Who is right, in the US centric vs Newsfilter debate

August 18, 2004 10:42 AM

What does the reaction to this post tell us? Myabe it's just a statistical blip, but I'm a bit surprised at the very vocal negative reaction to this bit of US-centric front-page/TV news as contrasted to the reaction to the NewsFilter posts we get every single day. Why are the naysayers in this thread right when the anti-NewsFilteristas are not? What, exactly, is different?
posted by Ethereal Bligh to Etiquette/Policy at 10:42 AM (78 comments total)

A few notes:

Oops, the post, not the comment I accidently included in the link.

I'm not specifically calling out Inkoate's post, because it was a first post (I think). I think this just is an interesting test case.

As it happens, I personally didn't mind the post because this was the first I'd seen of this news and I was interested. But so what? That doesn't make it a good post. The same responses (I didn't know it, I'm interested) to the daily election posts don't justify them.

I'm assuming an opposition here that doesn't necessarily exist. Perhaps the very same people protesting this post protest the NewsFilter posts. Perhaps the strong reaction in this thread is not indicative of a different standard. I dunno. That's why I'm bringing it up.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 10:48 AM on August 18, 2004

They're both annoying. Let me prune off the pointless bits.

I should write some code where if someone mentions "this is not the best of the web" in a comment, it gets auto-deleted.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 10:50 AM on August 18, 2004

Matt, if you wrote a "this is not the best of the web" zapper, I would worship you even more than I do know.

Yes, it's SuckUpFilter and I don't care who knows it.

Subscribe!!1!!
posted by Sidhedevil at 11:06 AM on August 18, 2004

It just defeats the purpose of MetaTalk entirely if every thread is filled with 20 comments that basically say "boo, I don't like this, it shouldn't be here, blah, blah blah" and the rest of the comments are arguing the point.

If you didn't care for the link post about it here.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 11:12 AM on August 18, 2004

Ok, I'll just take this opportunity here in the grey to say mea culpa. Yep, my first FPP and I thought the topic was interesting, but hey, I'm a fencer so I guess the relevance doesn't extend much beyond that. Sorry to everyone.
posted by Inkoate at 11:14 AM on August 18, 2004

No, that's not the problem as I see it. I mean, yeah, just because something is interesting to you doesn't mean that it should be posted. (I'm looking at you, Karl.) Of the things I looked at this morning that I listed in the bridge thread, some were very interesting to me and probably would be to many other people. But that doesn't meet my standards of what I think MeFi posts are supposed to be.

But that's really not the problem. Maybe those "interesting thing I found" posts aren't great, but they don't suck, either.

What people were objecting to was that A) this is on all the USA news outlets; and, B) this is on all the USA news outlets. But those criticisms apply to a full quarter of everything posted to the blue every day.

Anyway, I really didn't mean to call out your post, per se. I was more interested in pointing out that the reaction is interesting and possibly revealing about how people think about this stuff.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 11:20 AM on August 18, 2004

It just defeats the purpose of MetaTalk entirely if every thread is filled with 20 comments that basically say "boo, I don't like this, it shouldn't be here, blah, blah blah" and the rest of the comments are arguing the point.—matthowie

But, Matt, is MeTa actually working in this regard? I don't think it is. About NewsFilter, especially, I don't think that most of the newsfilter posters read MeTa, and those that do don't care that others think that newsfilter posts are bad. This was why for a while I had decided to not complain about NewsFilter here, but instead say something in the threads, even though that's contrary to the spirit of the site. This is a problem that's getting worse, and the sanctioned means—MeTa—for controlling it don't seem to be effective. But maybe I'm wrong about that.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 11:23 AM on August 18, 2004

I'm looking at you, Karl

Oi?
posted by dhoyt at 11:24 AM on August 18, 2004

What people were objecting to was that A) this is on all the USA news outlets; and, B) this is on all the USA news outlets.

That's not at all what I was objecting to.

An obscure Olympics story would be interesting, even if it was on CNN.com. A post about fencing (and I admit, that FPP at least tried to flesh out the NewsFilterishness with related links) would also be interesting.

This story was neither so small it would escape notice (I saw it on CBC this morning, and if an American gold gets big play on Canadian news, it's bound to be reported elsewhere), nor was it so big that it demanded attention.

Since my comments were deleted, I obviously went overboard in my reaction. But I stand by my opinion.
posted by GhostintheMachine at 11:42 AM on August 18, 2004

Well, the "so big it demands attention" argument shouldn't be about anything less than wars or space shuttle crashes, should it? Otherwise, you're just describing a pretty narrow category of things you think shouldn't be on MeFi based on your own sense of big-but-not-big-enough.

I think I'd prefer, if we're going to accept NewsFilter, "little" or "really big", as both are pretty indisputable. "Kinda big but not big enough" is, on contrast, a very disputable designation.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 11:51 AM on August 18, 2004

There's no end to the Olympic posts we could scour up from the barrel. Absolutely no end. And MetaFilter is supposed to be about finding unknown web gems, not hanging out at the biggest media orgy in the world, and relaying stories from there. Sports stories, no less.

As bad as Newsfilter usually is, this is even worse, because it's one of those "predicitble news sources" journalists flock to, where they know that so-called "news" will take place. Noam Chomsky talks about this in Manufacturing Consetnt: the way that they really should be combing the landscape for important stories, but it's easier for them to just hang out at the Olympics, in front of the Whitehouse, on a hurricane front, etc, where they know something watchable will happen sooner or later. Instead of shedding light on the affairs of their society, they wind up parroting Presidential sound bites, chalking up sports scores, and videotaping the rain falling. It's lazy. And it could happen here, too.
posted by scarabic at 12:07 PM on August 18, 2004

Oh, and since when are the "the anti-NewsFilteristas" wrong?

;)
posted by scarabic at 12:09 PM on August 18, 2004

btw - Inkoate, I have my personal philosophy about what makes a good post but I wholly recognize that this is a controversial matter of opinion. I think you did a decent job composing your post, and if the topic wasn't the best choice in the world, I don't think you necessarily erred in choosing it. Obviously, we needed to have a conversation about Olympics posts and air some opinions about it. I'm sorry you got nasty comments in your first FPP. Keep coming back.
posted by scarabic at 12:16 PM on August 18, 2004

Well, the "so big it demands attention" argument shouldn't be about anything less than wars or space shuttle crashes, should it?

Correct.

..."little" or "really big", as both are pretty indisputable. "Kinda big but not big enough" is, on contrast, a very disputable designation.

So where does this fencing post fit? Is a gold medalist at the Olympics "little"? Is yet another gold medal for one of the world's leading Olympic nations "really big"?

If the standard for all news/sports/pop culture posts limited to "small enough to escape wide notice" or "big enough to demand attention", there would be rainbows and buttercups everywhere.
posted by GhostintheMachine at 12:34 PM on August 18, 2004

I love MeFi, it probably consumes more of my time than the rest of the web combined, but the constant and usually very snarky attacks on a post or its poster for what it is or is not can really grate on my nerves sometimes.

As a fencer, I'll admit that perhaps I'm biased towards post, but I think it has merit in that it marks a departure from America's usual crappy performance in the sport on the world stage, and raises the issue of whether this will mark an increase in popularity of an widely misunderstood and underappreciated sport. The news isn't that the US won a medal, it's that the US won a medal in an event they usually do not perform well in.

Discussing only certain news items and avoiding things that see wide distribution seems to me like we're avoiding the major events surrounding us. If you want to post something that sees wide distribution you better have some sort of spin on the issue otherwise you're immediately belittled for bringing up such a common topic..that's bullshit. This belies part of what I consider half the charm of MeFi because I want to see what this particular community thinks of the major things going on in the world today. The other half is the unusual and interesting things that users contribute that I probably would never find on my own. I appreciate having high standards for conversation topics, but there has to be a middle ground. I'm not saying we need to move to a Fark-like coverage of every single thing that happens, but maybe the blue can sometimes be a bit overcritical.
posted by tetsuo at 12:59 PM on August 18, 2004

The news isn't that the US won a medal, it's that the US won a medal in an event they usually do not perform well in.

1) Yet it's still news. So what if nation X won a medal it wasn't expected to win? Greece won gold in syncro diving, another marginal* sport, when it wasn't supposed to be anywhere near the podium. Does that merit attention here?

I want to see what this particular community thinks of the major things going on in the world today.

No you don't. Because here's what I, as a member of this community, thinks of this particular "major" thing: "Who the F cares? So what if an athlete from the most dominating nation in sports wins a medal, even if they weren't supposed to? That's not something I turn to MeFi for, and I wish people would shut up about it and not post it at all. If I wanted to know what was going on in the Olympics (and I do), there are 85 million better sources for that information than MeFi (several of which I already visited and already saw this story)." That's what I think of this, and that's (basically) what I wrote in that thread. And that led us here.

If you want to know what others think of something, you'd better expect some of those people to not give a damn and be quite ready to let you know that in no uncertain terms.

Again, this has nothing to do with fencing. A fencing post would be interesting; it's not something you hear about all the time, and not being into the sport I would have no idea where to turn for good information. I would be happy if someone with an appreciation for it could serve as a guide to the sport and let me in on something I didn't know.

But if you're going to give me the results from perhaps the biggest sporting competition in the world, making banner headlines across the globe, don't expect me to be amused.

* and I mean marginal in terms of popularity, not as some comment on validity of either.
posted by GhostintheMachine at 2:17 PM on August 18, 2004

I think it has merit in that it marks a departure from America's usual crappy performance in the sport

That is not at all meritorious.

A tropical bobsled team that has trained exclusively on sandy hills and yet manages to pull a gold out of their effort would perhaps be meritorious, if only for the sheer quirkiness of it.

A competitor from a rich nation with the latest training techniques and adequate funding who doesn't have to overcome any unusual obstacles in obtaining that gold, is thoroughly boring.

Especially when the media is having orgasms over it anyways.
posted by five fresh fish at 2:37 PM on August 18, 2004

the media is having orgasms over it anyways.

Including Google, apparently, who've put up a fencing-based homepage mod.
posted by scarabic at 2:54 PM on August 18, 2004

Why are the naysayers in this thread right when the anti-NewsFilteristas are not?

Um, they aren't.

Don't let the bastard get you down, Inkoate.
posted by rushmc at 3:55 PM on August 18, 2004

er, bastards...
posted by rushmc at 3:56 PM on August 18, 2004

I want to see what this particular community thinks of the major things going on in the world today.

No you don't.

Yes, I do. Don't assume to tell me what I want and don't want. I want to hear what this community has to say about it if they have an opinion and something to contribute to a discussion. If all you have is "who the F cares" apathy, move along and let those who are interested get what they can out of the thread. Is that so difficult?

So what if an athlete from the most dominating nation in sports wins a medal, even if they weren't supposed to?
Because the enthusiasts in the thread, those who've competed in the sport, actually know how difficult this is to accomplish, and how it affects a sport that we care about. It may be meaningless to you, but you're not the only one on this board. Is your attitude really "well this doesn't interest me, therefore it obviously doesn't have any merit"? That's pure selfishness.

If you want to know what others think of something, you'd better expect some of those people to not give a damn and be quite ready to let you know that in no uncertain terms.
Actually I don't, that's the point of civilized discourse. If all you have is bullshit negativity, stay the hell out of the conversation. If all you can do is get snarky, do everyone a favor and just go be miserable about it in a corner.
posted by tetsuo at 5:40 PM on August 18, 2004

and the popularity of Fencing isn't marginal, it's dismal, barely beating out Curling.
posted by tetsuo at 6:02 PM on August 18, 2004

Hey, Curling's at least as popular as Streaking and Hair Extensions.
posted by wendell at 7:11 PM on August 18, 2004

They've got Curling at the Olympics? Excellent! He was much better than that imposter Shemping!

woo-woo-woo-woo-woop!
posted by yhbc at 7:32 PM on August 18, 2004

It just defeats the purpose of MetaTalk entirely if every thread is filled with 20 comments that basically say "boo, I don't like this, it shouldn't be here, blah, blah blah" and the rest of the comments are arguing the point.

If you didn't care for the link post about it here.

There is a massive and growing disincentive to doing so these days, especially for those whose skin may not have been hardened to the consistency of saddle leather by years of enduring the Snark. I would venture that a part of the reason so much Shitfilter gets posted without dissent is that the less stalwart among us are afeared'a posting a Metatalk thread thanks to the nastiness that often ensues and the more grizzled veterans are just fucking tired of the endlessly repeated arguments that such Metatalk threads engender, and can't be bothered.

This, I suspect, is partially a result of the closed-door policy of recent months (years?).

Sorry, but a 'this is a poor post' inthread feels about right to me, but if someone wishes to argue that (ie if it's not just totally self-evident), then the dissenter should start a MeTa thread.

I know this is counter to the stated aims of MeTa, but it feels these days like the only way things can work. Slippery slope? You decide.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:44 PM on August 18, 2004

you can't make me decide. stop telling me what to do,
posted by quonsar at 7:55 PM on August 18, 2004

fucker.
posted by quonsar at 7:55 PM on August 18, 2004

a 'this is a poor post' inthread feels about right to me, but if someone wishes to argue that

"If"? "If"??? You know that's a given...which is precisely the problem with that approach.
posted by rushmc at 7:58 PM on August 18, 2004

I know, I know. It's just a dodge for the original finger-pointer. *shrugs*

Whaddaya gonna do?
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:26 PM on August 18, 2004

Can we get some sort of MeMeTa where we can bitch about what does and doesn't get posted in the grey? Maybe some sort of purplish color...
posted by graventy at 8:27 PM on August 18, 2004

*holds quonsar's head under the beer tap until he decides*
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:27 PM on August 18, 2004

"1) Yet it's still news."

No, it's sports. Not the same thing at all.
posted by mischief at 8:44 PM on August 18, 2004

I'm not saying it was the greatest post, but why trash a post, would people do that in fact-to-face conversation (except maybe quonsar)?
Imagine:
"Oh hey, I just heard about this.."
"SHUTUP, that's of no interest to me, you're wasting my time".
Not likely, and if you don't have the stones to do it in real life, don't do it here, that's all I'm saying. Well, that and posting widely disseminated news shouldn't as taboo as it is treated, but I know I'm the only one who thinks that, oh well.

Why don't we just have a MeTaBitch where everyone who wants to complain can go, they can be called MeTaBiatches.
posted by tetsuo at 8:52 PM on August 18, 2004

Yeah, make that face-to-face.
posted by tetsuo at 8:52 PM on August 18, 2004

what he said. i'm continually surprised by that too (but i guess shouldn't be).
posted by amberglow at 8:55 PM on August 18, 2004

Hey, wait - even though most of my contibutions are shiat lately, I will support Stav's point. I was reading the uncanny valley post the other day and literally thinking something along the lines of "Why is this on MetaFilter? It's a complete 'let's talk about this' post! What the fuck ... should I post a call-out on MeTa? Nah, they'd just get all bitchy about it ...", and then Stavros piped up in the thread so I didn't have to.

We blame a lot of 'bad" things on the supposed "stagnation" of the MeFi pool, but I don't fully buy that. It seems like you HAVE to get in people's faces anymore if you want them to pay any attention - and supposedly, we're all "hardened veterans". Bullshit.

And tetsuo, a LOT of things are said and done on-line that wouldn't happen in person - that's why it's ON LINE.

* grabs tetsuo's ears, gives him a head-butt *
posted by yhbc at 9:10 PM on August 18, 2004

I enjoyed this post and even learned a thing or two, but as a fencer, I'm obviously biased. However, I wanted to point out a thing or two:

I specifically watched the 11PM news on NBC (the station covering the olympics) to see how they covered it. There was nary a peep about it. The google banner someone mentioned was not a response to the medal, it was already in place. The only place I heard this mentioned besides fencing sites and metafilter was on NPR's All Things Considered, which makes a point of covering eclectic topics.

Justified or not, petty carping in the thread about an FPP's worthiness detract from the stimulating discussion that is a hallmark of this site.
posted by Manjusri at 12:32 AM on August 19, 2004

a LOT of things are said and done on-line that wouldn't happen in person - that's why it's ON LINE.

Because as we all know, ON LINE isn't real life at all, so why should be bother being civil to each other or allowing for the fact that people's interests may vary from our own. I have friends and associates talking at me about subjects I find less than noteworthy or entertaining often. Unlike at Metafilter, where I can choose to completely ignore any link or thread that doesn't interest me in the least, I can't just get up and walk away, but I don't yawn in their face or tell them to shut up either. I certainly wouldn't bother walking across the room to tell another group of people engaged in a conversation I found droll or uninteresting that their discussion is a turd (and they should just accept my opinion on that and cease having it) which, in essence, is what happens every time there's a conversation going on around here that someone doesn't like. Instead of ignoring it, they barge in, declare it crap and insist the conversation cease. It's just rude ... off line or on line.

It wasn't an Iraq/Bush/Kerry/Politics/Whatever post, and I seriously doubt a major flame war would have erupted in the thread as fencing isn't on the list of things "Metafilter doesn't do well" (yet, at any rate), so if those who weren't at all interested in fencing, the Olympics or the post as a whole would have just left their own snarky comments out of it, it would have lived a peaceful little life with those who were interested in it discussing it quietly in their little corner.

But no ... everyone just wants to bitch about it.

And yeah ... now I'm bitching too.
posted by Orb at 4:44 AM on August 19, 2004

I totally agree that a big problem is that people think that online rules of civility are far more lax than in the real world. I don't think they should be. Perhaps they should be more strict.

However, I think this was a bad example. In real life, at a conference with a defined scope, if someone goes off-topic people will correct it. Probably not rudely, unless it happens repeatedly.

MeFi isn't a general-purpose discussion board, contrary to some people's opinion. It's not. The posting guidelines make that clear.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 4:54 AM on August 19, 2004

And tetsuo, a LOT of things are said and done on-line that wouldn't happen in person - that's why it's ON LINE.
Yes, but that doesn't make it right, especially here. People expect a higher standard of content, but can't follow that up with a higher standard of conduct.

* grabs tetsuo's ears, gives him a head-butt *
*quickly recovers, kneads yhbc in the balls*
posted by tetsuo at 5:02 AM on August 19, 2004

Hey! Take it outside, you two!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:08 AM on August 19, 2004

"MeFi isn't a general-purpose discussion board, contrary to some people's opinion. It's not. The posting guidelines make that clear."

You're absolutely right, and I'm definitely not saying that should change, (note my comments about not becoming fark in the actual post), but I think people feel wary about whether they can bring something up they want to discuss. If I'm the only one, no prob, I just think we may be missing some good opportunities.
posted by tetsuo at 5:10 AM on August 19, 2004

Shit, that should be knees, not kneads, I'm not kneading any balls. Now that's a classic screwup.
posted by tetsuo at 5:16 AM on August 19, 2004

Uh, yeah, what stavros said, up there.
posted by Blue Stone at 5:17 AM on August 19, 2004

I want to hear what this community has to say about it if they have an opinion and something to contribute to a discussion.

Like I said, you don't want to hear what I have to say. You only want to hear it if it already matches up with your particular view. When you put conditions on contributions, you've stopped being open about it. I'm not assuming anything about what you want and don't want; your words are enough.

What MeFi does, ideally, is present links to people who would not otherwise have found them on their own.

If this story would only appeal to people in the fencing community (and I would argue that FFF's right on target with his description of this story), then it doesn't belong here - it belongs on some Popular Fencing site or board. There is nothing universal in her story, and very little to be of interest to the lay audience.

However, an FPP about fencing, its rich history and development, waning fortunes, hopes for the future, etc. - that would belong, because it seeks to open the sport up to a wider audience, to connect with the lay people here. Within that FPP there could be a link to this story, and it would be fine. It's all in the presentation. Having this (marginally interesting) story as an aside to the main focus (the state of fencing today) wouldn't be a problem.
posted by GhostintheMachine at 5:23 AM on August 19, 2004

"You only want to hear it if it already matches up with your particular view."

Absolutely not, I want differing viewpoints more than agreeing viewpoints, but what I don't want is apathy or rudeness. If you don't have an actual contribution, whether agreement or dissent, why would you want to get into a post anyway?
And you are assuming, you're assuming I only want agreement when what I'm asking for is rational discourse. I would put only one condition on a contribution, that it is constructive, I don't think that's restricting it or closing it, its simply attributing some value to dialogue over insult and attack.


"There is nothing universal in her story"

Is there anything universal in any story?


"If this story would only appeal to people in the fencing community (and I would argue that FFF's right on target with his description of this story), then it doesn't belong here..."

By that viewpoint though, any topic that doesn't appeal to everyone doesn't belong here. The PHISH post for example, doesn't appeal to everyone, does it belong to a PHISH fan board? I don't think so, I thought it was a reasonably good post, I just personally didn't care for the subject. I agree that the post wasn't perfect, additional links to the aspects you discussed would have fleshed it out and brought more of the community in.
posted by tetsuo at 5:35 AM on August 19, 2004

The Phish post was arguably a good post because it wasn't just about Phish, but about a web site ("best of the web") devoted to the unusual task of user-contributed exhaustive documentation of a specific event. That's the kind of thing MeFi is for. Not discussion about one's favorite bands.

Note that Matt has in the past posted things that don't fit this criteria—like perhaps some Apple posts that are really just fanboy posts. But this Phish post wasn't a fanboy post.

Was the fencing post a fanboy post or pointing out something that's pretty neat, on the web, that most people probably haven't seen? Well, um, it was a fanboy news post, really. In this sense, I don't think it compares to the Phish post at all. And I should say that I have zero interest in Phish.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 5:50 AM on August 19, 2004

Just to clarify, this comment: "I agree that the post wasn't perfect, additional links to the aspects you discussed would have fleshed it out and brought more of the community in." is regarding the fencing post, not the Phish post.
I'm not really comparing the posts in the sense of validity, but of interest, since some people are asserting that a post must be universally interesting, and that seems like so much crap because its impossible. I think you can compare them though in the sense of validity, the Phish post brought that extra dimension that at least can try to appeal to a broader scope of people whereas the Fencing post was a bit too narrow in scope (Fanboy as you put it).
posted by tetsuo at 6:44 AM on August 19, 2004

BTW EB, thanks for starting this thread.
posted by tetsuo at 6:45 AM on August 19, 2004

Is there anything universal in any story?

Don't be daft. The underdog overcoming great adversity... the high and mighty getting their comeuppance... the obscure meek and mild earning recognition and reward... the tragic flaw bringing the downfall of the hero... there are tons of universal themes out there.

By that viewpoint though, any topic that doesn't appeal to everyone doesn't belong here.

It doesn't have to appeal to literally everyone, but it does have to have some appeal outside its narrow confines. Should I post an FPP about the proposed new rules for the Armdale Rotary? I'm interested in hearing what others here think about that, and anyone here from Halifax (and I'm not the only one) is bound to have an opinion they want to share. But this isn't the place for that at all. Does that mean a FPP about rotaries themselves would be bad? No, because although not every region has a rotary/roundabout, many do. And if done right, even people who don't live anywhere near rotaries might find something in it of interest.

Any FPP should seek to include the widest part of this community, not the narrowest.
posted by GhostintheMachine at 6:47 AM on August 19, 2004

But this Phish post wasn't a fanboy post.

Bullshit. I have no interest in Phish and therefore no interest in a website specifically set up for Phish's last concert ("ooh, they set up a website! how quirky and original! must post about this!"). It's Matt's site and he can post whatever he wants, and obviously there are a lot more Phish fans than fencing fans here, but it's still a fanboy post. I am only marginally interested in fencing, but Inkoate's post actually held my attention and I was glad to have seen it, and frankly it boggles my mind that anyone would think this inoffensive little specialty post worth calling out (even in an oblique, "I'm not really calling this out" way). I mean, cast your eye down the front page and tell me this stands out as a Bad Thing. Sheesh.
posted by languagehat at 7:10 AM on August 19, 2004

I'm not being daft, I'm being aware of the subjective nature of our experience, let's not start name calling.

Any FPP should seek to include the widest part of this community, not the narrowest.
I can live with that. Hey, post your Armdale Rotary one, I'll put up one about DuPont Circle (ok, not really a roundabout), j/k.
posted by tetsuo at 7:14 AM on August 19, 2004

Well, Languagehat, I really thought the point of the Phish post was that it's a website intending to exhaustively document a single event (and user contributed). That part was interesting to me, and a web event—not the Phish part. I didn't assume that Matt was a Phish fan.

And I liked reading about the fencing medal, too. But it was newsfilter, usafilter, and possibly fanboyfilter.

I think a big part of the problem here is this "I liked the post so I think it was okay" mentality. That's why I didn't consider this MeTa post a callout (didn't intend it to be) because I, personally, didn't have a big problem with the fencing post. But when I was reading the strong reaction that people had against it, it occured to me that the only reason I didn't immediately think "newsfilter" and agree with their annoyance is simply because I was interested. My point in making this MeTa post was partly to reveal that contradiction. I'm not upset about this post, because I personally liked it. But by the standards I've been advocating, I think it's as objectionable as most newsfilter posts. I wish I had made my point of view about this more clear in my first comment.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 8:41 AM on August 19, 2004

...and, by the way, the same is true of the Kerry-ex site. I don't read Drudge, so I hadn't seen this and I thought it was interesting. But, frankly, if it's at the top of Druge, it doesn't belong on MeFi.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 8:43 AM on August 19, 2004

Comapre and contrast:

Yesterday

What's revealing is that Miguel painted Canadians with the same broad brush as USAians. Which shows how full of shit he is... I don't, however, like you, Miguel, and your self-indulgent, ostentatious MeTawhatsits, lately with bonus whining. You can leave.

Today

I totally agree that a big problem is that people think that online rules of civility are far more lax than in the real world. I don't think they should be. Perhaps they should be more strict.


If you are going to preach, practice.
posted by y2karl at 9:53 AM on August 19, 2004

There are people who don't deserve my civility. Schmuck.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 10:18 AM on August 19, 2004

Which is what I said--if you are going to preach, practice. Don't promulgate rules for other people if you are going to exempt yourself from them. The word for that is hypocrite.
posted by y2karl at 11:07 AM on August 19, 2004

But, frankly, if it's at the top of Druge, it doesn't belong on MeFi.

Sorry, that's nonsense. Metafilter doesn't cede the right to note interesting things on the web to any other site, nor should it. The charter is to provide interesting links, not to provide interesting links that have never appeared anywhere else online so that no one can possibly have encountered them before. You need a better argument than this.
posted by rushmc at 11:13 AM on August 19, 2004

Y2Karl, I never claimed that we should all be more civil to each other all the time, with no exceptions. I think there are exceptions. You are one of them. Try to keep up here, okay?

...and speaking of hypocrisy, the reason that I dislike you and Miguel and am antagonistic to both of you is that each of you, repeatedly, with no prior personal provocation, personally attacked me here in MeTa and elsewhere for—of all things—being boring, wordy, narcissistic and a whore for attention. All things that both of you have frequently been accused. And, for both of you, since I had previously liked both of you, I initially laughed it off, excused it, put it aside. And you continued. Both of you deeply dislike me for whatever reason, and both of you initiated attacks against me. What seems like a sort of betrayal, along with the hypocrisy of it, in combination with what I came to see as a strange sort of whiny, petulant behavior, along with a sort of chronic passive-agressive pathos—all led me to deeply dislike both of you, and for good reason, I think. So, screw you both. That's all I'm going to say on the matter, hopefully ever, as public grudge matches, especially when explicit, are about the most boring things in the world to everyone else. See the f_a_m/dhoyt MeTa grudgematch for a tiresome example.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 12:07 PM on August 19, 2004

Wow, at least my first FPP garnered a ~60 post MeTa thread. There's a dubious honor if ever I heard one.
posted by Inkoate at 12:30 PM on August 19, 2004

Metafilter: You're nobody till somebody hates you.
posted by rushmc at 1:07 PM on August 19, 2004

Oh, for Christ's sake, Etheraal Bligh, I think you can come off as a pompous blowhard online but I have no likes or dislike concerning you. I don't know you. You are nowhere near as important to me as you think, let alone as you evidently are to yourself. I think you are equally as unimportant to Miguel as well as everyone else here, most likely. All I know about you is you do go on and on and on sometimes. You have curbed that tendency somewhat, which is to the good.

I have had blowouts with other people here where both sides have have gotten over it. Stavrosthewonderchicken, for one, hama7. for another. I can't see why you can't let it go. I do gather that you have a thin skin and a deep capacity to hold grudges. I only made the comment I did in Miguel's thread there because your remarks were so personal, Victorian florid and petty. They epitomized whiny, petulant behavior, along with a sort of chronic passive-agressive pathos and were uncalled for even by the community standards here.

We all have our lapses and conflicts but, please, I must insist upon repeating--if you are going to preach, practice. That's what I will continue to say to you as long as you continue to be pontificate on what is proper and yet be so petty and personal in your remarks. When you took that one of several shots at Miguel yesterday--whose presence I enjoy here much more than I do yours--I took one back. I should have been above it but your remark was so personal and petty that I responded. Make a snarky remark and get one in return--if you don't like getting them, don't dish them out in the first place.

And, by the way, speaking of passive-aggressive pathos--aren't you the guy who yesterday said we shouldn't psychoanalyze other members online? If you are going to preach, practice.
posted by y2karl at 1:25 PM on August 19, 2004

if you are going to preach, practice.
...
I should have been above it but your remark was so personal and petty that I responded

And several grafs up you're playing lexicographer with the word "hypocrisy?" HFS. Can you please stop saying the words practice/preach together?

Look, let's slow down a second here. If we're going to degenerate into quoting each others comments, days apart, from different threads, and, mind you, quite well-edited, with the aim of pointedly skewering one another on the basis of consistency, then two things are clear:

1) we're all in deep shit
2) we're all going to be very busy assembling out little italicized death-darts

If you have no personal gripe with someone, why are you chewing him out to the tune of 4 paragraphs across 3 days and 2 different threads? Come on now.

The EB-hating is fashionable, but pretty much unsupportable. I happen to hate pretty much all of your stuff, karl, but I don't *afflict* you like a rash.
posted by scarabic at 2:13 AM on August 20, 2004

Metafilter: You're nobody till somebody hates you.

What if everyone hates you?
posted by Witty at 10:22 AM on August 20, 2004

Why are you called witty anyway?
posted by biffa at 10:42 AM on August 20, 2004

“It's that wicked ‘irony’ thing, I reckon.”—Jedediah Purdy
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 10:56 AM on August 20, 2004

I have a rash.
And I love you.
Yes, you.
posted by chicobangs at 11:03 AM on August 20, 2004

For the same reason they call you peter... Peter.
posted by Witty at 11:11 AM on August 20, 2004

If you have no personal gripe with someone, why are you chewing him out to the tune of 4 paragraphs across 3 days and 2 different threads?

Because he's been preaching here but not practicing.

Do note also, I haven't called him names, unlike him in reply and note I have not psychoanalyzed him, unlike him in reply. And I did not chew him out over two threads--I believe you were just complaining about people misconstruing what other people said--I took one poke at him in the other thread after reading his gratuitous and over the top attacks on Miguel. Saying what you will on the worth of Miguel's post is one thing, getting unnecessarily nasty and personal is another.

I hardly afflict him like a rash. I hardly have been present here the last few weeks. I appreciate you always sticking up for the little guy but, really, you both have been flooding MetaTalk with your ubiquitous opinions of late. It gets tiresome sometimes.

And when are you and EB going to get a room, anyway?
posted by y2karl at 11:51 AM on August 20, 2004

That's probably pretty uncool, Witty, if you're doing what it looks like you're doing.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 11:55 AM on August 20, 2004

There we agree. No outing. Respect the handle. I don't even like it when people address me by my real life name.
posted by y2karl at 12:25 PM on August 20, 2004

Actually I was well aware Witty was your given name, and was referencing the fact that this has been raised previously. Obviously you have taken some umbrage at this and the question has raised your hackles in a way that was not intended on my part. I apologise if this was misjudged. However, do you think that finding my work homepage and linking directly to it was an appropriate reaction on your part? I find that I do not. I prefer to keep my work generally separate from my use of MeFi for a number of professional reasons that I am sure are familiar to other members of this community. While it is no doubt relatively easy to track me down on the basis of comments made in various threads and the data on my member page this is not the same as directly linking to my personal page in a thread. I find myself more than a little irritated with your actions and have contacted Matt as to his opinion as to an appropriate response.
I am aware that this may look like I can dish it out but not take but feel that your response was out of all proportion to any offence that could have been caused by my post.
posted by biffa at 12:42 PM on August 20, 2004

biffa - It didn't "raise my hackles". But it is an old joke and if anything about the joke bothers me, it's its oldness. EB is also aware of its oldness and still had to contribute to furthering its oldness. But anyway...

In reference to the link I offered, honestly, it was also completely unintentional... the fact that it is ACTUALLY you. I had no idea. I'm not aware of any of your posting history and have never checked. I recognize your username and that's about as far as what I know about you goes. I don't see anything in your user page that would also help me "track you down", other than perhaps your Location: UK

You want the truth? I checked your userpage for your real name, so I could respond to your real name, because Witty is my real name... blah blah blah. Then I thought I might take a harmless jab at you (like I thought you were trying to do to me) by finding a goofy picture of a random "Peter Connor" in google and linking to it. That's what I did. Stick your name into google (in quotes) and you'll see that your picture, evidently, comes up on the first page. So there you have it. I honestly had no idea it was really you... figuring that there must be FAR too many Peter Connors to worry about it.

So there you have it. If I deserve to be punished, well what can I say.
posted by Witty at 1:57 PM on August 20, 2004

Witty, I was aware and the joke is stale and I'm disinclined to rehash it and, also, I like you a lot more these days than I used to. But then I had the idea of pseudo-quoting Perdy and the temptation to be clever overwhelmed me. Sorry.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 2:27 PM on August 20, 2004

And when are you and EB going to get a room, anyway?

Unnecessary. I would say beneath you, but...
posted by scarabic at 5:18 PM on August 20, 2004

Oh, actually, I agree with the unnecessary. You have my apologies--I would have made them earlier but I was at work and got caught in the rush. It's very easy to write something and post it without thinking. Which is why I got on EB's case this time--his shots at Miguel in the other thread were so petty and personal. If one were to lapse in long distance psychoanalysis, one might suspect a deeply held grudge there. He took some totally gratuitous shots at Miguel, which I would say were beneath him, but...

Actually, I'll stick with the I would say were beneath him. I was surprised at how vindictive and petty he was. And they were gratuitous--Miguel hasn't said smack here in the last few weeks. And nothing about EB, as far as I have seen. Not for a long time. Yet he just had to get his licks in... You as his perpetual ally, of course, ignored and excused his grautious attacks in Miguel's thread.

Which is where the Get a Room came from, by the way..

Then he turns around and make these grand pronouncements on civility while allowing himself exemptions for his personal grudges. A case of Do as I say, not as I do. It stuck in my craw. Try to keep up here, as our nonstop moral arbiter puts it. I still say if you are going to preach, practice. Or just don't preach. Constantly. Nonstop.

EB got on a lot of nerves very fast by pontificating endlessly at endless length here in MetaTalk. If and when Dan Hersham makes up a separate MetaTalk Contributors Index, I expect to see EB #1, ahead of who ever is #2 by a factor of 10 or more. It's not like he doesn't have a point to make now and then but, oh, the sanctimony! Not to mention the ubiquity. Some people would rather speak than be heard.
posted by y2karl at 8:53 PM on August 20, 2004

Yes, I have a grudge against Miguel, and you, Karl, I explained that in my previous comment. It's a deserved grudge. I don't like either of you, you both make MeFi your personal playgrounds far beyond anything I've ever done. I never said a single bad thing about Miguel when he repeatedly said very nasty things about me. Fuck, I liked Miguel. So, no, I'm not going to forget that. Besides which, his recent MeTa post was utter bullshit.

It's you who are thin-skinned and, worse, sulky and petulent. You're also in some subtle way, cowardly. Everyone here knows when you are going through some personal life problems because you get snarky and bitchy at everyone and anyone with no provocation. Then you disapear for a few days or weeks.

I do practice what I preach. I didn't preach that one has to be civil to assholes. You're an asshole. It's quite simple. Now, go sulk somewhere.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 2:32 AM on August 21, 2004

On Metafilter (if not in life), he who is not civil to assholes quickly becomes one.
posted by rushmc at 1:51 PM on August 21, 2004