April 12, 2003
Would that be declaration that you think I am part of this 'snobbish, cliquey attitude on MeTa,' then?
I know you're not stupid. Stubborn and wilfull, perhaps, but not stupid. Maybe it's me that's stupid here - that's certainly not outside the realm of possibility.
Would you care to help me out and explain what your point might be in this latest, or are you just going to pout? If your point is merely "My own impression is that users do read MeTa and take it into account when posting," then once again I feel compelled to join those who would ask "Yeah, and?"
People attack you all the time about posting stuff like this, and I honestly do hate to see those attacks, but there is obviously a reason that you are so adept in raising their ire. It seems deliberate. And threads like this help to hammer that idea home.
Tell us, friend : why don't you elaborate what the 'ideal' Metatalk would be, in clearer and more positive terms than 'Freudian death-wishing'?
Or is it nearly ideal now? In which case I have to ask again, as so many have before - why bother posting this thread?
That said, I personally don't care in the way that some others do how much you post and where, but I do take issue when you start characterizing people the way you did in this comment. That's stepping over the line where your amusing antics become fractious, I'd say, much as the bait-and-switch small-type sweet-talking postscript is meant to sugarcoat it.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 11:11 PM on April 12, 2003
I know you're not stupid. Stubborn and wilfull, perhaps, but not stupid. Maybe it's me that's stupid here - that's certainly not outside the realm of possibility.
Would you care to help me out and explain what your point might be in this latest, or are you just going to pout? If your point is merely "My own impression is that users do read MeTa and take it into account when posting," then once again I feel compelled to join those who would ask "Yeah, and?"
People attack you all the time about posting stuff like this, and I honestly do hate to see those attacks, but there is obviously a reason that you are so adept in raising their ire. It seems deliberate. And threads like this help to hammer that idea home.
Tell us, friend : why don't you elaborate what the 'ideal' Metatalk would be, in clearer and more positive terms than 'Freudian death-wishing'?
Or is it nearly ideal now? In which case I have to ask again, as so many have before - why bother posting this thread?
That said, I personally don't care in the way that some others do how much you post and where, but I do take issue when you start characterizing people the way you did in this comment. That's stepping over the line where your amusing antics become fractious, I'd say, much as the bait-and-switch small-type sweet-talking postscript is meant to sugarcoat it.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 11:11 PM on April 12, 2003
MetaMetaFilterFilterTalkTalk.
This thread reads like the navel contemplating itself and getting rather frustrated with the feedback loop. I empathize with Cardoso's intent, but I'm pretty sure this overanalytical contemplation is the very thing that killed goth, except for those few intrepid souls who keep it alive in their own way, kinda like disco. For the most part when goth got compartmentalized and started reidentifying itself based on each individual's fashion choices, well everything just went to hell.
Enjoy the serious aspects of MeFi, or the sillier aspects of it. Or both. Or neither. It makes little difference. The entity is as any community. Some people contribute in positive and productive ways. Some loot. Some check for lint. Some try to contribute productively only to get yelled at. Some people do things for which they probably shoulda gotten yelled at, but get away with it. The intent and the result don't often mesh. These things happen. When one looks at the big picture, it's sometimes beautiful and sometimes ugly. That's MeFi for ya.
No worries Miguel about how you are received, when you put to words your observations about the big picture. I believe your heart's in the right place, but your execution of thought grates on some people's nerves like sandpaper on the gooch. What's important to me is that you keep trying. Better you than me. I stopped trying to make sense of MeFi & MeTa ages ago, and I'm all the better for it. I don't get yelled at as much, but then I don't get noticed as much either. You might find you will enjoy MeFi more when ya just go with the flow instead of trying to figure it all out, or maybe you're the kinda guy who likes throwing the pasta against the wall and then getting yelled at by others when it doesn't stick. To each his own. Just don't get upset when people tar & feather you for making a mess in the kitchen.
posted by ZachsMind at 11:12 PM on April 12, 2003
This thread reads like the navel contemplating itself and getting rather frustrated with the feedback loop. I empathize with Cardoso's intent, but I'm pretty sure this overanalytical contemplation is the very thing that killed goth, except for those few intrepid souls who keep it alive in their own way, kinda like disco. For the most part when goth got compartmentalized and started reidentifying itself based on each individual's fashion choices, well everything just went to hell.
Enjoy the serious aspects of MeFi, or the sillier aspects of it. Or both. Or neither. It makes little difference. The entity is as any community. Some people contribute in positive and productive ways. Some loot. Some check for lint. Some try to contribute productively only to get yelled at. Some people do things for which they probably shoulda gotten yelled at, but get away with it. The intent and the result don't often mesh. These things happen. When one looks at the big picture, it's sometimes beautiful and sometimes ugly. That's MeFi for ya.
No worries Miguel about how you are received, when you put to words your observations about the big picture. I believe your heart's in the right place, but your execution of thought grates on some people's nerves like sandpaper on the gooch. What's important to me is that you keep trying. Better you than me. I stopped trying to make sense of MeFi & MeTa ages ago, and I'm all the better for it. I don't get yelled at as much, but then I don't get noticed as much either. You might find you will enjoy MeFi more when ya just go with the flow instead of trying to figure it all out, or maybe you're the kinda guy who likes throwing the pasta against the wall and then getting yelled at by others when it doesn't stick. To each his own. Just don't get upset when people tar & feather you for making a mess in the kitchen.
posted by ZachsMind at 11:12 PM on April 12, 2003
Wise words, Zach - thanks. :)
posted by MiguelCardoso at 11:41 PM on April 12, 2003
posted by MiguelCardoso at 11:41 PM on April 12, 2003
Stav - there is a place for saying things are going well, specially in a snark-ridden, whining-infested environment such as this. There is also a place for intelligent situationism - not expecting more from a website than a website can possibly give.
I think MetaFilter and MetaTalk, in the year or so I've been here, have become more interdependent. When I joined, there was a definite disconnect. Meanwhile - thanks to all the newbies - the old divisions, complexes and hang-ups have been healthily examined, mocked and, to a certain extent, brought down.
Why is it that you can only thing in negative terms? I was proposing something positive about MeTa here and you're inviting me to diss it?
Your link doesn't work either. ;)
posted by MiguelCardoso at 11:54 PM on April 12, 2003
I think MetaFilter and MetaTalk, in the year or so I've been here, have become more interdependent. When I joined, there was a definite disconnect. Meanwhile - thanks to all the newbies - the old divisions, complexes and hang-ups have been healthily examined, mocked and, to a certain extent, brought down.
Why is it that you can only thing in negative terms? I was proposing something positive about MeTa here and you're inviting me to diss it?
Your link doesn't work either. ;)
posted by MiguelCardoso at 11:54 PM on April 12, 2003
think
posted by MiguelCardoso at 11:54 PM on April 12, 2003
posted by MiguelCardoso at 11:54 PM on April 12, 2003
Poop.
Why is it that you can only think in negative terms?
Well, that's a fair criticism of me, perhaps. I am a negative bastard, sometimes.
I'm not inviting you to diss MeTa, I'm inviting you to hew a little more closely to its original intentions (as I understand them, of course, which is all I can talk about). Not as much to chat as to discuss, discussion understood as being undertaken with an objective in mind, to fix what is not working.
(Long aside : This actually relates closely to something that's been on mind mind the last few days - several times, coincidentally, several people have implied that what I say (and by extension and assumption, everyone says on weblogs and such) in the political sphere is intended to 'sway people to my side.' This is an entirely new idea to me, and I have begun to wonder if this is an unspoken assumption that I've just never gotten - do people generally assume that talking about what you think to be true is by default an attempt to convince your readers to change their mind? Or is it a cultural thing that (for example) Americans have and Canucks don't? Or is it just me? I'm really intrigued by this.)
Honestly, mate, I had no issue with you starting this thread - I'm very much of the 'if I don't like it I can skip it' school these days - until you started getting negative with the comment I (tried to) link to above, about 'snobbish, cliquey attitude(s)' and so on.
Whatever. I have no great quarrel with you, my friend, but I do understand more today, like Zach (Bob!? - I just checked your user page for the first time, Zach, at least recently. Very cool.) how some people get can Very Upset at you.
I try to avoid smiley useage, so you'll have to infer my intended olive branch from my word choice. Heh.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 12:09 AM on April 13, 2003
Why is it that you can only think in negative terms?
Well, that's a fair criticism of me, perhaps. I am a negative bastard, sometimes.
I'm not inviting you to diss MeTa, I'm inviting you to hew a little more closely to its original intentions (as I understand them, of course, which is all I can talk about). Not as much to chat as to discuss, discussion understood as being undertaken with an objective in mind, to fix what is not working.
(Long aside : This actually relates closely to something that's been on mind mind the last few days - several times, coincidentally, several people have implied that what I say (and by extension and assumption, everyone says on weblogs and such) in the political sphere is intended to 'sway people to my side.' This is an entirely new idea to me, and I have begun to wonder if this is an unspoken assumption that I've just never gotten - do people generally assume that talking about what you think to be true is by default an attempt to convince your readers to change their mind? Or is it a cultural thing that (for example) Americans have and Canucks don't? Or is it just me? I'm really intrigued by this.)
Honestly, mate, I had no issue with you starting this thread - I'm very much of the 'if I don't like it I can skip it' school these days - until you started getting negative with the comment I (tried to) link to above, about 'snobbish, cliquey attitude(s)' and so on.
Whatever. I have no great quarrel with you, my friend, but I do understand more today, like Zach (Bob!? - I just checked your user page for the first time, Zach, at least recently. Very cool.) how some people get can Very Upset at you.
I try to avoid smiley useage, so you'll have to infer my intended olive branch from my word choice. Heh.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 12:09 AM on April 13, 2003
(Here comes y2karl to tell me I'm being overly verbose again) but one more thing.
I think MetaFilter and MetaTalk, in the year or so I've been here, have become more interdependent. When I joined, there was a definite disconnect. Meanwhile - thanks to all the newbies - the old divisions, complexes and hang-ups have been healthily examined, mocked and, to a certain extent, brought down.
I disagree pretty much completely with this analysis, but if you do believe that, then I can see how you might have thought it worthwhile to post this thread, as things do seem pretty good at the moment. FWIW, I agree with those who have mentioned that it's probably more to do with new users from the last influx bedding down, dropping out, or getting hip to the MeFi Hivemind.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 12:15 AM on April 13, 2003
I think MetaFilter and MetaTalk, in the year or so I've been here, have become more interdependent. When I joined, there was a definite disconnect. Meanwhile - thanks to all the newbies - the old divisions, complexes and hang-ups have been healthily examined, mocked and, to a certain extent, brought down.
I disagree pretty much completely with this analysis, but if you do believe that, then I can see how you might have thought it worthwhile to post this thread, as things do seem pretty good at the moment. FWIW, I agree with those who have mentioned that it's probably more to do with new users from the last influx bedding down, dropping out, or getting hip to the MeFi Hivemind.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 12:15 AM on April 13, 2003
Only here could you see fold_and_mutilate and hama7 in a group hug--if you were fast enough. Well, at least we can savor the memory...
There is also a place for intelligent situationism... heh, he said situationism.
*pulls crumpled atm slip from pocket, smoothes out, writes iconomy's name on it, drops on top of TV, wanders off absentmindedly*
posted by y2karl at 1:03 AM on April 13, 2003
There is also a place for intelligent situationism... heh, he said situationism.
*pulls crumpled atm slip from pocket, smoothes out, writes iconomy's name on it, drops on top of TV, wanders off absentmindedly*
posted by y2karl at 1:03 AM on April 13, 2003
I guess I tend to like the colloquy produced by those that frequent the grey better than that produced by the superset of same that is the blue's 17,000-odd (-and-I-mean...) members.
That's all.
posted by adamgreenfield at 1:43 AM on April 13, 2003
That's all.
posted by adamgreenfield at 1:43 AM on April 13, 2003
My first comment on this thread (about Migs being a glutton for punishment) was simply meant as an observation that he was probably going to get dogpiled yet again for making a metatalk post. No criticism of Miguel implied-sorry I didn't make that more clear.
posted by konolia at 3:39 AM on April 13, 2003
posted by konolia at 3:39 AM on April 13, 2003
SelffulfillngprophecyFilter.
posted by adampsyche at 5:16 AM on April 13, 2003
posted by adampsyche at 5:16 AM on April 13, 2003
I think that MeFites have selective memory, in that we often look at our immediate time frame (a week or so) and make snap judgements based on our observations of the week gone by. This past week might be the reason why Migs has posted his little comment, since it has been filled with better posts than usual (not counting the hymen cream thread, of course), less fighting and more discussion. Yet just a few short weeks ago the Blue was filled, I mean filled with Iraq posts, op-ed posts and political posts. I also recall a big blow-up between y2karl and stavros (not to point fingers, guys) that still has fallout, and a very interesting 100-plus thread in MeTa that was deleted.
I realize that the point of this thread isn't to say that everything is perfect here in the hive, but I do think that we should be holding off on any self-congratulating because I know that things will most likely go back to the busy, fighting, impassioned, op-edification, sudden bursts of bizarre anger and general controlled chaos that we usually have.
That said, I still do believe that MeTa does affect how people behave on the other side, but that when it gets down to it, all of our ranting for people to be on good behavior goes by without much concern. Part of what makes the Filter great is the originality in personality, and I wouldn't want that changed. Homogeneity is wonderful, but I think metafilter would perhaps lose something of its uniqueness if we didn't have this big crazy morass of people trying to enforce their thoughts and feelings on others.
Metafilter will always need to be self-policed, and with its current population, we would be fools to lower our guard.
posted by ashbury at 6:30 AM on April 13, 2003
I realize that the point of this thread isn't to say that everything is perfect here in the hive, but I do think that we should be holding off on any self-congratulating because I know that things will most likely go back to the busy, fighting, impassioned, op-edification, sudden bursts of bizarre anger and general controlled chaos that we usually have.
That said, I still do believe that MeTa does affect how people behave on the other side, but that when it gets down to it, all of our ranting for people to be on good behavior goes by without much concern. Part of what makes the Filter great is the originality in personality, and I wouldn't want that changed. Homogeneity is wonderful, but I think metafilter would perhaps lose something of its uniqueness if we didn't have this big crazy morass of people trying to enforce their thoughts and feelings on others.
Metafilter will always need to be self-policed, and with its current population, we would be fools to lower our guard.
posted by ashbury at 6:30 AM on April 13, 2003
Where is the gooch, exactly?
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:50 AM on April 13, 2003
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:50 AM on April 13, 2003
I suspect some people (as in this thread) use Metatalk as a way to create a chatty but ultimately pointless and futile thread without having to do the work of finding a new link.
The result is that Metafilter is the public face, a dynamic and boisterously self-confident internet juggernaut. But Metatalk is the more private and self-absorbed side, the various voices bickering inside its head, worrying neurotically over every frickin' detail.
posted by crunchland at 7:46 AM on April 13, 2003
The result is that Metafilter is the public face, a dynamic and boisterously self-confident internet juggernaut. But Metatalk is the more private and self-absorbed side, the various voices bickering inside its head, worrying neurotically over every frickin' detail.
posted by crunchland at 7:46 AM on April 13, 2003
This metatalk, is this something you would need the internet to know about?
ba doom boom
posted by blue_beetle at 7:59 AM on April 13, 2003
ba doom boom
posted by blue_beetle at 7:59 AM on April 13, 2003
Where is the gooch, exactly?
Seems that the gooch is somewhere in Utah
posted by Stynxno at 8:07 AM on April 13, 2003
Seems that the gooch is somewhere in Utah
posted by Stynxno at 8:07 AM on April 13, 2003
Reliving past glories?
(NSFW, adolescent testosterzone.)
posted by adamgreenfield at 8:27 AM on April 13, 2003
(NSFW, adolescent testosterzone.)
posted by adamgreenfield at 8:27 AM on April 13, 2003
You know last night I went to see a band. Traditionally during one of their songs they bring out a "monkey" to dance. Last night the monkey was a dude in a gorilla suit, a Flyers jersey and a huge sombrero.
They called him "Miguel The Monkey."
And they've never even heard of MetaFilter.
Then the monkey sang "Every Rose Has It's Thorn".
I'm just sayin'.
posted by jonmc at 8:34 AM on April 13, 2003
They called him "Miguel The Monkey."
And they've never even heard of MetaFilter.
Then the monkey sang "Every Rose Has It's Thorn".
I'm just sayin'.
posted by jonmc at 8:34 AM on April 13, 2003
Have you ever considered starting an English-language weblog Miguel? I'd love a chance to read what you have to say without the incessant sniping that you get here.
posted by timeistight at 8:51 AM on April 13, 2003
posted by timeistight at 8:51 AM on April 13, 2003
Here's an idea that might revitalize Mefi:
Let's all say the hell with posting 24/7, to hell with these wankfest threads, and get lives.
No, seriously. A writer friend of mine was having trouble with material a while back, and I jokingly said, "Go to a bar tonight, get stinking drunk, say honest things (good and bad) to people that you know and to people that you don't know, say and do things that you'll regret later, wake up the next day and ask yourself 'What the hell have I done?!'... and I guarantee you'll have something to write about."
In retrospect, it's not such bad advice. It's much better than all this wanking in Meta.
How many of us are "writers" who spend all our time writing for free on Mefi? Why aren't we writing something that might end up the subject of a post to Mefi, posted by someone else, instead?
How many of us are politically concerned, yet we spend all our time chasing our tails in Mefi and Meta threads, saying the same things over and over, fighting the same incestuous fights with the same people... When we could be writing letters to our elected representatives or editorials to our newspapers or even writing slogans on signs to go to protests?
If for every post I make to Mefi or Meta I wrote a paragraph of fiction... If for every post here I wrote a letter to a representative...
Get the idea?
Not only that, but if we did all these things:
We'd all find fresh new things to post to Mefi in the process.
Heck, the best Mefi posts are by people who are in love with the net anyway, who are just out there doing what they do, doing what they love, surfing and finding new things... And their Mefi posts are just a bi-product of this process. Other than these few people, Mefi is stale. Stinky smelly stale.
There comes a time when you must ask yourself if you are obsessed with being a prominent fish in a stagnant pond, or if you'd be better off swimming in the big scary sea.
And, yes, I am applying this logic to myself. Hopefully you won't hear nearly as much from me in the future.
posted by Shane at 9:12 AM on April 13, 2003
Let's all say the hell with posting 24/7, to hell with these wankfest threads, and get lives.
No, seriously. A writer friend of mine was having trouble with material a while back, and I jokingly said, "Go to a bar tonight, get stinking drunk, say honest things (good and bad) to people that you know and to people that you don't know, say and do things that you'll regret later, wake up the next day and ask yourself 'What the hell have I done?!'... and I guarantee you'll have something to write about."
In retrospect, it's not such bad advice. It's much better than all this wanking in Meta.
How many of us are "writers" who spend all our time writing for free on Mefi? Why aren't we writing something that might end up the subject of a post to Mefi, posted by someone else, instead?
How many of us are politically concerned, yet we spend all our time chasing our tails in Mefi and Meta threads, saying the same things over and over, fighting the same incestuous fights with the same people... When we could be writing letters to our elected representatives or editorials to our newspapers or even writing slogans on signs to go to protests?
If for every post I make to Mefi or Meta I wrote a paragraph of fiction... If for every post here I wrote a letter to a representative...
Get the idea?
Not only that, but if we did all these things:
We'd all find fresh new things to post to Mefi in the process.
Heck, the best Mefi posts are by people who are in love with the net anyway, who are just out there doing what they do, doing what they love, surfing and finding new things... And their Mefi posts are just a bi-product of this process. Other than these few people, Mefi is stale. Stinky smelly stale.
There comes a time when you must ask yourself if you are obsessed with being a prominent fish in a stagnant pond, or if you'd be better off swimming in the big scary sea.
And, yes, I am applying this logic to myself. Hopefully you won't hear nearly as much from me in the future.
posted by Shane at 9:12 AM on April 13, 2003
You must mean any other user that has posted, on average once a week to MetaTalk [and every other day to MeFi] the entire time he's been a member here....? That's the statistic that I keep coming back to.
Haven't you heard? He is endlessly fascinating, and we would have no community without him. As for those days between the every other post, well... Thank Ghod for Carlos.
posted by thirteen at 11:09 AM on April 13, 2003
Haven't you heard? He is endlessly fascinating, and we would have no community without him. As for those days between the every other post, well... Thank Ghod for Carlos.
posted by thirteen at 11:09 AM on April 13, 2003
Stavros..: "Bob!?"
Not for eighteen years, no. And before that it was Robert. It's never really been Bob, but there's always another Robert or Bob or Robin or Bobby within earshot, and I got tired of the whiplash. So it's Zach in every way but the legal sense. There's only one real Bob. The rest are just Bob Wannabes. "There is a lesson to be learned from Bobs. It is a lesson in realism, honesty and simple pleasure. It is a lesson no Bob would teach. Bobs are never that presumptuous." I'm definitely not a Bob.
"Where is the gooch exactly?
I just recently saw Jackass The Movie, which contains a visual aid showing exactly where the gooch is and how to shock it with electricity, which I don't recommend. Doing. Or watching others do. It's gross. This was particularly funny to me because my ex-wife's maiden name was Gooch, and until very recently I was completely oblivious to this other definition for it: the space between a human being's legs, south of the reproductive organ and north of the excretory orifice. So you can imagine when I saw the golf cart in Jackass named after my ex-wife, I got a laugh out of it which few could properly appreciate. I love my ex by the way. We have remained friends, but still that was decadently funny. This is unfortunately not something I think I'll be able to share with my ex. I don't think she'd find the humor in it.
Shane: "Let's all say the hell with posting 24/7, to hell with these wankfest threads, and get lives."
You go do just that. Go far away and find that life and then after you've matured you can come back here and tell us all about it. Perhaps you could go get a life like the gentlemen in the Jackass Movie. They seem to be enjoying their lives immensely, although others may find the way they spend their lives to be atrocious. At least they're having a good time.
Get a life I mean really isn't that phrase passed passe' yet? I happen to have a life, and I use a large chunk of it on the 'Net. Others may find it a waste of time but this is my life and I'll waste it as I please. At least I'm not wasting my life by going around telling other people to get lives that they already have, thank you very much.
posted by ZachsMind at 11:29 AM on April 13, 2003
Not for eighteen years, no. And before that it was Robert. It's never really been Bob, but there's always another Robert or Bob or Robin or Bobby within earshot, and I got tired of the whiplash. So it's Zach in every way but the legal sense. There's only one real Bob. The rest are just Bob Wannabes. "There is a lesson to be learned from Bobs. It is a lesson in realism, honesty and simple pleasure. It is a lesson no Bob would teach. Bobs are never that presumptuous." I'm definitely not a Bob.
"Where is the gooch exactly?
I just recently saw Jackass The Movie, which contains a visual aid showing exactly where the gooch is and how to shock it with electricity, which I don't recommend. Doing. Or watching others do. It's gross. This was particularly funny to me because my ex-wife's maiden name was Gooch, and until very recently I was completely oblivious to this other definition for it: the space between a human being's legs, south of the reproductive organ and north of the excretory orifice. So you can imagine when I saw the golf cart in Jackass named after my ex-wife, I got a laugh out of it which few could properly appreciate. I love my ex by the way. We have remained friends, but still that was decadently funny. This is unfortunately not something I think I'll be able to share with my ex. I don't think she'd find the humor in it.
Shane: "Let's all say the hell with posting 24/7, to hell with these wankfest threads, and get lives."
You go do just that. Go far away and find that life and then after you've matured you can come back here and tell us all about it. Perhaps you could go get a life like the gentlemen in the Jackass Movie. They seem to be enjoying their lives immensely, although others may find the way they spend their lives to be atrocious. At least they're having a good time.
Get a life I mean really isn't that phrase passed passe' yet? I happen to have a life, and I use a large chunk of it on the 'Net. Others may find it a waste of time but this is my life and I'll waste it as I please. At least I'm not wasting my life by going around telling other people to get lives that they already have, thank you very much.
posted by ZachsMind at 11:29 AM on April 13, 2003
Since it's tangent time, I've never understood the phrase "Get a life". Why the indefinite article? Everybody already has a life. It should be "Live the life" or "Get a proper life" or "Get a real life."
It doesn't make sense. As it is, it just means "don't spend so much time on the computer" or "get out more" which is, come to think of it, almost as meaningless and trite, since 99% of the best things in life are done indoors.
It's a stupid saying, anyway. The secret of happiness is to be vaguely content with what you've already got. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who wouldn't want to be someone else is as damn near to being happy as he/she was originally supposed to be in the Grand Scheme of Things.
[This was a long "What Zach said", I now realize.]
posted by MiguelCardoso at 12:17 PM on April 13, 2003
It doesn't make sense. As it is, it just means "don't spend so much time on the computer" or "get out more" which is, come to think of it, almost as meaningless and trite, since 99% of the best things in life are done indoors.
It's a stupid saying, anyway. The secret of happiness is to be vaguely content with what you've already got. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who wouldn't want to be someone else is as damn near to being happy as he/she was originally supposed to be in the Grand Scheme of Things.
[This was a long "What Zach said", I now realize.]
posted by MiguelCardoso at 12:17 PM on April 13, 2003
Perhaps this is because the war mongerers went off to IraqFilter, no?
posted by wackybrit at 12:27 PM on April 13, 2003
posted by wackybrit at 12:27 PM on April 13, 2003
Yay, tangent time!
do people generally assume that talking about what you think to be true is by default an attempt to convince your readers to change their mind?
I find myself accused of this alot. But not just for things I believe to be true. So many times I'll be talking about random idea x in the abstract, only to have people respond with either "Ugh. No, I won't believe that!", or "but you don't really believe that, do you?" and thusly the conversation ends.
But then again, I'm in college...
posted by cohappy at 12:49 PM on April 13, 2003
do people generally assume that talking about what you think to be true is by default an attempt to convince your readers to change their mind?
I find myself accused of this alot. But not just for things I believe to be true. So many times I'll be talking about random idea x in the abstract, only to have people respond with either "Ugh. No, I won't believe that!", or "but you don't really believe that, do you?" and thusly the conversation ends.
But then again, I'm in college...
posted by cohappy at 12:49 PM on April 13, 2003
...99% of the best things in life are done indoors...
!!
Woe is me! To have so failed at life! I'll have to stop being so fulfilled then. Good to know, good to know.
posted by bonehead at 1:26 PM on April 13, 2003
!!
Woe is me! To have so failed at life! I'll have to stop being so fulfilled then. Good to know, good to know.
posted by bonehead at 1:26 PM on April 13, 2003
the space between a human being's legs, south of the reproductive organ and north of the excretory orifice.
Ohhhh, you mean the taint!
posted by Hildago at 1:31 PM on April 13, 2003
Ohhhh, you mean the taint!
posted by Hildago at 1:31 PM on April 13, 2003
The paradox of Metatalk is that if you post here to say that you do have a life, then of course, you dont have a life because why else would you care to defend yourself on a message board on the Internet.
That is one argument, anyways, but it reminds me of a friend who, in the middle of an argument will say tauntingly, "Why are you getting so defensive?" Of course, its a setup. There is no proper response to that. ("I am not defensive!" is self-defeating)
Metatalk has outgrown itself. All jokes aside, there is a need for a MetaMetaTalk - a place to discuss the protocols of Metatalk itself. Since that forum doesnt exist, then Metatalk and MetaMetaTalk must both exist here, intertwined in threads like these where we talk about the site and talk about ourselves talking about the site.
posted by vacapinta at 1:34 PM on April 13, 2003
That is one argument, anyways, but it reminds me of a friend who, in the middle of an argument will say tauntingly, "Why are you getting so defensive?" Of course, its a setup. There is no proper response to that. ("I am not defensive!" is self-defeating)
Metatalk has outgrown itself. All jokes aside, there is a need for a MetaMetaTalk - a place to discuss the protocols of Metatalk itself. Since that forum doesnt exist, then Metatalk and MetaMetaTalk must both exist here, intertwined in threads like these where we talk about the site and talk about ourselves talking about the site.
posted by vacapinta at 1:34 PM on April 13, 2003
It worked. I got to be a better MeFi citizen. Just observing that MeTalk existed was almost enough for me to realize some people took what MeFi is supposed to be seriously.
geez, and here i just snarked and image-tagged my way to the top. if only i had known.
sniff. pout.
posted by quonsar at 1:44 PM on April 13, 2003
geez, and here i just snarked and image-tagged my way to the top. if only i had known.
sniff. pout.
posted by quonsar at 1:44 PM on April 13, 2003
I'd like to note that I have asked and gained permission months ago for MetaMiguel. However I'm very lazy, I went on a vacation from my own site after running it for a week for gosh sakes. I'll see if I can have it up this week.
posted by Stan Chin at 1:46 PM on April 13, 2003
posted by Stan Chin at 1:46 PM on April 13, 2003
I'll see if I can have it up this week.
bob dole can help.
posted by quonsar at 2:32 PM on April 13, 2003
bob dole can help.
posted by quonsar at 2:32 PM on April 13, 2003
This thread just gave me an idea why there's so much Miguel bashing: he prompts us to think about our relationship with MetaFilter, and thinking about that makes many of us depressed. The natural response is to lash out at the one who made us think.
And Miguel, the phrase "get a life" really means "the life you are currently living is so pathetic that it can't claim to even be a life; go do anything else." It's a very harsh judgement.
posted by timeistight at 2:59 PM on April 13, 2003
And Miguel, the phrase "get a life" really means "the life you are currently living is so pathetic that it can't claim to even be a life; go do anything else." It's a very harsh judgement.
posted by timeistight at 2:59 PM on April 13, 2003
I am very glad to hear that there are others who like MeTa at least as much as MeFi. I am not sure whether it is that I am equally fascinated by the process as by the product or that I can (and do) read every word on MeTa and thus gain some weird sense of completion, where MeFi would be a full-time job. Or I could just be strange.
Either way, I believe that MetaTalk does have an effect on what ends up on MetaFilter, but it is a delayed reaction and comes largely through osmosis of behaviour from the obsessed (those who visit MeTa regularly) and the regular users (those who just visit MeFi). I wonder if there is a correlation between regular contributors to MeTa and the ratio between their comments on MeFi/MeTa?
posted by dg at 4:09 PM on April 13, 2003
Either way, I believe that MetaTalk does have an effect on what ends up on MetaFilter, but it is a delayed reaction and comes largely through osmosis of behaviour from the obsessed (those who visit MeTa regularly) and the regular users (those who just visit MeFi). I wonder if there is a correlation between regular contributors to MeTa and the ratio between their comments on MeFi/MeTa?
posted by dg at 4:09 PM on April 13, 2003
get a life.
*checks amazon and then ebay for approximate price of a "life," buys collectable action figure instead*
posted by elwoodwiles at 4:35 PM on April 13, 2003
*checks amazon and then ebay for approximate price of a "life," buys collectable action figure instead*
posted by elwoodwiles at 4:35 PM on April 13, 2003
Ha ha, elwoodwiles! Back copies too are still cheap and easily available.
Timestight - thanks for explaining "get a life" to this furriner. I now understand why people are so (rightly) offended when told to do so. It implies "I have a life but you, you lead a miserable existence that doesn't deserve to be called life", right? Or have I got it wrong again but, this time, gone too far in the other direction? Nuances are murder, no matter how well you think you know a language.
I really hate insults that masquerade as advice and, at the same time, affirm the insulter's superiority. I think it preferable to just say "I despise the way you live."
posted by MiguelCardoso at 5:19 PM on April 13, 2003
Timestight - thanks for explaining "get a life" to this furriner. I now understand why people are so (rightly) offended when told to do so. It implies "I have a life but you, you lead a miserable existence that doesn't deserve to be called life", right? Or have I got it wrong again but, this time, gone too far in the other direction? Nuances are murder, no matter how well you think you know a language.
I really hate insults that masquerade as advice and, at the same time, affirm the insulter's superiority. I think it preferable to just say "I despise the way you live."
posted by MiguelCardoso at 5:19 PM on April 13, 2003
Honestly? I think everyone would feel much better about this if Miguel just got his own MeTa category. I'm dead serious.
A Migs-Related Category would allow for discussion of all things Miguel, for and against, without the threads derailing into whether or not there should be a thread to begin with: the answer would always be yes, so long as the topic is by, for, or about Miguel.
posted by padraigin at 7:25 PM on April 13, 2003
A Migs-Related Category would allow for discussion of all things Miguel, for and against, without the threads derailing into whether or not there should be a thread to begin with: the answer would always be yes, so long as the topic is by, for, or about Miguel.
posted by padraigin at 7:25 PM on April 13, 2003
It implies "I have a life but you, you lead a miserable existence that doesn't deserve to be called life", right?
While I agree with timeistight's repudiation of the phrase as a harsh insult, I have always understood "get a life" to imply "get a [social] life," and used when people are perceived as investing a disproportionate amount of energy and passion into virtual communities and geek-related pursuits. Obviously on a place like MetaFilter those who agree with this interpretation feel raw nerves hit upon its use. It's also a very easy epithet to hurl at Miguel in lieu of actually answering his (very valid) questions posted to MetaTalk.
(I must pause to honor the late, great, Fox TV show Get a Life starring Chris Elliott - an enduring cult favorite from the early 90's.)
posted by PrinceValium at 7:58 PM on April 13, 2003
While I agree with timeistight's repudiation of the phrase as a harsh insult, I have always understood "get a life" to imply "get a [social] life," and used when people are perceived as investing a disproportionate amount of energy and passion into virtual communities and geek-related pursuits. Obviously on a place like MetaFilter those who agree with this interpretation feel raw nerves hit upon its use. It's also a very easy epithet to hurl at Miguel in lieu of actually answering his (very valid) questions posted to MetaTalk.
(I must pause to honor the late, great, Fox TV show Get a Life starring Chris Elliott - an enduring cult favorite from the early 90's.)
posted by PrinceValium at 7:58 PM on April 13, 2003
You know, PrinceValium and timeistight, I just realized that in-the-know foreigners are afflicted with the illusion of certainty - the mistaken impression that they know a culture well - whereas natural speakers are actually comfortable with doubt.
I know I am with Portuguese culture and the Portuguese language. I welcome uncertainty there; it makes my work and life more interesting. But here I jump from ignorance (misreading "Get a life") to ignorance (thinking I now know what I means), without the slightest concession to the complexities involved, notwithstanding your clear, eloquent explanations.
I wonder how many other "comfortable, OK-seeming" misunderstandings are rife here...
posted by MiguelCardoso at 8:21 PM on April 13, 2003
I know I am with Portuguese culture and the Portuguese language. I welcome uncertainty there; it makes my work and life more interesting. But here I jump from ignorance (misreading "Get a life") to ignorance (thinking I now know what I means), without the slightest concession to the complexities involved, notwithstanding your clear, eloquent explanations.
I wonder how many other "comfortable, OK-seeming" misunderstandings are rife here...
posted by MiguelCardoso at 8:21 PM on April 13, 2003
You mean that native speakers of the same language never misunderstand each other? Would that that were true...but I get your point regarding the outsider wanting to feel comfortable with his/her distinct view of things.
A Migs-Related Category would allow for discussion of all things Miguel, for and against, without the threads derailing into whether or not there should be a thread to begin with: the answer would always be yes, so long as the topic is by, for, or about Miguel.
This seems silly. Granted, I have grown weary of the debate over Miguel, and to echo namespan's comments, I don't really see what's wrong with the guy. If you think someone here talks too much, it seems that a productive way to approach it might be a MeTa post inviting discussion on how much one person should contribute, and whether the solution is for that person to not contribute as much or somehow get others to contribute more. Telling each other to shut up or just sniping in any thread started by the person in question doesn't really deal with the situation that you obviously find intolerable, and it pointlessly bruises feelings and creates grudges.
But it's not like Miguel is talking about himself all the time, or bloviating with pointless stories, or derailing threads. He's not just raving about something no one cares about, or doing anything else that would warrant his contributions be put in their own special little quarantined box. He's raising questions about society and our community. I personally find these questions interesting...and if you don't find them interesting, why do you bother to bitch about it in the thread? Move on to the next. (After all, one of the marvelous things about the 'Net for *this* infovore is that there's always still more text to read around the next corner.)
I'd submit that willfully trying to derail threads (oops, I just realized that this comment is off-topic to the original question, but I just had to weigh in), holding catty grudges over piddly things, and downright nastiness do more to harm this community than the frequent participation of one enthusiastic, well-informed, and articulate user.
posted by Vidiot at 8:53 PM on April 13, 2003
A Migs-Related Category would allow for discussion of all things Miguel, for and against, without the threads derailing into whether or not there should be a thread to begin with: the answer would always be yes, so long as the topic is by, for, or about Miguel.
This seems silly. Granted, I have grown weary of the debate over Miguel, and to echo namespan's comments, I don't really see what's wrong with the guy. If you think someone here talks too much, it seems that a productive way to approach it might be a MeTa post inviting discussion on how much one person should contribute, and whether the solution is for that person to not contribute as much or somehow get others to contribute more. Telling each other to shut up or just sniping in any thread started by the person in question doesn't really deal with the situation that you obviously find intolerable, and it pointlessly bruises feelings and creates grudges.
But it's not like Miguel is talking about himself all the time, or bloviating with pointless stories, or derailing threads. He's not just raving about something no one cares about, or doing anything else that would warrant his contributions be put in their own special little quarantined box. He's raising questions about society and our community. I personally find these questions interesting...and if you don't find them interesting, why do you bother to bitch about it in the thread? Move on to the next. (After all, one of the marvelous things about the 'Net for *this* infovore is that there's always still more text to read around the next corner.)
I'd submit that willfully trying to derail threads (oops, I just realized that this comment is off-topic to the original question, but I just had to weigh in), holding catty grudges over piddly things, and downright nastiness do more to harm this community than the frequent participation of one enthusiastic, well-informed, and articulate user.
posted by Vidiot at 8:53 PM on April 13, 2003
You mean that native speakers of the same language never misunderstand each other?
Yeah - I mean they can afford to misunderstand eachother and, as such, don't worry so much about getting it right.
You know, Vidiot - defining is a form of murder. A meaning defined means a hundred meanings killed. :)
posted by MiguelCardoso at 8:59 PM on April 13, 2003
Yeah - I mean they can afford to misunderstand eachother and, as such, don't worry so much about getting it right.
You know, Vidiot - defining is a form of murder. A meaning defined means a hundred meanings killed. :)
posted by MiguelCardoso at 8:59 PM on April 13, 2003
I mean they can afford to misunderstand each other and, as such, don't worry so much about getting it right.
Ah, I see what you mean this time around.
A meaning defined means a hundred meanings killed.
And a hundred flamewars averted? (but this confab might be better suited in a chatroom anyway.)
posted by Vidiot at 9:12 PM on April 13, 2003
Ah, I see what you mean this time around.
A meaning defined means a hundred meanings killed.
And a hundred flamewars averted? (but this confab might be better suited in a chatroom anyway.)
posted by Vidiot at 9:12 PM on April 13, 2003
since 99% of the best things in life are done indoors.
That must be a typo, unless you live in hell.
posted by Dennis Murphy at 10:07 PM on April 13, 2003
That must be a typo, unless you live in hell.
posted by Dennis Murphy at 10:07 PM on April 13, 2003
This is a fascinating conversation. However, I have nothing to add at the moment and am envious, as a consequence, of all the well spoken and cogent remarks.
posted by y2karl at 10:54 PM on April 13, 2003
posted by y2karl at 10:54 PM on April 13, 2003
It's a very harsh judgement.
If "Get a life" were such a nasty slur, I'd be whining at myself as well for the insult. After all, I've always joked about being a "basement dweller" or geek and having no life. So get a life, ya buncha drama queens. Maybe I will too.
And "Zach," I wasn't telling you to get a life; no need to react with such vitriol. But if you actually watched Jackass the Movie, "Get a life" might be a good suggestion.
Carry on...
; )
posted by Shane at 6:11 AM on April 14, 2003
If "Get a life" were such a nasty slur, I'd be whining at myself as well for the insult. After all, I've always joked about being a "basement dweller" or geek and having no life. So get a life, ya buncha drama queens. Maybe I will too.
And "Zach," I wasn't telling you to get a life; no need to react with such vitriol. But if you actually watched Jackass the Movie, "Get a life" might be a good suggestion.
Carry on...
; )
posted by Shane at 6:11 AM on April 14, 2003
I'm taking a year off dead, for tax purposes.
(I think it's just possible you'd be surprised at the lives that some of us here have led thus far, Shane. Except me, of course. I'm a brain in a jar.)
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:32 AM on April 14, 2003
(I think it's just possible you'd be surprised at the lives that some of us here have led thus far, Shane. Except me, of course. I'm a brain in a jar.)
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:32 AM on April 14, 2003
a productive way to approach it might be a MeTa post inviting discussion on how much one person should contribute
Vidiot, we've had those posts; that's why Migs has cut back to the extent he has. But there's no point your saying "Hey, I don't see any problem"; others do, and their viewpoint is as valid as yours. And may I point out that this is not some hapless MeFi thread hijacked by Miguel-bashers but yet another semi-pointless MeTa thread started by Miguel himself? Personally, I second Padraigin's suggestion, adding that perhaps it would be possible to create a whole new MetaMigs section; then some of us could just avoid it, while those who can't get enough could splash around in it to your hearts' content.
posted by languagehat at 8:57 AM on April 14, 2003
Vidiot, we've had those posts; that's why Migs has cut back to the extent he has. But there's no point your saying "Hey, I don't see any problem"; others do, and their viewpoint is as valid as yours. And may I point out that this is not some hapless MeFi thread hijacked by Miguel-bashers but yet another semi-pointless MeTa thread started by Miguel himself? Personally, I second Padraigin's suggestion, adding that perhaps it would be possible to create a whole new MetaMigs section; then some of us could just avoid it, while those who can't get enough could splash around in it to your hearts' content.
posted by languagehat at 8:57 AM on April 14, 2003
Creating a metamigs section makes Mig's rampant abuse (as some feel it is) and overdominance of both sections of the site legitimate.
The problem isn't solely with Miguel himself, it's with anyone who so dominates the site that it becomes a mouthpiece for their opinion, their viewpoint. In the past people have realized this and left the great diatribes and general metafilter abuse for their own site(s) (SDB, ZachsMind, me, amongst others).
Just a note: Metafilter and Metatalk both functioned very similarily to the way they do now before Miguel showed up, except there was less to wade through.
Why does Miguel get attacked regularily? Because he persists in doing what others have asked him, told him, flung feces at him in vain attempts to get him to stop, and he just bats his innocent portugeuse eyelashes and continues to be all over the place.
Start your own english site, Migs, you can talk about MetaFilter and cultural differences and semantics all you like and the people that participate will actually be interested in the topics and feel they're somewhat relevant to the site on which their being posted.
MetaFilter is for everyone. If you want to dominate a site, dominate your own site. Don't ride Matt's coattails to celebrity by being ubiquitous on a popular site, do it for yourself by creating and starting your own community. You can do it.
MeFi suffers when one person is the focus of attention too much. You've contributed some 30% of the content on MeTa since you joined. THIRTY PERCENT, on a site with a userbase of whatever the hell crazy number we're at now. Do you not realize how significant that is?
Your discussions certainly have some merit, this is just not the appropriate place to hold them.
posted by cCranium at 9:26 AM on April 14, 2003
The problem isn't solely with Miguel himself, it's with anyone who so dominates the site that it becomes a mouthpiece for their opinion, their viewpoint. In the past people have realized this and left the great diatribes and general metafilter abuse for their own site(s) (SDB, ZachsMind, me, amongst others).
Just a note: Metafilter and Metatalk both functioned very similarily to the way they do now before Miguel showed up, except there was less to wade through.
Why does Miguel get attacked regularily? Because he persists in doing what others have asked him, told him, flung feces at him in vain attempts to get him to stop, and he just bats his innocent portugeuse eyelashes and continues to be all over the place.
Start your own english site, Migs, you can talk about MetaFilter and cultural differences and semantics all you like and the people that participate will actually be interested in the topics and feel they're somewhat relevant to the site on which their being posted.
MetaFilter is for everyone. If you want to dominate a site, dominate your own site. Don't ride Matt's coattails to celebrity by being ubiquitous on a popular site, do it for yourself by creating and starting your own community. You can do it.
MeFi suffers when one person is the focus of attention too much. You've contributed some 30% of the content on MeTa since you joined. THIRTY PERCENT, on a site with a userbase of whatever the hell crazy number we're at now. Do you not realize how significant that is?
Your discussions certainly have some merit, this is just not the appropriate place to hold them.
posted by cCranium at 9:26 AM on April 14, 2003
vidiot, I agree completely. I love Miguel, and look forward to his posts in large part because of the hoopla they cause, but also, because they generally appear quite thoughtful. Fact remains though, someone is always bound to get their panties in a bunch over the existence, if not the content, of a Miguel-initiated MeTa thread.
I just thought, tongue in cheek, that perhaps I'd hit on a way to sidestep that, and allow people to feel good about letting it GO, for pete's sake. It wasn't really a serious call for a new category, although hey, it probably would be welcomed by a lot of people.
To bring it back on topic: MetaTalk would be even more effective if we could slice out the comments which needlessly pick apart the original poster's intent.
On preview: I think languagehat got it.
posted by padraigin at 9:31 AM on April 14, 2003
I just thought, tongue in cheek, that perhaps I'd hit on a way to sidestep that, and allow people to feel good about letting it GO, for pete's sake. It wasn't really a serious call for a new category, although hey, it probably would be welcomed by a lot of people.
To bring it back on topic: MetaTalk would be even more effective if we could slice out the comments which needlessly pick apart the original poster's intent.
On preview: I think languagehat got it.
posted by padraigin at 9:31 AM on April 14, 2003
The problem with this post, as with so many by Miguel, is that the subject is so vague that discussion is meaningless. There is no way to measure whether and to what extent the gray influences the blue. What you've offered us is your sense that things are better over a relatively short period of time. And given that you're an incurable optimist (someone who cares might do a MeTaanalysis of your MeTa posts and see how many times you've said how things are getting better or things are great), your sense has no qualitative or quantitative value.
I support the addition of a Meta-Miguel category, however. There was a time when MeFi/MeTa was not a discussion site, but that time has long passed, and there's no point in pretending that it hasn't. And given that Miguel is far and away the number one MeTite, let him have his own category.
posted by anapestic at 9:32 AM on April 14, 2003
I support the addition of a Meta-Miguel category, however. There was a time when MeFi/MeTa was not a discussion site, but that time has long passed, and there's no point in pretending that it hasn't. And given that Miguel is far and away the number one MeTite, let him have his own category.
posted by anapestic at 9:32 AM on April 14, 2003
Heh. 30% was a (terrible) miscalculation on my part. 3.5% is probably more accurate (stupid decimal places).
posted by cCranium at 9:37 AM on April 14, 2003
posted by cCranium at 9:37 AM on April 14, 2003
I can truthfully say that I now repress myself at least once in every five times I feel like commenting, because I know how annoying and overbearing and perhaps obnoxious it is. But - please - I'm only human and I can't change the way I am. I'm a writer - and this is what I do. Write. Opine. Get worked up about stuff. Care. Express. Engage. Perhaps I can be forgiven if I sometimes feel that, after all this time, all those who hate my guts could somehow overlook me.
Imagine, Miguel, if 100 new users thought it was OK to post half as much as you did. The community would become more unmanageable and fractured than it already is. You can take a preventative stance and avoid this by setting a better example, since you are a leader here.
I overlook you often, but it's very difficult since you are constantly imposing yourself. Please raise your ratio from 1/5 to 4/5, start Migafilter, and let the rest of the users have a little space.
posted by djacobs at 9:40 AM on April 14, 2003
Imagine, Miguel, if 100 new users thought it was OK to post half as much as you did. The community would become more unmanageable and fractured than it already is. You can take a preventative stance and avoid this by setting a better example, since you are a leader here.
I overlook you often, but it's very difficult since you are constantly imposing yourself. Please raise your ratio from 1/5 to 4/5, start Migafilter, and let the rest of the users have a little space.
posted by djacobs at 9:40 AM on April 14, 2003
Miguel, you know I like you and enjoy reading your words, but what cCranium wrote had a lot of validity as well. Start your own English site, but continue to contribute to metafilter as well. I'm sure you'll get the partition right, and I look forward to the resulting website.
posted by walrus at 9:41 AM on April 14, 2003
posted by walrus at 9:41 AM on April 14, 2003
what cCranium wrote had a lot of validity as well.
Well, except for the bad maths.
Just to be clear, I'm not interested in seeing Miguel off the blue completely, I just think there's a much better place for a lot of the things he wants to discuss.
posted by cCranium at 10:10 AM on April 14, 2003
Well, except for the bad maths.
Just to be clear, I'm not interested in seeing Miguel off the blue completely, I just think there's a much better place for a lot of the things he wants to discuss.
posted by cCranium at 10:10 AM on April 14, 2003
We seem to have a point of agreement between the Miguel bashers and the Miguel fans: he needs his own English-language site.
posted by timeistight at 10:12 AM on April 14, 2003
posted by timeistight at 10:12 AM on April 14, 2003
We seem to have a point of agreement between the Miguel bashers and the Miguel fans: he needs his own English-language site.
You're soaking in it.
posted by Skot at 10:17 AM on April 14, 2003
You're soaking in it.
posted by Skot at 10:17 AM on April 14, 2003
Miguelfilter.com is available.
posted by adampsyche at 10:28 AM on April 14, 2003
posted by adampsyche at 10:28 AM on April 14, 2003
: he needs his own English-language site.
or, we could all learn Portuguese and promise to read his blog every day, showering him with the attention he so much craves
posted by matteo at 10:43 AM on April 14, 2003
or, we could all learn Portuguese and promise to read his blog every day, showering him with the attention he so much craves
posted by matteo at 10:43 AM on April 14, 2003
But there's no point your saying "Hey, I don't see any problem"; others do, and their viewpoint is as valid as yours.
Languagehat, I'm not saying that "I don't see any problem." Nor am I saying that another's viewpoint isn't valid. I said that "Telling each other to shut up or just sniping in any thread started by the person in question doesn't really deal with the situation." If you don't like Miguel's threads, then just move on to the next one. There's always more to read around the corner.
In a sense, I feel sorry for Miguel, because he can never start a MetaTalk thread without people dogpiling on and saying "Look! There's another Miguel thread!" and "Shut up Miguel!" and "Miguel isn't so bad" and "Yes he is too!" and variants thereof. This noise (and I realize this particular thread has devolved into this), drowns out the signal -- the question he's asking or the point he's trying to make. Again, if you think it's a pointless thread, either a.) skip it, b.) say why it's pointless. Make your judgments based on the ideas, not on who posted them.
I'd also like to point out that having Miguel's MetaTalk threads put in their own category is a real insult to Miguel. He raises questions -- lots of them -- about MetaFilter. I happen to enjoy 95% of them, and sometimes I think he's blowing hot air. (I'm under no illusions here; I'm sure that people here think I'm blowing hot air myself > 5% of the time.) If his MeTa comments were in their own category, that seems like it'd be a tacit signal that it's okay to shunt him off in his own little corner and sends the message that he's lost the privileges of sitting at the grown-ups' table. The points that Migs raises are about things that affect us all, and it doesn't do them any justice to get pigeonholed just because of who happened to type them.
posted by Vidiot at 6:31 PM on April 14, 2003
Languagehat, I'm not saying that "I don't see any problem." Nor am I saying that another's viewpoint isn't valid. I said that "Telling each other to shut up or just sniping in any thread started by the person in question doesn't really deal with the situation." If you don't like Miguel's threads, then just move on to the next one. There's always more to read around the corner.
In a sense, I feel sorry for Miguel, because he can never start a MetaTalk thread without people dogpiling on and saying "Look! There's another Miguel thread!" and "Shut up Miguel!" and "Miguel isn't so bad" and "Yes he is too!" and variants thereof. This noise (and I realize this particular thread has devolved into this), drowns out the signal -- the question he's asking or the point he's trying to make. Again, if you think it's a pointless thread, either a.) skip it, b.) say why it's pointless. Make your judgments based on the ideas, not on who posted them.
I'd also like to point out that having Miguel's MetaTalk threads put in their own category is a real insult to Miguel. He raises questions -- lots of them -- about MetaFilter. I happen to enjoy 95% of them, and sometimes I think he's blowing hot air. (I'm under no illusions here; I'm sure that people here think I'm blowing hot air myself > 5% of the time.) If his MeTa comments were in their own category, that seems like it'd be a tacit signal that it's okay to shunt him off in his own little corner and sends the message that he's lost the privileges of sitting at the grown-ups' table. The points that Migs raises are about things that affect us all, and it doesn't do them any justice to get pigeonholed just because of who happened to type them.
posted by Vidiot at 6:31 PM on April 14, 2003
I feel sorry for Miguel, because he can never start a MetaTalk thread without people dogpiling on
Yes, it's a shame those fascist bastards keep forcing him to start those threads, knowing all the time what's going to happen to him! Just think, if he started them of his own free will, it wouldn't make any sense to feel sorry for him!
Look, I like Miguel too, but it's absolutely ridiculous that he has this corps of loyalists who jump in whenever they feel the misunderstood Lusitanian is being unfairly treated. Everybody else just has to pick themselves up and move on; let Miguel enjoy the same privilege. If he doesn't like it, he can 1) cut back on his posting, 2) grin and bear it, or 3) bitch and moan and suffer the "wah! wah!" of quonsar. The Miguelistas just add to the temptation to dogpile. This is not a place for Untouchables.
posted by languagehat at 7:40 PM on April 14, 2003
Yes, it's a shame those fascist bastards keep forcing him to start those threads, knowing all the time what's going to happen to him! Just think, if he started them of his own free will, it wouldn't make any sense to feel sorry for him!
Look, I like Miguel too, but it's absolutely ridiculous that he has this corps of loyalists who jump in whenever they feel the misunderstood Lusitanian is being unfairly treated. Everybody else just has to pick themselves up and move on; let Miguel enjoy the same privilege. If he doesn't like it, he can 1) cut back on his posting, 2) grin and bear it, or 3) bitch and moan and suffer the "wah! wah!" of quonsar. The Miguelistas just add to the temptation to dogpile. This is not a place for Untouchables.
posted by languagehat at 7:40 PM on April 14, 2003
I'm not saying he's an untouchable -- you seem to be consistently misreading my posts, or possibly I'm not expressing myself clearly enough. You may think it's absolutely ridiculous that people are defending Miguel; I think it's absolutely ridiculous that people attack him because he starts threads RATHER than because they're responding to the arguments therein.
I'm not even saying there are untouchables: there certainly shouldn't be. I do think that essentially repeating "you talk too much" is a ridiculous thing to say on a discussion-based community. No one's forcing Miguel to start threads. Conversely, no one's forcing people to post in ones they don't find interesting, and no one's forcing people to derail the conversation and attack Miguel himself.
posted by Vidiot at 8:00 PM on April 14, 2003
I'm not even saying there are untouchables: there certainly shouldn't be. I do think that essentially repeating "you talk too much" is a ridiculous thing to say on a discussion-based community. No one's forcing Miguel to start threads. Conversely, no one's forcing people to post in ones they don't find interesting, and no one's forcing people to derail the conversation and attack Miguel himself.
posted by Vidiot at 8:00 PM on April 14, 2003
Vidiot: "people attack him because he starts threads RATHER than because they're responding to the arguments therein. "
maybe it's about the sheer _quantity_ of the threads he starts, you know.
posted by matteo at 4:49 AM on April 15, 2003
maybe it's about the sheer _quantity_ of the threads he starts, you know.
posted by matteo at 4:49 AM on April 15, 2003
I think it's absolutely ridiculous that people attack him because he starts threads RATHER than because they're responding to the arguments therein.
It's not simply the quantity of the threads, though, as matteo says, that's a factor. It's the nature of the threads. Other people start threads because of a specific incident or a specific feature request or a specific bug.
Look at this particular thread. How would anyone be able to establish that MeTa influences MeFi? Most of the Miguel threads appear to be nothing other than opportunities for him to ruminate or cheerlead at length about the overall nature of the site. There is no good or compelling reason for a thread like this to exist, and people have explained that. After explaining it over and over and over again, some people have gotten fed up enough to just dismiss the thread as another example of MC excess.
posted by anapestic at 6:57 AM on April 15, 2003
It's not simply the quantity of the threads, though, as matteo says, that's a factor. It's the nature of the threads. Other people start threads because of a specific incident or a specific feature request or a specific bug.
Look at this particular thread. How would anyone be able to establish that MeTa influences MeFi? Most of the Miguel threads appear to be nothing other than opportunities for him to ruminate or cheerlead at length about the overall nature of the site. There is no good or compelling reason for a thread like this to exist, and people have explained that. After explaining it over and over and over again, some people have gotten fed up enough to just dismiss the thread as another example of MC excess.
posted by anapestic at 6:57 AM on April 15, 2003
I don't think all of Miguel's threads are interesting -- this one in particular I thought was too vague to really say anything about -- but I think that if there's any place to ponder the overall nature of the blue, MeTa is it.
some people have gotten fed up enough to just dismiss the thread as another example of MC excess.
That's fine -- if you're fed up and you're dismissing the thread, roll your eyes and go to the next thread. There's no law that says that if you don't like a thread, you have to read to the end. Nor is there a law that says that if a thread fails to engage, you have to attack the poster within the thread.
posted by Vidiot at 7:53 AM on April 15, 2003
some people have gotten fed up enough to just dismiss the thread as another example of MC excess.
That's fine -- if you're fed up and you're dismissing the thread, roll your eyes and go to the next thread. There's no law that says that if you don't like a thread, you have to read to the end. Nor is there a law that says that if a thread fails to engage, you have to attack the poster within the thread.
posted by Vidiot at 7:53 AM on April 15, 2003
Amen.
posted by timeistight at 8:54 AM on April 15, 2003
posted by timeistight at 8:54 AM on April 15, 2003
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
Judging from lo-fi, there are fewer deleted threads than ever before. Perhaps it's only a question of time before the go-slow-on-Iraqfilter message gets through too.
I wonder whether the specific MetaTalk statistics - namely, what percentage read it regularly? - back up this supposition that MeTa may very well actually work...
posted by MiguelCardoso at 7:43 PM on April 12, 2003