Different thread, same topic

July 24, 2003 9:55 AM

Surely we don't need another thread on the Hussein boys so soon, do we?
posted by monju_bosatsu to Etiquette/Policy at 9:55 AM (22 comments total)

No, but we sure could use a thread about them Duke boys.
posted by COBRA! at 9:57 AM on July 24, 2003

The more Odie and Q-Bert the better.

MartyrFilter
posted by mr_crash_davis at 9:57 AM on July 24, 2003

I don't see why not. And don't call me Shirley.
posted by scarabic at 10:39 AM on July 24, 2003

The sequel (now featuring Robert Fisk!) is never as good as the original.
posted by turbodog at 10:50 AM on July 24, 2003

It think the Hussein boys need a TV series.

Think of the hijinks and morbid hilarity!
posted by eyeballkid at 10:53 AM on July 24, 2003

This is really just the old question about multiple threads for developing news stories, isn't it? I was getting a bit tired of all the Niger/George Tenet threads that were popping up a few days ago, a new thread for each development. I'm all for new links being posted in old threads for a few days, like Matt begged us to do with the DC sniper.
posted by UKnowForKids at 11:20 AM on July 24, 2003

Nader! Nader! Nadir!
posted by norm at 11:37 AM on July 24, 2003

Um... "Another thread"? Does this imply that it's not the only thread about U & Q on the front page right now?

Yes, yes, I know the other one was deleted, but I thought that was for bad posting form on Danf's part.
posted by Johnny Assay at 12:17 PM on July 24, 2003

... sounds more like an episode of Bonanza, actually.

Maybe it is time to push Iraqfilter again?
posted by whatnot at 12:42 PM on July 24, 2003

Do we need half the goddamned Iraq-related links we get? A quarter? An eighth?
posted by xmutex at 3:17 PM on July 24, 2003

xmutex - You discourage a link about the Hussein sons, and offer us optical illusion links. You go boy.

I couldn't care less about the neato flash toys, apparently spinning wheels, and other browser-based baubles that people post here. These links, which make you go "ooh" for all of 4 seconds, are the brain-food equivalent of tic-tacs. Virtual bubble-wrap? Great. But cool it on that current events crap or someone will cry Warfilter! Iraqfilter! Newsfilter! God forbid we should discuss the single largest discretionary item on our national budget this year. Or the release of photos of enemy dead. Or any other Goddamn Iraq thing.

BaubleFilter! TicTacFilter! BubbleWrapFilter!
posted by scarabic at 5:35 PM on July 24, 2003

scarabic, I'm with you...partly. Metafilter is supposed to be about the interesting, and the interesting will sometimes -- nay, often -- coincide with with, well, Iraq. Or politics in general. Or religion. And I often learn a lot from the posts here.

I just wish the tests were more often applied... how novel is this? How likely is it someone would see it somewhere else? And watch incisively worded posts....
posted by namespan at 6:00 PM on July 24, 2003

scarabic: here's a site that might be more your speed then.

great post xmutex, keep it up.
posted by turbodog at 6:46 PM on July 24, 2003

It is a delicate balance, namespan. On the one hand, you would expect any robust discussion forum to want to take on big burning societal issues. On the other, you don't want to make it a generic message board, bogged down by the already-well-articulated polarities of our times.

For the lighter stuff, yeah, it's good to sniff out the undiscovered gems and bring them into the light of day. On the other hand, it's ridiculous to trivialize MeFi by limiting it to only that which is ignored by the rest of the world. Reminds me of my college radio station, which would never play anything anyone wanted to hear, because anything anyone knew of enough to want to hear it wasn't "alternative" enough.

I've never knocked the trivial, fluff links in the past, even though many of them have been extremely trivial. I just get peeved when people shy away from anything more. Like many maligned threads, this one is more than just a pointer to a major news story. It points out a particular angle on the widely reported events and begs discussion of that angle. Alas, it's received as a mere pointer to a major news headline.

Speaking of blunt perceptions, turbodog, thanks for the helpful link. There's a lot of discussion going on there. I'll trade you one.
posted by scarabic at 10:10 PM on July 24, 2003

I'm voting with xmutex and turbodog. This is not a discussion site and the news post are less – not more – than the cool link posts.
posted by timeistight at 11:30 PM on July 24, 2003

It generated over 100 comments, so yes, we did need another thread.

Thank you. That is all. ;-P
posted by mischief at 5:28 AM on July 25, 2003

mischief: The "Pike" thread generated over 100 comments, too. We certainly didn't need that.
posted by UKnowForKids at 6:19 AM on July 25, 2003

It generated over 100 comments, so yes, we did need another thread.

Yes, because irrelevant hornswoggling is the absolute measure for quality here.
posted by walrus at 6:28 AM on July 25, 2003

That's why I come here for the links.
posted by mischief at 1:13 PM on July 25, 2003

No, but we sure could use a thread about them Duke boys.

Indeed. There have been at least 2 each of Brady Bunch movies, Charlie's Angels movies, Beverly Hillbillys movies. There is going to be a cHips movie. But where is the Dukes of Hazzard movie? You could even give Burt Reynolds a cameo.
posted by crunchburger at 4:13 PM on July 25, 2003

They did do a made-for-TV Dukes of Hazzard movie a couple of years back, in which them good ol' Duke boys visited LA for some reason or other. Best scene: a showdown between the General Lee and a pimped-out, hydraulics-bouncin' lowrider Impala.
posted by arto at 2:20 AM on July 26, 2003

We certainly didn't need that.

Speak for yourself. Some here found that thread highly entertaining. ;-P
posted by mischief at 8:40 PM on July 26, 2003