Can we criticize? October 2, 2003 6:01 PM Subscribe
It's great that Matt is just one of the guys when it comes to posting but, with respect, this post of his seems way below average. It's a short news item, from a big media source, which will already be known to those who follow the news. The post, though, is not the point. My question is "To what extent are we allowed - or able - to criticize his posts as if he were just another user?" Is it ungracious, ungrateful or downright rude, for instance? Fwiw, my opinion is that special treatment and undue deference are just as annoying and even insulting.
Undue deference isn't nearly as annoying as ingratitude.
posted by rcade at 6:06 PM on October 2, 2003
posted by rcade at 6:06 PM on October 2, 2003
...I can say that I would like to criticize the first comment of the post in question.
posted by jaronson at 6:38 PM on October 2, 2003
posted by jaronson at 6:38 PM on October 2, 2003
What on earth are you talking about Cardoso? It's a wacky news story, but relates to the story about how we were all scammed in the past. Is Clooney's accuser the new Debbie Swanson?
But I welcome the insults, I have no idea why you feel so strongly about the post, but let 'er rip.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 6:44 PM on October 2, 2003
But I welcome the insults, I have no idea why you feel so strongly about the post, but let 'er rip.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 6:44 PM on October 2, 2003
We're all turning on each other.
It's obvious we need new blood around here so we'll have someone new to take our aggressions out on.
posted by bshort at 6:46 PM on October 2, 2003
It's obvious we need new blood around here so we'll have someone new to take our aggressions out on.
posted by bshort at 6:46 PM on October 2, 2003
no fair derailing miguel's thread, you're s'posed to start your own, jeez.
(meta-meta-meta-who?!)
posted by dorian at 6:47 PM on October 2, 2003
(meta-meta-meta-who?!)
posted by dorian at 6:47 PM on October 2, 2003
If it was me, I would have considered linking to the backstory about kaycee in the first comment so people who weren't around knew what was going on, but everything else seems ok to me.
posted by The God Complex at 6:47 PM on October 2, 2003
posted by The God Complex at 6:47 PM on October 2, 2003
Is this Kaycee something I would need a Metafilter to appreciate?
posted by mr_crash_davis at 6:48 PM on October 2, 2003
posted by mr_crash_davis at 6:48 PM on October 2, 2003
They can take our logins, but they can never take our FREEDOM!
posted by PrinceValium at 6:51 PM on October 2, 2003
posted by PrinceValium at 6:51 PM on October 2, 2003
i was quite taken aback at the parallels with kaycee nicole. i doubt there are more than a few who watched that thread unfold that weekend who, upon seeing the clooney report, wouldn't have dashed over here to post it within moments. it's quite interesting and relevant from a community perspective as it connects to the mythology of the community on an almost spiritual level. factor in the atomic weight of mathowies left big toe, the inversion of the product of pi and the square root of the third octet of the metafilter IP address, and all one is left with is the unanswerable:
WHAT THE FUCK, MIGUEL?
posted by quonsar at 6:57 PM on October 2, 2003
WHAT THE FUCK, MIGUEL?
posted by quonsar at 6:57 PM on October 2, 2003
Heh. There are no insults or even further criticisms, Matt. And your answer reassures me that we can indeed feel at ease about treating you as one of the guys.
It's just that when I was considering criticizing your post I suddenly felt certain qualms, you being Matt and this being your creation and property. We are guests, after all. I thought this unease was interesting and thought it was worth discussing.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 6:57 PM on October 2, 2003
It's just that when I was considering criticizing your post I suddenly felt certain qualms, you being Matt and this being your creation and property. We are guests, after all. I thought this unease was interesting and thought it was worth discussing.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 6:57 PM on October 2, 2003
I suggest you read your first sentence and then read your last sentence and then read your first sentence and then read your last sentence and then read your first sentence and then read your last sentence and then read your first sentence and then read your last sentence and then read your first sentence and then read your last sentence and then read your first sentence and then read your last sentence.
posted by carfilhiot at 7:00 PM on October 2, 2003
posted by carfilhiot at 7:00 PM on October 2, 2003
OK!
Cardoso: go write us a manifesto!
Dorian: set up a showtrial for this mathowie character (and that suckup quonsar too)!
Stan Chin: distract the masses with funnies while we take over!
Clavdivs: liberate the server for the people!
The People's Republic of Metafilter is on!
posted by amberglow at 7:00 PM on October 2, 2003
Cardoso: go write us a manifesto!
Dorian: set up a showtrial for this mathowie character (and that suckup quonsar too)!
Stan Chin: distract the masses with funnies while we take over!
Clavdivs: liberate the server for the people!
The People's Republic of Metafilter is on!
posted by amberglow at 7:00 PM on October 2, 2003
*makes note, leans back, strokes goatee, nods encouragingly*
"what else makes you uneasy, mr. cardoso?"
posted by quonsar at 7:09 PM on October 2, 2003
"what else makes you uneasy, mr. cardoso?"
posted by quonsar at 7:09 PM on October 2, 2003
I had you pegged as a goat-strokee, quonsar.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 7:11 PM on October 2, 2003
posted by mr_crash_davis at 7:11 PM on October 2, 2003
*blink* *double take* For a minute there I thought q was stroking goatse. I gotta take a break from this interweb thingy.
posted by Jimbob at 7:15 PM on October 2, 2003
posted by Jimbob at 7:15 PM on October 2, 2003
crash, you now owe me:
1 keyboard, cheap grey usb sgi
1 cat, whereabouts unknown
1 beer, tasty 1L size
however, we'll call it even for the brief moment of sheer amusement.
...bunch of mindless jerks who'll be the first up against the wall when the tiddley-tiddley-tiddley-pom-orange. (as that frelling nazi-boy Plum might've said, gor'rest'is'soul...)
posted by dorian at 7:19 PM on October 2, 2003
1 keyboard, cheap grey usb sgi
1 cat, whereabouts unknown
1 beer, tasty 1L size
however, we'll call it even for the brief moment of sheer amusement.
...bunch of mindless jerks who'll be the first up against the wall when the tiddley-tiddley-tiddley-pom-orange. (as that frelling nazi-boy Plum might've said, gor'rest'is'soul...)
posted by dorian at 7:19 PM on October 2, 2003
It's just that when I was considering criticizing your post I suddenly felt certain qualms
So the problem isn't anything I did, but what you felt?
I thought this unease was interesting and thought it was worth discussing.
Yeah, with your psychiatrist. :)
I guess it is interesting, but you came off as angry at the post and angry that you couldn't say anything negative about it because I'm walking on water or something, which is far from the truth. Read the past four years of archives, including all of MetaTalk where I apologize, take blame, and act as humble as can be. I have a sense of humor about myself (photo of me carrying pizzabox in 5...4...3...2...), and can take criticism.
I just don't think my post warrants it, and I'm not sure how interesting this thoughtwander will be to anyone besides you and me.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 7:20 PM on October 2, 2003
So the problem isn't anything I did, but what you felt?
I thought this unease was interesting and thought it was worth discussing.
Yeah, with your psychiatrist. :)
I guess it is interesting, but you came off as angry at the post and angry that you couldn't say anything negative about it because I'm walking on water or something, which is far from the truth. Read the past four years of archives, including all of MetaTalk where I apologize, take blame, and act as humble as can be. I have a sense of humor about myself (photo of me carrying pizzabox in 5...4...3...2...), and can take criticism.
I just don't think my post warrants it, and I'm not sure how interesting this thoughtwander will be to anyone besides you and me.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 7:20 PM on October 2, 2003
That thread is new and interesting. I think I speak for reason (for once) when I say this:
Shut the fuck up, Miguel.
posted by angry modem at 7:25 PM on October 2, 2003
Shut the fuck up, Miguel.
posted by angry modem at 7:25 PM on October 2, 2003
Shut the fuck up, Miguel.
Yeah, let's gang up on Miguel! Or, maybe, let's not. Case closed, gang.
posted by The God Complex at 7:27 PM on October 2, 2003
Yeah, let's gang up on Miguel! Or, maybe, let's not. Case closed, gang.
posted by The God Complex at 7:27 PM on October 2, 2003
shit, I was looking at the wrong thread. Nevermind, that link sucks.
posted by angry modem at 7:29 PM on October 2, 2003
posted by angry modem at 7:29 PM on October 2, 2003
It's great that Migs is just one of the guys when it comes to posting but, with respect, this post of his seems way below average. It's a navelgazing bout of self-questioning, from someone whose propensity for such will already be known to those who follow the MetaFilter. The post, though, is not the point. My question is "To what extent are we allowed - or able - to tell Miguel to shut the fuck up?" Is it ungracious, ungulate, or downright goaty, for instance? Fwiw, my opinion is that special treatment and undue deference are just as annoying and even insulting, and everyone in range should holler as if with a single voice:
WHAT THE FUCK, MIGUEL?
posted by languagehat at 7:38 PM on October 2, 2003
WHAT THE FUCK, MIGUEL?
posted by languagehat at 7:38 PM on October 2, 2003
I didn't spit beer at my my monitor when I read this.
It just sort of fell out onto my keyboard.
posted by jonmc at 7:43 PM on October 2, 2003
It just sort of fell out onto my keyboard.
posted by jonmc at 7:43 PM on October 2, 2003
If it's all the same to you all, I prefer NOT to be reminded of Kaycee Nicole. Posttraumatic virtual stress syndrome, you see.
posted by konolia at 8:01 PM on October 2, 2003
posted by konolia at 8:01 PM on October 2, 2003
actually, I've been thinking some of matt's recent threads have been ...how to put it?... shitty. like the link to the music video, as an example. But then, who are we to tell matt how shitty his posts have been? If he were any other user than #1, he'd probably be subjected to the kind of abuse the rest of us have to deal with. But, as it is, he has a permanent "get out of metatalk free" card.
posted by crunchland at 8:19 PM on October 2, 2003
posted by crunchland at 8:19 PM on October 2, 2003
Hey! Don't you blackguards go changing things all the things that I love about this place!
posted by yhbc at 8:24 PM on October 2, 2003
posted by yhbc at 8:24 PM on October 2, 2003
I thought this unease was interesting and thought it was worth discussing.
Miguel, is there anything that you don't think is worth discussing?
posted by IshmaelGraves at 8:52 PM on October 2, 2003
Miguel, is there anything that you don't think is worth discussing?
posted by IshmaelGraves at 8:52 PM on October 2, 2003
ah. he has told you about the weeping blisters, then.
posted by quonsar at 9:00 PM on October 2, 2003
posted by quonsar at 9:00 PM on October 2, 2003
Miguel, is there anything that you don't think is worth discussing?
*breaks down, starts sobbing, falling to his knees*
No, Ishmael! No! There isn't! I admit it!
*thinks better of throwing himself on the mercy of the court, covers the weeping blisters of ass and retreats pronto*
Well, perhaps crunchland's envious opportunism is one exception.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 9:02 PM on October 2, 2003
*breaks down, starts sobbing, falling to his knees*
No, Ishmael! No! There isn't! I admit it!
*thinks better of throwing himself on the mercy of the court, covers the weeping blisters of ass and retreats pronto*
Well, perhaps crunchland's envious opportunism is one exception.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 9:02 PM on October 2, 2003
Check out my recap of MetaFilter's reaction to the investigation of the Kaycee hoax. It's so creepy! Everybody is so triumphantly credulous and incredibly angry at those sacrilegious Kaycee skeptics. Many of the statements are clearly religious in nature. Many others are positively reactionary.
Matt actually said that he was as certain that Kaycee wasn't a hoax as he was that "gravity pulls things down towards earth"! (and that was one of the more measured pronouncements)
Read the thread and/or recap of it and you'll realize why Matt's link-in-question is pretty good (or at least why it's relevant to this community).
posted by dgaicun at 9:09 PM on October 2, 2003
Matt actually said that he was as certain that Kaycee wasn't a hoax as he was that "gravity pulls things down towards earth"! (and that was one of the more measured pronouncements)
Read the thread and/or recap of it and you'll realize why Matt's link-in-question is pretty good (or at least why it's relevant to this community).
posted by dgaicun at 9:09 PM on October 2, 2003
shitty. like the link to the music video, as an example
WHAT.
THE.
FUCK.
CRUNCHY?
I thought the video was pretty cool and I hadn't seen it anywhere else before. If there was no metafilter, I would have posted it on my personal site.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 9:46 PM on October 2, 2003
WHAT.
THE.
FUCK.
CRUNCHY?
I thought the video was pretty cool and I hadn't seen it anywhere else before. If there was no metafilter, I would have posted it on my personal site.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 9:46 PM on October 2, 2003
"Miguel, is there anything that you don't think is worth discussing?"
How many times do we have to ask this? Worth plays no part. With Miguel it's all about being inane. His goal is to elicit blank stares of incredulity. "What the fuck Miguel?" is like candy to him.
He is very disturbed and should be banned for his own good. As his friends we owe it to him to do this.
posted by y6y6y6 at 10:04 PM on October 2, 2003
How many times do we have to ask this? Worth plays no part. With Miguel it's all about being inane. His goal is to elicit blank stares of incredulity. "What the fuck Miguel?" is like candy to him.
He is very disturbed and should be banned for his own good. As his friends we owe it to him to do this.
posted by y6y6y6 at 10:04 PM on October 2, 2003
*stares at MiguelCardoso incredulously*
*walks away shaking head*
posted by dg at 10:30 PM on October 2, 2003
*walks away shaking head*
posted by dg at 10:30 PM on October 2, 2003
Took some balls to ask the question. And I think it is possible to ask it without it being an immediate challenge to the Haughey.
But come on. Matt's posting quality is so far from questionable overall, even overlooking his authorship, maintenance, and patient moderation of the site, that it hardly bears asking.
When he's sunk to announcing the opening of a new Apple store, let's bring this thread back. Till then: we luv ya, big buy! Rock on in omnipotence!
posted by scarabic at 10:49 PM on October 2, 2003
But come on. Matt's posting quality is so far from questionable overall, even overlooking his authorship, maintenance, and patient moderation of the site, that it hardly bears asking.
When he's sunk to announcing the opening of a new Apple store, let's bring this thread back. Till then: we luv ya, big buy! Rock on in omnipotence!
posted by scarabic at 10:49 PM on October 2, 2003
Sheesh. I'm going to have to chime in for once, Miguel, with my complaint. I don't care how you structure your posts in the blue, because I see those as being your performance pieces, or personality pieces, if you will. That's your style, and that's okay.
MetaTalk, however, is not the same kind of performance space, and what often bothers me about your posts here is the glossy, flowing rhetoric that exists more for its own sake than for addressing any real thought or concern.
To what extent are we allowed - or able - to criticize his posts as if he were just another user?
for example.
Okay, then let's examine the question:
I am not allowed to criticize Matt's post because _________.
(A: I will be banned? It's in the rules?)
I am not able to criticize Matt's post because __________.
(A: My finger is broken? My browser doesn't support that function?)
See? These fill-in-the-blanks seem ridiculous. Are you really wondering if we are "allowed" or "able"? No. Is it nicely alliterative and lovely to read? Yes.
On my get-a-wish-from-Miguel day, I would ask that when you post something here that you strive to be more precise and substantive. If there is a kernel of honest concern in your question, use your skills to expose it instead of hiding it under a lace doily. You probably had a real question here, I'm just not sure what it was. Maybe you wonder if there will be backlash from other members. Maybe you wonder if this would affect how Matt treats your posts in terms of deletion... I just don't know.
posted by taz at 11:13 PM on October 2, 2003
MetaTalk, however, is not the same kind of performance space, and what often bothers me about your posts here is the glossy, flowing rhetoric that exists more for its own sake than for addressing any real thought or concern.
To what extent are we allowed - or able - to criticize his posts as if he were just another user?
for example.
Okay, then let's examine the question:
I am not allowed to criticize Matt's post because _________.
(A: I will be banned? It's in the rules?)
I am not able to criticize Matt's post because __________.
(A: My finger is broken? My browser doesn't support that function?)
See? These fill-in-the-blanks seem ridiculous. Are you really wondering if we are "allowed" or "able"? No. Is it nicely alliterative and lovely to read? Yes.
On my get-a-wish-from-Miguel day, I would ask that when you post something here that you strive to be more precise and substantive. If there is a kernel of honest concern in your question, use your skills to expose it instead of hiding it under a lace doily. You probably had a real question here, I'm just not sure what it was. Maybe you wonder if there will be backlash from other members. Maybe you wonder if this would affect how Matt treats your posts in terms of deletion... I just don't know.
posted by taz at 11:13 PM on October 2, 2003
MetaFilter: A weeping blister hidden under a lace doily.
Gondola? Smock.
So, sometimes Matt does a below-average post.
Sometimes Miguel does a below-average post.
Sometimes I do an above-average post. Honest.
You know what? Around here, "average" IS a higher level than the entire web's "average".
Trying to enforce MetaFilter "standards" is futile, and probably counter-productive. The latitude allowed for each poster's personal voice results in some duds, some bombs, and some beautiful fireworks.
And as I said in another thread, just because it's not to your taste, doesn't mean it's Evil.
Except Billy Ray Cyrus. He is evil.
posted by wendell at 11:51 PM on October 2, 2003
Gondola? Smock.
So, sometimes Matt does a below-average post.
Sometimes Miguel does a below-average post.
Sometimes I do an above-average post. Honest.
You know what? Around here, "average" IS a higher level than the entire web's "average".
Trying to enforce MetaFilter "standards" is futile, and probably counter-productive. The latitude allowed for each poster's personal voice results in some duds, some bombs, and some beautiful fireworks.
And as I said in another thread, just because it's not to your taste, doesn't mean it's Evil.
Except Billy Ray Cyrus. He is evil.
posted by wendell at 11:51 PM on October 2, 2003
My god, Wendell - you're right!
Inwardly you are zealous and fanatical, though you may hide your personal desires and intentions, and the intensity of your feelings. You are driven by a deep inner sense of destiny and mission and an almost compulsive desire for personal recognition. You have an infatuation with power and are incredibly willful and stubbornly fixated on achieving greatness or being Somebody Special. You tend to worship heroes who have powerful personal magnetism and charisma, and often seek to emulate them. You have potential for tremendous good or tremendous evil.
From BRC's astrolgical profile.
posted by taz at 12:05 AM on October 3, 2003
Inwardly you are zealous and fanatical, though you may hide your personal desires and intentions, and the intensity of your feelings. You are driven by a deep inner sense of destiny and mission and an almost compulsive desire for personal recognition. You have an infatuation with power and are incredibly willful and stubbornly fixated on achieving greatness or being Somebody Special. You tend to worship heroes who have powerful personal magnetism and charisma, and often seek to emulate them. You have potential for tremendous good or tremendous evil.
From BRC's astrolgical profile.
posted by taz at 12:05 AM on October 3, 2003
Thanks taz, take a look at all the other celebs who astrology.com said have potential for tremendous good or tremendous evil.
(NSFViewingWithMouthFull)
posted by wendell at 12:13 AM on October 3, 2003
(NSFViewingWithMouthFull)
posted by wendell at 12:13 AM on October 3, 2003
Am I part of the test or control group?
'Cause, I gotta tell ya, I think my pill is made of sugar.
posted by Dagobert at 4:12 AM on October 3, 2003
'Cause, I gotta tell ya, I think my pill is made of sugar.
posted by Dagobert at 4:12 AM on October 3, 2003
I love metatalk, it's the shortcut to all the good FPPs. ;)
posted by dabitch at 4:14 AM on October 3, 2003
posted by dabitch at 4:14 AM on October 3, 2003
I thought the video was pretty cool and I hadn't seen it anywhere else before. If there was no metafilter, I would have posted it on my personal site.
If I or anyone other than you had posted that, I think there would have been a huge pile-on here in metatalk or at least a derail in the thread. You know ... shilling for the man, or whatever crap.
And maybe I'm wrong. I guess it was new, and I hadn't seen it before (and probably wouldn't have seen it otherwise), maybe that was a bad example.
posted by crunchland at 5:24 AM on October 3, 2003
If I or anyone other than you had posted that, I think there would have been a huge pile-on here in metatalk or at least a derail in the thread. You know ... shilling for the man, or whatever crap.
And maybe I'm wrong. I guess it was new, and I hadn't seen it before (and probably wouldn't have seen it otherwise), maybe that was a bad example.
posted by crunchland at 5:24 AM on October 3, 2003
Oh, and I think this post goes a long way to explaining why Miguel does what he does.
posted by crunchland at 5:29 AM on October 3, 2003
posted by crunchland at 5:29 AM on October 3, 2003
"I would ask that when you post something here that you strive to be more precise and substantive."
How about he just doesn't post here at all? When is the last time he made a worthwhile MetaTalk post? When? Last year? Let's just go down the list:
Special treatment for Matt is annoying and insulting. WTF????
So now any idiot who uses the word "Metafilter" in their weblog gets linked Metatalk? WTF????
Here's something we talked about before. Can we talk about it again? WTF????
Someone used the word "MetaFilter". Is MetaFilter still a secret? WTF????
Does block of user numbers have its own personality? WTF????
Someone didn't the word "MetaFilter", but just replace "MetaFilter" for "News". WTF????
I'm an idiot. Is anyone else an idiot? Discuss. WTF????
I'm white. Is everyone else white? Discuss. WTF????
This is a good thread. Shouldn't we allow good threads? Discuss. WTF????
Double post..... WTF????
Someone used the word "MetaFilter". I guess MetaFilter isn't a secret? WTF????
Look, there is a problem here. Miguel is using MetaTalk as his personal web log. MetaTalk is not the place to announce to the world that you had a thought. Have your silly thoughts in your own head and leave me out of it.
The Miguel Rule: MetaTalk is not your personal web log.
posted by y6y6y6 at 5:54 AM on October 3, 2003
How about he just doesn't post here at all? When is the last time he made a worthwhile MetaTalk post? When? Last year? Let's just go down the list:
Special treatment for Matt is annoying and insulting. WTF????
So now any idiot who uses the word "Metafilter" in their weblog gets linked Metatalk? WTF????
Here's something we talked about before. Can we talk about it again? WTF????
Someone used the word "MetaFilter". Is MetaFilter still a secret? WTF????
Does block of user numbers have its own personality? WTF????
Someone didn't the word "MetaFilter", but just replace "MetaFilter" for "News". WTF????
I'm an idiot. Is anyone else an idiot? Discuss. WTF????
I'm white. Is everyone else white? Discuss. WTF????
This is a good thread. Shouldn't we allow good threads? Discuss. WTF????
Double post..... WTF????
Someone used the word "MetaFilter". I guess MetaFilter isn't a secret? WTF????
Look, there is a problem here. Miguel is using MetaTalk as his personal web log. MetaTalk is not the place to announce to the world that you had a thought. Have your silly thoughts in your own head and leave me out of it.
The Miguel Rule: MetaTalk is not your personal web log.
posted by y6y6y6 at 5:54 AM on October 3, 2003
Look, there is a problem here. My typing sucks ass. Does anyone else's typing suck ass? Discuss.
posted by y6y6y6 at 5:59 AM on October 3, 2003
posted by y6y6y6 at 5:59 AM on October 3, 2003
Don't mess with Miguel . . . He'll sue your ass off for libel one of these days. Just 'cause he can.
posted by ashbury at 6:15 AM on October 3, 2003
posted by ashbury at 6:15 AM on October 3, 2003
Well, thanks for being the lone voice of reason here, wendell.
What's with all the jumping all over Miguel because he criticized Matt? Christ, you're all acting like the worst kind of politicians.
Matt, honestly, that post was lame. The music video post was lame as well. Of course, a lot of what gets posted here is (to someone) lame- it's the nature of the beast. Let's all move on, mm'kay?
posted by mkultra at 6:41 AM on October 3, 2003
What's with all the jumping all over Miguel because he criticized Matt? Christ, you're all acting like the worst kind of politicians.
Matt, honestly, that post was lame. The music video post was lame as well. Of course, a lot of what gets posted here is (to someone) lame- it's the nature of the beast. Let's all move on, mm'kay?
posted by mkultra at 6:41 AM on October 3, 2003
i think matt handled it pretty well, all in all. and no, this isn't going to be another *yay matt* post.
i just wanted to say, if it had been from anyone else, we'd have ignored it.
see?
posted by triv at 7:50 AM on October 3, 2003
i just wanted to say, if it had been from anyone else, we'd have ignored it.
see?
posted by triv at 7:50 AM on October 3, 2003
Price Gondolas are be the preferred mode of transportation in the soon to be released installment of
THE GREY SMOCK. (Pt.2)
posted by clavdivs at 7:53 AM on October 3, 2003
THE GREY SMOCK. (Pt.2)
posted by clavdivs at 7:53 AM on October 3, 2003
yaknow, for people who don't seem to like these Miguels-personal-weblog-in-metatalk threads you sure do post a lot in them. (....she said to nobody in particular in the room).
posted by dabitch at 8:03 AM on October 3, 2003
posted by dabitch at 8:03 AM on October 3, 2003
I welcome the insults... let 'er rip.
Jesus weeping Christ, Cardoso. Just shut the fuck up already, you odious oily sycophantic waste of bandwidth.
...
Oh, you meant the thread? I didn't read that. When someone who doesn't make a habit of it posts something that doesn't interest me, I skip it. It only becomes annoying when someone treats the place as their own personal braindumping ground.
posted by sennoma at 8:24 AM on October 3, 2003
Jesus weeping Christ, Cardoso. Just shut the fuck up already, you odious oily sycophantic waste of bandwidth.
...
Oh, you meant the thread? I didn't read that. When someone who doesn't make a habit of it posts something that doesn't interest me, I skip it. It only becomes annoying when someone treats the place as their own personal braindumping ground.
posted by sennoma at 8:24 AM on October 3, 2003
"for people who don't seem to like these Miguels-personal-weblog-in-metatalk threads......"
I have found, over the years, that if you take the time to pee on the more ridiculous of Miguel's MeTa posts, he will indeed start to moderate the amount of crap he posts. Not that everything he posts is crap.
If we didn't ask him to shut up he'd be posting these Rube Goldberg, marginally topical, chat starters every day. He used to do that you know. We seem to have him down to less than one a week.
posted by y6y6y6 at 8:47 AM on October 3, 2003
I have found, over the years, that if you take the time to pee on the more ridiculous of Miguel's MeTa posts, he will indeed start to moderate the amount of crap he posts. Not that everything he posts is crap.
If we didn't ask him to shut up he'd be posting these Rube Goldberg, marginally topical, chat starters every day. He used to do that you know. We seem to have him down to less than one a week.
posted by y6y6y6 at 8:47 AM on October 3, 2003
There is something very cowardly, though bizarrely touching, about constantly and openly insulting someone like me who makes an effort not to respond to insults and to be polite to people in general. You people who are so free with the fucks should really endeavour to find out what - or who - it is in your lives that you're truly angry and frustrated with.
I don't mind being the house sponge for misplaced aggression (I am, after all, an avid student of human behaviour) but, in the long run - excuse the condescension - it's yourselves that you're harming. Not to mention making MetaTalk into a whiney, spiteful gutter of spent energies and obscene catharsis.
To recapitulate the reasons for my post:
Matt's posts are almost always excellent. This post was, in my opinion, sub-standard. As I said straight off (so there's no reason for thinking I was afraid to say anything negative) its link was a tiny news item from a major news source. I didn't get the Kaycee reference (which was not made clear or invoked in Matt's post) so I missed the community perspective, for which apologies. In any case, arguably, it could be considered to suffer from being a bit circle-jerkish.
Still, the post itself wasn't bad enough for a call-out. In fact, in all my time here, I've very rarely complained about other posts. What I wanted to discuss was our absolute freedom to discuss Matt's posts as if he were a member like everyone else.
Matt answered this very well and his debating history backs him up. Still, this is Matt's website and it's therefore natural that he be shown the respect and consideration - and gratitude too - that he deserves. The question of whether he should get special treatment - even if its mostly unconscious - was therefore pertinent.
*falls asleep*
posted by MiguelCardoso at 9:10 AM on October 3, 2003
I don't mind being the house sponge for misplaced aggression (I am, after all, an avid student of human behaviour) but, in the long run - excuse the condescension - it's yourselves that you're harming. Not to mention making MetaTalk into a whiney, spiteful gutter of spent energies and obscene catharsis.
To recapitulate the reasons for my post:
Matt's posts are almost always excellent. This post was, in my opinion, sub-standard. As I said straight off (so there's no reason for thinking I was afraid to say anything negative) its link was a tiny news item from a major news source. I didn't get the Kaycee reference (which was not made clear or invoked in Matt's post) so I missed the community perspective, for which apologies. In any case, arguably, it could be considered to suffer from being a bit circle-jerkish.
Still, the post itself wasn't bad enough for a call-out. In fact, in all my time here, I've very rarely complained about other posts. What I wanted to discuss was our absolute freedom to discuss Matt's posts as if he were a member like everyone else.
Matt answered this very well and his debating history backs him up. Still, this is Matt's website and it's therefore natural that he be shown the respect and consideration - and gratitude too - that he deserves. The question of whether he should get special treatment - even if its mostly unconscious - was therefore pertinent.
*falls asleep*
posted by MiguelCardoso at 9:10 AM on October 3, 2003
I don't mind being the house sponge for misplaced aggression
I have always done my best to be civil in this forum. In fact, I rarely post, as I normally value that civility over speaking my mind somewhere that it matters so little.
However, your misguided, delusional, incredibly insulting assumption compels me to say to you:
Go to hell.
posted by frykitty at 9:50 AM on October 3, 2003
I have always done my best to be civil in this forum. In fact, I rarely post, as I normally value that civility over speaking my mind somewhere that it matters so little.
However, your misguided, delusional, incredibly insulting assumption compels me to say to you:
Go to hell.
posted by frykitty at 9:50 AM on October 3, 2003
"There is something very cowardly about constantly and openly insulting someone like me who makes an effort to be polite to people."
Huh? So if we were polite about it you'd stop? Seriously?
Okay, how about this:
Miguel,
There is a matter which the MeFi community has taken you to task for in the past, and I feel that there is a possibility that you aren't taking it completely seriously, or that (and I'm sure this isn't the case) you don't understand. I was wondering if we might take up this matter. Let me elaborate.
I think we will all agree that your contributions here have helped shape MetaFilter into what it is. And of course you've shared many wonderful posts with us, and have given rise to many stimulating discussions. Bravo. While it's just my humble opinion, I think it's not too much of an exaggeration to say that if MetaFilter is one of the best known community weblogs, you are one of it's best known members. And we appreciate that. Your legendary impact is a solid part of the MetaFilter ethos.
But, and I feel I speak for many here, your MetaTalk posts may not be up to the standards (such as they are) of this fine website you've become such an integral part of. To be blunt, and with all due respect, your MetaTalk posts might be better suited for some other forum. Perhaps, if I may be so bold, a personal weblog?
This may sound condescending, but please don't take it that way. While obviously you are an intelligent and articulate person, you don't seem to be listening to the concerns of your fellow members. The issue has been raised (rudely I admit, please look beyond that) that many of your posts are little more than fleeting thoughts which shouldn't have been expanded out into full-blown threads. More than once the argument has been made that you are asking for debate on matters where consensus or enumeration might be seen as frivolous.
I worry that I may be a presumptuous, lone voice on this issue, but there does seem to be some support from the other members. Even the site owner has repeatedly offered that perhaps some of your MetaTalk posts are not strictly "cricket".
Please don't take this as a personal attack. I just wanted to clear the air and make sure you knew about this issue and had the chance to take it seriously. I suspect that you may feel defensively about what I've said, and that's natural, but please at least consider the possibility that a certain subset of your actions, on this one website, may be inappropriate. Please take the repeated calls for you to desist, not as an angry mob (as much as it may appear that way), but more as a plea from your fellow members, who love you like a brother, that you alter your posting style.
You have our respect, which has been given many times. And thus I hesitate to even bring this up. But as the chorus of negative voices continues, surely you can entertain the possibility that it is indeed your behavior which is the root problem.
This is just one web traveler's opinion. And of course MetaFilter has no hard and fast rules about these things. But I hope you will at least take what I've said into consideration. We all know you are better than this. I'm sure everyone will join me in wishing you the best and looking forward to your continued, if perhaps modified, participation.
posted by y6y6y6 at 10:12 AM on October 3, 2003
Huh? So if we were polite about it you'd stop? Seriously?
Okay, how about this:
Miguel,
There is a matter which the MeFi community has taken you to task for in the past, and I feel that there is a possibility that you aren't taking it completely seriously, or that (and I'm sure this isn't the case) you don't understand. I was wondering if we might take up this matter. Let me elaborate.
I think we will all agree that your contributions here have helped shape MetaFilter into what it is. And of course you've shared many wonderful posts with us, and have given rise to many stimulating discussions. Bravo. While it's just my humble opinion, I think it's not too much of an exaggeration to say that if MetaFilter is one of the best known community weblogs, you are one of it's best known members. And we appreciate that. Your legendary impact is a solid part of the MetaFilter ethos.
But, and I feel I speak for many here, your MetaTalk posts may not be up to the standards (such as they are) of this fine website you've become such an integral part of. To be blunt, and with all due respect, your MetaTalk posts might be better suited for some other forum. Perhaps, if I may be so bold, a personal weblog?
This may sound condescending, but please don't take it that way. While obviously you are an intelligent and articulate person, you don't seem to be listening to the concerns of your fellow members. The issue has been raised (rudely I admit, please look beyond that) that many of your posts are little more than fleeting thoughts which shouldn't have been expanded out into full-blown threads. More than once the argument has been made that you are asking for debate on matters where consensus or enumeration might be seen as frivolous.
I worry that I may be a presumptuous, lone voice on this issue, but there does seem to be some support from the other members. Even the site owner has repeatedly offered that perhaps some of your MetaTalk posts are not strictly "cricket".
Please don't take this as a personal attack. I just wanted to clear the air and make sure you knew about this issue and had the chance to take it seriously. I suspect that you may feel defensively about what I've said, and that's natural, but please at least consider the possibility that a certain subset of your actions, on this one website, may be inappropriate. Please take the repeated calls for you to desist, not as an angry mob (as much as it may appear that way), but more as a plea from your fellow members, who love you like a brother, that you alter your posting style.
You have our respect, which has been given many times. And thus I hesitate to even bring this up. But as the chorus of negative voices continues, surely you can entertain the possibility that it is indeed your behavior which is the root problem.
This is just one web traveler's opinion. And of course MetaFilter has no hard and fast rules about these things. But I hope you will at least take what I've said into consideration. We all know you are better than this. I'm sure everyone will join me in wishing you the best and looking forward to your continued, if perhaps modified, participation.
posted by y6y6y6 at 10:12 AM on October 3, 2003
It is so obvious we need new blood around here. People here are bored and snappy and hate each other for being too predictable. The good news with that is, on the blue, many of the typical fight subjects have disappeared, but it hasn't help the mood in MetaTalk at all.
Miguel, I think your navel-gazing posts in MetaTalk exacerbate this, if only because they remind people of how bored they are.
As far as the blue goes, I don't mind the occasional marginally topical chat starters so much, mainly because they're one of the few kinds of posts that generate sizable slapfight-free discussion. They're not the best posts in the world, but there's much worse.
posted by furiousthought at 10:36 AM on October 3, 2003
Miguel, I think your navel-gazing posts in MetaTalk exacerbate this, if only because they remind people of how bored they are.
As far as the blue goes, I don't mind the occasional marginally topical chat starters so much, mainly because they're one of the few kinds of posts that generate sizable slapfight-free discussion. They're not the best posts in the world, but there's much worse.
posted by furiousthought at 10:36 AM on October 3, 2003
Dear Mr. Cardosa:
Thanks for letting us consider your submission about the quality of Matt's recent post which I am returning herewith.
While your submission about the quality of Matt's recent post is certainly much different than what we usually received here at Metafilter.com, the editor who read it was both dazzled and disappointed with the book. Your writing style is enthusiastic and exuberant, and yet at the same time, it is highbrow and self-centered, and I don't think it would appeal to a large audience.
Every book is a gamble, but I'm afraid your submission about the quality of Matt's recent post is too much of a gamble, especially in today's tough marketplace.
I wish you the best of luck in placing your submission about the quality of Matt's recent post on another website.
Sincerely,
The Users of Metafilter.com
posted by crunchland at 10:40 AM on October 3, 2003
Thanks for letting us consider your submission about the quality of Matt's recent post which I am returning herewith.
While your submission about the quality of Matt's recent post is certainly much different than what we usually received here at Metafilter.com, the editor who read it was both dazzled and disappointed with the book. Your writing style is enthusiastic and exuberant, and yet at the same time, it is highbrow and self-centered, and I don't think it would appeal to a large audience.
Every book is a gamble, but I'm afraid your submission about the quality of Matt's recent post is too much of a gamble, especially in today's tough marketplace.
I wish you the best of luck in placing your submission about the quality of Matt's recent post on another website.
Sincerely,
The Users of Metafilter.com
posted by crunchland at 10:40 AM on October 3, 2003
Miguel, I've never been constantly or openly insulting to anyone, or, in fact, insulting at all, to anybody. Nor do I have, or ever displayed, any "misplaced aggression" towards anyone. In fact, au contraire.
But, you do go over the top. You make people take sides, you make people respond even when they don't want to, and I'm beginning to believe that this is part of your pathology. I am beginning to view you as a classically narcissistic opportunist, and this is [not good].
posted by taz at 11:33 AM on October 3, 2003
But, you do go over the top. You make people take sides, you make people respond even when they don't want to, and I'm beginning to believe that this is part of your pathology. I am beginning to view you as a classically narcissistic opportunist, and this is [not good].
posted by taz at 11:33 AM on October 3, 2003
Why don't you people quit ganging up on Miguel? You're acting like he's Bunnyfire or something. If you don't like his posts ignore them- and if they are bad Matt will delete them. T hese past few days I have seen at least two meta posts which fit the personal style you all claim to hate, and no one jumped on them. Quit acting like playground bullies and grow up- or at the very least be consistent.
And if nothing else re member that he who is without sin should cast the f irst sto ne. If you make nothing but spotless perfect posts, let the rest of us know. Otherwise please chill out.
posted by konolia at 12:06 PM on October 3, 2003
And if nothing else re member that he who is without sin should cast the f irst sto ne. If you make nothing but spotless perfect posts, let the rest of us know. Otherwise please chill out.
posted by konolia at 12:06 PM on October 3, 2003
what konolia said : >
and miguel: remember this?
The greatness of MetaFilter: Matt steps in to defend a post of his to a newbie. :)
posted by MiguelCardoso at 4:50 PM PST on August 29
posted by amberglow at 12:21 PM on October 3, 2003
and miguel: remember this?
The greatness of MetaFilter: Matt steps in to defend a post of his to a newbie. :)
posted by MiguelCardoso at 4:50 PM PST on August 29
posted by amberglow at 12:21 PM on October 3, 2003
It is so obvious we need new blood around here. People here are bored and snappy and hate each other for being too predictable.
I do not share this opinion. More voices will not make anyone behave better and may quite well add to the rancor. Much of the nastiness is related to the political news and the polarized state of things in the country and world. Open the rolls now and the unintended result could be get more trolls now. People are bored? Get interested and get interesting--simple as that.
posted by y2karl at 12:24 PM on October 3, 2003
I do not share this opinion. More voices will not make anyone behave better and may quite well add to the rancor. Much of the nastiness is related to the political news and the polarized state of things in the country and world. Open the rolls now and the unintended result could be get more trolls now. People are bored? Get interested and get interesting--simple as that.
posted by y2karl at 12:24 PM on October 3, 2003
I said case closed, dammit. Imagine if Encylopedia Brown had to put up with this much flak from his posse of problem-solving pre-pubescents everytime he delcared a case closed.
Personally, I find the same two people harping about Miguel every time he posts something to MetaTalk to be as agenda-ridden as they claim anything he does to be. Ok, so Miguel likes to discuss the features of this community a little too often. If you don't like it, and don't think it's what MetaTalk should be for, then the last thing you should be doing is slamming him with this vitriolic rubbish about what a blight he is on the community.
If anyone cares to know, I happen to find the factors surrounding the interaction of an online community, especially one with as many strictly enforced (or at least talked about) norms as this one to be extremely interesting, although I'd agree that in the past Matt has discouraged this sort of discussion on MT by making clear it is not for chatting. I don't think, however, that it is entirely clear whether it's idle chatting to discuss if a presently-closed community with one person in charge is capable of treating all on equal footing, or whether certain blocks of users act differently than others according to how long they waited to join the site, etc.
You might find it boring, some people--perhaps people interested in sociology--might disagree.
Look, ma, not caustic!
posted by The God Complex at 12:34 PM on October 3, 2003
Personally, I find the same two people harping about Miguel every time he posts something to MetaTalk to be as agenda-ridden as they claim anything he does to be. Ok, so Miguel likes to discuss the features of this community a little too often. If you don't like it, and don't think it's what MetaTalk should be for, then the last thing you should be doing is slamming him with this vitriolic rubbish about what a blight he is on the community.
If anyone cares to know, I happen to find the factors surrounding the interaction of an online community, especially one with as many strictly enforced (or at least talked about) norms as this one to be extremely interesting, although I'd agree that in the past Matt has discouraged this sort of discussion on MT by making clear it is not for chatting. I don't think, however, that it is entirely clear whether it's idle chatting to discuss if a presently-closed community with one person in charge is capable of treating all on equal footing, or whether certain blocks of users act differently than others according to how long they waited to join the site, etc.
You might find it boring, some people--perhaps people interested in sociology--might disagree.
Look, ma, not caustic!
posted by The God Complex at 12:34 PM on October 3, 2003
I don't think, however, that it is entirely clear whether it's idle chatting to discuss if a presently-closed community with one person in charge is capable of treating all on equal footing, or whether certain blocks of users act differently than others according to how long they waited to join the site, etc.
Is this the question that Miguel asked? Go back. Read the post. Figure out what the question really was, and whether it is worth your time to try to answer it.
posted by taz at 1:29 PM on October 3, 2003
Is this the question that Miguel asked? Go back. Read the post. Figure out what the question really was, and whether it is worth your time to try to answer it.
posted by taz at 1:29 PM on October 3, 2003
In any case, arguably, it could be considered to suffer from being a bit circle-jerkish.
There have been a few threads that are arguably core to the growth of this site. 911 is one of the biggest, the Seattle earthquake helped expose the real time power of blogs. Kaycee was quite possibly a defining moment for MetaFilter. It's possibly as important to the site's history as that catscan site.
That you don't get the reference can rather easily be seen as a complete disregard for the history of this site and community before you decided to come around. It's not something you should parade as evidence of the low quality of Matt's post. That you do is evidence of your ignorance of what made this site a great place before you came along.
I agree with y6y6y6, you've significantly contributed to the site and helped define what the site is now. That doesn't excuse you from ignoring and not caring about it's history.
That you have to wonder whether or not Matt's open to criticism is even more evidence that you just might have no actual concept of the spirit of this community.
I don't think that's true, I just can't comprehend worrying about asking Matt a question. Matt has never shied away from people who have questioned his actions, his policies or his choices.
Whenever questioned he has explained what drives his decisions, what factors he's considered (way more than any of us, as a general rule) and why he does what he does.
To me it's more offensive that you even have to wonder than that you have no concept of what Kaycee meant to this place's growth and development.
posted by cCranium at 2:44 PM on October 3, 2003
There have been a few threads that are arguably core to the growth of this site. 911 is one of the biggest, the Seattle earthquake helped expose the real time power of blogs. Kaycee was quite possibly a defining moment for MetaFilter. It's possibly as important to the site's history as that catscan site.
That you don't get the reference can rather easily be seen as a complete disregard for the history of this site and community before you decided to come around. It's not something you should parade as evidence of the low quality of Matt's post. That you do is evidence of your ignorance of what made this site a great place before you came along.
I agree with y6y6y6, you've significantly contributed to the site and helped define what the site is now. That doesn't excuse you from ignoring and not caring about it's history.
That you have to wonder whether or not Matt's open to criticism is even more evidence that you just might have no actual concept of the spirit of this community.
I don't think that's true, I just can't comprehend worrying about asking Matt a question. Matt has never shied away from people who have questioned his actions, his policies or his choices.
Whenever questioned he has explained what drives his decisions, what factors he's considered (way more than any of us, as a general rule) and why he does what he does.
To me it's more offensive that you even have to wonder than that you have no concept of what Kaycee meant to this place's growth and development.
posted by cCranium at 2:44 PM on October 3, 2003
Well said, cCranium. Seriously, Miguel, you seem to be a nice guy and you post some good things, but you're way way way way way way way way way way way way too self-absorbed. I say that in the most politest possible tone of voice.
posted by languagehat at 3:09 PM on October 3, 2003
posted by languagehat at 3:09 PM on October 3, 2003
Imagine if Encylopedia Brown had to put up with this much flak from his posse of problem-solving pre-pubescents everytime he delcared a case closed.
He didn't have a posse, it was just him in the first two stories in the book (the second contained the gang "The Tigers") and then Sally helped in out in the third story and from then on. Occasionally an additional pre-pubescent would be recuited, but it was never for more than a single story.
Anyhow...
posted by j.edwards at 3:32 PM on October 3, 2003
He didn't have a posse, it was just him in the first two stories in the book (the second contained the gang "The Tigers") and then Sally helped in out in the third story and from then on. Occasionally an additional pre-pubescent would be recuited, but it was never for more than a single story.
Anyhow...
posted by j.edwards at 3:32 PM on October 3, 2003
I don't think, however, that it is entirely clear whether it's idle chatting to discuss if a presently-closed community with one person in charge is capable of treating all on equal footing, or whether certain blocks of users act differently than others according to how long they waited to join the site, etc.
The second example I gave was in reference to an earlier thread, which I thought was--to some extent, at least--as poorly worded as this one; I think that's the problem. Miguel seems to gravitate towards making things seem off the cuff and conversational (not unlike what you'd expect from a gracious host at an upscale dinner party), which seems to weaken any point he wants to make or question he wants to ask. It seems people here value clarity of expression very highly: a microcosm of this has been on parade in this thread, with your own admonishments of Miguel's unclear question-asking skills (something you pointed out earlier in the thread when you asked him to be more precise and substantive).
Now, to be fair, I think this thread may be a poor place for this argument to take place because I think the question, especially with the example given, to be a very simple one to resolve; I also think, however, that my first post in this thread and the subsequent one pertaining to Matt's exclusion of any link to previous kaycee incident could lead any number of post-kaycee members (myself included) to misunderstand the post. I don't know what Miguel knows about the situation, or if he knows about it and is drawing attention to this case in order to highlight the possibility that other members might misinterpret it. I guess it goes back to your request that Miguel be more substantive and precise when he posts.
I suppose, then, that all this has been my meandering way of agreeing with you and pointing out that the continued acidic comments directed his way by certain members are both rude and counterproductive to resolving any differences.
posted by The God Complex at 3:35 PM on October 3, 2003
The second example I gave was in reference to an earlier thread, which I thought was--to some extent, at least--as poorly worded as this one; I think that's the problem. Miguel seems to gravitate towards making things seem off the cuff and conversational (not unlike what you'd expect from a gracious host at an upscale dinner party), which seems to weaken any point he wants to make or question he wants to ask. It seems people here value clarity of expression very highly: a microcosm of this has been on parade in this thread, with your own admonishments of Miguel's unclear question-asking skills (something you pointed out earlier in the thread when you asked him to be more precise and substantive).
Now, to be fair, I think this thread may be a poor place for this argument to take place because I think the question, especially with the example given, to be a very simple one to resolve; I also think, however, that my first post in this thread and the subsequent one pertaining to Matt's exclusion of any link to previous kaycee incident could lead any number of post-kaycee members (myself included) to misunderstand the post. I don't know what Miguel knows about the situation, or if he knows about it and is drawing attention to this case in order to highlight the possibility that other members might misinterpret it. I guess it goes back to your request that Miguel be more substantive and precise when he posts.
I suppose, then, that all this has been my meandering way of agreeing with you and pointing out that the continued acidic comments directed his way by certain members are both rude and counterproductive to resolving any differences.
posted by The God Complex at 3:35 PM on October 3, 2003
(so nobody gets confused, I was quoting myself to point out what I was referencing)
posted by The God Complex at 3:37 PM on October 3, 2003
posted by The God Complex at 3:37 PM on October 3, 2003
(I am, after all, an avid student of human behaviour)
But, evidently, not a very good one. Unless you're just trolling to invoke a response, you have to wonder why most Mefites (except konolia, presumbly a father figure attraction here) think your mefi personality sucks. I'm not completely against good trolls, but it's gets a little tedious unless you change tack every so often.
posted by carfilhiot at 4:04 PM on October 3, 2003
But, evidently, not a very good one. Unless you're just trolling to invoke a response, you have to wonder why most Mefites (except konolia, presumbly a father figure attraction here) think your mefi personality sucks. I'm not completely against good trolls, but it's gets a little tedious unless you change tack every so often.
posted by carfilhiot at 4:04 PM on October 3, 2003
You're not speaking for me, carfilhiot, or anyone else who thinks gratuitous personal attacks like your comment there suck.
posted by y2karl at 4:26 PM on October 3, 2003
posted by y2karl at 4:26 PM on October 3, 2003
He ain't old enough to be my father.
As fond as I am of Miguel, I would defend any member whom I saw being attacked over and over like this. It isn't right, it isn't fair, and I will keep squawking about it for as long as it keeps happening.
Especially if other posters keep getting a free ride with the same sorts of posts.
posted by konolia at 4:35 PM on October 3, 2003
As fond as I am of Miguel, I would defend any member whom I saw being attacked over and over like this. It isn't right, it isn't fair, and I will keep squawking about it for as long as it keeps happening.
Especially if other posters keep getting a free ride with the same sorts of posts.
posted by konolia at 4:35 PM on October 3, 2003
I hope Miguel is taking this with as much humour as I am. These kinds of threads (and there are so many, both started by Miguel and not) slid into self-parody long ago (and I don't mean Miguel self-parodizing, although he may well be, for all I know). They are a hoot.
Still, it is true that his Metatalk threads do tend to be weak and chatty in tone, and may well have spurred the growth of our current welter of weak and chatty Metatalk threads with their simple presence. I stopped worrying about it quite a while back, though.
Carry on.
(Also, keep it up with the politeness, y6. It's a vast improvement to your customary persona, I gotta say. Er, ~wink~)
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:53 PM on October 3, 2003
Still, it is true that his Metatalk threads do tend to be weak and chatty in tone, and may well have spurred the growth of our current welter of weak and chatty Metatalk threads with their simple presence. I stopped worrying about it quite a while back, though.
Carry on.
(Also, keep it up with the politeness, y6. It's a vast improvement to your customary persona, I gotta say. Er, ~wink~)
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:53 PM on October 3, 2003
(Oh, yeah, and I think Matt's post was just fine, even though I never cared much about the whole Kaycee thing, although I understand of course that many find it a defining Mefi Moment.
Also, I'm not implying that y6 and foldy are the same person, above, there. I see now that it looks like I might have been. Just funnin' around.)
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:58 PM on October 3, 2003
Also, I'm not implying that y6 and foldy are the same person, above, there. I see now that it looks like I might have been. Just funnin' around.)
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:58 PM on October 3, 2003
I wish there was something original to be said. I've done my share of Miguel-bashing and then some. Obviously I disagree with Miguel's MeTa style. What's less obvious is how Miguel's presence has affected MeFi's current "cast of characters". I am under the impression that Miguel's chattiness has caused many more members of this community to take their comments less seriously. Of course, quonsar, ColdChef, Stan Chin, etc. have all helped with this. This change has gone unchecked; therefore, it's now more the norm than ever before.
This isn't all Miguel's fault. The chattiness of MeTa can be placed squarely on the owner's shoulders. At any point in the past 3 years Matt could have said to Miguel, "Your style is nice, but not MeFi." At any point Matt could have made it very clear that barely-tangible-to-MeFi MeTa threads were not welcome, but he either didn't have the time to constantly monitor the site, didn't really care one way or the other, or something else altogether.
Miguel is a rather large pain in the ass for many people, and his ongoing arrogance and faux-compassion for members of this site are despicable, IMHO, but he's never been banned. He's never been placed on probation. In fact, except for a couple of weeks here and there, he has consistently been more of a presence on this site than Matt. Can you really blame him for these rather terrible threads?
posted by BlueTrain at 9:25 PM on October 3, 2003
This isn't all Miguel's fault. The chattiness of MeTa can be placed squarely on the owner's shoulders. At any point in the past 3 years Matt could have said to Miguel, "Your style is nice, but not MeFi." At any point Matt could have made it very clear that barely-tangible-to-MeFi MeTa threads were not welcome, but he either didn't have the time to constantly monitor the site, didn't really care one way or the other, or something else altogether.
Miguel is a rather large pain in the ass for many people, and his ongoing arrogance and faux-compassion for members of this site are despicable, IMHO, but he's never been banned. He's never been placed on probation. In fact, except for a couple of weeks here and there, he has consistently been more of a presence on this site than Matt. Can you really blame him for these rather terrible threads?
posted by BlueTrain at 9:25 PM on October 3, 2003
A rather large pain in the ass? Arrogance? Oooh, it makes me wonder... Considering the source, one has to bow to expertise in these matters.
I'd rather have chatty than grandiloquent self righteous bombast any day of the week.
posted by y2karl at 9:42 PM on October 3, 2003
I'd rather have chatty than grandiloquent self righteous bombast any day of the week.
posted by y2karl at 9:42 PM on October 3, 2003
Oooh, it makes me wonder...
Prove that I have an ongoing feud with anyone. Prove it with examples from the last month. Prove an egregrious pattern of harassment on my part. - y2karl
How many times have you followed me and mentioned that lyric?
I'd rather have chatty than grandiloquent self righteous bombast any day of the week.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, because I'd rather have a "graniloquent self righteous bombast" who actually respects the rules of this site and appreciates the owner than an intelligent and manipulating writer who uses their ability to feed their own ego.
posted by BlueTrain at 9:59 PM on October 3, 2003
Prove that I have an ongoing feud with anyone. Prove it with examples from the last month. Prove an egregrious pattern of harassment on my part. - y2karl
How many times have you followed me and mentioned that lyric?
I'd rather have chatty than grandiloquent self righteous bombast any day of the week.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, because I'd rather have a "graniloquent self righteous bombast" who actually respects the rules of this site and appreciates the owner than an intelligent and manipulating writer who uses their ability to feed their own ego.
posted by BlueTrain at 9:59 PM on October 3, 2003
BlueTrain: for the record, Matt has deleted a lot of my MeTa threads. I.e. the worst. Rightly, I'm afraid, in every instance (but one). He has also chided me personally about being self-indulgent and, well, the way I am, which is par for the course for writers but, as I appreciate, poison for community weblogs.
There's a lot of behind-the-scenes work which Matt undertakes regularly which goes unremarked because it doesn't show up later on lo-fi and takes place mainly by e-mail and silently. It's unfair to blame whatever bugs you on his lack of "time" - as far as I'm concerned, he's always aware of almost everything.
I'd also thank you to stop referring to other people's compassion (or passion) as "faux". How do you know? Imputing false motives to people, without proof or even argument, is unfair. Have you ever considered that, quite probably, we all are as we are and very little can be done about it?
Though I agree that "very little" is all the more important because of it. I used to overpost violently - it's in my nature; I'm enthusiastic; I love MetaFilter; I'm hyperactive - but I've slowly managed to tone down. With a little more time, I'll ruffle fewer feathers. Though I'll be damned if I pretend to be someone I'm not. Not because I wouldn't want to. Because it can't be done. What interest would it to be to you to know the ideal, improved version of BlueTrain for me or for anyone else?
We're all in this together but what matters is this, not us. We don't know each other; we simply exchange a few sentences now and then. And that is how it should be - attacking persons and personalities is not only ignorant and bad form: it's ridiculous.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 10:04 PM on October 3, 2003
There's a lot of behind-the-scenes work which Matt undertakes regularly which goes unremarked because it doesn't show up later on lo-fi and takes place mainly by e-mail and silently. It's unfair to blame whatever bugs you on his lack of "time" - as far as I'm concerned, he's always aware of almost everything.
I'd also thank you to stop referring to other people's compassion (or passion) as "faux". How do you know? Imputing false motives to people, without proof or even argument, is unfair. Have you ever considered that, quite probably, we all are as we are and very little can be done about it?
Though I agree that "very little" is all the more important because of it. I used to overpost violently - it's in my nature; I'm enthusiastic; I love MetaFilter; I'm hyperactive - but I've slowly managed to tone down. With a little more time, I'll ruffle fewer feathers. Though I'll be damned if I pretend to be someone I'm not. Not because I wouldn't want to. Because it can't be done. What interest would it to be to you to know the ideal, improved version of BlueTrain for me or for anyone else?
We're all in this together but what matters is this, not us. We don't know each other; we simply exchange a few sentences now and then. And that is how it should be - attacking persons and personalities is not only ignorant and bad form: it's ridiculous.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 10:04 PM on October 3, 2003
I'll be damned if I pretend to be someone I'm not.
Well, after your generous bestowal of a medal, you can count me, for one, as someone who will never try to get you to pretend to be someone you're not.
Oh, unless that other someone is someone who doesn't post to MetaTalk quiiiiite so often.
(insert your choice of emoticon or f&m-ism here)
In fact, except for a couple of weeks here and there, he has consistently been more of a presence on this site than Matt.
Yeah, and Matt is always, like, posting threads and comments left and right! He's all over the place!
posted by soyjoy at 10:19 PM on October 3, 2003
Well, after your generous bestowal of a medal, you can count me, for one, as someone who will never try to get you to pretend to be someone you're not.
Oh, unless that other someone is someone who doesn't post to MetaTalk quiiiiite so often.
(insert your choice of emoticon or f&m-ism here)
In fact, except for a couple of weeks here and there, he has consistently been more of a presence on this site than Matt.
Yeah, and Matt is always, like, posting threads and comments left and right! He's all over the place!
posted by soyjoy at 10:19 PM on October 3, 2003
How many times have you followed me and mentioned that lyric?
Boy, I really am the ruff tuff cream puff, picking on you so.
posted by y2karl at 10:28 PM on October 3, 2003
Boy, I really am the ruff tuff cream puff, picking on you so.
posted by y2karl at 10:28 PM on October 3, 2003
And that is how it should be - attacking persons and personalities is not only ignorant and bad form: it's ridiculous.
Agreed. I apologize for my personal attacks here tonight. One of the many reasons for my lack of participation is the fact that I was too immature to realize that human beings were behind the posts here on MeFi, and I didn't respect the community. Typing words onto a screen without a care for people can lead to a rather mean-spirited demeanor, which is what I cut out for myself.
This MeTa post was superfluous. frykitty said it best above, and I dare not repeat it lest I be called out for being an ass again.
I hate your posting style to MetaTalk, Miguel. You know that. Over the past few years I've grown to tolerate it, but I occasionally lash out (quick temper and all). Nothing I can say will help resolve anything here. I understand that my 15 minutes are over. So I'll leave it with this: I apologize for my personal attack. It was unnecessary and mean-spirited.
posted by BlueTrain at 10:34 PM on October 3, 2003
Agreed. I apologize for my personal attacks here tonight. One of the many reasons for my lack of participation is the fact that I was too immature to realize that human beings were behind the posts here on MeFi, and I didn't respect the community. Typing words onto a screen without a care for people can lead to a rather mean-spirited demeanor, which is what I cut out for myself.
This MeTa post was superfluous. frykitty said it best above, and I dare not repeat it lest I be called out for being an ass again.
I hate your posting style to MetaTalk, Miguel. You know that. Over the past few years I've grown to tolerate it, but I occasionally lash out (quick temper and all). Nothing I can say will help resolve anything here. I understand that my 15 minutes are over. So I'll leave it with this: I apologize for my personal attack. It was unnecessary and mean-spirited.
posted by BlueTrain at 10:34 PM on October 3, 2003
Fair enough, BlueTrain. Thanks. I hope it was apparent from my reply that I sincerely value your contributions and, just as you have grown to grin and bear it with me, I too have learnt how to appreciate your opinion by filtering out your natural dislike of my behaviour and style. No "faux", no phony; no BS.
You're a mensch, that's for sure. And that's about as good as it gets. Perhaps in another life we'll be on the same side? Or what that be too boring for words? :)
posted by MiguelCardoso at 10:41 PM on October 3, 2003
You're a mensch, that's for sure. And that's about as good as it gets. Perhaps in another life we'll be on the same side? Or what that be too boring for words? :)
posted by MiguelCardoso at 10:41 PM on October 3, 2003
I'm going to chime in here with a kick at Miguel, too.
Migs, I really, *really* liked some of your FPPs when I first came to MeFi. And you've posted really insightful, humourous, and superlative comments to various threads.
But, by god, do you ever post a lot of really lousy shit to MetaTalk. There are times when you're like some sort of spammer. It's simply awful.
I suggest you take the same sort of approach to thread-creation as a lot of other fine folk: think twice, and unless you're certain that your doing something that's better than what 99% of the rest of the MeFi population would do, cancel it. Err on the side of silence.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:01 PM on October 3, 2003
Migs, I really, *really* liked some of your FPPs when I first came to MeFi. And you've posted really insightful, humourous, and superlative comments to various threads.
But, by god, do you ever post a lot of really lousy shit to MetaTalk. There are times when you're like some sort of spammer. It's simply awful.
I suggest you take the same sort of approach to thread-creation as a lot of other fine folk: think twice, and unless you're certain that your doing something that's better than what 99% of the rest of the MeFi population would do, cancel it. Err on the side of silence.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:01 PM on October 3, 2003
"We're all in this together but what matters is this, not us."
"attacking persons and personalities is not only ignorant and bad form: it's ridiculous."
The contradiction arising from these two snippets is the root of the disconnect.
If what matters is this (MetaFilter), and attacking persons and personalities is an ingrained part of it, then it can not be ridiculous. Indeed, in this this place (MetaTalk) it seems very appropriate. Isn't this the place where we discuss, as the point at hand, persons and personalities?
Look, it's very easy to say that we should all be polite and treat each other in a professional manner. And it sounds good - Polite is good. Proper conduct is good. But in this context it's also naive. MetaTalk is the place where we hash out how things should or should not be. This is the place where we take up behavior and style and personality.
So we find ourselves, all 1000 or so who regularly participate, congregating in a virtual space and asked to weigh in on minutia.
Now, I ask you, on what planet, in what wild fantasy, are 1000 random people who don't know each other going to avoid personal attacks when discussing personalities? I would lobby you that those who think MetaFilter should never have attacks on persons or personalities don't really like MetaFilter. They like something that MetaFilter isn't and will never be.
Frankly I feel that personal attacks be both intelligent and necessary under many circumstances. And the success of MetaFilter, even though it has the reputation for being a haven for mean, snarky assholes, would seem to bear that out. And so I will continue to be polite when I think it's best, and rude when I think that's best. And if you don't like it you're free to fuck off and not come back. And conversely, if I don't like the smarmy pollyanna crowd here, I'm free to leave and not come back.
Right? We don't agree. But that's the nature of this virtual space. We see each other's behavior as wrong and counterproductive, but we still have a very persistent and coveted community. Right?
And in that context I feel that shitting on Miguel's more inane posts is justified and necessary. I think his contribution has, over the years, made MetaFilter much worse. His hyperactive and constant posts on the minutia of drinking beverages (just one example) have caused MetaFilter to lose any focus it ever had. MetaFilter used to be about the web and the wonderful things that were blossoming out of it.
Now MetaFilter is about things we haven't seem before. Anything. Any tiny, inane bit of trivia is a good post. You want a recipe for a good post these days? Open an encyclopedia at random, note the first entry, do a Google search, grab two links, form a paragraph with them and post it. That's a good post these days.
We are now MundaneTopicFilter, and I blame Miguel.
And I have found that pulling out my dick and peeing on him does get results. If you try and be polite he just shrugs and continues with the crap. If you pee on him he at least stops long enough to listen.
And thus - Attacking persons and personalities is not ignorant or bad form: it's MetaFilter. Or at least an important part of it.
posted by y6y6y6 at 6:48 AM on October 4, 2003
"attacking persons and personalities is not only ignorant and bad form: it's ridiculous."
The contradiction arising from these two snippets is the root of the disconnect.
If what matters is this (MetaFilter), and attacking persons and personalities is an ingrained part of it, then it can not be ridiculous. Indeed, in this this place (MetaTalk) it seems very appropriate. Isn't this the place where we discuss, as the point at hand, persons and personalities?
Look, it's very easy to say that we should all be polite and treat each other in a professional manner. And it sounds good - Polite is good. Proper conduct is good. But in this context it's also naive. MetaTalk is the place where we hash out how things should or should not be. This is the place where we take up behavior and style and personality.
So we find ourselves, all 1000 or so who regularly participate, congregating in a virtual space and asked to weigh in on minutia.
Now, I ask you, on what planet, in what wild fantasy, are 1000 random people who don't know each other going to avoid personal attacks when discussing personalities? I would lobby you that those who think MetaFilter should never have attacks on persons or personalities don't really like MetaFilter. They like something that MetaFilter isn't and will never be.
Frankly I feel that personal attacks be both intelligent and necessary under many circumstances. And the success of MetaFilter, even though it has the reputation for being a haven for mean, snarky assholes, would seem to bear that out. And so I will continue to be polite when I think it's best, and rude when I think that's best. And if you don't like it you're free to fuck off and not come back. And conversely, if I don't like the smarmy pollyanna crowd here, I'm free to leave and not come back.
Right? We don't agree. But that's the nature of this virtual space. We see each other's behavior as wrong and counterproductive, but we still have a very persistent and coveted community. Right?
And in that context I feel that shitting on Miguel's more inane posts is justified and necessary. I think his contribution has, over the years, made MetaFilter much worse. His hyperactive and constant posts on the minutia of drinking beverages (just one example) have caused MetaFilter to lose any focus it ever had. MetaFilter used to be about the web and the wonderful things that were blossoming out of it.
Now MetaFilter is about things we haven't seem before. Anything. Any tiny, inane bit of trivia is a good post. You want a recipe for a good post these days? Open an encyclopedia at random, note the first entry, do a Google search, grab two links, form a paragraph with them and post it. That's a good post these days.
We are now MundaneTopicFilter, and I blame Miguel.
And I have found that pulling out my dick and peeing on him does get results. If you try and be polite he just shrugs and continues with the crap. If you pee on him he at least stops long enough to listen.
And thus - Attacking persons and personalities is not ignorant or bad form: it's MetaFilter. Or at least an important part of it.
posted by y6y6y6 at 6:48 AM on October 4, 2003
You're not speaking for me, carfilhiot, or anyone else who thinks gratuitous personal attacks like your comment there suck.
Y2karl you are a fucking idiot.
That is a gratuitous personal attack. Not what I posted.
and btw, i don't believe i claimed to be speaking for you - if i did please point out where. In addition, isn't it funny that, in a post where you deride me for supposedly speaking for others, you yourself speak for others?
Well done you screwed up 3 times in one sentence. I am in awe of your ph34rz0m3 reasoning skilz. please don't beat up on me any more.
posted by carfilhiot at 6:52 AM on October 4, 2003
Y2karl you are a fucking idiot.
That is a gratuitous personal attack. Not what I posted.
and btw, i don't believe i claimed to be speaking for you - if i did please point out where. In addition, isn't it funny that, in a post where you deride me for supposedly speaking for others, you yourself speak for others?
Well done you screwed up 3 times in one sentence. I am in awe of your ph34rz0m3 reasoning skilz. please don't beat up on me any more.
posted by carfilhiot at 6:52 AM on October 4, 2003
"attacking persons and personalities is not only ignorant and bad form: it's ridiculous."
So what you're saying is that all the people who attack other persons are ignorant, in bad form and ridiculous? uhmm, mr kettle can you say hypocrite?
posted by carfilhiot at 7:06 AM on October 4, 2003
So what you're saying is that all the people who attack other persons are ignorant, in bad form and ridiculous? uhmm, mr kettle can you say hypocrite?
posted by carfilhiot at 7:06 AM on October 4, 2003
And thus - Attacking persons and personalities is not ignorant or bad form: it's MetaFilter. Or at least an important part of it.
Self-serving screed. If Miguel has tempered the usenet manners around here, more power to him. Like stavros, I liked the polite y6y6y6 better, too. Even if it did take more work, it was more persuasive.
ps. IknowyouarebutwhatamIfihiot: most mefi members think.. your personality sucks = gratuitous personal attack. It's also pejorative.
posted by y2karl at 7:38 AM on October 4, 2003
Self-serving screed. If Miguel has tempered the usenet manners around here, more power to him. Like stavros, I liked the polite y6y6y6 better, too. Even if it did take more work, it was more persuasive.
ps. IknowyouarebutwhatamIfihiot: most mefi members think.. your personality sucks = gratuitous personal attack. It's also pejorative.
posted by y2karl at 7:38 AM on October 4, 2003
carfilhiot, it's a nice day. Why don't you go for ice cream or something? (translation:I am annoyed at your posts)
posted by konolia at 8:00 AM on October 4, 2003
posted by konolia at 8:00 AM on October 4, 2003
"Self-serving screed."
Yes, yes. Of course. Defending one's actions in a reasoned manner. Very bad. Best to just remain mute.
And being polite *doesn't* take more work. It's pap. It's simple and automatic. It is the path of least resistance in social situations. And more persuasive? Fawning and pomp and some arbitrary subset of behavior is persuasive?
I guess that says something about those being persuaded.
Manners are a system for making everyone's life easier. Not better, or honest, or enlightened, or enriched. Just easier, and at the expense of things like honesty and resolution.
Manners are, at their foundation, for lazy conformists.
This was hard and actually makes a case.
This was easy and doesn't really say anything new. How can it persuade in any meaningful way? All I'm saying is, "Pretty please stop ignoring the thing you've been ignoring for the last nine months please." Which, as we've seen, has no effect.
Screaming at him and using specifics has an effect.
Others might be bewildered or made to feel guilty when you bandy about with pleas for politeness, but I see it for what it is - An effort to stifle dissent and limit discussion within a boundary you are comfortable with.
posted by y6y6y6 at 8:27 AM on October 4, 2003
Yes, yes. Of course. Defending one's actions in a reasoned manner. Very bad. Best to just remain mute.
And being polite *doesn't* take more work. It's pap. It's simple and automatic. It is the path of least resistance in social situations. And more persuasive? Fawning and pomp and some arbitrary subset of behavior is persuasive?
I guess that says something about those being persuaded.
Manners are a system for making everyone's life easier. Not better, or honest, or enlightened, or enriched. Just easier, and at the expense of things like honesty and resolution.
Manners are, at their foundation, for lazy conformists.
This was hard and actually makes a case.
This was easy and doesn't really say anything new. How can it persuade in any meaningful way? All I'm saying is, "Pretty please stop ignoring the thing you've been ignoring for the last nine months please." Which, as we've seen, has no effect.
Screaming at him and using specifics has an effect.
Others might be bewildered or made to feel guilty when you bandy about with pleas for politeness, but I see it for what it is - An effort to stifle dissent and limit discussion within a boundary you are comfortable with.
posted by y6y6y6 at 8:27 AM on October 4, 2003
I liked the polite y6y6y6 better
Me too, although
I have found that pulling out my dick and peeing on him does get results
he does seem to be going a bit GG Allin on us here*
Y'know, every time I'm feeling like Mefi is getting a bit dull, I can count on a great Meta bun fight to put a tiger in my tank.**
The analysis of internet social minutae, the obsessive self reflexiveness, and best of all, the smarmy twerps cracking wise from a carefully distanced pose of 'too cool for school' self-importance***
It does me a power of good I tell you!
*Good natured jab at a member with whom I have had a very mild blue
**Actual serious comment
***Irritatingly self-deprecating comment written in the hope that everyone will recognise that I'm only 'making sport'
posted by backOfYourMind at 8:49 AM on October 4, 2003
Me too, although
I have found that pulling out my dick and peeing on him does get results
he does seem to be going a bit GG Allin on us here*
Y'know, every time I'm feeling like Mefi is getting a bit dull, I can count on a great Meta bun fight to put a tiger in my tank.**
The analysis of internet social minutae, the obsessive self reflexiveness, and best of all, the smarmy twerps cracking wise from a carefully distanced pose of 'too cool for school' self-importance***
It does me a power of good I tell you!
*Good natured jab at a member with whom I have had a very mild blue
**Actual serious comment
***Irritatingly self-deprecating comment written in the hope that everyone will recognise that I'm only 'making sport'
posted by backOfYourMind at 8:49 AM on October 4, 2003
y6y6y6, that is a total load of fertilizer. A person can be very direct and polite at the same time. Being abrasive might be more emotionally satisfying to the abraser but in the long run doesn't make the abrasee very likely to take the matter under consideration. Flies and vinegar and all that.
posted by konolia at 9:03 AM on October 4, 2003
posted by konolia at 9:03 AM on October 4, 2003
We're all in this together but what matters is this, not us. We don't know each other; we simply exchange a few sentences now and then. And that is how it should be - attacking persons and personalities is not only ignorant and bad form: it's ridiculous.
I label Cardoso TROLL from here on in, at this place, at this time. And he should be hounded where ever he goes on metafilter.
better yet, lets ignore the silly get.
and btw, i don't believe i claimed to be speaking for you - if i did please point out where. In addition, isn't it funny that, in a post where you deride me for supposedly speaking for others, you yourself speak for others? ....
Well done, you screwed up at least 3 times in one sentence.
posted by clavdivs at 9:15 AM on October 4, 2003
I label Cardoso TROLL from here on in, at this place, at this time. And he should be hounded where ever he goes on metafilter.
better yet, lets ignore the silly get.
and btw, i don't believe i claimed to be speaking for you - if i did please point out where. In addition, isn't it funny that, in a post where you deride me for supposedly speaking for others, you yourself speak for others? ....
Well done, you screwed up at least 3 times in one sentence.
posted by clavdivs at 9:15 AM on October 4, 2003
"y6y6y6, that is a total load of fertilizer."
Yes. It is.
But it's my load of shit, and I'm very happy to share it with you. Here.... Have this lump of shit...... It's on me.
posted by y6y6y6 at 9:19 AM on October 4, 2003
Yes. It is.
But it's my load of shit, and I'm very happy to share it with you. Here.... Have this lump of shit...... It's on me.
posted by y6y6y6 at 9:19 AM on October 4, 2003
But it's my load of shit, and I'm very happy to share it with you. Here.... Have this lump of shit...... It's on me
he does seem to be going a bit GG Allin on us here
See?!! This is just what I'm talking about!
posted by backOfYourMind at 9:26 AM on October 4, 2003
he does seem to be going a bit GG Allin on us here
See?!! This is just what I'm talking about!
posted by backOfYourMind at 9:26 AM on October 4, 2003
If you try and be polite he just shrugs and continues with the crap.
This is the essence of Miguel. He does not care what you think, nor does he give a flying fuck about the site. He could have proven otherwise by now, but his continual refusal to alter his posting style (bar one unhappily brief period of relative silence, by which I mean posting only slightly more than anyone else) gives the lie to his many faux-polite, faux-reasonable protestations to the contrary. La Cardoso is a festering chancre between the buttocks of MetaFilter, but Doctor Matt refuses to operate. If the lying, manipulative, self-serving, attention-addicted human paper cut were to get no response here, he'd probably go away, but that's not going to happen either because there are a handful of members who seem to like him (de gustibus etc, I guess). In the absence of negative reaction, he escalates, so it seems that Jon is right: the only remaining option is to piss on Miguel as often as one can be bothered. The trick, perhaps, is to do it with some detatchment: to care as much about Miguel as he does about us, and to swat him as one would a fly rather than to invest real anger in him. It's not like he, Miguel the Dissembler, can tell the difference between real and feigned feeling anyway.
posted by sennoma at 11:05 AM on October 4, 2003
This is the essence of Miguel. He does not care what you think, nor does he give a flying fuck about the site. He could have proven otherwise by now, but his continual refusal to alter his posting style (bar one unhappily brief period of relative silence, by which I mean posting only slightly more than anyone else) gives the lie to his many faux-polite, faux-reasonable protestations to the contrary. La Cardoso is a festering chancre between the buttocks of MetaFilter, but Doctor Matt refuses to operate. If the lying, manipulative, self-serving, attention-addicted human paper cut were to get no response here, he'd probably go away, but that's not going to happen either because there are a handful of members who seem to like him (de gustibus etc, I guess). In the absence of negative reaction, he escalates, so it seems that Jon is right: the only remaining option is to piss on Miguel as often as one can be bothered. The trick, perhaps, is to do it with some detatchment: to care as much about Miguel as he does about us, and to swat him as one would a fly rather than to invest real anger in him. It's not like he, Miguel the Dissembler, can tell the difference between real and feigned feeling anyway.
posted by sennoma at 11:05 AM on October 4, 2003
lying, manipulative, self-serving, attention-addicted human paper cut
pejorative
adjective
1 (of words, expressions, etc.) having an unpleasant or disparaging connotation
noun
2 a pejorative word, expression, etc.
[ETYMOLOGY: 19th Century: from French péjoratif, from Late Latin pejoratus, past participle of pejorare to make worse, from Latin peior worse]
pe'joratively adverb(ial)
If the contention is this was an unnecessary post, I agree. But with smarmy excuses, apologies and rationalizations for dumping the contents of your personal psychic pus pockets here, I disagree. Neither I, nor MetaTalk, nor MetaFilter, I would contend, are your
emotional toxic waste dumps.
posted by y2karl at 12:05 PM on October 4, 2003
pejorative
adjective
1 (of words, expressions, etc.) having an unpleasant or disparaging connotation
noun
2 a pejorative word, expression, etc.
[ETYMOLOGY: 19th Century: from French péjoratif, from Late Latin pejoratus, past participle of pejorare to make worse, from Latin peior worse]
pe'joratively adverb(ial)
If the contention is this was an unnecessary post, I agree. But with smarmy excuses, apologies and rationalizations for dumping the contents of your personal psychic pus pockets here, I disagree. Neither I, nor MetaTalk, nor MetaFilter, I would contend, are your
emotional toxic waste dumps.
posted by y2karl at 12:05 PM on October 4, 2003
If Miguel is a festering chancre, what possible bile can you have reserved for REAL pains in the butt? There are many of you way more obnoxious.
Do something constructive with your anger. The fresh-from-Matt-Drudge posts on the front page await your righteous indignation.
posted by konolia at 12:20 PM on October 4, 2003
Do something constructive with your anger. The fresh-from-Matt-Drudge posts on the front page await your righteous indignation.
posted by konolia at 12:20 PM on October 4, 2003
"Even if you see a pattern of bad posts I don't think it helps to go after the poster personally. Yank 'em into MeTa, lay out (with links) the pattern and explain what you think is bad about it. Nonresponders to the polite, constructive MeTa treatment can be diagnosed as trolls and ignored accordingly. (...)
In the realm of self-policing, I would like to see a move away from personal attacks and towards reasoned and constructive criticism."
sennoma (in his single MetaTalk post)
A doctor writes: Take your own advice, pal.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 12:54 PM on October 4, 2003
In the realm of self-policing, I would like to see a move away from personal attacks and towards reasoned and constructive criticism."
sennoma (in his single MetaTalk post)
A doctor writes: Take your own advice, pal.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 12:54 PM on October 4, 2003
From Miguel's Four Lessons of the Adversarial Philosophy, or, "the logic behind not giving a flying fart":
"3) Learn to deconstruct offenses and insults to detect the criticism within. Clumsily worded barbs, if duly interpreted, often contain a raw nugget of objective and truthful criticism about you. Imagine the same words as filtered through someone who likes you a lot (a friend, a spouse, a MeFi buddy) and you'll usually find a scintilla of truth.
"... c) Regard this experience as an opportunity. Here you have unbiased strangers freely giving their opinions on your own opinions and efforts. This alone is worth gold. Do not disparage X for being the loudest of your critics. He or she did, after all, take the trouble to voice his or her contempt. How do you - one lonely individual - know that there's not something in it?"
Also, I continue to be amazed at y6y6y6's patience and tenacity, and I salute him.
And finally, konolia, can you mention bunnyfire again? I always get that weird, two-mirrors-reflecting-infinity effect when you do.
posted by azimuth at 3:12 PM on October 4, 2003
"3) Learn to deconstruct offenses and insults to detect the criticism within. Clumsily worded barbs, if duly interpreted, often contain a raw nugget of objective and truthful criticism about you. Imagine the same words as filtered through someone who likes you a lot (a friend, a spouse, a MeFi buddy) and you'll usually find a scintilla of truth.
"... c) Regard this experience as an opportunity. Here you have unbiased strangers freely giving their opinions on your own opinions and efforts. This alone is worth gold. Do not disparage X for being the loudest of your critics. He or she did, after all, take the trouble to voice his or her contempt. How do you - one lonely individual - know that there's not something in it?"
Also, I continue to be amazed at y6y6y6's patience and tenacity, and I salute him.
And finally, konolia, can you mention bunnyfire again? I always get that weird, two-mirrors-reflecting-infinity effect when you do.
posted by azimuth at 3:12 PM on October 4, 2003
I would like a Metafilter Civil War to be fought out in some first person shooter. Can we do this? Winner take all.
posted by thirteen at 3:35 PM on October 4, 2003
posted by thirteen at 3:35 PM on October 4, 2003
the first rule of Miguelfilter is KEEP TALKING ABOUT MIGUEL! Good, bad, it doesn't matter. Just keep talking about him!
posted by crunchland at 4:13 PM on October 4, 2003
posted by crunchland at 4:13 PM on October 4, 2003
Ironically, y6y6y6 is the one always beating the don't feed the trolls drum--a rule he honors in the breach by his own lights here.
posted by y2karl at 4:22 PM on October 4, 2003
posted by y2karl at 4:22 PM on October 4, 2003
Neither I, nor MetaTalk, nor MetaFilter, I would contend, are your emotional toxic waste dumps.
That's rich, coming from the loon who spews all over the object of his latest obsession and then posts a ten-scroll-button sob story about how terrible his personal life is, in order to justify his behaviour.
Take your own advice, pal.
I am not your pal. Fuck you, you odious waste of bandwidth.
posted by sennoma at 5:57 PM on October 4, 2003
That's rich, coming from the loon who spews all over the object of his latest obsession and then posts a ten-scroll-button sob story about how terrible his personal life is, in order to justify his behaviour.
Take your own advice, pal.
I am not your pal. Fuck you, you odious waste of bandwidth.
posted by sennoma at 5:57 PM on October 4, 2003
"lying, manipulative, self-serving, attention-addicted human paper cut"
I would just like to distance myself from this assertion. I have always found Mr Cardoso to be honest and fair.
The "lying, manipulative, self-serving, attention-addicted human paper cut" would be me.
posted by y6y6y6 at 5:57 PM on October 4, 2003
I would just like to distance myself from this assertion. I have always found Mr Cardoso to be honest and fair.
The "lying, manipulative, self-serving, attention-addicted human paper cut" would be me.
posted by y6y6y6 at 5:57 PM on October 4, 2003
Do something constructive with your anger.
FWIW the only ones not taking this with a pinch of salt seem to be you and y2karl.
You see Miguelcardoso is our own private David Blaine - a pretentious attention seeking fart, and we are like britain, sneering at him - nothing wrong with that. anyone who sets themselves up as much as he does deserves a good pasting, and egg yolk doesnt stain.
in fact i'd vouch miguelcardoso is probably having the best wank of his life, right now.
pejorative pejorative pejorative
posted by carfilhiot at 5:59 PM on October 4, 2003
FWIW the only ones not taking this with a pinch of salt seem to be you and y2karl.
You see Miguelcardoso is our own private David Blaine - a pretentious attention seeking fart, and we are like britain, sneering at him - nothing wrong with that. anyone who sets themselves up as much as he does deserves a good pasting, and egg yolk doesnt stain.
in fact i'd vouch miguelcardoso is probably having the best wank of his life, right now.
pejorative pejorative pejorative
posted by carfilhiot at 5:59 PM on October 4, 2003
I am not your pal. Fuck you, you odious waste of bandwidth.
*is truly humbled and duly impressed by the sheer size of sennoma's massive phallus, but wishes sennoma would stop swinging it around the room and put it away now.*
posted by quonsar at 6:06 PM on October 4, 2003
*is truly humbled and duly impressed by the sheer size of sennoma's massive phallus, but wishes sennoma would stop swinging it around the room and put it away now.*
posted by quonsar at 6:06 PM on October 4, 2003
I have been in his shoes, and altho I was laughing on the outside I was crying on the inside.
Pass the salt.
posted by konolia at 6:07 PM on October 4, 2003
Pass the salt.
posted by konolia at 6:07 PM on October 4, 2003
Oh my dear, dear friend: Have I been neglecting you lately? I apologize if I've seemed distant in the recent past. I hope this second reply will reassure you that I do listen. I do. So perhaps you too could listen to the voice of reason, so we can both kiss and make up? Are you ready? Well, here it is:
I'll bet dollars to dogshit that you can't get a troll to stop trolling by heaping abuse on them, and that you won't help a trolled thread by posting your attacks in that thread. If someone won't respond to reasoned criticism posted in the appropriate forum, why would they respond to vitriol? All I'm saying is, if you must call a spade an ass, do it in MeTa, make it clear why you're doing it---and refrain from adding to "ass" a string of venomous adjectives maligning the spade/ass's character and ancestry. I know that there will always be inveterate offenders, but that's what Matt's smite button is for.
sennoma (Yes, it was you, silly billy! Now let me have that hug and no more tears, hear?)
Do you remember how I agreed with you and how happy you were? Here's what I said in that important MeTa post of yours - as if you didn't know each word by heart:
[rant]
Real arguments never need insults. Insults are a sure sign of "I'm losing the argument" or "I hate you for not agreeing with me" or "I want my mommy".
In real arguments, being more persuasive - never mind being right - is enough.
Insults are like physical violence - they mean you're lost for words; that you have no other way of expressing yourself.
What is most pompous about being offensive is that insulting the other guy is a simpleton's way of saying "I rock! I am the greatest! I love myself!".
It's perverse narcissism. It's something to pity. It's the very denial of discussion, argument, other people.
If you want to devastate, impress, be a real dickhead and not just a phoney one, learn to argue and to make your points and have the courage to let all the others, each one for him or herself, decide who's nearer the truth.
If you don't want to be a dickhead at all, enter a discussion wanting to learn, to be put right, to be part of a like-minded group of equally helpless questioners, trying together to make sense of things.
Insulting behaviour is also sooooo limited, expression-wise. It's boring.
So we agree! Absolutely. No need to be bitter, sennoma: all is well. Don't worry!
posted by MiguelCardoso at 6:40 PM on October 4, 2003
I'll bet dollars to dogshit that you can't get a troll to stop trolling by heaping abuse on them, and that you won't help a trolled thread by posting your attacks in that thread. If someone won't respond to reasoned criticism posted in the appropriate forum, why would they respond to vitriol? All I'm saying is, if you must call a spade an ass, do it in MeTa, make it clear why you're doing it---and refrain from adding to "ass" a string of venomous adjectives maligning the spade/ass's character and ancestry. I know that there will always be inveterate offenders, but that's what Matt's smite button is for.
sennoma (Yes, it was you, silly billy! Now let me have that hug and no more tears, hear?)
Do you remember how I agreed with you and how happy you were? Here's what I said in that important MeTa post of yours - as if you didn't know each word by heart:
[rant]
Real arguments never need insults. Insults are a sure sign of "I'm losing the argument" or "I hate you for not agreeing with me" or "I want my mommy".
In real arguments, being more persuasive - never mind being right - is enough.
Insults are like physical violence - they mean you're lost for words; that you have no other way of expressing yourself.
What is most pompous about being offensive is that insulting the other guy is a simpleton's way of saying "I rock! I am the greatest! I love myself!".
It's perverse narcissism. It's something to pity. It's the very denial of discussion, argument, other people.
If you want to devastate, impress, be a real dickhead and not just a phoney one, learn to argue and to make your points and have the courage to let all the others, each one for him or herself, decide who's nearer the truth.
If you don't want to be a dickhead at all, enter a discussion wanting to learn, to be put right, to be part of a like-minded group of equally helpless questioners, trying together to make sense of things.
Insulting behaviour is also sooooo limited, expression-wise. It's boring.
So we agree! Absolutely. No need to be bitter, sennoma: all is well. Don't worry!
posted by MiguelCardoso at 6:40 PM on October 4, 2003
YOU KIDS STOP WHIPPING THOSE SCHLONGS AROUND IN THE HOUSE!!!!
posted by quonsar at 6:48 PM on October 4, 2003
posted by quonsar at 6:48 PM on October 4, 2003
YOU KIDS STOP WHIPPING THOSE SCHLONGS AROUND IN THE HOUSE!!!!
yes sir.
posted by clavdivs at 7:08 PM on October 4, 2003
yes sir.
posted by clavdivs at 7:08 PM on October 4, 2003
Nobody ever listens to me. You are all lost.
posted by The God Complex at 7:56 PM on October 4, 2003
posted by The God Complex at 7:56 PM on October 4, 2003
...In MeTa, make it clear what the problem is and why it's a problem: don't vent, explain. Find another outlet for the venting, as it will only make things worse if included in your post.
... Rinse and repeat.
Indeed.
posted by y2karl at 9:26 PM on October 4, 2003
... Rinse and repeat.
Indeed.
posted by y2karl at 9:26 PM on October 4, 2003
I know something fun is going on in MetaTalk when the comments go over 90 in number.
As a lurker I just thought I'd pop in and say that I know far more about MiguelCardoso - his feelings on various topics (what he thinks makes a good post, the importance of spelling and grammar, favorite beverages, etc.) as well as his goals/emotions for MeFi - than I do anyone else that comments regularly. Why? Because he posts constantly and seems to live in MetaTalk. I have much vaguer impressions of the rest of the crew. Because most other folks tend to discuss the subject matter at hand - with Cardoso everything seems to suddenly turn into a discussion about him and his thoughts.
(Except that every now and then quonsar pops in and says "smock." I've come to think "ok, now is the time for the smock moment." Except now it seems to be the gondola moment.)
Could Cardoso ever post a one word comment? Will he manage to have discussions in the comments rather than feeling the need to direct everything? Will MeFi ever not be discussing Cardoso? Or will a new troll emerge who will irritate the masses even more?
Tune in next time...
And and btw, on the 'make your point but be polite' theory - if used correctly someone could be completely snarky and insulting - but in a seemingly polite manner - and for the majority of listeners the message would never sink in. They wouldn't grasp that the speaker was basically telling them to shut up. Yeah there are easier ways to get people's attention, but in here that seems to work.
Having said that - y6 you are so very, terribly rude.
Save some of that for our next gov'ner. (*shudder*)
[Disclosure: I'm the signif other of "lying, manipulative, self-serving, attention-addicted human paper cut"/y6, and thus am biased, I'm sure.]
Oh and on Cardoso's original post up there (that's right, there was a vague reason we started talking about Cardoso) -
"It's a short news item, from a big media source, which will already be known to those who follow the news. The post, though, is not the point."
The Kaycee incident was when I started reading MeFi in the first place. I hadn't caught that Clooney story in my reading of the news and on that day it was one of the few links on MeFi that I actually read. I would have ignored an article with the word Clooney in the title in my daily news reading - if there hadn't been the Kaycee hook here I would never have known about it.
posted by batgrlHG at 9:52 PM on October 4, 2003
As a lurker I just thought I'd pop in and say that I know far more about MiguelCardoso - his feelings on various topics (what he thinks makes a good post, the importance of spelling and grammar, favorite beverages, etc.) as well as his goals/emotions for MeFi - than I do anyone else that comments regularly. Why? Because he posts constantly and seems to live in MetaTalk. I have much vaguer impressions of the rest of the crew. Because most other folks tend to discuss the subject matter at hand - with Cardoso everything seems to suddenly turn into a discussion about him and his thoughts.
(Except that every now and then quonsar pops in and says "smock." I've come to think "ok, now is the time for the smock moment." Except now it seems to be the gondola moment.)
Could Cardoso ever post a one word comment? Will he manage to have discussions in the comments rather than feeling the need to direct everything? Will MeFi ever not be discussing Cardoso? Or will a new troll emerge who will irritate the masses even more?
Tune in next time...
And and btw, on the 'make your point but be polite' theory - if used correctly someone could be completely snarky and insulting - but in a seemingly polite manner - and for the majority of listeners the message would never sink in. They wouldn't grasp that the speaker was basically telling them to shut up. Yeah there are easier ways to get people's attention, but in here that seems to work.
Having said that - y6 you are so very, terribly rude.
Save some of that for our next gov'ner. (*shudder*)
[Disclosure: I'm the signif other of "lying, manipulative, self-serving, attention-addicted human paper cut"/y6, and thus am biased, I'm sure.]
Oh and on Cardoso's original post up there (that's right, there was a vague reason we started talking about Cardoso) -
"It's a short news item, from a big media source, which will already be known to those who follow the news. The post, though, is not the point."
The Kaycee incident was when I started reading MeFi in the first place. I hadn't caught that Clooney story in my reading of the news and on that day it was one of the few links on MeFi that I actually read. I would have ignored an article with the word Clooney in the title in my daily news reading - if there hadn't been the Kaycee hook here I would never have known about it.
posted by batgrlHG at 9:52 PM on October 4, 2003
I would like a Metafilter Civil War to be fought out in some first person shooter. Can we do this? Winner take all.
[this is good]
Understanding of course that it would be the war of All against All.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 10:01 PM on October 4, 2003
[this is good]
Understanding of course that it would be the war of All against All.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 10:01 PM on October 4, 2003
Wow, looks like I missed all this fun. /sarcasm off
One of the many reasons for my lack of participation is the fact that I was too immature to realize that human beings were behind the posts here on MeFi, and I didn't respect the community. Typing words onto a screen without a care for people can lead to a rather mean-spirited demeanor, which is what I cut out for myself.
Wow. If that's sincere, that is probably the biggest admission of individual culpability/sign of personal growth EVER on Metafilter. As someone who previously held near-to-zero respect for you, BlueTrain, I must say, I am impressed.
Now if only the [*censored, over-the-top-but-accurate insult*] that is y6y6y6 would undergo a similiar enlightenment regarding the consequences of his unrelenting venom. I have never seen a more ignorant statement posted on Metafilter than "Frankly I feel that personal attacks be both intelligent and necessary under many circumstances." It does explain a lot, though.
Oh, and Miguel? Keep up the good work. (Me, I only wish you'd post less about alcohol and other tedious, self-indulgent (self-satisfied? something) topics. But that's just me, and I'll happily bypass those to continue to enjoy the more thoughtful stuff.)
posted by rushmc at 6:47 AM on October 9, 2003
One of the many reasons for my lack of participation is the fact that I was too immature to realize that human beings were behind the posts here on MeFi, and I didn't respect the community. Typing words onto a screen without a care for people can lead to a rather mean-spirited demeanor, which is what I cut out for myself.
Wow. If that's sincere, that is probably the biggest admission of individual culpability/sign of personal growth EVER on Metafilter. As someone who previously held near-to-zero respect for you, BlueTrain, I must say, I am impressed.
Now if only the [*censored, over-the-top-but-accurate insult*] that is y6y6y6 would undergo a similiar enlightenment regarding the consequences of his unrelenting venom. I have never seen a more ignorant statement posted on Metafilter than "Frankly I feel that personal attacks be both intelligent and necessary under many circumstances." It does explain a lot, though.
Oh, and Miguel? Keep up the good work. (Me, I only wish you'd post less about alcohol and other tedious, self-indulgent (self-satisfied? something) topics. But that's just me, and I'll happily bypass those to continue to enjoy the more thoughtful stuff.)
posted by rushmc at 6:47 AM on October 9, 2003
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by The God Complex at 6:05 PM on October 2, 2003