Scott Peterson post complaint

April 20, 2003 5:56 PM

Dennis Murphy : "It kills you that everyone doesn't think exactly like you, right? This is metafilter. There is one post on on this case, and hundreds on the iraq war, most antibush, antiwar, antiright. What more do you want?"
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken to etiquette/policy at 5:56 PM (59 comments total)

I humbly submit that we want a lot more than dual-CNN link posts to some murder case that no-one outside of America has even heard of. And that Dennis Murphy tone it down a freaking notch or two.

I'd be interested to hear why matthowie left this one up (perhaps to draw off the inevitable double/triple/quad posts of the same thing?)
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:58 PM on April 20, 2003

(And yes I know my 'What the hell is this?' comment wasn't constructive, and barely a notch above shouting 'Newsfilter!'. Sorry about that.)
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:59 PM on April 20, 2003

we now join stavrosthewonderchickenfilter, already in progress.
posted by quonsar at 6:18 PM on April 20, 2003

I really fail to see the problem here at all. Dennis's tone needs to be notched down? Dude, WTF? I mean, really, if HIS tone gets under your skin enough to make a MeTa thread out of it, I don't know how you aren't posting to MeTa moreso than you do. There are a LOT worse offenders than Dennis's comments in that thread, and no offense Stavros, but I would place you in that category of sometimes needing to tone it down a freaking notch or two in the past, yet you aren't being called out every day (hell, you admit that you didn't add constructive comments...maybe I should make a MeTa thread calling you out?). Dennis's tone is nothing to worry about, really.
posted by jmd82 at 6:24 PM on April 20, 2003

Hey, that's not fair, q, and not even funny. Dennis wasn't even talking to me.

Nice derail attempt, though.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:24 PM on April 20, 2003

aww crap, i forgot the <don pardo> tag!
posted by quonsar at 6:26 PM on April 20, 2003

why are we in here again?
posted by jonmc at 6:27 PM on April 20, 2003

why are we in here again?

Right. Fair enough. Whether Dennis was being a prick or not was not my intended point, and I shouldn't have mentioned it.

I'm more curious as to why that worthless piece of poo newsfilter post is still there, and Dennis drew my ire by crapping on jpoulos, is all. (Ooops, sorry, should have toned down that last sentence a bit!) Just trying to use Metatalk in the way it was intended, for a change of pace.

I'll make some pointless chat-thread about whether reading Metatalk makes you want to have a bowel movement or not... next week.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:31 PM on April 20, 2003

"...whether reading Metatalk makes you want to have a bowel movement or not..."

Well, so far this thread does.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 6:33 PM on April 20, 2003

ahhhhh...fuck the thread... iraise my wikkie sour in your general drection, wonderchicken you magnificent bastard you
posted by jonmc at 6:33 PM on April 20, 2003

*lower intestinal gurgling sounds*
posted by quonsar at 6:34 PM on April 20, 2003

(Cheers, jon!)
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:35 PM on April 20, 2003

Actually Elvis cotello sums up my feelings abou this place thoroughly:

I used to be disgusted, now I try to be amused...
posted by jonmc at 6:37 PM on April 20, 2003

why are we in here again?

because it's more fun than the blue, in times of war.
posted by PrinceValium at 6:39 PM on April 20, 2003

Guys like Mr. Murphy like to come to MeFi to feel like a persecuted minority. Perhaps they think they're evangelizing, doing Gods work by, if not converting the unwashed, by pointing out just how smelly we are.

Meanwhile I can get all the up-to-the-minute Peterson news I need elsewhere.
posted by Space Coyote at 6:40 PM on April 20, 2003

Dennis had a valid point. There are a wide variety of opinions on all topics, including the war in Iraq and the death of Laci Peterson, and there is no reason why we ought not be voicing those opinions in appropriate threads. That said, what the hell Iraqi civilians have to do with a murdered housewife from California eludes me. Why we ought not discuss an arrest in the case of a murdered housewife from California whose face was, indeed, all over the U.S. media (meaning that most MetaFilterites are well aware of the case to some extent) also eludes me. If you think that talking about Laci while Iraqis die is useless or whatever, then don't. Some of us are capable of having more than one thing on our minds, though, and might want a friggin break from Iraqifilter. Newsfilter posts are happening, and its up to us to make something of them. With the exception of some truly worthless, useless metacommentary which served no purpose other than skewing the signal:noise ratio of the thread in the wrong direction, it seemed that we were making something just fine out of (yet another) bit of newsfiltration.
posted by Dreama at 6:43 PM on April 20, 2003

My point was that jpoulos used a thread that has nothing to do with his preferred topic to complain about the lack of attention given to said preferred topic.

Why?

Earlier this week I complained in a thread that the post reeked of agenda filter. I was told to quit complaining and simply ignore threads I don't approve, a concept which I now agree.

The same goes here. It may kill jpoulos that we are discussing an 'american soap opera' instead of having yet another discussion on the war, but that's really a matter of personal choice.

But kill it because it's newsfilter and I have no problem with that. (although newsfilter posts are a dime a dozen here)

Dennis drew my ire by crapping on jpoulos, is all.

Jpoulos crapped on the thread, and what I said is way below the tone often used here at metafilter.

I drew your 'ire' because jpoulos and you are friends. Really, it's cute.

Guys like Mr. Murphy like to come to MeFi to feel like a persecuted minority. Perhaps they think they're evangelizing, doing Gods work by, if not converting the unwashed, by pointing out just how smelly we are.

You have me pegged so well.

Meanwhile I can get all the up-to-the-minute Peterson news I need elsewhere.

And the same could be said of up-to-the-minute warfilter news.

Which is exactly my point. It all depends on where your interest lie.
posted by Dennis Murphy at 6:50 PM on April 20, 2003

On second thought, dreama said it better than I.
posted by Dennis Murphy at 6:54 PM on April 20, 2003

might want a friggin break from Iraqifilter

This hasn't been Iraqifilter for quite a while (in MeFi-time), and in fact we've had a run of quite excellent posts (thanks in great part to our stable of superterrifichappyposters including Miguel, y2karl, plep, madamjj and others) recently. So a big raspberry to that, Dreama.

Newsfilter posts are happening, and its up to us to make something of them.

Yes, it is up to us to make the best of a bad post, or wait for Matt to delete it, I agree. That doesn't mean that we should not speak up if we have a problem with posts that consist solely of two links to CNN articles. It seems to me that by our silence on their appropriateness, they are implicitly encouraged. Doncha think?

On preview, Dennis, warfilter posts are as bad - no, worse, for their frequency until recently - as the thread in question. Saying that 'this was crap, and permitted, so that justifies more crap' is a patently foolish argument, and one that will guarantee more of the same.

As far as your personally directed comments, irrelevant as they are, about jpoulos being my friend, well, sure. More than you can say, though, innit, sunshine?

It all depends on where your interest lie.

No, it doesn't, actually. I always thought Metafilter was about 'interesting and unusual things on the web,' not about 'where your interests lie.'

I'd give you links to the posting and FAQ pages, but I'm sure you can find them yourself.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:58 PM on April 20, 2003

Dennis had a valid point. There are a wide variety of opinions on all topics, including the war in Iraq and the death of Laci Peterson, and there is no reason why we ought not be voicing those opinions in appropriate threads.

There are a variety of low-quality posts that add nothing to the site and are only allowed to exist because of Matt's very tolerant and laissez-faire approach to administration. They are not, however, encouraged, for reasons that have been discussed at length.

Therefore, while yet another needless post about current events may not be all that big of a deal, it is not necessary, and your argument, which is (I paraphrase) that crap validates more crap, is somewhat off-base.

I mean, Jesus, a link to CNN? Even the most newsworthy topics are expected to be presented with more respect than that.
posted by Hildago at 7:05 PM on April 20, 2003

No, it doesn't, actually. I always thought Metafilter was about 'interesting and unusual things on the web,' not about 'where your interests lie.'

1) What is 'interesting' on the web is different for different people. Not sure how you can argue that point.

2)And unusual? Out of all the iraq war postings, how many were 'unusual'?

My point was never that the Laci Peterson thread was meant for metafilter. My point was that, using metafilter guidelines, war posts are no better. But you're ok with them because, hey, they interest you.

Pot, kettle, blah blah blah.
posted by Dennis Murphy at 7:05 PM on April 20, 2003

I once had a life, or rather
Life had me
I was one among many
Or at least I seemed to be
Well, I read an old quotation in a book just yesterday
Said "Gonna reap just what you sow,
The debts you make you have to pay."
Can you get to that?
posted by jonmc at 7:08 PM on April 20, 2003

No, it doesn't, actually. I always thought Metafilter was about 'interesting and unusual things on the web,' not about 'where your interests lie.'

Aren't what one find interesting and unusual really about someone is interested in? I mean, What I may find "interesting", you may think a worthless POS that doesn't deserve the light of day (news-filter not withstanding).
posted by jmd82 at 7:09 PM on April 20, 2003

But you're ok with them because, hey, they interest you.

Hello? Anyone home? Repeated warfilter posts are emphatically not OK with me. Read my last comment, and Hildago's, and try again.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:09 PM on April 20, 2003

Repeated warfilter posts are emphatically not OK with me.

But you didn't stick your head in to say...

What the hell is this?

now did ya?

Look, mathowie may one day sell metafilter. Maybe you can purchase it and mold it to fit your amazing vision of what it should be.

A boy can dream, can't he?
posted by Dennis Murphy at 7:13 PM on April 20, 2003

Hang on.... Maybe I'm a bit behind, but if "My point was never that the Laci Peterson thread was meant for metafilter" then why did you post it there?

I think we've all figured that newsfilter posts aren't good, and you agree, correct, Dennis? Then why is this still a topic of argument?
posted by dazed_one at 7:14 PM on April 20, 2003

If I've defended WarFilter posts in the past that are now being used to pollute MeFi with tabloid sensationalist news stories, my deepest apologies. I knew not what I was helping unleash.
posted by Space Coyote at 7:15 PM on April 20, 2003

your amazing vision of what it should be.

mathowie : "Just to be clear: the point of MetaFilter is to find the best and most interesting of the web to share with others, not things
described here.

There are some previous discussions on what makes a good post to MetaFilter as well. If you're concerned about not double posting (posting something that's already been discussed), there are a few tips here."

Try again, Dennis.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:18 PM on April 20, 2003

YEH!
*bangs head*
YEH!
*bangs head*
YEH!
*bangs head*
RASTAFARI!

Oops, sorry. I've been listening to sgt serenity's Battle Hymn of BoBo Balde repeatedly. Then again, it makes as much sense as any of this other shite, and it's waaaaay more fun.
posted by Shane at 7:20 PM on April 20, 2003

But you didn't stick your head in to say...

What the hell is this?

now did ya?

I noticed you ignored that part of my post.

Maybe I'm a bit behind, but if "My point was never that the Laci Peterson thread was meant for metafilter" then why did you post it there?

I didn't post it, I commented in the thread.

I think we've all figured that newsfilter posts aren't good, and you agree, correct, Dennis? Then why is this still a topic of argument?

I have no idea why this senseless thread was created in the first place, and I should have ignored it. Maybe someone was bored or wanted to hear themselves talk. Who knows. I have no idea what stavros is even talking about anymore. He seems to think we're playing some game.

If I hadn't made a comment that he found to be a dig at his buddy, we wouldn't be here.

Stavros will complain and shit on threads that he deems unworthy, while participate and support threads that meet HIS criteria and interests. That's clear.

I actually agree with his opinions on metafilter. I disagree with his hypocrisy.

One thread on on laci peterson and he makes a snide comment and drags it to metatalk. How many warfilter threads have we had that he also claims to be against? How many of those threads has he brought to metatalk? How many warfilter threads did he click on and asks, "what the hell is this?"

ZERO. NONE. ZILTCH.

Enough of this silliness...back to the blue.
posted by Dennis Murphy at 7:45 PM on April 20, 2003

But you didn't stick your head in to say...
What the hell is this?
now did ya?
I noticed you ignored that part of my post.

Well, mostly because it's just plain stupid. Talking as you were about a proliferation of threads - on the order of 6 or more a day during the fighting - if I were to 'stick my head in' and drop a snarky comment (which, if you weren't such a prick, you'd have noticed I already apologized for upthread) on every thread, I'd not only be acting like a child, but I'd be rightfully hauled to MeTa for it.

How many of those threads has he brought to metatalk? How many warfilter threads did he click on and asks, "what the hell is this?"
ZERO. NONE. ZILTCH.

If I were to start a Metatalk thread for every thread I thought was substandard, I'd be branded a loathsome self-appointed MeFi cop, and rightfully chastized. You have to choose your targets, son. There was more than enough pushback against warfilter without adding my voice to the din.

Attacking me for 'hypocrisy' is fine, Dennis, and may have a zesty tang of self-righteous truth to it (a flavour I also quite enjoy, occasionally) but it would be much more graceful to just acknowledge what's being said, and move on.

Enough of this silliness...back to the blue.

Yes, that would be just fine.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:55 PM on April 20, 2003

YEH!
posted by Shane at 8:06 PM on April 20, 2003

(*bangs head*)
(*disconnects intarweb*)
posted by Shane at 8:08 PM on April 20, 2003

Stavros will complain and shit on threads that he deems unworthy, while participate and support threads that meet HIS criteria and interests. That's clear.

That's projection in the classical Freudian sense: a click on your name and a brief perusal of your comments will soon show agenda is a favorite epithet and that getting your licks, nasty a little more often than not, in the Iraq threads has been a major portion of your commentary. So far for you, an apolitical comment in an apolitical thread is the rare exception and you are most definitely not of the a soft answer turneth away wrath school--as can be seen above and in the blue. You accusing me of having anger management problems becomes more ironic with every comment of yours that I read.
posted by y2karl at 8:41 PM on April 20, 2003

Freudian sense: a click on your name and a brief perusal of your comments will soon show agenda is a favorite epithet

Very true. When time after time I read the same names behind the same type links with the same conclusions I think agendafilter, which to me is taking advantage of metafilter in a way it was not intended.

However, in this thread, I also wrote this:

Earlier this week I complained in a thread that the post reeked of agenda filter. I was told to quit complaining and simply ignore threads I don't approve, a concept which I now agree.

...which acknowledges my mistaken attitude, and it won't happen again.

As far as my anger management comment, I also wrote in that thread that I should have deleted that before hitting post.

That said, I've never, nor would I, say 'if you weren't such a prick' to anyone on metafilter, and it has been said to me.

Anyway y2karl, you dragged me back to this god awful thread, so that should be repayment enough.

In any case, I know you'll hold the anger management comment over my head for eternity. Somehow, I'll go on.
posted by Dennis Murphy at 8:56 PM on April 20, 2003

I have to say it leaves a bad taste in my mouth when a-list MeFites pick on lesser beings and other a-list MeFites join in for a mass stomping. I thought Dennis Murphy's comment, while a bit overstated (though, as he says, hardly at all by community standards), was a reasonable response to a ludicrous "why isn't this about Iraq" comment, and it certainly didn't deserve to be called out to MeTa. "You have to choose your targets"? Fine, choose a better one (preferably one that doesn't leave you open to charges of leaping to the defense of a friend). And stavros, if you can't be bothered to figure out or remember that Dennis didn't start the thread, you've let yourself get way too hot under the collar and should take a break.
posted by languagehat at 9:09 PM on April 20, 2003

Earlier this week I complained in a thread that the post reeked of agenda filter. I was told to quit complaining and simply ignore threads I don't approve, a concept which I now agree.

It's not that you have to ignore it, it's just that the place to bring up your concerns is Metatalk (specifically, on that thread you mentioned, I've never seen anything to support MidasMulligan's position in this comment -- contrast with this from mathowie). There is a difference between self-policing and vigilante justice, and it falls somewhere around derailing a thread.
posted by eddydamascene at 9:51 PM on April 20, 2003

Boring post, boring thread, boring metatalk call out.

This is all starting to feel like Groundhog Day.
posted by konolia at 9:53 PM on April 20, 2003

i love bill murray
posted by folktrash at 10:07 PM on April 20, 2003

languagehat, thanks for the advice. No, really.

I was just answering Dennis's question : "What more do you want?" If you think I got "hot under the collar," well you should see me when I really am annoyed, is all I can say.

This is all starting to feel like Groundhog Day.

[alarm rings]...I humbly submit that we want a lot more than dual-CNN link posts to some murder case that no-one outside of America has even heard of. And that Dennis Murphy tone it down a freaking notch or two.

I'd be interested to hear why matthowie left this one up (perhaps to draw off the inevitable double/triple/quad posts of the same thing?)...
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 10:10 PM on April 20, 2003

It's funny that so many people are implying that this thread is a waste of time by posting vapid non sequitors. It's funny because irony is the source of humor.

My position is this: It is un-productive to call out Newsfilter posts, but it is counter-productive to defend them.
posted by Hildago at 10:19 PM on April 20, 2003

We've sold a surprising number of these avatars. Its face looks like a boiled fist and its voice sounds like fingernails scritching across a blackboard, but for some reason, especially lately, it's Simulacra World's most requested online effigy.
posted by Opus Dark at 11:19 PM on April 20, 2003

Good god, people WarFilter fucking exists! There is an entire site, whose membership is largely from here, devoted to entire subject or the war in Iraq. Since Iraq/War posts are frowned on here, why the fuck don't you just post them there?

You know how many threads they have about how bad posting war-related CNN links is? How many about whether the site owner thinks war-related posts are okay? Or if Iraq posts are interesting? None. So go post there, like I do, and discuss the war with other people who also want to discuss it.

Is that so incredibly fucking tough to understand?
posted by Yelling At Nothing at 11:24 PM on April 20, 2003

Wow, that was disjointed. Insert punctuation as needed.
posted by Yelling At Nothing at 11:41 PM on April 20, 2003

But I don't want to go to WarFilter, I want to stay right here!

So I will!

Nyah! ;-P
posted by mischief at 11:44 PM on April 20, 2003

That doesn't mean that we should not speak up if we have a problem with posts that consist solely of two links to CNN articles. It seems to me that by our silence on their appropriateness, they are implicitly encouraged. Doncha think?

And the place and means of doing that is in MetaTalk, not by dropping snark or off-topic ranting in the thread itself -- which, in this case, had the potention to rise above its newsfilter crap link beginning into an interesting discussion of the validity of circumstantial evidence, fetal murder laws and trials by media.
posted by Dreama at 3:28 AM on April 21, 2003

YEH!
posted by sgt.serenity at 4:35 AM on April 21, 2003

TEH YHE!
posted by quonsar at 5:31 AM on April 21, 2003

I missed this thread--and even missed Dennis Murphy's original comment until now, so I'll just throw in my two cents and be done with it.

While I think posts like that don't belong on Mefi, that wasn't really my point. What irks me is where the media's priorities lay in this country, and how that affects public perception as a whole. It bugs me that your average american is interested in all these intimate details about the lives of this relatively insignificant family, but is blissfully ignorant of larger, more horrific, and IMO more important crimes that are being committed around the world in their name. That, I think, is a worthy topic of discussion.

PS - bringing up someone's outside project (the peaceblogs "plug") is out of bounds, IMO. Not that I don't appreciate the publicity.
posted by jpoulos at 7:02 AM on April 21, 2003

Not to worry, Dennis, I won't hold it over your head for eternity.

As for eddydamascene's, comment re MidaMulligan's astounding

... but let me suggest that if you want people to engage in intelligent, reasoned discussions, that you introduce topics in a balanced fashion, include several perspectives, and leave the snarkiness out of the titles.

do as I say, not as I have ever done advice, I'm glad someone else pointed it out.

I see people quote the inscrutable Matt to support their arguments like Red Guards quoting Mao--or as in Midas's case, channeling Matt's alleged intentions in support of his hypocritical hogwash on Fair and Balanced posting--it's like having a 1st Century A.D. theological debate on how many angels can sit on the head of a pin ...except, of course, for the still having a living god thing. I, myself, previously linked to a comment Matt made, in my defense in that thread prior to Midas's bringing his stone tablets down from Mt. Haugheyhat but, honestly, it creeped me out to do it. Next thing you know, we'll be sacrificing virgins to him.

I say Matt has been King Log and not King Stork and the place is more inclusive for it. Conservatives are in the minority in the Big Tent here and tend to squawk, which is fine and dandy. Derailing threads is not.

I am sick of the Bush=Evil cliche, as I am with the word agenda. My derailed post was of interesting economic graphics, with explanatory text. The Bush administration was mentioned in text. Bush=Evil makes no sense to me unless it applies to personally demonizing President Bush. I submit that my post did not.

Today, in the case of the couple in Texas arrested for child sexual abuse when their pictures were developed, hama7 apparently perceived the tone of the commentary to be another attack on President Bush and walked into the buzz saw here and here. I can't see what the post has to do with President Bush. Bush=Evil just seems to a content free smear denoting those awful lefties are at it again.

And as for my agenda--what? I carry around Power Point charts on how I am going to subvert Western Civilization? Pardon the nit picking here, but some people here are abusing the word agenda. I was unaware that I had a list of matters which are waiting to be discussed or achieved. Perhaps you meant I have a bias.
posted by y2karl at 8:56 AM on April 21, 2003

Oh, y2karl.
posted by Pretty_Generic at 9:23 AM on April 21, 2003

y2karl, don't you ever get, y'know, tired of stalking hama7 from thread to thread? :)
posted by dhoyt at 9:50 AM on April 21, 2003

Although I would much rather have had it be someone else, I hardly think it is stalking to point out the nearest and most recent example of another use of the tiresome Bush=evil meme in an especially egregious misapplication.
posted by y2karl at 11:40 AM on April 21, 2003

(No harm intended--it was just a little poke in reference to the MetaTalk thread from earlier this year where he accused you of following him from thread to thread)
posted by dhoyt at 11:46 AM on April 21, 2003

Well, now that you bring it up--stalking is of a lot with Bush=evil and agenda, insofar as it is another pointless epithet. Everything said here is a matter of record, the record is open to all and sometimes, as I have found once again only recently, our record comes back to haunt us.
posted by y2karl at 11:48 AM on April 21, 2003

do as I say, not as I have ever done advice, I'm glad someone else pointed it out.

Just to be clear, I wasn't making any judgement about MidasMulligan's posting record. He challenged whether that thread "serve[d] the stated purposes of MeFi" and claimed "the thread itself is not an incorrect forum to do this in if the thread itself is in the wrong forum" as a justification for taking part in derailing the thread. The thread itself is an incorrect forum for lengthly commenting on the appropriateness of the post.
posted by eddydamascene at 1:16 PM on April 21, 2003

Agreed. I did not think that you were making a judgment on his posting record nor did I intend to be putting words in your mouth.
posted by y2karl at 1:36 PM on April 21, 2003

bringing up someone's outside project (the peaceblogs "plug") is out of bounds, IMO. Not that I don't appreciate the publicity.

I'm not trying to argue my point anymore, or defend it. Live and learn.

But I just wanted to say that I would have never linked to your outside project if it had not already been linked to metafilter blue in the first place.

Perhaps I should have linked to that thread instead of the actual site, but that was my reasoning anyway.
posted by Dennis Murphy at 6:59 PM on April 21, 2003

But I just wanted to say that I would have never linked to your outside project if it had not already been linked to metafilter blue in the first place.

That's cool. No harm, no foul, etc. etc.
posted by jpoulos at 7:01 PM on April 21, 2003