It used to be frowned upon to post links from other link agregators/filters. Has it changed?

January 7, 2004 8:17 AM

When I used to read MeFi regularly, it was generally accepted that you didn't post anything from "the usual suspects" such as memepool, boing boing, b3ta, etc. because they themselves are weblogs about interesting, offbeat links and most readers read them as well as MeFi. Seeing as this "LSD art" story has been the top item on memepool for a week, I guess this policy has changed. (This is really not meant to sound rude or snide, apologies if it's taken that way)
posted by SiW to etiquette/policy at 8:17 AM (53 comments total)

It's hard not to sound rude or snide when you say things like "when I used to read MeFi regularly...." But to actually address the issue, I don't think there was ever a "generally accepted policy" against cross-posting from another site. There have always been a number of posts that were obviously taken from memepool, or some other similar site. Where else would you get the links? Sure, some of these things we stumble on outselves, but invariably, most of the links are second-hand. It is a MetaFilter, after all.

"Most readers read [memepool] as well as MeFi." Really? What makes you so sure? Just because you read it doesn't mean a majority of anybody has even heard of it.

Lastly, using the LSD post as the basis for your complaint is probably misplaced, as it obviously generated a pretty favorable response.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 8:35 AM on January 7, 2004

Oh, and since specialk420 clearly got the post from someplace other than memepool--hence the "[ via newstoday ]"--your accusation falls a little flat.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 8:50 AM on January 7, 2004

it was generally accepted that you didn't post anything from "the usual suspects"
You read all those sites?
posted by thomcatspike at 9:04 AM on January 7, 2004

What monju_bosatsu said.
posted by rushmc at 9:04 AM on January 7, 2004

On a practical level, disallowing anything that's been posted to other large filter sites would severely limit our content, and since it's pretty much a foregone conclusion at this point that metafilter is a discussion site, the originality and independent discovery of our links isn't nearly as important as simply how interesting the community finds them.
posted by Hildago at 9:06 AM on January 7, 2004

Yeah, save the room for the double Mars Explorer posts.
posted by y2karl at 9:49 AM on January 7, 2004

When I used to read MeFi regularly...
That was then, this is now.
Return to wherever you went.
posted by mischief at 9:52 AM on January 7, 2004

Generally accepted? I always felt it had been assumed. And not generally.
posted by WolfDaddy at 10:03 AM on January 7, 2004

Is this post something I would need to have seen the "LSD art" story to understand? Because I haven't seen the "LSD art" story.

Aaahhh..... Unclenched buttocks. It's a wonderful feeling.
posted by y6y6y6 at 11:11 AM on January 7, 2004

how dare you criticise the current clique? someone's going to have to change mischief now.

things have changed - when a typical post is whatever the washington post has that's critical of bush, dupes from other sites are more than welcome.
posted by andrew cooke at 11:11 AM on January 7, 2004

apologies if this was stale link in your opinion - i cover a pretty wide variety of sites daily (memepool not included, though perhaps it should/will be) and hadn't seen the link prior to it's fresh appearance on newstoday. i found it to be one of the more startling things i had seen on the web in sometime ... as did a number of others or so it seems ...
posted by specialk420 at 11:44 AM on January 7, 2004

There have always been a number of posts that were obviously taken from memepool, or some other similar site. Where else would you get the links?

*cries*
posted by IshmaelGraves at 11:51 AM on January 7, 2004

I don't read any of those sites. Punish me at your leisure.
posted by The God Complex at 12:06 PM on January 7, 2004

Meta...Filter.
We Filter the other Filters. It's part of our global charter.
posted by Jimbob at 12:49 PM on January 7, 2004

Aaahhh..... Unclenched buttocks. It's a wonderful feeling.

Watch out! He's going to blow!
posted by y2karl at 1:07 PM on January 7, 2004

Generally accepted? I always felt it had been assumed. And not generally.

Hey, you know what happens when you assume, right?
posted by kaibutsu at 1:48 PM on January 7, 2004

I have to agree that much of MeFi is Blog Churn. Nothing wrong with that though because that is how things get spread around. But MeFi allows more than just a repost (like LinkFilter is just a place to put links). MeFi excells at added value, additional links and thoughts about a subject not just the one link, which makes it a worthy read on its own even if you read it elsewhere allready. I think sometimes we get lazy and strive for quantity over quality.
posted by stbalbach at 2:29 PM on January 7, 2004

I'm amazed at the response in this thread, to be honest, and agree with SiW completely.

The rest sound too much like excuses for laziness for me.

'We Filter the other Filters. It's part of our global charter' sounds good, but in practice, that's not really what happens.

That said, I can't be bothered tweaking people about it. I notice, invariably, and generally just mark the poster down as an evil person deserving death in my mental black book and move on.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 3:10 PM on January 7, 2004

I notice, invariably, and generally just mark the poster down as an evil person deserving death in my mental black book and move on.

I get the same feeling about people who post stories that they first heard about on NPR. Bugs me, but no one really dies.
posted by piskycritter at 4:27 PM on January 7, 2004

I don't read any of the other "usual suspects", believing that if something on the 'net is worth seeing it will eventually make its way here ... or I will run across it on my own. Why do so many people assume that everyone else reads all the same news/blogs/communities that they do?
posted by Orb at 4:45 PM on January 7, 2004

Why do so many people assume that everyone else reads all the same news/blogs/communities that they do?

Hubris.
posted by rushmc at 4:48 PM on January 7, 2004

The Metafilter demographic has apparently changed from one with a majority of members that actively seek the new and interesting and want to share it, to one with a majority of members who just want amusement delivered to them by other people, with fries and a large coke, and can't be bothered to look anywhere else. So it goes.

[/pseudo-troll]
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:58 PM on January 7, 2004

The Metafilter demographic has apparently changed from one with a majority of members that actively seek the new and interesting and want to share it, to one with a majority of members who just want amusement delivered to them by other people, with fries and a large coke, and can't be bothered to look anywhere else. So it goes.

So that's where that annoying, gaudy, kitschy golden hue is coming from: that age over yonder that I apparently missed or just plumb forgot. If something is posted on boing boing or some other site that I don't visit on a regular basis (or at all) is actually interesting, why shouldn't it be posted here? My guess--perhaps a lofty one--is that there aren't any sites worth their salt on the entire internet that haven't been seen by someone. If one takes that as truth, who decides what critical visitation mass is? Or, in the same sense, who decides what sites "we" visit that will mark a site as old?
posted by The God Complex at 6:00 PM on January 7, 2004

I dunno. I was just stirring the pot.

*hangs head in shame*
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:04 PM on January 7, 2004

Well played.
posted by The God Complex at 6:07 PM on January 7, 2004

Remember, assume nothing. Deny everything.

Well I was going to say, stav, I joined three months before you, and part of my attraction to Metafilter at the time was "hey, I can check out all the coolest stuff on one site now instead of having to visit a dozen others". I dunno, I guess it's just me. It's particularly great when people find excellent links and we can say "You saw it first on Metafilter", but I don't think there's anything wrong with the "meme of the day" turning up here as well. Maybe people have a case to answer for when they post the "meme of six months ago"...
posted by Jimbob at 6:41 PM on January 7, 2004

I never visit BoingBoing or any of those other sites everyone supposedly visits; like Orb, I expect the good stuff will make its way here. Unbelievably, I "actively seek the new and interesting" in places other than the internet, so I appreciate having its best brought to me here. You can skip the fries and Coke, though.
posted by languagehat at 7:31 AM on January 8, 2004

I noticed that the FPP about this was the only one that credited finding it at another site - all the "big blogs" that I saw it on several days after it appeared showed no attribution. But, oddly enough, this looks like it never made it to BoingBoing.

The trend now seems to be to avoid putting in a simple "found at" link. If someone puts up 10 posts a day, you may only see less than half credited. Sometimes, I think their private parts get smaller when they admit someone else saw a site first.

(and what JimBob said)
posted by sciatica at 12:16 AM on January 9, 2004

monju_boatsu, it's not a complaint. That you took it as such is a commentary on the current state of the MetaFilter community, which is what I *was* talking about. That the link was not taken from memepool or bOINGbOING or wherever is also not the point - the point was that a couple of years ago the core readership of MetaFilter would have already seen it and reposting to MetaFilter would be pointless (except for commentary). People would have been expected to check "the usual suspects" to see if it had been posted there, no matter where they found the link. That check satisifies the first part of what is supposed to be a good FPP: "most people haven't seen it before".

specialk420, no need to apologize, I'm not saying you did anything wrong. It's an interesting link, worthy of discussion. The only reason I picked your post out of any others is that not only had it been posted to one of "the usual suspects" but that it had been there, on top, for a week.

I now realise things have changed in the core MetaFilter readership. "The usual suspects" must now not include memepool or bOINGbOING as I had thought. Maybe it's CNN and WashingtonPost and NYTimes and The Guardian.
In two more years, maybe people will be posting Fark links, and there'll be no comment.

(Alright yeah, that last paragraph was snarky)


And what IshmaelGraves said.
posted by SiW at 9:08 AM on January 9, 2004

Not only was that last paragraph snarky, it makes it impossible to believe you when you say you weren't complaining. So why bother saying it?
posted by languagehat at 11:27 AM on January 9, 2004

I agree with you, SiW in principle, though exceptions should be made from time to time. Go ahead and stand your ground.

I've also rarely seen monju so ruthless. Wow. "Where else would you get the links?" is actually a pretty dumb question. Answer: emailed from a friend, happened upon while perusing blogs, noted in a small news outlet, word of mouth via social networks, etc etc etc. AKA: THE HARD WAY. I hardly think the mission of MeFi is to sit around cherry picking from Fark, memepool, and the rest.

There are times when the radar of those sites is going to overlap with the MeFi radar, and I'm glad we don't shout down links because we've already seen them on other filters. But I'd also like to think we don't depend on them for incoming links. Because frankly, I "filter" those sites every time I look at them, simply by choosing what to read in depth.

Getting the link first, like getting the scoop, is still important. Even a site that's well-filtered for quality would be a pain to sift through if you'd already seen 50% of it. I personally would never post something that's already on memepool. It's a point of honor SiW does well to chime in on, though I think we've all learned here that it's hard to pin down any hard list of "usual suspects."

Your question was polite and well-meaning, SiW. It's a shame you got tomatoed here, and I can't blame you for letting a hint of snark sneak out.

[pulls waistband of underwear off SiW's ears, dusts him off]
posted by scarabic at 11:38 AM on January 9, 2004

I fully agree with scarabic, but a problem still exists:

How do you teach a person, or community, to seriously contemplate their FPP's and post only when a rare gem comes along?

Along the same lines, how do you teach a person, or community, to show great discretion, when discretion, by its definition, is a vague notion?

SiW is not bringing a new idea to the MeTa table. This question has been asked dozens of times here. Unfortunately, no practical solution has ever been found. Of course, the defensiveness of a few members here is rather alarming, although par for the course. The only advice I can suggest for such hostile defensiveness is to take a break from MeFi re-analyze why you're here at all. I took that advice for quite some time, which is why I came back in a (hopefully) more tolerant manner.
posted by BlueTrain at 12:25 PM on January 9, 2004

I personally would never post something that's already on memepool.

So those of us who don't read memepool can just fuck off, eh?

This question has been asked dozens of times here. Unfortunately, no practical solution has ever been found.

Could that be because not everyone reads memepool (and Fark and the other "usual suspects"), so that the question is fruitless and ill mannered?

Of course, the defensiveness of a few members here is rather alarming

Of course, the presumptuous dismissiveness of a few members here is rather alarming...
posted by languagehat at 12:36 PM on January 9, 2004

Thanks for proving my point, languagehat. The fact that you needed to call my comment presumptuous and dismissive, instead of simply ignoring it, or perhaps pointing to examples that illustrate otherwise, shows that comments that flow against the mainstream here are not welcome.

Of course, I understand that you do not represent this community. Nor am I trying to be rude.
posted by BlueTrain at 12:56 PM on January 9, 2004

Out of great personal respect for you, languagehat, I'll ignore the bad words in your reply.

There is a simple divide here, between folks who want MeFi to be one of a constellation of sites in their bookmarks, and those who want it to be a one-stop shop. I think both sides have their merits, and neither is 100% realistic. On the one hand, MeFi can't possibly rise to the level of comprehensiveness that would make it the only site you ever have to visit online. On the other, there's no precisely definied niche it can occupy that will optimize it to everyone's specific tastes.

I said *I* wouldn't post something from memepool. But I also said I'm glad we don't shout down all cherry-picking, and that there is overlap, and that exceptions should be made. I have to use my own personal sense of what's right when deciding what to post. For one thing, I don't think cherry-picking is fair to other sites. If everything good from BoingBoing is always posted here, eventually some people will stop going there.

Somebody has to do the hard work of digging up links at some point along the line. The ideal situation, in my view, is that they would all post their discoveries here. Until that time, we need to strike a balance between making this site an all-purpose one-stop shop, and posting every meme-du-jour that's already plastered all over the place. My judgement guides me. For yourself, do as you see fit. But I think this is a totally valid thread, and a worthwile discussion to have from time to time.
posted by scarabic at 1:38 PM on January 9, 2004

I think both sides have their merits, and neither is 100% realistic... I think this is a totally valid thread, and a worthwile discussion to have from time to time.

Then we're basically in agreement. I don't mind people applying their own standards to their own posts; I do mind people applying their own standards to other people's posts, and then having the effrontery to act as if they were spokesmen for some sort of nonexistent consensus. I could name names, but that would be rude, and I've been rude enough for one thread. (Thank you for ignoring my unfortunate lapse into pointless profanity; MeTa has that effect sometimes.)

The fact that you needed to call my comment presumptuous and dismissive, instead of simply ignoring it

Just as you ignored the people you accused of "hostile defensiveness"? Practice what you preach. And I have no idea which of us represents the "mainstream," if there is such a thing here. I have, of course, no intention of being rude.
posted by languagehat at 5:12 PM on January 9, 2004

languagehat - I have also had people tell me "well, that's your opinion, but you're in the minority," or "you must be the only person who feels that way," or "you can think whatever you want, but the overwhelming majority of people blah blah blah..." and I detest the attitude as much as you do.

Anyway, I think any candidate post should be measured against the submission criteria, and its merits according to one criterion have to balance with its downfalls according to another. And like it or not, the first criteria listed is "most people haven't seen it before." As an item's widespread coverage grows, its suitability as a MeFi link declines. Them's the rules.

Obviously, this is not hard and fast. Something which lots of people have already seen, but which is truly unique and interesting, probably makes a good post. Something of moderate interest that no one has ever seen is also a good post. But something of passing interest which has already been seen by lots of people is not going to make as good a post.

This doesn't mean ban the poster, or drag them into MeTa, but in the interest of making MeFi as good as possible, these things should be balanced, not simply taken to the lowest common denominator (ie: people who read no other sites besides MeFi, I guess including you by the sound of it).

Again, I'm not trying to hit you on the head with "what I believe everyone thinks," just an interpretation of the official guidelines. If I've got them wrong, feel free to let me know.
posted by scarabic at 6:38 PM on January 9, 2004

Two points:

1) These "usual suspects" which have been mentioned include a much larger and more diverse group of sites than 3 or 2 or even 1 year ago. While it may have been reasonable to refrain from "copying" the links of two or three other major aggregator sites, trying to avoid any overlap with 20 or 30 (or more) is ridiculous and impractical.

2) It seems that often those who decry "recycled" posts/links are the very same people who screech about the horrors of "Newsfilter." So why the focus on the "newness" of something? If a link is fresh and rewarding for most who see it here, should we really care if it was minted 10 minutes ago or last year and just now discovered? Or if a couple other places on the web happened to note it first? The fact that it was posted this morning on BoinbBoing and perhaps yesterday on someone's blog doesn't suddenly turn it into a Cat Scan or I Kiss You!
posted by rushmc at 6:47 PM on January 9, 2004

So why the focus on the "newness" of something?

Because it's in the guidelines?

Think of it this way. Some sites are larger than others. In the quest to decide whether "most people haven't seen it before," you have to consider an item less FPP-worthy if it's already on a very large site. At that point, you know lots of people have seen it. This doesn't necessarily mean "don't post" but I would consider it losing points as a post. We can't simply post everything all the time, if we want to call this a Filter of any kind.

I can understand wanting everything good in one place, and there seems to be room for some of that, but Matt has set out a guideline that restricts already-widely-covered links. I don't know why we have to discuss that simple guideline at such length, except that some folks don't consider memepool "widely covered" on the grounds that they, themselves, don't read it.

I don't know exactly how much traffic any of these other sites get, but I imagine that Fark, for one, is comparable to MeFi, perhaps larger. Doesn't that count for something?
posted by scarabic at 7:04 PM on January 9, 2004

Alexa.com list of sites that MetaFilter visitors also visit:
(note Fark, Memepool - #3, and BoingBoing)

People who visit this page also visit:
Robotwisdom.com www.robotwisdom.com - Site info

Eatonweb Portal www.eatonweb.com/portal - Site info

Memepool.com www.memepool.com - Site info

Slashdot.org slashdot.org - Site info

Fark.com www.fark.com - Site info

Camworld www.camworld.com - Site info

Linkwatcher: Recently Updated Blogs www.linkwatcher.com - Site info

Beebo.org: Sorry. beebo.org/metalog - Site info

Warblogs:cc www.warblogs.cc - Site info

TheUndergroundDialectic.com www.theundergrounddialectic.com - Site info

Monkey Media Report www.monkeytime.org - Site info

Kevin Sites Blog www.kevinsites.net - Site info

Net.Headlines e-portals.org/links - Site info

Big Blog bigblog.com - Site info

Back to Iraq 2.0 back-to-iraq.com - Site info

Blogger.com www.blogger.com - Site info

MovableType www.movabletype.org - Site info

Kuro5hin.org www.kuro5hin.org - Site info

Kottke.org www.kottke.org - Site info

Boing Boing: A Directory Of Wonderful Things www.boingboing.net - Site info
posted by scarabic at 7:18 PM on January 9, 2004

In the quest to decide whether "most people haven't seen it before," you have to consider an item less FPP-worthy if it's already on a very large site.

Only if you assume that "most people" frequent said very large site. And that's a very questionable assumption.
posted by rushmc at 9:53 PM on January 9, 2004

I'm only slightly hesitant to point out that if a site is considered "large", it's possibly because many people look at it.
posted by majick at 10:26 PM on January 9, 2004

I've never been to any of those sites more than two times, scarabic. The idea that people should not only scour this site to see if something has been posted before (a task in and of itself) but also fifteen to twenty other sites is a little much.
posted by The God Complex at 10:44 PM on January 9, 2004

"Many People" approaches "Most People" for finite values of "People," rushmc :)

I understand your position, The God Complex, and I think this is one of the problems naturally encountered by a group of several thousand people trying to come to terms with an issue that's heaviy informed by personal preferences. Once again, I think you are positing that site X does not equal "already well covered" because you, yourself, do not read site X. As much as I appreciate anyone's personal POV on this, try to understand that there is also a bigger picture to consider. All I can offer with the Alexa link is an aggregate POV. I did actually find it fairly vindicating that Fark, Memepool, and BoingBoing were all on that list.
posted by scarabic at 11:09 PM on January 9, 2004

the lowest common denominator (ie: people who read no other sites besides MeFi

1) Not reading Fark, memepool, BoingBoing, &c does not translate into "read no other sites besides MeFi."
2) I think you may find the people you're describing (and disagreeing with) may resent being called "the lowest common denominator."

try to understand that there is also a bigger picture to consider

For someone who says "I detest the attitude ['you're in the minority'] as much as you do," you sure seem determined to assume you're in the majority and the rest of us are some weird little splinter group. How exactly do you know that the majority of MeFites read those other sites? Want to do a head count in this thread and extrapolate?

Or, what rushmc said.
posted by languagehat at 8:24 AM on January 10, 2004

I'm only slightly hesitant to point out that if a site is considered "large", it's possibly because many people look at it.

But there is no evidence whatsoever that the set of people who look at Site X has significant overlap with the set of people who look at Metafilter. This is what you are missing.
posted by rushmc at 9:10 AM on January 10, 2004

languagehat - scroll up to the Alexa statistics. I'm not going to argue this further if you're not even going to read my postings. You too, rushmc, I just provided you with an external reporting mechanism that claims MeFi's visitors, in aggregate, go to memepool quite a bit, more than any other sites, save 2.

That should provide at least a little bit of the hard evidence that this conversation is lacking. Not that it completely overturns the need for balance I've described at length, but I do think it should open your eyes to the issue of over-coverage. I refer you to FPP guideline #1 *again:* "Most people haven't seen it before."

I'm not presuming I'm the majority opinion here at all, languagehat. You can't run around accusing people of that every time they argue their own point of view. I also think I've been arguing both sides of this issue pretty open-mindedly, not that I can get any recognition of the other side from you at all.

When I said "people who read no other sites," including you, I was not equating this with "doesn't visit Fark & memepool" I was basing this on your comment:

"I never visit BoingBoing or any of those other sites everyone supposedly visits; like Orb, I expect the good stuff will make its way here. Unbelievably, I "actively seek the new and interesting" in places other than the internet, so I appreciate having its best brought to me here." [my italics]

...which seems to say that you want MeFi to be your one stop shop, that you don't feel you should need to go elsewhere.
posted by scarabic at 12:18 PM on January 10, 2004

I'm not presuming I'm the majority opinion here at all

I don't see how this squares with your saying such posts violate the requirement that "most people haven't seen it before." Simple logic (and arithmetic) would seem to suggest that if you think most people, like you, have seen these things, you think you are in a majority. I will be happy to learn otherwise.
posted by languagehat at 12:39 PM on January 10, 2004

here's how it squares:

I described in detail how any poster should consider all the criteria before posting. The knowledge that a link has been covered on another prominent site increases its exposure, and therefore decreases its quality according to criterion #1. This doesn't mean that in any hard and fast way that memepool = don't post. I've said that repeatedly and I know you can figure this very simple proportional relationship out. I'm really sick of your constant effort to characterize my argument as oppressive, when I am arguing in favor of a simple, flexible guideline and giving you externally-produced data to back it up.

I am N-O-T using my personal browsing habits to infer that lots of people visit memepool. That data is available at the link I provided you. Did you or did you not visit the Alexa link, languagehat? What do you think about it? Does it or does it not inform this discussion? What do you think about criterion #1? How do you want to define "most people?"
posted by scarabic at 1:18 PM on January 10, 2004

Wow, I think I visit one of those sites regularly, and one other when I'm barrel scraping.

You do realise the internet is freaking huge?
posted by inpHilltr8r at 3:39 PM on January 10, 2004

scarabic, I'm sorry I've gotten you so crabby again. It's really not that big a deal. I realize you're not trying to forbid anything, and I don't want to get into a prolonged argument. Let's forget the whole thing.
posted by languagehat at 5:59 PM on January 10, 2004

I've also rarely seen monju so ruthless. Wow.

I apologize for responding rather brusquely. I appreciate, however, that I am not normally perceived that way.

"Where else would you get the links?" is actually a pretty dumb question. Answer: emailed from a friend, happened upon while perusing blogs, noted in a small news outlet, word of mouth via social networks, etc etc etc. AKA: THE HARD WAY. I hardly think the mission of MeFi is to sit around cherry picking from Fark, memepool, and the rest.

My point was not that links would come only from the aggregator sites, but rather that links are often second hand. Rarely do I stumble upon a site I'd like to post without having been pointed to it from someplace else. Occasionally, I will find an obscure gem through some google quirk while searching for something else, and it is those that make the most valued posts here. However, most posts, I think, deserve a "via" designation of one form or another, whether it is Memepool, a weblog, or an email from your buddy. My point was that a post taken from memepool is different only in degree from a post taken from a weblog or email, not in kind.

Getting the link first, like getting the scoop, is still important. Even a site that's well-filtered for quality would be a pain to sift through if you'd already seen 50% of it. I personally would never post something that's already on memepool.

I would probably never post anything found via memepool. However, that does not mean that I might find something from some other source, and only once posted discover that it was also posted on memepool in the not too distant past. However, I do not check with memepool, or fark, or any site other than MetaFilter when I post something here. I don't think it's practical or even necessary to discourage accidental cross posts from memepool, even if we discourage intentional cross posting from other "large" sites. That was what motivated my original response in this thread. Specialk420 posted a link he found at some other site, and it's not even clear that he reads memepool at all, much less knows to check his links against it.

I agree that Metafilter should not filter the other "large" sites, as then it would be MetaMetaFilter, which is simply too unwieldy a name to deal with properly. I agree that front page posts should be made with care. However, it should not be unexpected that some duplication will occur. I stand with languagehat and rushmc in defending the post in question.

Again, I apologize to SiW in particular, as perhaps I was a bit crisp unnecessarily. I can only take the easy way out, and blame my job. Being a lawyer is slowly, inexorably, turning me into an asshole. Sorry in advance.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 8:23 PM on January 10, 2004

I agree, languagehat, enough has been said. Sorry for getting cranky.

Nice summation of the issue, monju. I think your first comment just sounded more severe with several swift followups on its tail. Didn't mean to call you out so vividly.

'Nite all.
posted by scarabic at 1:03 AM on January 11, 2004