U.S.A. bad, kills civilians (again)

October 21, 2003 10:52 AM

U.S.A. bad, kills civilians. Guess what folks, we've done this before, several times. Isn't it time to declare a moratorium?
posted by mr_crash_davis to etiquette/policy at 10:52 AM (202 comments total)

Amen.
posted by xmutex at 10:56 AM on October 21, 2003

george bush bad, kills everything.
posted by quonsar at 11:01 AM on October 21, 2003

It's all in the phrasing, son. Now pass me some more tea to pour into the harbor.
posted by ed at 11:09 AM on October 21, 2003

U.S.A. bad, kills civilians, we've done this before, several times. Isn't it time to declare a moratorium?
Yes.
posted by ginz at 11:13 AM on October 21, 2003

Now hold on just a minute.

The Bush Administration killed people?

Now I'm pissed!
posted by eyeballkid at 11:14 AM on October 21, 2003

U.S.A. bad, kills civilians ... Isn't it time to declare a moratorium?

Well, yes, of course, but do you really think the U.S. army is going to take orders from metafilter?
posted by signal at 11:24 AM on October 21, 2003

U.S.A. bad, kills civilians ... Isn't it time to declare a moratorium?

Well, yes, of course, but do you really think the U.S. army is going to take orders from metafilter?

Times like this I'm proud to be part of MeFi, 'cuz I just got beat to the same punchline about 5 times in about 6 comments. Nice Scary to know we think alike. Anyone for world takeover?
posted by Shane at 11:32 AM on October 21, 2003

It's like Foldy and Miguel have long been competing for the "MEFI IS MY PERSONAL PLAYGROUND: BOW TO ME!!!" banner, and finally MeFi's patience has worn thin.

Thread's gone, btw.

In any case, have you guys heard the new Shins? In many ways it seems like a classic sophomore album, but better than most, and full of really great memorable melodies. I give a B+.
posted by dhoyt at 11:37 AM on October 21, 2003

Anyone for world takeover?

Oooh! Me! Me! Me! It'll totally be a cakewalk!
posted by interrobang at 11:39 AM on October 21, 2003

Well, yes, of course, but do you really think the U.S. army is going to take orders from metafilter?

I love you.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 11:49 AM on October 21, 2003

m_c_d bad, kills civilian.
posted by donth at 11:59 AM on October 21, 2003

In any case, have you guys heard the new Shins? In many ways it seems like a classic sophomore album, but better than most, and full of really great memorable melodies. I give a B+.

Who cares, get a blog.
posted by rushmc at 12:05 PM on October 21, 2003

U.S.A. bad, kills civilians....george bush bad, kills everything....Isn't it time to declare a moratorium?

Don't know. jonmc just pawn in game of mefi.
posted by jonmc at 12:06 PM on October 21, 2003

In any case, have you guys heard the new Shins? In many ways it seems like a classic sophomore album, but better than most, and full of really great memorable melodies. I give a B+.

it's cool! I love the tone of the guitars too, especially in the first song. just the right touch of reverb. perfect!
posted by mcsweetie at 12:12 PM on October 21, 2003

It was a decent post on an important and timely topic, but newsfiltery and obviously not what Matt wants here (though he is clearly very arbitrary about this). Look at his recent posts to ascertain his taste so you can better conform to it, or just stick to some new Flash animated characters farting around in some manner presumably but not demonstrably different from the hundreds of other animated characters farting around that we're subjected to. Or maybe a good post on some obscure-and-not-particularly-interesting part of the world for those who don't own an atlas, as long as we're not killing anyone there. You can't win a popularity contest with controversy.
posted by rushmc at 12:17 PM on October 21, 2003

Who cares, get a blog.

(Dear rushmc: my "joke" was implying that foldy & miguel sometimes make "playground" posts in which they almost deliberately annoy people, while I subsequently did the exact same thing myself by chatting about the new Shins. Get it? It's the ol' reversal. A tried and true comedy device. Didn't mean to confuse you. Btw, if Metafilter no longer suits your expectations, you are free to go at any time. Wait ........... déjà vu!)
posted by dhoyt at 12:30 PM on October 21, 2003

...or just stick to some new Flash animated characters farting around in some manner...

Or just some new Flash animated characters farting, as is often the case...
posted by Shane at 12:32 PM on October 21, 2003

(Not that I don't love Flash.)
posted by Shane at 12:33 PM on October 21, 2003

"It was a decent post on an important and timely topic"

No. It was beating a dead horse with a post guaranteed to be the same old anti Bush/war thread we've seen dozens of times here.

It has nothing to do with conforming to Matt's taste. Nice try at maikng that the issue.
posted by y6y6y6 at 12:33 PM on October 21, 2003

It's kinda sad that all these preventable deaths (whether soldier or civilian) are "same old, same old" or "beating a dead horse."
posted by amberglow at 12:46 PM on October 21, 2003

Yeah. It's very sad. That's perhaps why it would be better discussed at another website more receptive to those topics.

At MeFi, it clearly does nothing but piss people off and drive them further into their positions of righteousness. There are literally thousands of world events/politics/humanitarian sites on the web. Why keep pummeling this one with the same old thing, when the admin himself has repeatedly asked that it stop?

It's nothing against the profundity of the topic itself, but the frequency and tenor in which it's posted. It's hard to understand why this is such a confusing concept.
posted by dhoyt at 12:59 PM on October 21, 2003

It's kinda sad that all these preventable deaths (whether soldier or civilian) are "same old, same old" or "beating a dead horse."

It's not that the deaths per se are necessarily "same old, same old," but rather the using of those deaths as the springboard for yet another in the long, long line of "Bush bad/war good" threads. We've been over it. Many times. Crash correctly points out that we've been over the "body count" issue -- including innocent civilians -- many times. Everything that could be said has been said.

I can tell you exactly how this thread would have gone: Most posters would cite such deaths as evidence of the war's illegitimacy, while others would find it an unfortunate, but unavoidable, cost of doing the right thing. Nobody's going to change their minds at this late date. This type of thread is destined to be nothing more than a reaffirmation of existing viewpoints. Why waste the electrons?
posted by pardonyou? at 1:02 PM on October 21, 2003

I can think of exactly why you'd want to waste the electrons for such a post ... on an individual's blog. There was good content in that post, just not good content for MeFi.
posted by Wulfgar! at 1:10 PM on October 21, 2003

thank you MCD. and amberglow, yes preventable deaths in times of war/famine/etc. ARE sad... but we've heard this particular story getting rehashed here over and over and over again that it's quite sickening. what's so damn funny is that needless deaths are happening all around the world at this very moment but, unlike the iraq story, they don't monopolize the front page of mefi every single fucking day...
posted by poopy at 1:10 PM on October 21, 2003

"It's kinda sad that all these preventable deaths are "same old, same old""

As far as I can tell you're the only one who thought that. The rest of us are talking about the post on the front page? In fact what the hell are you talking about? Who are you accusing of what?

If you are saying that I don't care about civilian deaths in Iraq then you can go fuck yourself.
posted by y6y6y6 at 1:12 PM on October 21, 2003

"[W]hat's so damn funny is that needless deaths are happening all around the world at this very moment but, unlike the iraq story," they aren't all our fault.

By "our", of course, I mean Americans, not MeFites.

That being said, I agree that the post should have been cut. It did have worthwhile content, and it is an incredibly important issue, but as noted above, MeFi is the wrong forum.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 1:29 PM on October 21, 2003

There was good content in that post, just not good content for MeFi.

But it would have been good for WarFilter.
posted by homunculus at 1:32 PM on October 21, 2003

If you are saying that I don't care about civilian deaths in Iraq then you can go fuck yourself.

so the kind y6y6y6 didn't take, eh?

[insert emoticon here]
posted by Ufez Jones at 1:37 PM on October 21, 2003

they aren't all our fault...

so, the criteria then is who is at fault? and by 'fault' we're talking americans? yep, you're right, that does seem to be the consensus from what i've read of politcal posts on the front page.
posted by poopy at 1:49 PM on October 21, 2003

We're beating it but the horse just won't die.
posted by Space Coyote at 1:54 PM on October 21, 2003

MetaFilter: Won't Someone Think of the Dead Horses?
posted by Mick at 1:54 PM on October 21, 2003

No reason to jump down amberglow's throat. Obviously there's more than one place to stand on this issue, and this thread was meant for discussing same, right? So let amberglow be sad. I'm sad as well. I'm not challenging the deletion, and your explanation is completely valid. But you have to admit that there's something either apathetic, or defeatist, or resigned, or at least detached about accepting our inability to discuss productively the lives and deaths made and destroyed by our foreign policy. Some people understand the reasons, but still find that detachment difficult to assimilate, including me. Don't shit on people for clinging to their conscience half a moment too long. I'm at least encouraged that there's a halfhearted thread here on the subject. There must be something stirring in the empathy drawer.
posted by scarabic at 1:59 PM on October 21, 2003

you're absolutely correct scarabic, and i think mefi is in desperate need of more these kinds of sheepy 'empathy' posts.
posted by poopy at 2:21 PM on October 21, 2003

So, a Saddam Hussein gassing Kurds post based upon an old Human Rights Watch story is O but a trigger happy American occupation forces shooting Iraqi civilians post based upon a just released Human Rights Watch related story is not OK. People may not like news posts but the story was topical and based upon a just released report by Human Rights Watch.

I think the complaint was made and the post subsequently cut because of the name of poster rather than the content of the post and that Matt was wrong to cut it--he's just thrown meat to the scapegoating wolves in doing so.

The language and tone of this post were remarkedly milder than previous posts the poster has made. He's getting hammered because of who he is and what he has posted in the past. I don't want all the usual fold_&_mutilate haters calling the shots here anymore than I want all the usual 111 haters calling the shots. It's mob rule.
posted by y2karl at 2:24 PM on October 21, 2003

Whatever, poopy. Try reading the comment before you attempt snappy comeback.
posted by scarabic at 2:36 PM on October 21, 2003

It's kinda sad that all these preventable curses are same old, same old

As far as I can tell you're the only one who thought that it was ok to beat up on amberglow. The rest of us are talking about the post on the front page. In fact what the hell are you talking about?

If you are saying that I don't care about civil discourse in Mefi then you can go fuck yourself.
fuck yourself
fuck yourself
fuck yourself
fuck yourself
fuck yourself
fuck yourself
fuck yourself
fuck yourself

fuck your limited fucking vocabulary

fuck your fucking lack of taste, courtesy and restraint

fuck you for prompting yet another complaint about fucking pointless fucking swearing masquerading as fucking anger, when in truth, it's empty punctufuckination

shut the fuck up already.
posted by dash_slot- at 2:48 PM on October 21, 2003

sorry scarabic, i shouldn't have been so crass. to be honest it wasn't a jab at you, but rather my frustration of witnessing mefi being dominated by these kinds of posts.
posted by poopy at 2:49 PM on October 21, 2003

what scarabic and y2k said. I'm not accusing you of anything, y6--rather, I think we've all normalized all these horrible stories coming out of iraq (here at mefi and in life in general) and that's sad, and a problem. I know I've come to expect 1-2 deaths of soldiers a day, and who knows how many iraqis. Considering we created what's going on, I think it shouldn't be called "same old, same old" in any context, whether here or elsewhere. If you don't want to know, that's fine. If you don't want to see it here at mefi, that's fine too. It just makes me sad.

And f&m gets a big kiss from me for reminding me of this.
posted by amberglow at 2:54 PM on October 21, 2003

Profanity rules!
posted by xmutex at 2:57 PM on October 21, 2003

also, they haven't been monopolizing the front page by any stretch of the imagination.
posted by amberglow at 2:58 PM on October 21, 2003

"If you're going to make a post related to Iraq and the […] war, please reconsider, as the topic has been discussed previously many times."
posted by timeistight at 3:01 PM on October 21, 2003

also, they haven't been monopolizing the front page by any stretch of the imagination.

There's a reason for that.
posted by dhoyt at 3:02 PM on October 21, 2003

If you ask me, we're in more danger of being dominated by in-joke ass-tickling, self-referential nut-grabbing, and generalized giggling and farting.
posted by scarabic at 3:16 PM on October 21, 2003

"But you have to admit that there's something apathetic about accepting our inability to discuss productively the lives and deaths made and destroyed by our foreign policy."

Huh? What are you talking about?

This thread, and my comments, are discussing the consensus that this sort of post is inappropriate for MetaFilter. It's the wrong forum. No one here is being apathetic, and I'm sure most, if not all, of us are quite able to discuss this topic in a productive and informed manner. This just isn't the place for it.

Do you not understand that? Even after it's been stated over and over right in front of you? Are you even reading the whole thread?

"Don't shit on people for clinging to their conscience half a moment too long."

Oh, is that what it was? Some accidental post by a person whose empathy made them forget where they were? Silly me, I thought it a veteran user who was accusing me of being apathetic and callus because I think MetaFilter isn't the place to discuss these things over and over every single day.

We talk about Iraq every single day. We discuss every single facet and angle and rumor, which most members agree is inappropriate. But that's not enough for you. Now we need to take a moment of silence every few threads to pray for the war dead.

No. It's the wrong forum. If I need this I find an appropriate place for it. I don't wander through the checkout line at Safeway and lecture people about how sad it is that we can't discuss civilian deaths in Iraq while we wait on line. I'm happy that you feel compelled to go down to the mall and have a group hug with everyone over the tragedy in Iraq. Leave me out of it. I'll mourn in my own way thank you.
posted by y6y6y6 at 3:20 PM on October 21, 2003

You say it's the wrong forum; others say it's the right forum.

So now, instead of squabbling in the blue, there's squabbling in the gray.

To riff on q:

"Ambivalence
"for specious guys
"more geek than Niles Crane..."

;-P
posted by mischief at 3:28 PM on October 21, 2003

fuck.
posted by seanyboy at 3:43 PM on October 21, 2003

don't lose hope amberglow... there's light at the end of the tunnel... oh, nevermind.
posted by poopy at 3:45 PM on October 21, 2003

y6y6y6 - if you are reduced to an uncomprehending "huh?" then perhaps you're jumping the gun by getting shrill with me, hmmm...?

I never defended the FPP so please to chill out and hand me the gun. All I jumped in to comment on was amberglow getting the shut-up stick for being sad. I wasn't even particularly talking to you.

We seem to have collectively decided that we are unable to produce any discussion of value on the subject of Iraq. I have to agree this is true, but it is a limitation, a failing, and I acknowledge it with a lament. I believe that's all amberglow was doing. Do you understand now? Or do you feel the need to continue shouting people down for airing their thoughts and reactions on the state of MetaFilter rhetoric on MetaTalk? Funny, I thought that was what it was for.

I haven't advocated FPPs about Iraq. If you reiterate one more time that MeFi isn't the place for Iraq posts, so help me I'll smack you.

[smack!]

Whoops, couldn't wait.
posted by scarabic at 3:50 PM on October 21, 2003

~chuckle~

Too much....

Comes now a Metafilter post about a 56 page report (including full details on methodology, statistical analysis, and case studies) released this very day by a major human rights organization on the admittedly trivial matter of civilians dying in Iraq at the hands of their liberators. Yeah, some stale report on the undoubtedly very unimportant matter of civilians dying not "during" the war...not before the war...not under sanctions...not during Gulf War I....but dying in today's so-called "postwar period", in which peace and plenty abound and Iraqis with open arms perpetually praise their liberators.

Some particular Mefite[s] see[s] the post, calmly control[s] a mounting hysteria, undoubtedly considers attempting a reasoned analysis or rebuttal of the report and/or link facts, discussion, or conclusions.... but (undoubtedly just too busy for reasoned discourse) proceeds to support an undoubtedly nonpartisan indignation over such an irrelevant and nonthreatening-to-our-world-view post by google searching all MetaFilter comments (since day 1?) for such historically uncommon and unique terms as "Iraq", "body", and "count", getting the absolutely astounding total of 37 hits on those terms, thereby grandly concluding "we've done this before". Others, perhaps taking their cue from those doing the killing, are understandably aghast that other news stories and current total estimates of dead Iraqi civilians might unpatriotically be discussed in public, particularly in the context of these latter day civilian casualties.

Read: "We just don't want to hear about it."

"Same old same old"? Yep. Tragically and so predictably true, among some of our friends on Metafilter at least. What exactly are some of you afraid of?

Sand for heads. Need more sand for heads.

~wink~
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 4:03 PM on October 21, 2003

Foldy's right. The post was good. The topic has been done to death and the poster has a terrible history, but the post itself fell within the guidelines.
posted by BlueTrain at 4:13 PM on October 21, 2003

We're just absolutely terrified of reading about what we've been reading about over and over and over and over and over and over and over again, F&M. Horrified.
posted by xmutex at 4:17 PM on October 21, 2003

Profanity rules!

Fuckin' A.

Sand for heads. Need more sand for heads.

Because if you don't agree with foldy, you're in denial. The first step is admitting you have a problem.

*makes gesture at crotch with fist, you figure out the rest*
posted by jonmc at 4:28 PM on October 21, 2003

So, fold_and_mutilate, when you read Matt's request to reconsider posting about Iraq, did you give it a moment's thought? Did you decide your post was too important to have to follow our host's rules?
posted by timeistight at 4:45 PM on October 21, 2003

But it would have been good for WarFilter.

Hear, hear!
posted by Space Coyote at 4:59 PM on October 21, 2003

Urging to "reconsider" is not the same as a ban, fwiw.
posted by scarabic at 4:59 PM on October 21, 2003

Metafilter: We Beat Dead Kittens
posted by konolia at 5:03 PM on October 21, 2003

What exactly are some of you afraid of?

"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies, The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

- C.S. Lewis, In Freedom
posted by MrBaliHai at 5:10 PM on October 21, 2003

There is a difference between "please reconsider" and "No. Do not do it. Ever.".

Like most rules this one seems open to interpretation and I'd like to think that the door was left open for truly important posts -- clearly this did not meet the criteria or it would still be there. This is something that needs clarification because Bush, Iraq and Islam are not going away anytime soon.

I felt it was a good post, but I don't make the rules.

Seeing amberglow told to "shut the fuck up" because some MetaKKKop chose to take her words out of context saddens me. God forbid anyone should try to inject a bit of humanity into the solid cynical carapice of Metafilter.
posted by cedar at 5:11 PM on October 21, 2003

amberglow's a he, cedar. Either that or he really needs eloctrolysis bad, cause goatees just ruin a woman, if you ask me.
posted by jonmc at 5:13 PM on October 21, 2003

Damn. I hate when those awkward facts get in the way.
posted by cedar at 5:17 PM on October 21, 2003

I'm at a loss to find anything wrong with the post, even if I imagine someone who's "sick" of Iraq or "doesn't want" to discuss it - the poor dear.

In fact, I'd call it a model post: very interesting link; up-to-date and easily missed by all; well presented and with a lot to discuss. I present my first official WTF Matt?

More and more, I find it difficult to respect people who are bored with what's happening in Iraq. I certainly don't respect those who, just because they don't want to discuss it, want to stop everyone else from discussing it.

The "appropriate forum" mumbo-jumbo, btw, is hilarious.

Keep up the excellent work, Foldy - what better proof that you are getting through (our thick heads)?! :)
posted by MiguelCardoso at 5:19 PM on October 21, 2003

Get it? It's the ol' reversal. A tried and true comedy device.

I guess you didn't study the next line in the gag.
posted by rushmc at 5:47 PM on October 21, 2003

No need for the histrionics, fold_and_mutilate. I'm not "some particular Mefite", I'm mr_crash_davis, just like it says under the post up there and just like it will say under this one. I posted the search results for "iraq" "body count" because I was saying we've done this thread before, and if I'd just started a thread without some evidence of that it wouldn't have made much sense.

You may wish to believe that because I, and others, are tired of the relentless zeal you seem to have for this subject that it means we don't care, or we wish to bury our heads in the sand, or that we think you're a pinko commie lunatic ( ~wink~ ), but what it really boils down to is that we know how this movie ends, and we're just not interested in sitting through a repeat showing.

~hugs and kisses~
posted by mr_crash_davis at 5:47 PM on October 21, 2003

I'm at a loss to find anything wrong with the post, even if I imagine someone who's "sick" of Iraq or "doesn't want" to discuss it

Most all the comments it was getting were people saying it should be gone, along with most of this metatalk thread. Foldy's got a history of ax grinding here so I didn't give him the benefit of the doubt (he used it up a long time ago -- at this point I'd say he should keep the most partisan stuff on his own blog or warfilter). Still, even if it stayed, I seriously doubt any new ground would be covered aside from the following:

"Bush is bad and is killing people"

"No, he's not"

(repeat 10,000 times)
posted by mathowie at 5:50 PM on October 21, 2003

But you have to admit that there's something either apathetic, or defeatist, or resigned, or at least detached about accepting our inability to discuss productively the lives and deaths made and destroyed by our foreign policy.

Well said.
posted by rushmc at 5:50 PM on October 21, 2003

But you have to admit that there's something either apathetic, or defeatist, or resigned, or at least detached about accepting our inability to discuss productively the lives and deaths made and destroyed by our foreign policy.

I would agree wholeheartedly, and add that I find it equally sad that managing metafilter makes me think of minding children so often -- that after all these years of internet discussions, they so often and quickly devolve into shouting matches and he said, she said types of circular, never-ending arguments.

This was supposed to be a new medium that would touch lives and allow us to share the entirety of human knowledge, for virtually free of charge, and yet, we still haven't figured out how do conduct basic discussions among strangers in a close setting.

Productive discussions are certainly possible, but they're far from the norm in passionate matters such as life, death, war, and politics (among a dozen others).
posted by mathowie at 5:54 PM on October 21, 2003

I agree with Amberglow, y2Karl, Miguel, et al (if there was anyone else it has slipped my mind). It certainly had more interesting links than countless not-that-funny flash sites, or, better yet, links to every single thing that Apple releases. Not to mention this particular post had much more information than many other war posts that don't get axed.
posted by The God Complex at 5:54 PM on October 21, 2003

We seem to have collectively decided that we are unable to produce any discussion of value on the subject of Iraq.

I disagree. And there are Iraq-themed threads aplenty on the site to back me up. (Yes, there are also bad ones.)

More and more, I find it difficult to respect people who are bored with what's happening in Iraq. I certainly don't respect those who, just because they don't want to discuss it, want to stop everyone else from discussing it.

Nor do I.

Almost the only comments it was getting was people saying it should be gone

I think your assumption that that's how it would go colors your reading of the actual thread. By my loose analysis, 4 of the comments were positively engaging the post's topic, 5 were condemning/questioning it (2 by the same person), and 4 were neutral. Hardly a mandate, by any measure.
posted by rushmc at 6:00 PM on October 21, 2003

I find it equally sad that managing metafilter makes me think of minding children so often -- that after all these years of internet discussions, they so often and quickly devolve into shouting matches and he said, she said types of circular, never-ending arguments.

So why not work to penalize those who detract rather than those seeking to contribute? This is not a snark, I'm genuinely wondering, as it seems more and more often that you are content to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Try as I might, I just can't see (and haven't seen) that approach discouraging the right people from future transgressions.
posted by rushmc at 6:03 PM on October 21, 2003

As a lot of people have said more eloquently than me in the past, the problem isn't all us people in MetaTalk discussing whether or not the thread should have been deleted.

Except for crash, I don't think one person posted in the hearts & minds thread that's also posted in this one. The problem isn't the people who know (or care) that Iraq/Bush Bad posts are generally frowned upon.

The problem is the people that don't know, or don't care, that we're having this wonderful little dialogue on another part of the site. I think that the message is being received just fine, by the people listening. Someone just needs to figure out how to get it to the rest of them.
posted by Yelling At Nothing at 6:10 PM on October 21, 2003

This was supposed to be a new medium that would touch lives and allow us to share the entirety of human knowledge, for virtually free of charge, and yet, we still haven't figured out how do conduct basic discussions among strangers in a close setting.

We're trying, Dad. We really are.

In a great many ways we are succeeding. I know that the views of others on this site not only have informed me, but they have encouraged me to reevaluate my own preconceptions. I imagine that I'm not alone in this.

I don't have to tell you this -- fer cryin' out loud it's your site -- but for each of these cluster fucks there are another twenty threads that inform and challenge. We, those of us here in this thread, are the squeaky wheels looking for a li'l dab o' that MeFi grease. Like anyplace else the vocal minority gets the attention while dozens, if not hundreds, of other people go about their merry way learning, teaching and expressing themselves.
posted by cedar at 6:35 PM on October 21, 2003

wow! people are saying fuck! i like to say fuck!
fuck! fuck! fuck! fuck! fuck! fuck! fuck! fuck! fuck!
posted by quonsar at 7:17 PM on October 21, 2003

fuck-a-doo!
posted by jonmc at 7:21 PM on October 21, 2003

As an admitted leftist, I for one care only about discussing current agricultural policies.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 7:25 PM on October 21, 2003

fuck-a-doodle-doo! Wake up, farmer XQUZYPHYR.
posted by jonmc at 7:30 PM on October 21, 2003

quonsar: say it, don't spray it.
posted by scarabic at 7:31 PM on October 21, 2003

I find it equally sad that managing metafilter makes me think of minding children so often

Hey, whoah, no need to get insulting because the style and quantity of moderation you've chosen for your site has led to a tenor that doesn't meet your high standards. There are many here who both love the community and are frequently taken aback by the dumbness and vitriolic backstabbing sometimes, and painting those concerned citizens with a brush that broad, particularly when you haven't even bothered to change the 'Iraq and impending war' blurb on the post page to 'recent' or 'current', for example, and seem especially of late (for very good reasons, no doubt) to be especially arbitrary in your pruning and deletions. Didn't you post your own 'Iraq-related' thread a few days ago?

Recent statements by your government indicate that the most rosily optimistic outlook is that there will be some drawdown of troop numbers there by 2005. The situation is not going away, and people are going to keep posting about it, so I suggest -- request -- that you either update your policy (and update the blurb on the posting page so we know what it actually is), declare a complete ban, or at least give us a reason to think that the current deletion policy isn't entirely arbitrary.

You're the one who was charging 5 bucks (or whatever it was) a pop for people to get in a while back, weren't you? It may be unrelated, and no offense to you (I'm glad you got a little income outta the place, pre-Google ads) or those who got in with some green, but bemoaning the fact that moderating their contributions (and those of older members) is like minding children is a bit insulting, I'd say. Still, even so, well within your purview as our kind proprietor.

I think you do a great job mathowie, and I love you for it, but there's no need to start talking down to the great unwashed. And I understand that it must get annoying and tiresome sometimes, trying to intervene in pathetic recess-playground vendettas, trying to keep a light touch amidst the doubleposts and the flamebait, and you do it well, for the most part. Still, keep in mind that many MeFites do shower at least weekly.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:31 PM on October 21, 2003

That said, Bush is still a bad man, right?
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:38 PM on October 21, 2003

Well said, stav.
posted by jpoulos at 7:42 PM on October 21, 2003

"Bush is bad and is killing people"

"No, he's not"

(repeat 10,000 times)

If I could wave a wand and change one aspect of people's behavior to fix this situation, it would be to make them stay on topic.

Discussions devolve when they lose focus and fall into classic, already-polarized blood-feuds, like liberal/conservative, mac/pc etc.

Even if this discussion would have been short, it still would have been worth having, so long as it skirted a rehash of all of American politics, and the equally classic game of newsfilter hand-slap. Unfortunately, it bullseyed both.

And FWIW, Matt, segmenting by topic, and a system for rewarding/punishing contributors would go a long way to relieving these problems. I understand better than most the effort required to institute broad new features, and I know it resembles a playpen here quite often, but I think you underestimate how much the human factor makes up for lack of functionality on MetaFilter that is now-common elsewhere. I can name several large communities that wouldn't have lasted half as long with twice the management features.

on preview: what stavros said.
posted by scarabic at 7:46 PM on October 21, 2003

haven't even bothered to change the 'Iraq and impending war' blurb

not to mention, though i always do, the nigger trifecta.
posted by quonsar at 7:50 PM on October 21, 2003

XQUZYPHYR: Too much corn dammit!!

That said I think it is sad that not only cannot Metafilter support reasonable conversation about recent foreign policy, neither can any other public space I know of. America has become very divided about many things and this has spilled over into Mefi in an unfortunate way. I think people post here because it is safer to discuss politics on this board than in actual public. Mefi is different from other internet forums by being more diverse in political opinion than many sites devoted to politics. It seems that we have crazy, wing-nut Leftist boards like Indymedia and seething, angry proto-fashist boards like LGF, but no site that has a good enough diversity of participants to allow for good thoughtful debate. This lack of a medium has led people on both side of the spectrum (but mainly the left side) to use Mefi for political debates. If F_M tried to post at a right-wing site he'd just be shouted down and nothing would come of it. If he posted at a left-wing site everyone would just agree and, again, nothing would come of it.

Here is the scary part: If F_m talked to loud about this in a bar there very well might be trouble. I probably sound paranoid on this point, but in the last two years I've definitely learned not to discuss politics in open public. Even sitting and talking to friends at a private booth will invite interlopers all to eager to talk the conversation too far.

I'm not saying Foldy isn't politically active outside of Mefi, but that Mefi, by being fairly tolerant and intelligent does invite political debate. When I first joined (best $5 I ever spent) I posted political things because I was interested in seeing how this community would react, because knew I would learn something out of that debate (I don't see enough dhartung these days.)

Maybe I'm rambling, maybe not. I don't care that the post in question was deleted, I just understand why it would get posted in the first place and I also think it sad that some discussions have become to difficult for this, and other, forums.
posted by elwoodwiles at 7:56 PM on October 21, 2003

(Excuse tangent)

You're the one who was charging 5 bucks (or whatever it was) a pop for people to get in a while back, weren't you? It may be unrelated(...)

You can say that again - unrelated. And unfair. What the hell has that got to with it, Stav? Apart from the fact that almost all of us got in free - and every single person could have done, if they'd taken pot-luck with the rest of us.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 7:59 PM on October 21, 2003

I think it's unrelated, also, but I think everything else he said was fairly spot-on.
posted by The God Complex at 8:06 PM on October 21, 2003

One of the most interesting things about Metatalk is how invariably in every metathread someone must note the dastardly hypocrisy that Matt blatantly spews from his throne. No matter what the issue, there's always the opportunity with some digging to go, "aaAAAAA HA!!! Matt posted a thread about milking goats two years ago! I... AM.... VINDICATED!"

It's got to be the most fucking annoying thing in the world.
posted by Stan Chin at 8:14 PM on October 21, 2003

we have a problem here?
posted by clavdivs at 8:17 PM on October 21, 2003

What the hell has that got to with it, Stav?

It's got everything to do with my point in that paragraph, Miguel, which is that it seems a bit unpleasant (not to put too fine a point on it) to take peoples' money to get in to the party, then accuse them of behaving like children (along with those who crashed the place).

I'd have thought you'd have better reading skills than that, Miguel, and that someone of your apparent refinement and sensitivity would understand what I was saying. I am certain I wasn't unclear.

I flagged it as possibly unrelated to the larger point (and mentioned deliberately that I was happy that Matt made some money from it, bad an idea as I thought it at the time) as I was aware that there would be those who would find it unwarranted. There's nothing unfair about my comment. Matt can speak for himself, if he's so inclined.

It's got to be the most fucking annoying thing in the world.

On preview, you're the most fucking annoying thing in my world at the moment, Stan. He posted that link 4 fucking days ago. It's germane.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:20 PM on October 21, 2003

Ummm, as an independant observer (who paid $5 bucks - full disclosure) Mefiers do act like children. Alot. Just because some peole happened to pay (while many more didn't) doesn't give anyone the excuse to pee on the carpet. Which people do. Everyday.
posted by elwoodwiles at 8:27 PM on October 21, 2003

the milking goats thread was by srboisvert, actually. aaHA!
posted by azimuth at 8:29 PM on October 21, 2003

"Didn't you post your own 'Iraq-related' thread a few days ago?"

A post by mathowie about a gallery of art by Iraqi kids != yet another fold_and_mutilate post about how murderous the United States is.

Unless you're claiming that Matt has an agenda to make us all look at Iraqi kids' crayon renderings, and is going to post more of them as often as possible until we admit that yes, the U.S. is evil for sending Crayolas there.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 8:31 PM on October 21, 2003

I find it equally sad that managing metafilter makes me think of minding children so often -matt

...but bemoaning the fact that moderating their contributions (and those of older members) is like minding children is a bit insulting, I'd say. -stav

Come on stavros! You've complained about the amount of childishness and immaturity yourself, unless my reading between your lines (and I know that I'm opening myself up for retaliation by saying it this way) is wrong. How can anybody not look at metafilter and the infighting, the flaming, the backstabbing, the constant complaining about any little thing, the schoolyard bullying and tattletale-ing and the indignant ego that goes along with almost every metatalk thread and not think that that it's the writing of children? For adults, we sure don't often do discussion well. No, I don't think that Matt's statement is all that inaccurate, and it's only insulting if you (not necessarily you, stav, but anybody who actually does find the statement insulting - which could indeed be yourself, but somehow I don't think so) have a hard time looking at yourself in the mirror.
posted by ashbury at 8:33 PM on October 21, 2003

Matt posted a thread about milking goats two years ago

he stole that from blort.
posted by quonsar at 8:34 PM on October 21, 2003

Yay, elwood.

I remember when we used to straighten up and fly right because we had a fear of Matt just pulling the plug on this place. I suspect some days we came awfully close.

Would it help if we all just stopped and remembered to appreciate this place and what we have here?

Oh, and Stavros, you are my favorite wonderchicken and always will be, but I am puzzled at your taking offense at Matt's comment. You know as well as I do that it's the truth.
posted by konolia at 8:34 PM on October 21, 2003

...then accuse them of behaving like children (along with those who crashed the place)

Sorry, as it seems inevitable that people will take what I said as an attack, when it was not, I would add to that, as it is key to my original point :

"...when the moderator has been both mysterious about his expectations, seemingly arbitrary in his interventions, and reticent to spank the most egregious violators amongst them, while all the while, people with high expectations and low tolerance leave the site to the giggly-farters and those with more endurance."

I understand self-policing, but Metatalk is no longer an effective self-policing forum, it would seem, and so I think a decision should be made by the moderator either to go for stronger moderation with clearer guidelines, or an iron fist in Metatalk to try and bring it a little further back to the tool for community self-moderation that it originally was intended to be (as I understand it).

Until that is done, insulting the userbase, paid or otherwise, seems a little un-called for (again, even though I was careful to say I understand how annoying moderation must get).
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:35 PM on October 21, 2003

pull the plug, matt. just do it. put us all out of your misery.
posted by crunchland at 8:36 PM on October 21, 2003

Matt posted a thread about milking goats two years ago! I... AM.... VINDICATED!"

I think you're way off here. No one is likely to want to get a "dig" in on Matt, whom I think we all like, respect, and appreciate. But when he intentionally limits his guidance to posting on the site to comments like "don't post anything lame," it causes people to look to his own posting choices for examples of the type of thing he wants on the site, which strikes me as a very reasonable thing to do.
posted by rushmc at 8:37 PM on October 21, 2003

GOVERNOR MOBILIZES NATIONAL GONDOLA
PELT TO GARB HARPOONIST FROM METASMOCK
posted by quonsar at 8:42 PM on October 21, 2003

Obviously, crunchland does not speak for most of us, but since he has expressed his wish that the site end for him (and surely he doesn't have the right to seek to enforce that wish for anyone but himself), yes, please do pull the plug on crunchland. We did settle that issue a month or so ago, no? That members could request that you ban/delete them? Well, there you go: a clear request.
posted by rushmc at 8:42 PM on October 21, 2003

All right. Fuck it.

Re-read my original post. I thought I had phrased it carefully enough that even the most childish among you would be able to grasp my points, which were not

• about being offended or insulted, or
• about Matt posting something Iraq related, or
• about five fucking dollars, but

about how Metafilter is run, and how that has changed, and what we can do about making it better in concert with the frazzled moderator (whose heart I get the feeling is no longer in it), rather than calling one another 'childish'.

I'm going for a walk. I'll check back later to see how much further my words have been miscontrued.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:42 PM on October 21, 2003

Even sitting and talking to friends at a private booth will invite interlopers all to eager to talk the conversation too far.

And reading the wrong thing can invite the FBI to your workplace.
posted by homunculus at 8:55 PM on October 21, 2003

Off topic: I'm still taking that story with a grain of salt. For example, I've seen certain posters threaten Bush's life and to my knowledge they've not been contacted by anyone.

Or perhaps they've been frogged marched all the way to gitmo and certain commentators are actually moles monitoring us all.....
posted by elwoodwiles at 9:09 PM on October 21, 2003

I agree with you that matt's heart is no longer into it, stavros. The problem is that matt won't, at least up until this point, change the way metafilter is moderated. I've always been partial to having more moderators rather than the onus being on matt alone, which has got to be tedious, to say the least. But he won't change that.

Maybe metatalk should be a place that has only links to point out transgressions and no discussion to follow it. It certainly seems to me that MeTa has become a free-for-all area that resembles something out of Animal House rather than a place of rational discussion about the site.

With regard to your original comment, you know that you used certain key words (such as childish, the great unwashed, insulting, the entire money paragraph, perhaps even your tone of voice, [as if something that tenuous can be interpreted, but interpret we always do]) that would set people off. You of all people should know by now that you can't say anything around here that is even mildly critical without having ten people jump on your back. Why didn't you simply say something like this:

How do we change how Metafilter is run, and how that has changed, and what we can do about making it better in concert with the frazzled moderator (whose heart I get the feeling is no longer in it), rather than calling one another 'childish'.
posted by ashbury at 9:12 PM on October 21, 2003

If some of us do have the urge to Metatalk every single post, why not make it official? Install a mini-Metatalk as a sideblog on every single thread for comments unique to that thread. It can be shown or hidden (default hidden) based on user preferences.

Some of you will say that the terrorists will have won, but I would submit that the overall level of bitching would actually decrease.
posted by PrinceValium at 9:16 PM on October 21, 2003

I think what you ought to do is ask Matt to name his price, then those of you who want to moderate this place can pool your money and buy the site.

If you got 100 owners together to buy shares at $1,000 each, I think you'd make Matt a very happy man.
posted by chaz at 9:30 PM on October 21, 2003

Jesus people. A few high points.

- I was joking about the don't post anything lame thing. I was mocking people that post lame threads in metatalk for the sake of posting.

- I don't know why "paid" is so important a distinction stav. There are probably a few dozen people, tops, that paid any money to get in here last year. I don't make a habit of taking donation money from people and just recently turned down almost a hundred bucks in donations since people wanted usernames to go with them.

- I deleted the thread because fold and mutilate has worn out my patience over the past couple years, regardless of the quality of the individual links in this specific post. When I woke up and saw yet another thread about how bush's actions are killing military and civilians alike, saw all the people complaining in the thread and in metatalk, I decided to ax it. If you want me to bring it back, fine. I will.

- I think my post about iraqi children's art is a thousand times more interesting and different than another washington post or NYT article about iraq. I don't think it's that hard to tell the difference, I wasn't trying to say whether or not the kids like the US or loved saddam, it was art from a completely different perspective.

- sorry if people feel insulted by me saying that sensitive topics are hard to discuss here and sometimes people act like children, but keep in mind I'm always seeing the worst of metafilter at all times. I get all the complaints, I see all the squabbles, and it's all on my shoulders. I'm frustrated with people bitching in threads about the quality of a post, I'm frustrated with people bitching about too many metatalk threads, I'm frustrated with people posting the same wildly partisan opinions day after day. I'm frustrated and I lashed out.

- About the way mefi is run or my moderator status or how metatalk should continue in the future, I think I've mentioned it numerous times that I'm very, very busy trying to reform copyright, photograph my life, blog my thoughts, cover emerging technology, and write essays, books, and spend every remaining second working on a house and trying to raise a family. I'd also like to start the mojo election site soon, which I feel could be very important, and that thing is probably going to be more of a timesink than any other project. I'm one person and there's only so much I can do in a day.

I don't know if MetaTalk is doing more harm than good anymore to be honest. I have maybe 15 minutes to pop in and see what people are arguing about in the morning and at night, so I don't have time to be the eyes and ears of the site like I used to. I'm usually just responding to the squeakiest wheels, so if I miss things, it's because I didn't even see them, it's not that I'm being purposely inconsistent or contrarian.

I've been thinking of what to do in the future here, whether it'd be best to hand it off to someone else, find a buyer to take it over, close it up completely. The site could use some new blood, but I don't have the time to manage new members, and although it produces an ok amount of money through ads, it's not enough to quit my job and focus on this full-time. So, I don't know really, but I'm open to suggestions.
posted by mathowie at 9:33 PM on October 21, 2003

Matt, I'll give you my second-born. He's a pain in the ass but he's almost thirteen so you could use him as a babysitter.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 9:36 PM on October 21, 2003

stavrosthewonderchicken, I didn't read mathowie's comment as talking down to anyone, washed or otherwise. I can see how he must feel like he has taken on a career in child-care at times and I am sure it gets annoying seeing his creation being used for petty bickering rather than the informed discussion and discovery of cool things on the web that he built it for.

The light touch that is used to moderate this community is a two-edged sword, of course and the inevitable result of wielding it sparingly is there will be threads that do not exactly fit the guidelines left in place from time to time. Personally, I would favour a more heavy-handed approach and feel that this may serve to stop people from going to the trouble of posting links that will disappear and give the guidelines some teeth. Adding more moderators would not, I suspect, do anything to bring a higher level of consistency to the site, but would make it worse. At least it is at present consistently inconsistent.

Perhaps some new blood would stop us from snapping at each other quite so much? I hate the thought of messing up the cosy little corner of the web that we have grown comfortable with, but familiarity breeds contempt and all that.
posted by dg at 9:37 PM on October 21, 2003

I'm open to suggestions.

Shut down MetaTalk. It's useless and destructive. Any major problems should be observable without it.
posted by Stan Chin at 9:39 PM on October 21, 2003

Any major problems should be observable without it.

My only problem with doing this is that I can't help but think a good deal of comments on any future post will be "I think this post sucks" followed by "no, it's ok" and then "naw, it sucks."

We have a lot of that now, but at least some of it is diverted here. Without metatalk, it'd all take place in threads and you'd have to navigate them like a minefield to try and read about the original topic at hand.
posted by mathowie at 9:48 PM on October 21, 2003

Obviously, crunchland does not speak for most of us...

I wasn't pretending to speak for anyone. I was merely suggesting that Matt does have an option -- especially if he's tired of the games we play. I would think we all respect the guy enough to let him ride off into the sunset if he wasn't getting what he wanted out of the site, regardles of our own psychotic attachments to it.

(I also realize that if he actually did pull the plug, you all would probably hunt me down and kill me...)
posted by crunchland at 9:56 PM on October 21, 2003

There's Crunchland, right there! He's the one that lost MetaFilter, get him!
posted by mathowie at 9:59 PM on October 21, 2003

My only problem with doing this

You're absolutely right, that is going to happen. It's my opinion however, that what I meant by 'destructive' was that MetaTalk has caused these problems:

1) It's evolution from a bugs forum to a stupid chat forum has spilled over to the blue

2) It dilutes any sense of order you wish to establish, allowing any good idea about proper etiquette to be undervalued, partially because of the stupid chat forum nature of it now

3) It's obvious people who consistantly violate the etiquette rules blatantly ignore Metatalk

4) And that's because Self-Policing takes place off thread instead of in thread. This is bad and good. I think it's a good thing when a 'bad' thread goes down in flames. It discourages the poster and those who wish to imitate him. I think this is why there are so many Politically-Charged threads, a kind of "Well nobody complained about John Doe's post, so I can post one too." However I admit this easily derails good threads.

But the main point is, it's turned into a stupid chat forum which elevates the overall carelessness of the community. Does Metatalk build a stronger community? Probably. I'm for sure it builds a stronger insane mob.
posted by Stan Chin at 10:01 PM on October 21, 2003

Matt, How about officially encouraging the grouping of links within a post? A note on the posting page could suggest looking to see if there's already a front page post on the topic (if it's a biggie-Bush, Iraq, 2004 Election, etc) and suggesting that if yours fits, add it in there instead of posting it as a separate post. It worked for the Arnold Governator thing, I think, and has worked for 9/11 anniversary posts, and others. Then existing Iraq or Bush or Election posts could serve as the only ones needed per week or month or so. Those who don't care about those topics would then have to ignore only one post (or poster), and not have to come here to call them out.(shout out to homunculus for being really good at adding on-topic links to posts)
posted by amberglow at 10:06 PM on October 21, 2003

*sharpens his x-ray proof plastic knife in preparation for the hunt*

trying to raise a family
Do I hear the impending patter of tiny feet?

For what it's worth, I think MetaTalk fulfills an important role as part of a community in being the place we all come to when we need to let off steam at each other. Despite there being plenty of sniping going on on MeFi, it would be much worse without the safety valve of MeTa to release the pressure from time to time. MeTa has certainly devolved somewhat into a much less formal, water-cooler type environment and I don't think that is all bad either. If there was somewhere else where everyone could meet to discuss what is happening in our little blue and grey world (#mefi does not really cover that, although perhaps it should), MeTa could retain its purpose as a tool for policing MeFi, but that is not the case. It was tried with the MeFi Tribe but it seems that anywhere off-site is not the same for some reason.
posted by dg at 10:10 PM on October 21, 2003

Building Virtual Insane Mob's Online
An NYT bestseller 38 weeks running, this true to life 'Horatio Haughey' yarn will cockle the warm bottoms of your lart. In this compelling page turner, author Haughey weaves a stunningly omniscient evocation of life on the intarweb in the early 21st century.
* * * * Four Stars - The Q Review - ©2036
posted by quonsar at 10:22 PM on October 21, 2003

While I agree that MeTa is often abused, I find it an important outlet for non-MeFi news such as meetups and other MeFi-community-based info.
posted by gen at 10:29 PM on October 21, 2003

it's not enough to quit my job and focus on this full-time. So, I don't know really, but I'm open to suggestions.

The only long-term solution is to provide the tools for it to manage itself. MeTa is a nice start, but as we can plainly see, performing all site filtering via debate gets really tiresome.

Is there a roadmap for anything past your deleting threads when you think it's necessary? I can't decide whether that's a worse burden for you or the rest of MeFi, but I'm inclined to say you.

There's very likely a fair amount of engineering talent already here and willing to help implement filtering, segmenting, incarceration...

Say the word when you're ready for help, big guy.
posted by scarabic at 11:21 PM on October 21, 2003

a fair amount of engineering talent already here and willing to help implement filtering, segmenting, incarceration.

say, if matt turns you down, i'll bet dubyuh can use you.
posted by quonsar at 11:31 PM on October 21, 2003

I'm way late to the party here, but I'll throw in my C$0.25 (which is worth more this week than last; our dollar is rising (or the American dollar is falling)):

1) Matt can be as arbitrary and capricious and random as he cares to be. He pays the bills.

2) F&M's posting history is monotonous. He's burning his bridges. Let's all harken back to My Recipe Debacle. It was a truly shitty FPP, despite its good intentions. It didn't get deleted. But were I to make a habit of such stupid actions, I'd fully expect to have my FPPs or my account disappear. Matt is tolerant, but not to stupid lengths.

3) If y'all want MeFi to change for the better, y'all better actively work to make it better. You don't have to be perfect: just do your best to create FPPs that will generate insightful -- not inciteful -- discussion. Or FPPs that are entertaining and will generate mercifully little discussion.

4) MeTa callouts are just asinine. Make MeFi better by making MeFi better, not by making MeTa worse.

5) That which stagnates is dead. Change must occur if things are to thrive. MeFi is continually evolving. Deal with it. If you aren't receiving value from it, please leave: set up your own site, and maybe you'll have good success for five or so years, too.

6) I'm all for Matt becoming a Benevolant Dictator For Life. Go hardline, Matt, and start shedding accounts. Weed out those who are not a positive influence on MeFi. Do some pruning. Be the medicine.

7) I'm still waiting for a GPS coordinates pony!

8) Thanks, Matt. No matter how it all turns out, it's been a great experience for me. I hope you're sensible enough to pull the plug before you ever become bitter, bent and twisted about how it all went. Again, thanks.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:55 PM on October 21, 2003

Also, see Citadel-UX for an example of a community quite a bit like ours, that's heading on twenty years old. It self-regulates quite nicely.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:56 PM on October 21, 2003

Back from my walk, where I tested out my brand new digital camera (first thing I've bought for myself (to celebrate re-employment) other than food and beer in more than a year). Much calmer.

I don't have too much to add, really. Any ideas about lightening Matt's load in moderation duties have been endlessly and repeatedly hashed out in the past and all found wanting one way or another, so I'm not sure what to suggest about that.

What Stan said about what Metatalk has become is pretty much spot on (though some funnin', as I've said many times, is good, I think), but I don't agree that the way to cure the patient is kill it.

I wasn't really criticizing you, Matt, nor snarking, as much as it may seem so on first glance - more trying to prod you into coming out and putting your foot down, which you've sorta kinda done.

Some questions, though, if you have the inclination : Was the sole mission for MeTa 'topics specific to MetaFilter itself, ranging from bug reports to feature requests to questions of content', or was there more in mind from the beginning? It's clearly taken on a life of its own these days, and not one you intended, perhaps. How do you see it, and how would you change it? Or would you? It still serves its purpose, to a degree, doesn't it?

Just curious.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 11:57 PM on October 21, 2003

4) MeTa callouts are just asinine. Make MeFi better by making MeFi better, not by making MeTa worse.

I'm not sure what you're talking about here. 'Callouts' are in large part the reason MeTa exists (ie 'questions of content'), are they not? How is it making MeTa worse to question the appropriateness of user-generated content, whether in link or thread?
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 12:00 AM on October 22, 2003

Anyone ever accidentally hit one of the six or seven buttons on their mouse, which shortcuts to "back" and then lose an overly lengthy bit of MetaProse? That's twice in two days. Damn happy hands.
posted by The God Complex at 12:10 AM on October 22, 2003

Was the sole mission for MeTa 'topics specific to MetaFilter itself, ranging from bug reports to feature requests to questions of content', or was there more in mind from the beginning?

From the beginning, I just wanted a place outside of the site for people to discuss breaches or complain about threads. I wanted a backroom area where people could talk about the site, because it was so awkward and circular to make posts about the site itself on the site itself.
posted by mathowie at 12:11 AM on October 22, 2003

Here's a summary: doesn't anyone find it terribly ironic that this thread contains the "haven't we done this before" theme, when, ironically, we've actually done this thread before, many times. I think the tone of the thread started me on the wrong foot and I read Matt's comments much the same way Stav did. I think if someone puts together a couple interesting links about this ongoing tragedy of American foreign policy they're doing us a service (and I'm not talking about some link to an MSNBC column with nothing else), and I don't see why we're too goddamn cool to talk about it. Really, of all the terrible Iraq threads, I think we know why this one was singled out, and I don't think that's a positive modus operandus. Then again, I posted a link about a purple dino frog, so who knows what I'm on about ;)

Personally, I think it's only natural that things come to a head every once in awhile, because we don't all agree on how things should be done--and I'm thankful for that. How antiseptic would this place be if we did? As long as people behave with a modicum of decency when they disagree, I don't see a problem. I think Stavros did in this thread, and I think people usually do. If they don't, prune the threads for the garbage and lay waste to it; assuming, of course, you have the time.

Also, Stan, you're a hilarious dude, but you're the last person who should be lecturing on chattiness bleeding to the blue. You're the chattiest cat I can think of ;)
posted by The God Complex at 12:16 AM on October 22, 2003

Disclosure: I actually enjoy newsfilter, to an extent, including the yahoo news post Matt put up today. If something is quirky enough, or interesting enough, I think it warrants posting. I just think Iraq posts require more work because there's so many of them.
posted by The God Complex at 12:20 AM on October 22, 2003

Matt, if you're honestly having as much trouble justifying to yourself the continued life of Meta*, I'd suggest that unless you have a business deal close in hand that would sell the assets to a buyer prepared to take them on within, say, ninety days, that it sounds like well past time for you to take a break. Hang the damned things up in a closet for 30 days and close the door. Just put up a big, blue sign that says, "Gone off to do other stuff I find interesting and important for at least 30 days" and walk away. You know as well as I do that MetaFilter could survive a "timeout" and be back on it's pancake eating, pony grubbing feet within a day or two of restarting the server. Just some unsolicited advice from a long time member and admirer of all of your work, not just what you've accomplished here.
posted by JollyWanker at 5:25 AM on October 22, 2003

Now there goes JollyWanker, reaching for the baseball. I don't get this deathwish obsession that some seem to have with prodding Matt into dumping the site, temporarily or permanently. Don't you think he's perfectly capable of thinking of that himself, without users egging him on? In fact, I'll bet he reflects upon the idea with some regularity.

Personally, I don't think there are any quick fixes for the wrinkles that have developed in the site over time. It would take time, attention, and and the effort of trying various things to evolve a satisfactory long-term solution, and clearly Matt's heart lies elsewhere these days. There is not a single member who could be appointed "moderator" who would not significantly change the place due to their own personal opinions, preferences, and style—which may not be a bad thing in and of itself, but I think it would be a shock to all of us who are accustomed to the timbre of the site. And let there be no doubt about it: people would bitch about the changes. It saddens me to see the site skidding out of control as the hand on the wheel loosens, and I shall certainly miss it when it crashes, but we shouldn't try to control Matt and his life and choices. Just as in a marraige, sometimes people grow apart, and as so often happens in the divorce, it's we kids who suffer.

But we'll survive it.
posted by rushmc at 6:21 AM on October 22, 2003

jonmc.. it's not a fuck-a-doo, it's a fuck-a-row.

duddittes.

Anyway, after not peaking in for a month or so, I'm not shocked that I'm seeing this discussion, yet again.

I mean, not 5 or 6 posts in MetaTalk ago, there was a big hunking discussion on what should be posted in MetaTalk.

And now, again, the role of Matt and moderators, and selling and buying and shutting the site down is being tossed about like so many seals by a school of orca.

Since I've been here (which is a long time, folks), MetaFilter has been a newsfilter of sorts. Although, there used to be more focus on web design and new web ventures - well, it's harder and harder to find that kind of new 'wow factor' site.

I mean, creative writing/storytelling sites used to be all the rage, and had the most progressive designs, but hey, they couldn't hold our collective interest forever - they're like the poetry of the online world. everyone says 'cool', but they're never on the bestseller list.

Look, step back and think. You're all complaining about what Metafilter IS. Has it changed all that much since you started coming here? What would you like MetaFilter to BE? How about suggestions on the kind of things you'd LIKE to see instead of deriding what you do see?

Personally, I think Metafilter is a very impressive bellweather of our community and online culture at large, and is still one of the best forums around.

But instead of bitching about posts made, or saying we should take time off, or get new blood, or sell the site.. think about what you think would make better posts, and then fucking post them.

Honestly, I don't think Matt needs to devote much more time to the site - it lives on its own. the rest of you, stop yer bitching and lead by example.
posted by rich at 6:24 AM on October 22, 2003

But we'll survive it.

*weeps*

Honestly, though, if this place went dark, I dunno where I'd go for my fix. Plastic, I guess. Or Kuro5hin. Wouldn't be the same, though. Weirdo thread-pits would make me feel all uncomfortable and brain-wiggly. Do already, when I read them now.

Which is the point, innit? I hate you bastards, but I can't live without ya'll. Or don't want to, anyway. More addictive than crack. It's true, by fucktrolliconica -- I kicked my freebase habit years back, but I'm still here.

Hitting the pipe. F5. F5. F5. F5.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:32 AM on October 22, 2003

Which is to say: you are my friends, and I love to argue with you, because I love you, and I love to argue.

[/unwanted honesty]
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:36 AM on October 22, 2003

would someone shut jolly wanker off and hang a blue sign on him?
posted by quonsar at 6:48 AM on October 22, 2003

Someone should build the anti-MeFi. You know, just in case.
posted by bshort at 6:55 AM on October 22, 2003

i love to boogie , on a saturday night.
posted by sgt.serenity at 7:07 AM on October 22, 2003

Late to the discussion and veering back to the original complaint...but it amazes me that this post, which I thought was pretty important, timely and interesting was complained about and deleted...and yet cum vs lotion doesn't.

Death on our dollar...no, we don't want to know about that. Money shot [this is good].

Bleh.
posted by dejah420 at 7:36 AM on October 22, 2003

The partieees ohhhh-verrr. Id's tahhm tooo caahll id-a-day-eee...
posted by i_cola at 7:40 AM on October 22, 2003

I think it's interesting see how threatened some of you are by the suggestion that cutting off access to what's apparently become your personal playground, despite the stated desires of the site's owner and beleaguered moderator... What a compassionate bunch.
posted by JollyWanker at 7:43 AM on October 22, 2003

You, JollyWanker, are not nearly enough of the former and way, way too much of the latter.

Go back and read the Metatalk archives, fuckwit. Our beleaguered moderator is way more upbeat today than he's been many times in the past. Thank goodness.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:51 AM on October 22, 2003

Late to the discussion and veering back to the original complaint...but it amazes me that this post, which I thought was pretty important, timely and interesting was complained about and deleted...and yet cum vs lotion doesn't.

I'll second that.
posted by y2karl at 8:05 AM on October 22, 2003

I know it's way too late for this, but I'm always glad for the Iraq threads, not necessarily for the discussions but the links that come with them. I figure we can't have our faces rubbed in that mess enough. Even Rumsfeld is less than optimistic now.
posted by muckster at 8:24 AM on October 22, 2003

"They train young men to drop fire on people. But their commanders won't allow them to write 'fuck' on their airplanes because it's obscene! "

-Kurtz
posted by clavdivs at 8:43 AM on October 22, 2003

Go back and read the Metatalk archives, fuckwit.

I think you need to take another walk.
posted by pardonyou? at 8:43 AM on October 22, 2003

For adults, we sure don't often do discussion well.

Er, where the heck do you people go for your online discussion? I am a veritable message board junkie and I have yet to find any current events discussions with a large and active membership that contain a modicum of the intelligence and restraint found in most threads here. Have y'all visited a newsgroup lately? Nasty. Let's not sell ourselves short -- sure, we haven't yet found a way to dispassionately agree with each other about everything, but we can hold relatively large-scale discussions on touchy subjects and usually resist devolving into snide remarks about people's mothers.
posted by jess at 9:06 AM on October 22, 2003

Any ideas about lightening Matt's load in moderation duties have been endlessly and repeatedly hashed out in the past and all found wanting one way or another

Do you mean that MeFi members have found them wanting, or that Matt has rejected them all? Because I would be incredibly surprised if this forum could agree on any course of action, though there are several obvious options available. It's ultimately Matt's decision. I would personally never throw that kind of decision out to a community and expect them to come to an accord, though I might let them brainstorm on it for a while.

When Matt is ready to make a change, he will. And you will all bitch about problems it raises. 5% may jump ship in a dramatic fashion. But they will be replaced, and the rest of us will learn to live with it.
posted by scarabic at 9:14 AM on October 22, 2003

Turn the front page blood-red for two weeks. Anyone who transgresses during Red Time gets banned, instantly.
Or, take a vacation. A nice long one.
posted by darukaru at 9:27 AM on October 22, 2003

I, for one, welcome our in-joke ass-tickling, self-referential nut-grabbing, and generalized giggling and farting overlords.
posted by keswick at 9:35 AM on October 22, 2003

I agree with Miguel, BlueTrain, y2karl, The God Complex, et al: it was a good post, and it's depressing that Matt deleted it because of a personal animus against f&m (who has gotten much, much less annoying in the course of the last year or two, without many people noticing). I anticipate the situation in Iraq is not going to get better for a long time, and I further anticipate there will be similar situations in other countries (Syria first, probably), and if we refuse to talk about these things and concentrate on the toys and flash fun, the site is doomed to irrelevance. I like the fun too, but it's the back of the book (as they say in the periodical trade)—I wouldn't bother coming here if that were all there was, any more than I'd subscribe to the New Yorker if all it had were cartoons and joke pieces. If a bunch of (mostly) intelligent, concerned, verbal people can't discuss what the US is doing in the Middle East... well, somebody has won, and it ain't us.

Oh, and I too miss dhartung's thoughtful commentary and think GPS coordinates would be great.
posted by languagehat at 10:07 AM on October 22, 2003

This website will self-destruct in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ... 2 ... 1 ... 2 ... 3 ... 2 ...

Hope you can find a way to keep it going Matt, but if not thanks for the memories. My psychiatrist will be contacting your lawyers. Seriously though, it's been a tour de force and I think many people are more grateful than they may appear to be. Hope your other interests all blossom. Maybe one day you'll just forget this place exists, have a really guilty moment about five years later, but then think "nah ... surely it can't be still ..."
posted by walrus at 10:18 AM on October 22, 2003

Frankly I won't miss that post, but then I read other sites when I want that kind of news. Even if I do find links here on the war I usually never read the comments because - probably wrong on my part but - I assume that it will be the same ol same ol. It's not the link that I don't want to bother with, it's the comments. I rarely find anything new there, and it only took a couple of readings of such posts, (or posts even close to that topic where folk brought the subject up again) for me to get the general idea of how everyone felt, and who could yell the loudest or be the most dismissive. I don't really need people to tell me how badly to feel over the situation, no offense, but I read enough about what's going on online and in print to want to.... well, enough of that.

And I really do prefer MeFi with the MetaTalk on the side. It was one of the reasons I lurked so long and never commented because of all the fangs and claws that seemed to be used in MeFi. Man, you want to talk off topic - imagine everything hashed out in here being spread across various threads in MeFi. (You guys remember that, right? I'm not hallucinating? I've not been around all that long...) And to figure out what was going on you had to read all the comments in each thread - forget bothering with the FPP, you were trying to figure out what was up with the community.

"Perhaps some new blood would stop us from snapping at each other quite so much?"

Boy this comes up a lot. I thought there already was new blood here. Or wait, you mean human sacrifices? That would turn the front page red? Now that would be interesting...
posted by batgrlHG at 10:44 AM on October 22, 2003

Perhaps the contention here is not about foldy per se, but the style in which he has historically posted. Certainly I would agree that the content of the post - the Human Rights Watch document - is worthy of consideration. Certainly it could have been discussed, although just as certainly Matt's observations that it would have inevitably devolved into the same my side v, your side sniping we see every day on these sorts of topics was correct, too. Had it just been posted straight and left to fend for itself, I think it would have been an adequate, if unremarkable, FPP. It would have generated the standard amounts of alternating outrage and counter-outrage, the normal "pat-my-ass-for-thinking-like-you" commentary, and would have died silently in a half day or so.

However, Foldy doesn't post that way. This is both to his credit (in that he has staunch beliefs that he defends vigorously) and to his detriment (he's antagonistic, impolite, cutting, has a chip on his shoulder the size of the Redwood Forest, and often as not his responses are thinly-veiled personal attacks wrapped in unchallengable non-sequitors). Even when he doesn't actively participate, his FPPs are specifically and purposefully chosen and written in such a way as to irritate and generate ire. I think he feels this is the best way for the items he posts to get discussed, and the beliefs he holds to be promulgated. He's certainly correct for the former (in how many meta threads have we ruminated over something of foldy's? a shitload), less so for the latter, imo.

For what it's worth, there has been more than one time where I would have liked to have seen Foldy's digital head on a big Blue pike, and would have applauded to see him run out of Mefi. I don't anymore - his place here is (again, my opinion) a valuable one, if only perhaps as a point on the spectrum that we can look to and say 'here is the endpoint of our line of political/moral continuum.' He has something important to say; perhaps we should be entreating him to say his piece with less venom, while we in turn indulge him and respect the depth and strength of his convictions?

Lastly, always keep in mind that, regardless of how you feel about this poster or that poster or this or that thread, you are the ultimate arbiter of what you contribute - or do not contribute - to Metafilter. If something irritates you? Ignore it. Don't post. Don't jump into the argument. "Feed not the trolls, else they come each evening to your doorstep to sup." If you don't like the way Foldy posts, or what he says, don't respond. This was a hard lesson for me to learn - too many days, too many posts, I spent typing hot and then regretting what I said, to the delight of those detractors I have here. Fight that urge! Do not take it personally, even personal attacks. Participate in threads that are marked by their equanimity, not by their bile, and the number of those threads will increase, while the threads that beg for hot blood will wither, commentless, and die quick deaths.
posted by UncleFes at 10:52 AM on October 22, 2003

Fes: have you fallen into a cauldron of wisdom soup lately? You were always persuasive but lately you've been a veritable sage. Can you do no wrong, man? :)

*chips away at the block of marble, carving every Fes utterance, wiping brow and swigging grappa*

P.S. On another related matter, those of us who urge or entice Matt to pull the plug, like heroin addicts who sincerely beg someone to flush their stash down the toilet - and then, typically, scream "No!" - are probably those who most love MetaFilter. And loving MeFi is a very crowded and competitive sport here, so that's saying something.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 11:13 AM on October 22, 2003

We had to destroy teh website to save it.
posted by keswick at 11:20 AM on October 22, 2003

What dejah420 said.
posted by ginz at 11:38 AM on October 22, 2003

if that were all there was

Our languagehat: I just noticed. You're not, by any chance, from Lancashire are you? ;
posted by MiguelCardoso at 12:01 PM on October 22, 2003

Only Nixon could go to China, Miguel my friend.
posted by UncleFes at 12:03 PM on October 22, 2003

If a bunch of (mostly) intelligent, concerned, verbal people can't discuss what the US is doing in the Middle East...

Snorkle, sputter, spit and laugh. Well that's the point, isn't it. The people who are doing the discussing in threads like that are the exceptions to the (mostly). Except for the verbal part, with which they compensate for other inadequacies in spades. The rest of the Mefi Bunch are irked at the redundancy. If somebody started posting newspaper reports every couple days about people who died from drunk driving, we'd get sick of that too, even if we abhor the deaths. F&M has been making PSAs about civilian deaths in these wars for quite some time. Even intelligent, concerned, verbal people can run out of new things to say about it. Surely he can give us all a few weeks to think up some new reactions besides just clucking in dismay. I'm sure people will still be dying then.
posted by dness2 at 12:25 PM on October 22, 2003

{chuckle}
posted by clavdivs at 2:03 PM on October 22, 2003

Even intelligent, concerned, verbal people can run out of new things to say about it.

Curiously, why is the solution to begin deleting the threads, rather than just letting them sit there with 0 comments, if, truly, as you say, no one has anything else to say.

Attention spurs repeat offense.
posted by scarabic at 2:13 PM on October 22, 2003

Apparently the solution now is to delete comments in today's thread which were pointing back to this discussion.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 2:15 PM on October 22, 2003

I just didn't feel like egging him on m_c_d. Don't feed the trolls.
posted by mathowie at 2:24 PM on October 22, 2003

mr_crash_davis: Yeah, apparently.

So foldy does the same goddam thing two days in a row, phrasing a tired topic with the same tired language rather than presenting a holistic or less deliberately inflammatory view, and anyone who criticizes this, anyone who dares suggest that this might be bad form in light of the discussion here, has his comments deleted?

So much for progress. It's not like I bitch-slapped the man.
posted by ed at 2:25 PM on October 22, 2003

Fair enough.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 2:25 PM on October 22, 2003

Today's post is not on the same topic. While admittedly similar, I think we can distract ourselves enough with the freedom of press issue--always a favorite here--so we don't wet our pants worrying about having to talk about war casualties.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 2:54 PM on October 22, 2003

I was thinking about this thread while driving home from work last night and wondering what it is that triggers these semi-regular discussions that periodically have us doing a communal navel-gaze and wondering what the future holds for MeFi. I'm not sure what to search for to locate and map these threads, but I have a feeling that it has something to do with the changing of the seasons in some weird way. I don't have evidence for that, but it feels like they come at about the right intervals. Of course, I could be full of shit too.

I have noticed over the past couple of weeks that MeTa has gone a bit crazy and recall that there is a pattern here - MeTa goes crazy for a while, then all the pent-up frustration with the way the community is developing comes out in a cathartic release of comments about how much we would all miss the place if the lights went out. All communities develop ways of releasing pressure safely and maybe that is what is happening here.

stavrosthewonderchicken, I envy you that you would have a substitute for MeFi if mathowie were to pull that big creaking switch on the wall and plunge us into a darkness without end, as I have sampled all the similar communities I can find and this is the only one that I am remotely interested in. For me, it is MeFi or nothing.
posted by dg at 3:01 PM on October 22, 2003

Oh, and the GPS co-ordinates pony? Me too :-)
posted by dg at 3:06 PM on October 22, 2003

does this smock make my ass look fat, crash?
posted by quonsar at 4:52 PM on October 22, 2003

No, your ass makes that smock look small.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 4:54 PM on October 22, 2003

ok, i just hope it fits in the gondola.
posted by quonsar at 4:55 PM on October 22, 2003

I have noticed over the past couple of weeks that MeTa has gone a bit crazy and recall that there is a pattern here - MeTa goes crazy for a while,

Any psychiatrist will tell you that the fall of the year -and the spring - are when all hell breaks loose.

So that would explain at least half of us ;-)
posted by konolia at 5:06 PM on October 22, 2003

So foldy does the same goddam thing two days in a row, phrasing a tired topic with the same tired language rather than presenting a holistic or less deliberately inflammatory view, and anyone who criticizes this, anyone who dares suggest that this might be bad form in light of the discussion here, has his comments deleted?

I delete something and many say they disagree, I leave something up and some disagree.

Not to make a big deal out of it, but I'm literally damned if I do, damned if I don't.
posted by mathowie at 5:24 PM on October 22, 2003

You fools! You've finally done it! Damn you all to hell!
posted by y2karl at 5:36 PM on October 22, 2003

I think you can distill the deletion of ed's comment to a principle, mathowie:

A deliberately off-topic or argumentative/inflammatory comment posted in the first 5 of the thread should be deleted.

As you once explained to me, threads have a tendency to go to hell when someone immediately derails them.

This is, assuming, of course, that the thread itself meets the criteria, and will not be deleted.
posted by scarabic at 5:47 PM on October 22, 2003

but I'm literally damned if I do, damned if I don't

The burden that goes along with dealing with any self-righteous, opinionated mob that you serve despite yourself.
Example: If I don't feed the cats the crappy food they love, they fill the dawning hours with shrill cries of indignancy until even their hearing goes bad. If I do feed the cats the crappy food they love, they barf all over my keyboard and mouse just when I think I'm ready to pleasantly and productively start my day.
I.love.them.so.
posted by dness2 at 5:47 PM on October 22, 2003

Ha ha, dness - your cats just barfed long-distance over my keyboard as well.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 5:50 PM on October 22, 2003

if that were all there was

Miguel: Funny you should pick that out; I had to look at it twice after I wrote it to make sure it was kosher. But it is; the were is subjunctive, the was is (properly) indicative.

In other words, it all depends what the meaning of was was.

I'm literally damned if I do, damned if I don't

Matt, please don't take all the griping seriously. Better you should just ignore MeTa; if anything's seriously wrong, somebody will e-mail you about it. People are going to bitch about any decision you make, and there's no reason you should lose any sleep over it. Just leave the pot on the stove and let the burbling noises become a pleasant backdrop to your other activities.
posted by languagehat at 6:04 PM on October 22, 2003

indeed. mail your meta problems and concerns to [e-mail]
posted by quonsar at 6:26 PM on October 22, 2003

We are all Matt's cats?
posted by inpHilltr8r at 7:17 PM on October 22, 2003

Go back and read the Metatalk archives, fuckwit.

I think you need to take another walk.

But it was said with love. Fuckwit's almost a term of Metafilter endearment by now, isn't it?
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:22 PM on October 22, 2003

not really stav : >
posted by amberglow at 7:46 PM on October 22, 2003

sure it is, you asswidgetting fuckwit.

matt, you are damned if you do and damned if you don't. That's why you need the baby Jesus in your life. Only in Jesus will you find peace.
posted by ashbury at 8:33 PM on October 22, 2003

In Matt's thread about password theft, skallas repeatedly brought up his ordeal with insomnyuk and I asked skallas to cease acting like a tremendous quivering vagina, but Matt deleted my comment :(

I bet he was laughing as he did it, though!
posted by dhoyt at 8:37 PM on October 22, 2003

Dammit, I used to just quiver between the two extremes of "maybe I only exist so that I can feed the cats" and "maybe I only exist because I amuse the cats", and now, thanks to dhoyt, I have to add "on the other hand, maybe I only exist to amuse mathowie".
posted by yhbc at 8:43 PM on October 22, 2003

I know, let's all have a big shoutout for Matt! I'll start it - I ♥ MeFi and MeTa and Mathowie! Everybody!
posted by Lynsey at 8:46 PM on October 22, 2003

I love tremendous quivering vaginas!
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 9:02 PM on October 22, 2003

Oh, all right - "I ed Helena!"

Hmm, that did feel pretty good.
posted by yhbc at 9:04 PM on October 22, 2003

Don't be a , yhbc.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:32 PM on October 22, 2003

Be b , yhbc.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 10:55 PM on October 22, 2003

Thanks for the shout-outs, elwoodwiles and languagehat. I'm here daily, actually, but I just don't have the time to devote to MeFi like I used to, which is a good thing. That may well change in future but for the time being I'm enjoying being mainly a lurker.
posted by dhartung at 11:37 PM on October 22, 2003

i'm just here for the tremendous quivering vagina.
posted by quonsar at 11:44 PM on October 22, 2003

you know, if it needs to talk or something.
posted by quonsar at 11:45 PM on October 22, 2003

The tremendouser the better!
posted by UncleFes at 6:26 AM on October 23, 2003

stwc: Go back and read the Metatalk archives, fuckwit.

I think you need to take another walk.

But it was said with love. Fuckwit's almost a term of Metafilter endearment by now, isn't it?

Hardly. Despite the user id I have now, I've apparently been a member of MetaFilter longer than you have, and I've no need to go back and re-read the MetaTalk archives because I've already lived through them, fuckwit.

So spare your uninformed, unhelpful opinions for others more impressed by your verbal diarrhea. I consider myself a guest in Matt's place, and I'm certainly not going to moderate my very real concern and respect for him now or in the future because you get some childish thrill out of bullying people in MetaTalk.
posted by JollyWanker at 10:02 AM on October 23, 2003

Yeesh. Now we're wagging user numbers. Your schwartz is as big as mine, verily.
posted by scarabic at 11:17 AM on October 23, 2003

Schwartz?

*takes out notepad, scribbles new slang term*
(*considers starting MeTa thread accusing scarabic of anti-semitic slang-coinage, decides there's been enough nonsense 'round these parts*)
posted by languagehat at 11:47 AM on October 23, 2003

languagehat: May the Schwartz be with you.
posted by widdershins at 12:00 PM on October 23, 2003

languagehat, you haven't seen Spaceballs? For shame.
posted by ashbury at 12:08 PM on October 23, 2003

Oy! I actually have seen Spaceballs, but obviously not recently enough. Thanks for the enlightenment.
*pelts self with rock-hard matzoh-balls*
posted by languagehat at 1:37 PM on October 23, 2003

(*considers starting MeTa thread accusing scarabic of anti-semitic slang-coinage*)

*lmao*

That would have been so awesome. I think we could have used the levity, actually. Damn your steady trigger finger ;)
posted by scarabic at 3:14 PM on October 23, 2003

Matt, it's like dealing with schoolchildren sometimes.

Ok, that's unfair.

It's like dealing with schoolchildren ALL the time.
posted by rich at 7:41 AM on October 24, 2003

200
posted by quonsar at 11:15 PM on October 26, 2003

/me declares a moratorium on this thread
posted by insomnyuk at 8:07 AM on October 27, 2003

I was going to go look at the eclipse, but then I realized I'm just a hairy moose.
posted by angry modem at 4:56 PM on November 8, 2003