pony request for more inside on FPPs

April 7, 2004 10:15 AM

This is precisely why we should have a [more inside] coded into the Post a Link page.
posted by BlueTrain to Etiquette/Policy at 10:15 AM (25 comments total)

I like the post. But it shouldn't be on the front page.
posted by BlueTrain at 10:16 AM on April 7, 2004

Whoa, cool! I haven't been called out in ages! Thanks. That was damn fast, BlooTrain. What pissed you off, the mouseover text?

Frankly, I used some [br]s for some very specific reasons, but I think my post is a mild offender on all fronts (size, inclusion of unnecessary info, etc) compared to so many others. Y2K, whose style I like but do not emulate, immediately comes to mind, as well as some very very wordy posts of late. I think you could have picked a better post to exemplify the need for your pony. But that's okay.

SO, that's my $.02. Discuss amongst yourselves now, and have fun. Bye.
posted by Shane at 10:34 AM on April 7, 2004

C'mon Shain... don't take it so personally.
posted by Witty at 10:40 AM on April 7, 2004

It's cool and fine. I fail to see a problem of any significance.
posted by The God Complex at 10:42 AM on April 7, 2004

Moreover, given the intentional and important structure of Shane's post, attempting to chop it into a [more inside] would destroy both the aesthetic value and the intent of the post in one fell swoop.

With such a post, the only solution that wouldn't compromise these values would be to have a line that says "Shane has a link" and then you'd have to click into the discussion to have any clue what the link was about, which would be tedious.

Again, I strongly reiterate my disagreement with this thread.
posted by The God Complex at 10:46 AM on April 7, 2004

Okay, I WILL explain my logic, so I don't seem like I'm brushing this off totally:

The Tao is most often divided into lines like a poem, and the quotes I posted just aren't right if they are not divided into those short lines. But then the rest of the post looked ridiculous if it was not "fitted" into a similar shape, which also added the "look" or feel of a poem to the entire post. It worked visually at the very least (for me).

Also, I felt posting two quotes were absolutely essential to getting the essence of the post across. So they were not going inside.

Why did "Pooh heartily approves" have to be "centered"? It just had to ;-)

Okay? I know the format is a little ... experimental. But I want you to know that I'm not being a flippant jerk about this, I really did give it serious thought. And this post has a lot of personal meaning for me.
posted by Shane at 10:54 AM on April 7, 2004

The post made perfect sense to me the way it was on the FP. I actually liked that Shane did it this way.
posted by dobbs at 11:33 AM on April 7, 2004

Shane != Kenneth Goldsmith
posted by Kwantsar at 11:34 AM on April 7, 2004

Who gives a shit! Call-outs are getting more and more pedantic....this is just daft. Good post, Shane!
posted by SpaceCadet at 11:47 AM on April 7, 2004

Shane, your angry response here is not very zen!
Go with the wind, let what happen, happen.

Be the leaf, let meta be your wind.

Don't break the wind.
posted by Peter H at 11:47 AM on April 7, 2004

I think it's fab, Shane.
Don't let call-outs get you down.
Keep posting great threads.
posted by plep at 1:10 PM on April 7, 2004

I like the post. But it shouldn't be on the front page.

This could start a new trend:

I like the jacket but I don't want to see it in the shop window.
I like my mother but I don't want her in my living room.
I like the steak but I want it on a side-dish.
Sure, she's very attractive but not on the cover of Playboy.

Twas indeed a great post, Shane!
posted by MiguelCardoso at 1:51 PM on April 7, 2004

I like the post. It's aesthetically pleasing.
I've seen quite a few similar-sized FPPs that were just great lumps of text, this looked nice, and I appreciated that.
Leave the poor lad alone, BlueTrain. :)
posted by Blue Stone at 1:53 PM on April 7, 2004

/me adds BlueTrain to the "Anal Twit" list. ;-P
posted by mischief at 2:48 PM on April 7, 2004

That must be one hell of a list.
posted by dg at 2:53 PM on April 7, 2004

dg: Nah, I just started it. I am accepting nominations for candidates however. ;-P
posted by mischief at 3:03 PM on April 7, 2004

/me adds BlueTrain to the "Anal Twit" list. ;-P

Great, another self-created meme for mischief to run into the ground. Stop encouraging him! ;-P
posted by The God Complex at 3:24 PM on April 7, 2004

mischief, can we self-nominate?
posted by dg at 4:24 PM on April 7, 2004

Portentious post's limbs sway in wind -

Leaves giggle.
posted by troutfishing at 8:56 PM on April 7, 2004

you'd think if blue train doesn't like it (s?)he would at least say why...
posted by juv3nal at 12:04 AM on April 8, 2004

Portentious post's limbs sway in wind -

Leaves giggle.

Phew! Thank God, trout -- for a minute I read that as "pretentious"! Of course, I looked up "portentious" just to be sure you weren't dissing me ;-)
(BTW, I found my copy of Brautigan's outta-print Tokyo-Montana Express. Maybe I'll choose some of the better bits and e-mail them to you, like I promised ages ago.)
(Thanks, Miguel!)
posted by Shane at 6:04 AM on April 8, 2004

pssst, Shane - "portentious" is really just a polite way of saying "pretentious."
posted by soyjoy at 7:09 AM on April 8, 2004

I know, soyjoy. I guess I should have used the irony tag. Point is, who cares?
posted by Shane at 7:34 AM on April 8, 2004

I didn't even point out that trout probably meant "portentous", not "portentious," which would have, you know, kinda slammed trout back. Using big words wrong -- idn't dat kinda pretentious? ;-)
posted by Shane at 7:40 AM on April 8, 2004

But trout might have meant a positive definition, in which case I owe him an apology. I give up.
1. significant: very serious and significant, especially in terms of future events 2. pompous: excessively serious or pompous 3. amazing: inspiring wonder and amazement
posted by Shane at 8:16 AM on April 8, 2004