Awesome comment from monju_bosatsu! October 14, 2003 8:50 PM   Subscribe

I feel compelled to publicly applaud and congratulate monju_bosatsu for this superb and interesting essay, elevating an otherwise lackluster post to greatness.
posted by anastasiav to MetaFilter-Related at 8:50 PM (45 comments total)

... and if any of you cranky nay-sayers start complaining that its too long, I will personally whap you on the back of the head.
posted by anastasiav at 8:52 PM on October 14, 2003


I agree. monju_bosatsu's essay may be a bit dense for many people, but at least it's thoughtful and informed.
posted by gd779 at 9:03 PM on October 14, 2003


while it had some interesting components, he really should have posted a link to the full paper with a few paragraphs stating his basic thesis. An entire essay just doesn't belong in a thread, the way monologues are impolite in a conversation...

Anyway, the primary focus of the essay seems to be federalism, which is fine but really is just passing the buck, and ultimately a decision has to be made: can certain institutions, beliefs, or rituals be imposed by a governing body or are they not a concern of society as such but an activity of individuals? This question will almost always be answered with the latter option these days, but many thinkers of the time of the founding of the county still considered religion a useful and perhaps needed guide toward morality and lawful behavior of the citizenry.
posted by mdn at 9:19 PM on October 14, 2003


Am I the only one who was scrolling down trying to get past the thing and thinking to myself, "Goddamnit Zach..." ?
posted by Stan Chin at 9:26 PM on October 14, 2003


while it had some interesting components, he really should have posted a link to the full paper with a few paragraphs stating his basic thesis. An entire essay just doesn't belong in a thread, the way monologues are impolite in a conversation...

Yeah, but the level of knowledge and intelligence in these threads is usually so low that I think we should applaud anyone who raises the level of debate.

Am I the only one who was scrolling down trying to get past the thing and thinking to myself, "Goddamnit Zach..." ?

Heh. That was my thought too, until I saw the footnotes.
posted by gd779 at 9:33 PM on October 14, 2003


It was indeed an excellent and generous contribution and fully deserves recognition.

I have to say, however, I think the latest posts here - perhaps because they've all appeared together and despite their worthy individual justifications - create an uneasy impression of MetaTalk as an expanded (this is good) and (this is bad) section.

Perhaps the "keep the threads uncluttered and pure" idea has gone too far, paradoxically, in the right direction?

Congratulations, especially, do no harm to threads on the Blue. Nor do minor criticisms. They probably even enrich the discussion. As someone who's been guilty of praising threads here on MeTa (to call attention to them) I'm not the most morally entitled user to now question them.

Threads on the Blue have a life of their own and derails and silly comments are easily overcome by one or two on-topic comments. Congratulations - even the simplest, like "Great thread!" or "Great comment!" - are, imho, to be welcomed and sometimes have an energizing effect.

Considering many users don't even come to MeTa, it might even be argued that congratulatory threads (and complaints about minor derails and criticisms) actually deplete the original MeFi threads.

(This is not about anastasiav's post (I'm an absolute fan of all she posts!) - rather about the latest three posts all together and the issue of congratulations and censure in general.)
posted by MiguelCardoso at 9:38 PM on October 14, 2003


Am I the only one who was scrolling down trying to get past the thing and thinking to myself, "Goddamnit Zach..."

I would have been thinking that, but the thesis topic didn't involve a certain attractive young vampire slayer.
posted by jonson at 10:03 PM on October 14, 2003


Thanks all for the compliments. I realize the comment was a bit long--as evidenced by the need to split it across two comments to get all the notes in. It was just one of those rare times when what I study and write about is directly on point.

Also, mdn, I would have just linked to the paper, but there is no paper, at least not yet. What you saw in my comment is bits and pieces cobbled together from my notes over the last few months. Maybe if I can get something more complete together before the thread closes I can link to that then.

Lastly, mdn, you are perfectly correct in saying that the focus of my comment was partially on federalism. This is because the leading conservative commentators seek to use federalism as a constraint on the scope of the First Amendment. My goal, which would have been more clear if I had more of my paper complete, is to show that these federalism concerns where largely modified, if not abrogated by the Fourteenth Amendment. If have some discussion of that in the last twenty footnotes in my original comment.

Alas, I will try to enjoy my fifteen minutes, as it is unlikely I will have something within my expertise to comment on again any time soon. (Well, at least until the Court actually decides this case. Check back then, and perhaps I'll have more commentary.)

(By the way, I understand the need for limits on the post length, but it showed up in its entirety on preview. Perhaps we could have consistent length limitations for previews and posts?)
posted by monju_bosatsu at 10:17 PM on October 14, 2003


Whlie we're here, I'd like to apologize for the crappy FPP -- I was reading a slashdot thread on the pledge of allegiance court case, and got riled up. I'm glad monju was there to save it with his comments. Won't happen again.
posted by condour75 at 10:29 PM on October 14, 2003


Hey! No fair! He actually knows what he's talking about!
posted by scarabic at 10:37 PM on October 14, 2003


at least it's thoughtful and informed.

Well thought out except for the outline, which goes 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, B. Anyway, (God?) bless monju_b for talking the time to comment so religiously.

Perhaps we could have consistent length limitations for previews and posts?

Maybe we should limit comments to including not more than 50 footnotes.
posted by LeLiLo at 3:35 AM on October 15, 2003


Lengthy informed contemporaneous comments : good.

Lengthy cut-and-pastes : not so good.

Still, I'd rather have a regurgitated braindump from a Mefite that knows something about a given subject than ranty off-the-cuff opinionmongering from an overly verbose *.pundit any time.

Still and further still, linking would've been more appropriate, if we're gonna get all MetaTalky about it. In my humble.

*hands over a cookie*
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:14 AM on October 15, 2003


while it had some interesting components, he really should have posted a link to the full paper with a few paragraphs stating his basic thesis. An entire essay just doesn't belong in a thread, the way monologues are impolite in a conversation...

Agreed. Less polite members might shout "get a blog!" Matt's comment in-thread seems to indicate that he thought it was a bit over the top, and I don't think any of us want to see people starting to c&p entire articles that they feel relevant to the topic at hand, rather than linking to them. This is a filter, after all, not an aggregator.

Which is not to say that I don't appreciate the thoughtful content.
posted by rushmc at 5:16 AM on October 15, 2003


create an uneasy impression of MetaTalk as an expanded (this is good) and (this is bad) section

You know, MeTa is so often full of people shouting at each other for no sane reason (fighting over pie? C'mon folks....), I just thought it would be nice to see something positive here for a change.

Interestingly enough, I (for some reason) knew right away that this was a 'brain dump' and not a copy/paste of some published article he(?) could have linked to.
posted by anastasiav at 6:01 AM on October 15, 2003


For those of you who just want the summary, I've written this in response to the constructive criticism of rou_xenophope/
posted by monju_bosatsu at 6:57 AM on October 15, 2003


Interestingly enough, I (for some reason) knew right away that this was a 'brain dump' and not a copy/paste of some published article he(?) could have linked to.

I meant he could have linked to his own writing on his own blog - I didn't think it was a published article, but it was obviously something he'd written before the thread came along, that he just copied into the thread, instead of engaging with the community directly, explaining the outlines of his work, and linking to the stuff he'd already done. It's no big deal, but personally I think that's the better way to go about things.
posted by mdn at 7:56 AM on October 15, 2003


I'm sorry again for the length of the post. Unfortunately I have no blog or other webspace to stick this essay, and I didn't particularly want to set up a blogspot site just to host it. If I had to do it again, though, I'd have probably put it on my MeFi user page, rather than in the discussion itself. I'll keep that in mind in the future.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 8:00 AM on October 15, 2003


OK, everybody who read monju's entire comment (the one being praised here) raise your hands. Oh yeah? You did? I remind you you're under oath and face a long jail sentence for perjury... [hand goes down] I thought so.

I'm sorry, but I really don't think the comment was appropriate for a MeFi thread. As far as I can see, its main effect was to get everyone to bow down in awe at its sheer size. I would think the point of a comment (as opposed to a dissertation) is to state a fact or idea in as compact a form as possible, so that readers can absorb it in reasonable time and respond to it. I'm not knocking monju, who was carried away by enthusiasm for a thread that happened to fit perfectly into his research interests, but I don't think this sort of thing should be encouraged. At least have the decency to get rid of stuff like:

[44]

[45]

[46]


As it happens, monju him(?)self did a beautiful job of boiling it down to what it should have been in the first place, in the comment linked to in his comment beginning "For those of you who just want the summary..."; the section beginning "Perhaps the point of my argument, however, was lost in the length of my comment" says all that needed to be said.

However, if I'm out of step with MeFi opinion, I will be glad to post my magnum opus "Zero-Grade Present-Tense Verbs in the Early Indo-European Languages" in the comments of the next available linguistics thread. It's got lots of footnotes!
posted by languagehat at 8:06 AM on October 15, 2003


Well, that sounded awfully snarky coming immediately after monju's gracious apology. Sorry, monju, you snuck in after I did my last preview.
posted by languagehat at 8:08 AM on October 15, 2003


Well, I'll be damned if my mouth isn't watering already, languagehat - really! Footnotes are heaven - they're the dainty motherlode of all derails and tangents.

*goes forlornly googling for "zero-grade present tense verbs"*
posted by MiguelCardoso at 8:12 AM on October 15, 2003


No problem, languagehat. It was late, and I saw the post and though "Hey! I know some stuff about that!" Instead of taking the time to get my thoughts together, I dumped some bits of my notes from various places in, which is why the numbering and footnotes are sketchy. Well, when it's finished I'll have to link to it in my user page for those that are interested.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 8:30 AM on October 15, 2003


Now we just need David Foster Wallace on here to footnote the hell out of the place.
posted by xmutex at 9:22 AM on October 15, 2003


Strangely, Matt now seems to be sending a mixed message by giving the post the accolades of the sidebar stamp of approval. Perhaps he would like to give us some clarification here?
posted by rushmc at 9:24 AM on October 15, 2003


mmmm....David Foster Wallace

For anyone that happens to be a Wallace fan and a Stephenson fan:
I went and saw Neal Stephenson answer questions about Quicksilver a couple of weeks ago and mentioned that DFW is one of his favorite authors.

posted by bshort at 9:31 AM on October 15, 2003


Strangely, Matt now seems to be sending a mixed message by giving the post the accolades of the sidebar stamp of approval. Perhaps he would like to give us some clarification here?

Why don't you start a thread about trace metals transport in lake ecosystems and see what he does? That should settle it.

Seriously, it would be a drag if we started getting one of these in each thread, but how likely is that? How often will a member have material close to hand that directly relates to the subject of a thread?

Matt seems to like it when members share special knowledge, and I'm inclined to agree.

As for the post in thread vs. on your own site question, it really seems like six of one, half a dozen of the other to me. Linking to an essay on your own site could open you up to charges of self-linking, and of course, not everyone has web space available. I don't really see user pages as being the right place for this.
posted by timeistight at 9:57 AM on October 15, 2003


(fighting over pie? C'mon folks....),

Yeah, don't fight over pie, fight with pie!
posted by jonmc at 10:44 AM on October 15, 2003


languagehat, are you feeling threatened? You don't have to be so obvious. . .
posted by the fire you left me at 10:46 AM on October 15, 2003


IMO, metafilter could stand to use a lot more intelligent and informative people like monju.

If MetaFilter is to merely be a dumping-ground for "interesting shit on the web," then it might as well be Memepool.

What makes MetaFilter different are the discussions that follow. The entire point of a FPP should be to create an opportunity for discussion and sharing. If there can't be discussion, it's more appropriate for Memepool.

Mind you, I come from a Citadel-86 BBS background, an old-school network that existed exclusively for the purposes of discussion, contribution, sharing, and sometimes silliness. I'm strongly biased toward that tradition.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:09 AM on October 15, 2003


Strangely, Matt now seems to be sending a mixed message by giving the post the accolades of the sidebar stamp of approval. Perhaps he would like to give us some clarification here?

I was joking around in the thread.

While it could have been trimmed or linked to, it was a good essay worth highlighting. But I can also make a crack about it and still like it.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 11:34 AM on October 15, 2003


Of course you can – more for the MeFiRabbis to dissect and interpret.
posted by timeistight at 11:42 AM on October 15, 2003


it was a good essay worth highlighting

I guess I didn't realize that we were encouraged to post essays, good or bad, in a discussion thread. I shall keep that in mind in future.

For anyone that happens to be a Wallace fan and a Stephenson fan: I went and saw Neal Stephenson answer questions about Quicksilver a couple of weeks ago and mentioned that DFW is one of his favorite authors.

Union Square B&N? I attended that, too.

posted by rushmc at 12:19 PM on October 15, 2003


languagehat, are you feeling threatened?

Yes, I've had a lifelong terror of empty footnotes.

I shall keep that in mind in future.

Me too. *rummages in dissertation box*
posted by languagehat at 12:40 PM on October 15, 2003


I enjoy it when someone who isn't Zach1 writes a long-winded extemporaneous comment on a topic of personal expertise.

However, that's not the same thing as cutting and pasting a long footnoted article you've written elsewhere, which is an odd thing to do in the middle of a conversation. A better approach would be to post it elsewhere -- such as the profile -- and provide a summary.

1: Sorry, but I run screaming from your long posts whenever I see them coming.
posted by rcade at 12:47 PM on October 15, 2003


Strangely, Matt now seems to be sending a mixed message by giving the post the accolades of the sidebar stamp of approval.

From reading Matt's blog, took his comment:
[remembers to copy and paste graduate thesis ... trace metals transport in lake ecosystems comes up] as good. That was easy if you've read his blog.
posted by thomcatspike at 1:05 PM on October 15, 2003


I guess I didn't realize that we were encouraged to post essays, good or bad, in a discussion thread.

Not encouraged per se, but this one was done well.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 1:21 PM on October 15, 2003


I have a nice 30-page essay in Italian about Guicciardini's political thought that I'm anxious to share with you guys
posted by matteo at 1:36 PM on October 15, 2003


Seems to me there are a lot of MeFi members who'd do well to emulate Matt's approach to MetaFilter.
posted by five fresh fish at 2:23 PM on October 15, 2003


I had no interest in the the post nor its thread. Two sentences into the novella, and I lost interest in it as well.
posted by mischief at 2:46 PM on October 15, 2003


Of course you can – more for the MeFiRabbis to dissect and interpret.

I have visions of a group of monomanically dedicated individuals, hundreds of years from now, and not unlike Talmudic scholars, dissecting Matt's every utterance for all conceivable shades of meaning. Multi-volume commentaries and concordances will be compiled. Systems of numerology will be developed allowing further hidden messages to be uncovered.

But maybe that's just me.
posted by IshmaelGraves at 3:54 PM on October 15, 2003


Yes, I've had a lifelong terror of empty footnotes.

(Pulls shower curtain open)
posted by clavdivs at 5:31 PM on October 15, 2003


Aiieeee!
posted by languagehat at 5:42 PM on October 15, 2003




Yep too long - and it's not a comment. Hey, it's been admitted by the author, who understandably went to town on his subject under study - I see that as an emotional kinda thing. To me it's kind of a clue that if you add footnotes, you're not just posting an essay or a regular comment - that's a paper. An interesting one too. But er, do you all mean in praising it to set a precedent for others who perhaps aren't as well researched? At least encourage people to post citations on a separate page please! It wasn't like reading a comment in a thread leading somewhere - it was as if someone had said "sit down, let me give you a brief lecture." A good lecture, but still, that's what it was. Frankly, if it had sucked mightily there would have been a huge outcry. That there was no outcry - even more than this particular comment festival in MetaTalk - is a compliment to the author.

Not to mention it's the kind of information that should be given its own page somewhere so that it can be linked without surrounding comments. I mean that in a good way - it's a stand alone piece. And I sense from monju bosatsu's comment that it's soon to be a larger paper? For what, conferences at least? Or is this a part of a thesis or dissertation? From your comment above - that this is from notes - makes me understand why you didn't just post what I first thought - we need an abstract! But then I was lazy and always wrote my abstracts first.

And now I have to go reread the thing, because I skimmed part of it to get to the summary statement. Which I didn't find. So actually I get more from this essay now that I understand its a paper in the rough. I spent my time trying to understand why that particular section seemed to be quoted - because it seemed unfinished and there was no tie back to the link concerning the founding fathers, so I was trying to figure out where monju_bosatsu was taking us in the thread...

And I should have just boiled all my babbling down to "what languagehat said." See what happens when you encourage people to be verbose? Very dangerous.
That reminds me of a story I once
posted by batgrlHG at 1:01 AM on October 16, 2003


"Not encouraged per se, but this one was done well."

Um, I went to school with a lot of grad students who considered themselves excellent authors and masters of their field. I'm sure they'd think any quote from their own work would be brilliant. Others in their class (including some of the professors) found them, er, a bit tedious shall we say. And rather full of themselves. Which came out in their writing to the exclusion of the facts they were trying to get across. (And I'm damn sure most of my papers would be incredibly tedious for others to read as well.)

Short version: really really dangerous to encourage.
(But you can bet I will enjoy reading. What we need is some cultural studies folk to come weigh in and post their papers. Then we'll have some fun.)
posted by batgrlHG at 1:16 AM on October 16, 2003


MeFi posts and comments are all so much porridge, and each of us is a Goldilocks. There's almost nothing here that someone won't defend and that someone else won't condemn... which is what makes it all so fascinating.

I never mind the unusual artifacts - my only lurking fear has to do with signs of homogenization and standardization. I love to be surprised here, and often am. The time I dread is the day on which I can successfully predict every single post and the content of the ensuing comments. For this Goldilocks, when the site is full of posts and comments reflecting strange obsessions and unusual content/presentations, it's juuuuust right.
posted by taz at 2:22 AM on October 16, 2003


« Older How are you helping when you derail a thread by...   |   Is MetaFilter starting down that slippery slope... Newer »

You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments