Comments on: We're not getting into posting wars with other sites, are we?

We're not getting into posting wars with other sites, are we?

Seth — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 08:31:04 -0800

Hey this is what the guys over here at this partisan extremist forum think. What do you guys think? Let's chat.

For future reference, does this mean the ban is lifted on LGF links? Are we going so far down the road that DU forums are now acceptable linkworthy posts? Does ~~Matt~~ anyone care anymore?

By: Ethereal Bligh

Ethereal Bligh — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 08:37:23 -0800

You're right, but it's not going to be well-received coming from you, or that it's a complaint about a DU link (thus appearing to be motivated by partisanship).

Frankly, I cannot see how there's any avoiding increasing numbers of bad or questionable election related posts until the election is over. Unless Matt wants to do something drastic.

By: jonmc

jonmc — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 08:54:23 -0800

Unless Matt wants to do something drastic

Whatever happened to electionfilter?

By: Seth

Seth — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 09:01:54 -0800

EB -
I am aware that there is a subgroup of people who will be reflexively opposed to what I posted and/or that I posted anything.

But the whole partisan angle is weak. If there was a link to LGF up there, I'd be just as vehemently opposed to its prescence on this website. Some people are so overwhelmingly controlled by a political us/them mindset, that they can't see my comments have to do with *this* website and its goals. My comments have nothing to do with politics. (These are the same people who would refuse to accept that I have voted Democrat in every election I have voted in.)

But hopefully there are enough people on this website who care more about this website more than politics who can say, "these kinds of link don't belong here."

By: Seth

Seth — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 09:04:15 -0800

By the way- this was supposed to be posted to "policy/etiquette" instead of "bugs." I am certain that I selected that option, but it appears I did not. My apologies.

By: Krrrlson

Krrrlson — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 09:06:28 -0800

Silly man... you pointed out the hypocrisy. You're right, for what it's worth here, but I hope you're wearing a flame-retardant suit.

By: matteo

matteo — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 09:06:48 -0800

seth, you wanna have an excuse to finally post a FPP linking to LGF or some other of your trusted news sources, please do it. go ahead. just don't open MeTa threads to rationalize that impulse.
your nanny shtick has gotten very, very tired. again: you're not our nanny, you're not this site's administrator. deal with it
at least our resident right-wingers provide funny, Arab-hating jingo content. you just whine about newsfilter and partisanship. it's boring

By: kaibutsu

kaibutsu — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 09:06:49 -0800

I am aware that there is a subgroup of people who will be reflexively opposed to what I posted and/or that I posted anything.

Hmmm... I think you are getting your concepts mixed. While a subgroup needs to be closed with identity and inverse elements, it is an equivalence class that needs to be reflexive. However, to be an equivalence class, one requires the additional criteria of symmetry and transitivity.

By: Zetetics

Zetetics — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 09:09:14 -0800

em>surely, Matt can't let a DU Forum link stand as an FPP

Seth, I would like to direct your attention to this comment.

By: mathowie

mathowie — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 09:12:20 -0800

I don't read DU or ever go there, just like I don't read or go to SA, or the free republic site. But if anything of major significance comes up there that is truly newsworthy, I think it's ok. In this case, we've been hearing for weeks now that Kerry didn't deserve medals, and someone found an old pic of Bush with some medals, and I think that's pretty significant regardless of where it was found, and because I don't know the history of DU or ever go there, it seems like an out-of-the-way place where something big may have broken.

This is a lot like the guy that worked in an airplane hangar that saw the Kerry/Edwards stickers being put on the plane before Edwards was announced -- a newsworthy bit of info found on an obscure discussion board.

I have heard that DU can be a place a lot like freerepublic, but from time to time we've linked to the freep site, when it was something significant.

By: Witty

Witty — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 09:21:42 -0800

I feel sorry for the people that would rather mock Seth, while pretending that they're in favor of links to other partisan blogs about non-issue medal-count FPPs. Looks like Metafilter likes this kind of politics.... oh they SAY, they're bigger than that and above the worthless drivel such as this. But it still manages to get posted (and defended) every day.

on preview - I'm disappointed in you Matt. Is it the "tit for tat" part of this issue that turns you on the most?

In this case, we've been hearing for weeks now that Kerry didn't deserve medals, and someone found an old pic of Bush with some medals, and I think that's pretty significant regardless of where it was found, and because I don't know the history of DU or ever go there, it seems like an out-of-the-way place where something big may have broken.

I guess if the medal count is a legitimate election issue for Matt, it's good enough for us all. How sad.

By: mathowie

mathowie — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 09:23:20 -0800

Seth, you also need to chill out. You derailed the thread by posting two comments about the source there instead of here, and this story will very likely turn out to be nothing in the grand scheme of things.

I'll concur that even a broken clock can be right two times a day. Once in a blue moon, a dailykos link shows up here, or a newsmax link, or a freep link, or yes, even a LGF link (which I would prefer we not link simply because Charles personally makes a big deal out of it both when anyone here links to his site and if I remove it at even his request).

Maybe I've taught myself to remove emotion from a lot of these matters, but I'm sure that there are times when a link to a partisan, ax-grinding site is ok when there is something truly novel that you can't find anywhere else on the web there, and has the potentional to be a big story.

By: Ethereal Bligh

Ethereal Bligh — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 09:25:08 -0800

Matteo, you can (of course) validly assert that Seth's nannying is annoying and widely disliked, but you can't validly assert that his complaining is illegitimate, disallowed, off-topic, of whatever. This is what MeTa is for.

In keeping with this truth, it's perfectly valid to try to shut someone up via extressions of disapproval of behavior or whatever, even appeals to the majority (because this is in a very real sense a democratic community). But your appeal to authority is a fallacy because there is not a rule that says that Seth's nannying is disallowed, nor has Matt proclaimed his to be the only opinion that matters, nor is Seth exceeding the implicit authority granted by the explicit concept here of "community self-policing".

Say: "you're a loudmouth about this, it's annoying and probably counter-productive, it makes me and other people not like you, and I wish you'd stop." Not: "you have no right to say what you're saying." Because the latter simply isn't true. There's something, to me, very unseemly and distasteful about trying to shut someone up the way you (and others) are trying to shut Seth up.

On Preview: Matt, it may be a legitimate, not-yet-broken-wide piece of news, but I didn't think that was what MeFi was intended to facilitate, especially with regards to a topic as sensitive and potentially all-consuming as the US presidential election.

By: mr_crash_davis

mr_crash_davis — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 09:31:58 -0800

"On Preview: Matt..I didn't think."

By: ZippityBuddha

ZippityBuddha — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 09:32:39 -0800

I think we all need to tell mathowie what metafilter was intended to facilitate. He'll never know, otherwise

By: Seth

Seth — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 09:35:38 -0800

Matt,
You are putting your finger exactly on why this is not post-worthy. This is a link to a discussion board. Some person, no more sane or knowledgeable than you or I, is grinding his partisan axe to his fellow partisans. There is nothing to suggest the story goes beyond mere partisan wishful thinking. If you are genuinely unaware of the quality or reputation of DU, then trust me, it is almost as pathetic as FR or LGF (that is, unworthy of a site intending to filter the best of the web). So you have some rabid partisans making some armchair conspiracy-ish claims. The fact that it might be true is a scary standard to embrace. Any crackpot theory *might* be true. So lets post them all? Who knows, one might break!

I submit, that if it were something on LGF regarding Kerry's Medals, it would be deleted. And I would applaud that. But to damn the standards just to let some partisan comment through that you wish to be true, really is disappointing.

By: Ethereal Bligh

Ethereal Bligh — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 09:39:03 -0800

"I think we all need to tell mathowie what metafilter was intended to facilitate. He'll never know, otherwise"

I wrote: "I didn't think that was what MeFi was intended to facilitate...", which is very distinct from telling Matt what MeFi was intended to facilitate. It's the expression of a point of view tempered as an implicit question posed to the person who, as you so wryly pointed out, is best suited to answer it.

By: matteo

matteo — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 09:40:18 -0800

but you can't validly assert that his complaining is illegitimate, disallowed, off-topic, of whatever.

fact is I didn't say it was "illegitimate, disallowed, etc etc". I just said it's annoying and boring.
but thanks for putting words in my mouth anyway

By: Seth

Seth — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 09:41:44 -0800

Gosh, I missed matteo's comment on the first read through, but I caught it after seeing EB's retort. And I will ditto what EB said.

But just to point out this weak line of attack again:

seth, you wanna have an excuse to finally post a FPP linking to LGF or some other of your trusted news sources, please do it.
posted by matteo at 9:06 AM PST on August 24

The mere fact that you think I would read LGF or want to post from it is asinine. That you think I would, shows that you don't understand my attempt at policing. You really can't look past the partisan aspects, can you?
Or was this comment merely an attempt at irony since I had just posted the following:

If there was a link to LGF up there, I'd be just as vehemently opposed to its prescence on this website. Some people are so overwhelmingly controlled by a political us/them mindset, that they can't see my comments have to do with *this* website and its goals. My comments have nothing to do with politics. (These are the same people who would refuse to accept that I have voted Democrat in every election I have voted in.)
posted by Seth at 9:01 AM PST on August 24

It's almost as if you don't read my posts... you just react to my login name.

By: mathowie

mathowie — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 09:44:50 -0800

I'm disappointed in you Matt. Is it the "tit for tat" part of this issue that turns you on the most?

No, I'm not interested in the tit-for-tat aspect of this, and I don't feel the Kerry campaign needs to use this to score points with voters, nor do I think MetaFilter has any place in advancing politics. Apart from all that, someone on some dumb forum somewhere apparently caught the president in a big bit of hypocrisy that seems to be of some significance.

I know politicians and hypocritical positions go hand in hand, but personally I find it interesting when anyone on either side takes a strong stance and can be found to be toting a "do what I say but not as I do" line.

By: George_Spiggott

George_Spiggott — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 09:45:06 -0800

I submit, that if it were something on LGF regarding Kerry's Medals

It would be painful to read through all the sewage over there, but if it contained genuinely new information with supporting documentation, I'd be quite interested to read it and (pace the crazed site owner's attitude about being linked) I would hope that Matt would not delete it. It's irrational and prejudicial to insist that any piece of content on a given site is inherently bad irrespective of whether the content itself meets the posting criteria.

By: i_cola

i_cola — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 09:46:03 -0800

Seth: I think you're right. Matt has just slapped you in the face and the only way forward is for you to ignore his site. Feel free to start another thread where you complain bitterly about 'what this place has become' and tell us all that you are leaving as those are always entertaining.

EB: Ditto

By: Ethereal Bligh

Ethereal Bligh — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 09:47:02 -0800

I submit, that if it were something on LGF regarding Kerry's Medals, it would be deleted.

Well, Matt's saying that this might be a real story. So, suppose that there was something on LGF (and pretty much only LGF) that was about some heretofore unquestioned and unknown possible lie Kerry told about his Vietnam experience. And let's say the offensiveness of that lie is uncertain and controversial (how bad is it that Bush posed for an obscure photo with a medal he didn't earn?). Would a FPP to the LGF thread about it be tolerated, either by Matt or the rest of MeFi?

Frankly, I think you're right. It wouldn't be.

But I think there's a persistent problem with we and everyone else arguing with counterfactuals. It's rationally suspect, more often than not counterproductive and inconclusive.

On Preview: Matteo: I'm not sure how to otherwise interpret "you're not our nanny, you're not this site's administrator. deal with it" than as a claim that his complaints are by their nature illegitimate and that Seth does not have the standing to make them.

By: bshort

bshort — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 09:52:01 -0800

Seth: get a life.

By: mathowie

mathowie — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 09:54:01 -0800

But to damn the standards just to let some partisan comment through that you wish to be true, really is disappointing.

I don't think this is just another crackpot partisan smear. It's two documents from a historical archive that just happened to show up on a partisan discussion board. I would submit that if LGF was the first and only place to publish the photos of returning soldiers coffins (the ones that were on the memory hole), I would let the link stay because it's truly something of some significance, on a place I would have missed entirely.

The point of metafilter is to highlight stuff found online that most people haven't seen before, and would never find on their own. I don't say that to open the floodgates of crazy ass crackpot theories posted to the darkest corners of the internet, but to simply say I feel when some weird story is found deep within some semi-private livejournal site and brought here, that's exactly what the site was designed for. Although DU may have a bad reputation for partisan mud-slinging, I don't see anything obvious doctored in these photos and it's significant enough and on what I consider obscure enough of a site that I'm fine with it being posted here.

If it turns out the image was doctored in photoshop by a partisan hack, I'll eat my words here and pluck anything from DU ever posted here again.

By: Armitage Shanks

Armitage Shanks — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 09:58:43 -0800

I am aware that there is a subgroup of people who will be reflexively opposed to what I posted and/or that I posted anything.

There is certainly a subgroup of people opposed to your constant shitting inside the threads you don't like. If you were going to post a MetaTalk topic about it, why didn't you do that in the first place and just put the link there?

Seth has posted 1 link to MetaFilter
and 3 threads to MetaTalk

By: cell divide

cell divide — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 10:00:51 -0800

tsarfan is a cool guy, a lot of people know him. He has built up some cred. Like it or not, that matters in a community. Other people build up other types of reputations.

By: Ethereal Bligh

Ethereal Bligh — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 10:03:17 -0800

Matt: Well, I don't think that's the only way it could be a non-story (that the photo was doctored). I'm quite inclined to think that far more likely than not, there's a relatively simple and innocent explanation. This is probably where the difference of opinion makes all the difference—to you, it's self-evidently a pretty big story or a likely big story. To me, it doesn't seem to rise above most of what is posted to partisan sites on a daily basis. But I'm satisfied if you in good-faith think this is a pretty big, legitimate story, at least that it likely is.

But, damn, how many more things can people argue the same in good-faith? And do we want to see all of them posting them to the blue? It just seems like thataway leads to trouble.

By: thomcatspike

thomcatspike — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 10:04:53 -0800

Seth, If you feel the site is telling a spun story why not disproves it than derail the thread? There was a comment that explained the conduct medal he wore after your comments.

By: Ethereal Bligh

Ethereal Bligh — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 10:10:36 -0800

I'll only say one thing about "derail the thread", and only to toss this out as a legitimate point of view: it's not clear how many, or how few, people read MeTa and it's not clear that MeTa serves the policing function it's intended to serve, particularly with regard to the ongoing newsfilter debate. I've decided against it for various reasons, but if MeTa is, in practice, irrelevant, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that in-MeFi complaints are the only effective form of self-policing. It's not my intent to defend this point of view as correct, only defend it as not completely unreasonable.

By: seanyboy

seanyboy — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 10:17:20 -0800

The reason that we don't post to LGF is because they go mental when we do. It's not about the politics over there.

I suspect that the DU link had less to do about partisanship, and more to do with posting something that seemed interesting and newsworthy. That it may be a fraud doesn't negate the initial "Wow - Better tell people about that" feeling that caused the item to be posted. (Another example of this would be the "Maggie Thatcher is dead" link which had me emailing friends in the 30 seconds before I realised it was a spoof.

Seth, I'm with you on this one, and I'd agree that you're probably trying to look out for the site, but I think you could have picked a better target.

By: quonsar

quonsar — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 10:17:57 -0800

It's almost as if you don't read my posts... you just react to my login name.

"it's almost as if you don't admire my filth-encrusted hairy buttocks... you just react to my gaping anus."

By: Ethereal Bligh

Ethereal Bligh — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 10:19:51 -0800

I think you're projecting on that one, quonsar.

By: Seth

Seth — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 10:22:41 -0800

Ditto to EB's response to Matt.
If you honestly believe that Matt, then I have to accept it. But I am highly suspicious of such a moderation policy. It really is all or nothing. One could run a diving rod over most of the partisan sites and not get a single comment of truth. But if you wish to be arbitrary and permit partisan wetdreams based on how much they *might* be right, then I am frightened for your workload and the further devolution of this site.

To be honest, I *cannot* fathom why you don't throw up a politics filter and tell everyone to leave it off the blue.

Seth, If you feel the site is telling a spun story why not disproves it than derail the thread? There was a comment that explained the conduct medal he wore after your comments.
posted by thomcatspike at 10:04 AM PST on August 24
TCS, I think you are *missing* the point. I don't care what it says. I don't even care if it is right or wrong. My objection has to do with permitting crackpot forums like DU from being considered FPP-worthy. Do a search of Metafiler and look at how much bile is spewed about DU, FR, LGF, etc. But now, because some people are politics hungry, we are going to concede that links to someone's post on a message board is considered "best of the web?"

Finally, to i_cola, bshort and anyone else who is interested: I am not going to flame out or leave or anything of the sort. Constant ad hominem insults do nothing but re-enforce my belief that MeFi needs an attitude shift. You aren't going to get me to leave, or hurt me for whatever your goal is. I don't care that you don't like my contributions to this site. We all have the right to post in accordance with the guidelines, and I will do that even if a poll shows that 99.9% of the people want me to shut-up.

By: quonsar

quonsar — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 10:23:10 -0800

yer talking with your mouth full again, blargh.

By: rushmc

rushmc — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 10:23:42 -0800

It's almost as if you don't read my posts... you just react to my login name.

Gee, I wonder why? You created your own lack of credibility, comment by comment: now you have to live with it.

By: terrapin

terrapin — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 10:24:55 -0800

...shows that you don't understand my attempt at policing.

What part of "Self-policing since 1999" don't you understand, Seth?

In the words of woman in Monty Python and the Holy Grail... "Well I didn't vote for you."

By: Armitage Shanks

Armitage Shanks — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 10:28:38 -0800

To be honest, I *cannot* fathom why you don't throw up a politics filter and tell everyone to leave it off the blue.

Really? I had no idea. Tell us more!

By: mcsweetie

mcsweetie — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 10:41:57 -0800

To be honest, I *cannot* fathom why you don't throw up a politics filter and tell everyone to leave it off the blue.

if I may interject...there are a lot of people that go to this site. a good number of them like the political posts. and I pray to allah that one day this will stick on you, for the sake of everyone's sanity.

By: Ethereal Bligh

Ethereal Bligh — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 10:47:02 -0800

What part of "Self-policing since 1999" don't you understand, Seth?

Seth's part of the "self" in "self-policing since 1999", isn't he? I mean, quite specifically and literally as his user number is 116?

On Preview: mcsweetie, yeah, but there's a lot of people that like MeFi for the things that either/both a) Matt didn't build MeFi to do and has discouraged; b) things that the majority of MeFites don't like MeFi to do and have discouraged. So, that a number of people like MeFi to be a certain way does not by itself legitimize that point of view.

By: Witty

Witty — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 10:50:01 -0800

Apart from all that, someone on some dumb forum somewhere apparently caught the president in a big bit of hypocrisy that seems to be of some significance.

I guess that's just where we're going to disagree. The words "apparently", "seems", "someone" and "dumb" are what make this uncomfortbale for me. I just don't see what purpose Metafilter is serving by furthering this nightmare of bickering over service medals from 30 years ago. There are so many other RELEVENT issues we could discuss (and often do) when it comes to these two knuckleheads. I just don't see why this community can't be better than this. I don't care whether Kerry deserved a Purple Heart 30 years ago. I don't care if daddy helped G.W. get out of going to Vietnam 30 years ago. But I guess some people do.

By: mr.marx

mr.marx — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 10:53:30 -0800

I don't care that you don't like my contributions to this site.

you are contributing to this site?

on preview: EB, stop talking for Matt or "the majority of MeFites". just stop.

By: thomcatspike

thomcatspike — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 11:01:52 -0800

But now, because some people are politics hungry, we are going to concede that links to someone's post on a message board is considered "best of the web?"
Can “best of the web” be a thread containing a bile post that is pancaked by the comments which have facts & truths?

By: Ethereal Bligh

Ethereal Bligh — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 11:03:43 -0800

Mr. Marx: read me more carefully. I'm not. I said "some things", not what those things are.

By: coelecanth

coelecanth — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 11:05:35 -0800

This kind of thing would make my BLOOD BOIL. Possibly. If I knew what "LGF" or "DU" stood for.

By: bshort

bshort — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 11:07:50 -0800

The mere fact that you think I would read LGF or want to post from it is asinine.

You're the one that brought up LGF.

Seth's part of the "self" in "self-policing since 1999", isn't he? I mean, quite specifically and literally as his user number is 116?

If only he policed himself...

Considering his distinct lack of positive contributions mixed with his radically partisan comments, I'd say no. He only "self-polices" when it helps his axe-grinding. Also, his low user number has nothing to do with the quality of his criticism.

I don't care whether Kerry deserved a Purple Heart 30 years ago. I don't care if daddy helped G.W. get out of going to Vietnam 30 years ago. But I guess some people do.

The problem here is that since people are comparing the SBVT ads and the ads criticizing Bush's lack of attendance and giving them equal weight. Kerry is being criticized by a bunch of people that didn't serve with him and appear to have no credibility and is supported by everyone under his command along with lots of others (like the green beret he helped save) that have excellent credibility.

Bush is being criticized by lots of people that have documentation that he didn't show up for a year and doesn't have anyone to attest to the fact that he actually showed up for duty.

These things are not the same.

By: mathowie

mathowie — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 11:16:46 -0800

EB: it's hard to avoid the conclusion that in-MeFi complaints are the only effective form of self-policing

I strongly disagree EB. Here's the thing: MetaTalk is the place for bitching about things on MetaFilter. I built it purposely because too many threads at MetaFilter were filled with bickering about whether something was good enough, or misspelled, or the link was dead or whatever. So I built a spot here to deflect that.

I do not believe MetaTalk is ignored, as almost everytime an issue is raised here, a repeat occurrance is rare. I doubt we see another link to DU this year, and that's because a subset of users make most of the posts on the site, and they do a good enough job of checking this place once in a while. Aside from a bad member here and there, MetaTalk does serve the purpose, and helps provide a place for users to talk about things related to the site without weighing down the main site from excess bagagge of meta-comments about things.

Bitching about a post inside the thread takes something away from it. People who post a boring news link and eight hours later find there are zero comments learn just as much about their choice of topics than if it was filled with 25 belly aching comments about why the post shouldn't be there.

Seth: If you honestly believe that Matt, then I have to accept it. But I am highly suspicious of such a moderation policy. It really is all or nothing.

I am honest about my point of view. I do believe there is a possible situation where LGF or RightWingNews or Newsmax or even the freepers site could someday break a piece of news that could stand alone and that I would feel deserves a link at MetaFilter.

Here's where you and I disagree today. I believe the post linked on some crackpot site bubbles up above the random everyday conspiracy theories tossed around by all sides. It's a historical photograph I never knew existed and a document supporting things contrary to what is known. I feel it's just significant enough to keep around, and if some similar thing was found on Kerry, I'd leave that up as well.

You think this will open the floodgates to random crazy off-the-cuff ideas on extreme partisan sites, I disagree.

To be honest, I *cannot* fathom why you don't throw up a politics filter and tell everyone to leave it off the blue.

I built metatalk to remove meta stuff from MeFi because I believe metacommentary has some value.

I don't currently think it's worthwhile to keep a political site separate from the main site because I'm afraid a political site would be much, much worse than the political threads we have now. You've seen an abortion, capital punishment, or post about the conflict in Israel here, right? You know they can be kinda crappy, with people yelling past each other and rarely coming to any conclusion aside from the one they arrived with. But then you can jump to the next thread and see everyone rejoicing about the new hello kitty toaster or the latest apple gadget and renew your sense of humanity and understanding.

Now imagine an entire site devoted to just politics. I would think things would get worse in a place devoted to it, and if they did get worse, you'd lose each and every moderate, calm, collected voice, and you'd end up with something akin to DU or the freepers. I don't want that, and I'm not going to build that.

By: jonmc

jonmc — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 11:18:50 -0800

If I knew what "LGF" or "DU" stood for.

LGF=Little Green Footballs=pompous, blowhard, constipated right wing assholes.

DU=Democratic Underground=insufferable, smug, know-it-all left wing assholes.

By: mr.marx

mr.marx — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 11:19:58 -0800

EB: well, I considered your history of almost seth:ish newsfilter bickering and read between the lines. but if my assumption was wrong I apologize.

By: Witty

Witty — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 11:21:51 -0800

Ignore them, bshort... both of those points. Neither of them have shit to do with whether or not someone can lead this country. We're stuck with these two fucks. So can we try and elevate the level of discussion by not contributing to this childish and pointless nanny-nanny-boo-boo shit? That's my point.

They may not be the same, to you. But to me both issues are about another time, another world, another war, another everything. We're talking about 20 year olds doing what they thought was best for them during a pretty volatile time in the U.S... neither of which had any idea that someday they would run for president.

Had I been of age at that time, I could see myself doing the exact same thing as either of them... pulled strings to get out of going to war and/or tossing my medals in the trash as a protest to the war. I mean c'mon. How many people have "disqualified" themselves from office for something THEY did 20-30 years ago. My guess is everyone. So an we talk about something that matters?

By: Ethereal Bligh

Ethereal Bligh — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 11:25:10 -0800

I'd say no.

That's being evasive. The implicit assertion that I was responding to was that Seth's policing wasn't a part of "self-policing since 1999". But it is. His policing is as legitimate as anyone else's. I mentioned his user number just because I thought it was sort of funny that in his case, the "since 1999" portion was very much accurate.

The only thing that bugs me about Seth's complaints is that I share your suspicion that they're partisan. But what he complains about is not self-evidently inoffensive and incontestably so; and is easily arguably within the guidelines of the kind of things that are legimitate subjects of "self-policing". I don't understand why people feel the need to try to shut him up on the basis that he has no standing to complain, or that his complaints by their nature have no legitimacy, or that this forum isn't the correct one for these kinds of complaints, or anything like that. Juts disagree with him and/or tell him that you're annoyed with him.

I'm sure there's a fancy semitoics/rhetorical/legal or whatever name for the kind of tactic where you argue against someone's point by attacking the legitimacy of their standing to even argue their point of view. Whatever the name for it is, it's a cheap and unfair tactic, I think. Probably always, but most certainly so when it's simply not true. Seth has standing.

On Preview: Mr. Marx, yes, I share Seth's point of view about what those things are, but my response to mcsweetie was not really about it. It was only to answer what I thought was his contention that what a bunch of people like in MeFi is automatically validated as being appropriate for MeFi

By: terrapin

terrapin — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 11:35:19 -0800

Seth's part of the "self" in "self-policing since 1999", isn't he? I mean, quite specifically and literally as his user number is 116?

If only he policed himself...

I wasn't clear. To me the tagline "Self-policing since 1999" means that it is up to members of the community to do their best to do the right thing. But that's probably just the godless commie in me ;)

By: scarabic

scarabic — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 11:42:22 -0800

Like it or not, Seth, there is content at that link, in the form of pictures, documents, etc. The web is notoriously good at surfacing this kind of thing for everyone to see.

Yes, the fallout of its political charge is as distasteful as ever, but you can't possibly argue that the link was nothing but someone's political opinion. There was content.

Plus, I don't believe that the LGF ban is based on the principle you think it is. I am under the impression that it's less of a ban on linking to partisansin general, and more of a specific inter-site arrangement between Matt and LGF, because their people fucked with our people, and vice-versa, and it got majorly out of hand to the point of inviting mutual DOS/hacks/whatever. You can construe whatever "principle" you wish from this, but it's more or less an exceptional case.

Seth-policing since 1999

By: scarabic

scarabic — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 11:47:02 -0800

I agree with everything you said, Matt, except one thing:

I do not believe MetaTalk is ignored, as almost everytime an issue is raised here, a repeat occurrance is rare.

The obvious problem with this: Postroad. Yes, I noticed you said "almost every time," but he's too prolific to ignore as a minor exception.

By: George_Spiggott

George_Spiggott — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 11:51:26 -0800

I'm sure there's a fancy semitoics/rhetorical/legal or whatever name for the kind of tactic where you argue against someone's point by attacking the legitimacy of their standing

I guess that would be a negative case of Appeal to Authority. How is it that you can see that, but not see the logically identical problem with disparaging a post not on the basis of its substance but rather on the basis of where it was found? I see no difference.

By: loquax

loquax — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 11:54:26 -0800

Here's my question: If someone had posted this, would it have been deleted? It satisfies the criteria for allowing the post in question to remain, seemingly catching Kerry in several lies about his wounds and his trip to Cambodia.

By: Ethereal Bligh

Ethereal Bligh — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 11:55:44 -0800

scarabic: I know I just argued against the utility of counterfactuals, but I'm curious...if the politics were reversed, do you think there would be here the same reaction to Seth's complaint? I ask because I know that you and I are both lefties but also both have trouble with newsfilter and, also, have suspicions about whether the community enforcement of these policies is content-blind.

Um, I'll expand a bit: I think that arguing one's point to someone else built around a counterfactual is deeply suspicious, convenient, and likely counter-productive. On the other hand, I know that for my own internal purposes, viewing something through the lens of a counterfactual can be illuminating. I'm pretty sure that my reaction, were the politics reversed, would have been strongly critical of the post on the grounds that it's very tentative and from a very questionable source and so essentially muckracking. That would have been my reaction, I think.

On Preview: Oh, yes, I meant to respond to Matt, too. I agree, at the very least, that the alternative is worse. MeTa is the best solution we have. But I don't think it's working as well as you seem to, and I'd sure like it to be working better than it is. Postie is a good example, but there are others. Part of what's happened with the newsfilter debate is that a whole swath of the community has decided that the issue has been de facto decided and the pro-newsfilter side has won the argument.

On Preview, redux: G_S, I don't think I, at least, was arguing against the post purely on the basis of where it linked to.

By: bshort

bshort — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 11:57:07 -0800

Ignore them, bshort... both of those points.

See, I would, except one is rubbish and should be ignored, and the other is actual legitimate criticism. Conflating the two reflects a gross misunderstanding of the issues.

By: pyramid termite

pyramid termite — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 12:01:53 -0800

all i've got to say is the triviality of political discussion in the usa has reached an all time low

By: xammerboy

xammerboy — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 12:06:05 -0800

Ummm, the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth website was posted here, so case closed.

By: Witty

Witty — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 12:27:44 -0800

See, I would, except one is rubbish and should be ignored...

because the issue doesn't matter in the long run, especially regarding the upcoming U.S. Presidential Election.

...and the other is actual legitimate criticism.

of an issue that doesn't matter in the long run, especially regarding the upcoming U.S. Presidential Election.

But if you feel differently, then dribble over it 'til the cows come home if you must.

By: scarabic

scarabic — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 12:32:02 -0800

if the politics were reversed, do you think there would be here the same reaction to Seth's complaint?

I can't speak for other people. But for me, the question is irrelevant. There's a difference between linking to some asshole's written opinion, and linking to some historically significant photos and documents that some asshole put up on the web. As Matt said, the only real issue is that they might possibly be faked. Until there's anything indicating that, let it stand.

Op-ed articles are dime-a-dozen works of interpretation; they're not only ripe for agenda-based manipulation, they're based on it. Photos and primary documents can also be manipulated to effect, but they speak for themselves to a larger degree. Ask a historian. They'd rather have a ship manifest than an article about shipping any day. Even the Swiftboat Veterans had some claim on primary-source legitimacy, because, supposedly, some of them were there.

If someone had posted an image of Kerry smoking a spliff while everyone around him was fighting and dying, then yes, I would still support the post.

Being anti-newsfilter is about objecting to posting the content of the major media. Not being against posts that relate to current events.

uh - what's a "counterfactual," anyway?

By: amberglow

amberglow — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 12:39:52 -0800

all i've got to say is the triviality of political discussion in the usa has reached an all time low

You're so right, pyramid--it was much more weighty when it was about blowjobs, blue dresses, and cigars.

This has become an election issue, like it or not, and actually does speak to issues of character, morals, service, patriotism, troop support, and how dirty you're willing to get to try to sway opinion, and probably other issues too.

By: dash_slot-

dash_slot- — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 12:40:13 -0800

EB: does your comment have to be so huge?

scarabic: does your comment have to be so tiny?

By: Ethereal Bligh

Ethereal Bligh — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 12:50:15 -0800

Yeah, but I'm not sure that the primary document in this case (the photo) is important. That remains to be seen. Right now, to me, it's pretty much on the same level of importance (or less) as the "when Kerry was in Cambodia" controversy. It's nitpicking—at least, until it's proven that it's a bigger deal than nitpicking.

Believe me, I'd love for Bush to be caught in the sort of thing that they think they've caught him in. Thrilled, actually. But this seems very flimsy to me at this point.

As far as the newsfilter thing goes, I think this appears under newsfilter in the sense that if this isn't a major story and isn't likely to be a major story, then the only reason it appears here is as a volley in the politicsfilter wars. Which, as I see it, is a variation of newsfilter because the rationale is the same. ("It's what we're interested in and we like to discuss what we're interested in.")

Counterfactuals. (Well, a discussion about them that is revealing, I think.)

By: pyramid termite

pyramid termite — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 12:51:08 -0800

amberglow ... at least someone enjoyed the blowjob ... and the only issue i see this speaking to is the desperation of our political process to avoid any substantial discussion of where we should go as a country ... it's irrelevant, childish, banal and assumes that everyone should be judged by what they did or did not do 30 years ago

i'm not voting for either of them

By: Witty

Witty — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 12:57:09 -0800

This has become an election issue, like it or not...

Only if you let it (and sad if you do).

By: scarabic

scarabic — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 13:01:18 -0800

dash_slot- please let me know when you *do* begin stalking so I can tell you to fuck off.

By: scarabic

scarabic — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 13:06:22 -0800

I think this appears under newsfilter in the sense that if this isn't a major story and isn't likely to be a major story, then the only reason it appears here is as a volley in the politicsfilter wars. Which, as I see it, is a variation of newsfilter because the rationale is the same. ("It's what we're interested in and we like to discuss what we're interested in.")

Wow. Did you have to unhinge your jaw for that bit of reasoning? :)

By: Ethereal Bligh

Ethereal Bligh — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 13:09:46 -0800

"Seth pisses me off" and "It's about the stalking, stupid". better there than here

On preview: Let me check....nope. Still hinged.

By: FunkyHelix

FunkyHelix — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 13:09:55 -0800

Threads like these make me wish I had a set fire to other user button on my keyboard.

By: cedar

cedar — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 13:10:43 -0800

"Um, I'll expand a bit..."

Now there's a shocker. Never saw that one coming.

By: scarabic

scarabic — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 13:23:40 -0800

EB: I just meant that we can disagree on that point, but gee, your reasoning is so much more complicated.

By: Quartermass

Quartermass — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 13:25:22 -0800

Threads like these make me wish I had a set fire to other user button on my keyboard.

For my own personal safety, I am glad you don't!

By: quonsar

quonsar — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 13:28:37 -0800

LGF=Little Green Footballs=pompous, blowhard, constipated right wing assholes.

DU=Democratic Underground=insufferable, smug, know-it-all left wing assholes.

MeTa=MetaTalk=pompous, insufferable, blowhard, smug, constipated, know-it-all bi-partisan assholes.

By: dash_slot-

dash_slot- — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 13:29:12 -0800

Uh, scarabic - you don't think there was a serious point there? I mean, can you read that? I copied & pasted into notepad, but that's not really very considerate of you, now is it? As it happens, you were brave enough to ask a question I also wanted answering - for which I thank you. Plus, I thought what I directed to you was nicely juxtaposed to the typically prolix EB.

Besides, it was a joke!

By: mr.marx

mr.marx — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 13:31:43 -0800

Threads like these make me wish I had a set fire to other user button on my keyboard.
"i'm going to become rich and famous after i invent a device that allows you to stab people in the face over the internet"
+ funny comments

By: i_cola

i_cola — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 13:31:43 -0800

You aren't going to get me to leave, or hurt me for whatever your goal is.

I'll admit that my goal is only to ridicule you. You do a fine job of being ridiculous by yourself but I'm always willing to help you get that extra yard...it's the Olympic spirit in me.

By: Ethereal Bligh

Ethereal Bligh — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 13:37:09 -0800

"Now there's a shocker. Never saw that one coming."

Now there's a shocker. Never saw that one coming.

By: Witty

Witty — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 13:38:56 -0800

MeTa=MetaTalk=pompous, insufferable, blowhard, smug, constipated, know-it-all bi-partisan assholes.

and one little prick.

By: scarabic

scarabic — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 13:44:46 -0800

Okay, here's one reason why the off-site breakouts are a pain. You have to keep reminding people like dash_slot- to go there and read what you wrote.

By: jonmc

jonmc — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 13:50:28 -0800

MeTa=MetaTalk=pompous, insufferable, blowhard, smug, constipated, know-it-all bi-partisan assholes.

and one little prick.

[freud]

So, vitty, you zeem preoccupied with thoughts of za anal zex? Vy iz dis?

[/freud]

By: chicobangs

chicobangs — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 13:53:19 -0800

MeTa=MetaTalk=pompous, insufferable, blowhard, smug, constipated, know-it-all bi-partisan assholes.

You see, that's why I love this place so. Hatred of the people we disagree with is the tie that binds in here. I get the feeling it's why we keep coming back, despite all the fuck-off-no-you-fuck-off that flows like open sewage through the streets of this place every stinkin' day, and ten times as bad in election years.

You think I'm being flippant. I'm really not. I love you guys, even as I want to stab many of you in the face.

That's all.

By: y6y6y6

y6y6y6 — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 13:55:45 -0800

For the record I would be willing to pay a monthly fee for a MetaFilter where the official policy stated that Seth is a jackass, and Ethereal Bligh is a self-important windbag.

By: Ethereal Bligh

Ethereal Bligh — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 13:57:27 -0800

My reasoning seems to always be complicated. It's my curse. It's also my blessing. And it's a dessert topping.

Matt's rationale for not going through with the ElectionFilter idea (which he had floated a while back) is pretty persuasive. But, to the degree that I think most of us thought that Miguel was right in his recent complaint, questionable election stuff is only going to get worse, take over more of the blue, and drive away everyone and anyone that isn't interested in arguing about the US election. It is, I think, a real problem.

On Preview: yeah, scarabic, but it's the good fight, isn't it? Everyone would be happier if personal feuding and stuff were to happen elsewhere. Well, most everyone. Some people like it, I suppose.

On Preview, redux: to stand up for Witty.

By: Witty

Witty — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 14:02:59 -0800

So, vitty, you zeem preoccupied with thoughts of za anal zex? Vy iz dis?

RACIST!!!

By: scarabic

scarabic — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 14:06:06 -0800

I think breakouts can be good. I'm willing to try them. But one real problem is that while some sub-discussions warrant breaking out, some people might want to participate in both those breakout sessions as well as the primary thread, and the overall conversation becomes non-linear (eg: "but I already responded to that over here" -- "oh, sorry, our messages must've crossed").

By: mr.marx

mr.marx — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 14:07:33 -0800

questionable election stuff is only going to get worse, take over more of the blue, and drive away everyone

well that's not the only thing driving people away

By: XQUZYPHYR

XQUZYPHYR — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 14:09:20 -0800

For future reference, does this mean the ban is lifted on LGF links?

Side question: where did the whole "is it okay to do this now?" logic come from? I mean, it's just kinda stupid and... well, yeah, just stupid.

Here we have someone saying that something happened they think is "against the rules" (that, mind you, they just made up on their own) and then asking if, because of how utterly offended his is about the "rules" being broken, if he can now break his own imaginary rule. How dare you eat the forbidden apples! Whoever eats them is a horrible person! Can I have one?

Y'know, if I'm watching the news and hear that someone got murdered, I don't call up the police department and ask "say, for future reference, does this mean killing people is allowed now?" Because, you know, I'm not a fucking moron.

Granted, I'm probably just making conversation since this thread is clearly yet another of Seth's glorious ventures into hearing himself talk and nothing more, but damned if you can't admire the zen-like non-logic of the whole thing. Fascinating!

By: troutfishing

troutfishing — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 14:12:52 -0800

Lots of shit-slinging here, but are any of the facts of the matter in doubt ? Beyond, perhaps, a covert background agenda of excreting the smear implied in the label "partisan extremist forum" onto Metatalk, I'm unclear what Seth's callout here is about - it's apparently not about the veracity of "GWBushPhoneyGuardMetalGate" (to coin an awful moniker).

Rhetorical tricks 101 - When one cannot challenge the factual case presented by one's opponent, look to diversionary tactics. Scream, rant, foam at the mouth, feign a seizure even.

___________________________

I just heard last night (I hadn't come across this before) that Bob Dole - who has made statements supportive of the "Swift Boat" push to smear Kerry's war record - incurred his severe WW2 war wounds when a grenade he had thrown at a bunker bounced back at him and exploded. Max Clellan lost three of his limbs in a similar incident during Vietnam, and Republicans smeared his war record over it and also questioned Clellan's basic patriotism.

There's a simple issue of equity at stake here : If Republicans have the right to challenge Kerry's war record and the legitimacy of his war medals - even though Kerry was actually wounded in battle - or the right to question the patriotism of a one-armed vet in a wheelchair, then Democrats have every right to bust George W. Bush for apparently - parading around with unearned medals pinned to his National Guard uniform : which would stink, if true, of rank hypocrisy no less than smearing the war records of men who have served their country in wartime and been wounded - some severely - in the process.

Bob Dole and Max Clellan, both, deserved their medals and more. Clellan has one limb left, and Dole was in constant pain (and may still be) for many years from his wounds - questioning the patriotism of such men, who put their lives on the line amidst enemy fire, is far worse than sleazy.

But from mathowie's point of view - if I may presume - the question and the litmus test would probably be "does the DUU linked story enhance or degrade the reputation of Metafilter (and, hence, either serve to increase or discourage readership) ?"

If the story pans out (proves true) then the answer - most likely - will be "enhance".

By: pardonyou?

pardonyou? — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 14:15:40 -0800

I am a reformed anti-NewsFilter lobbyist. I have seen the error of my ways, and now embrace any and all NewsFilter. When it comes to the credibility of the "source" of the "news," the law has an interesting way of dealing with evidence from marginal sources: judges often admit such evidence with the statement that complaints about the source should go to the "weight" of the evidence, not its admissibility. So let it fly -- if it's crap from DU (which anything from DU is almost guaranteed to be), just prove it.

Also, with respect to ElectionFilter -- whatever. I'd be willing to wager my Barbie collection that despite the millions of words/electrons on the subject, not one of 17+K MeFi members have had their minds changed by something they read here. But just because something's an abject waste of time doesn't mean people shouldn't be allowed to do it if that's what floats their boat.

(Is this at all on topic? Or are Seth and EB the topic? I get confused sometimes.)

By: scarabic

scarabic — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 14:16:04 -0800

If Republicans have the right to challenge Kerry's war record and the legitimacy of his war medals - even though Kerry was actually wounded in battle - or the right to question the patriotism of a one-armed vet in a wheelchair, then Democrats have every right to bust George W. Bush for apparently - parading around with unearned medals

Amen. And people here think that the policy, or lack thereof, is based on runaway liberal bias? Please.

By: dash_slot-

dash_slot- — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 14:19:31 -0800

Scara bic,
At no time have I made any personal attack on you. Sometimes you're funny behaviour seems to demand comment - that last microscopic letter size in particular was designed for someone to notice it.

You don't think your own behaviour up there is amusing? Fine - but please - [dash_slot- please let me know when you *do* begin stalking so I can tell you to fuck off.] - before I suggest you grow a pair of b*lls, or before I request that you stop acting like a p*ssy, before I ask you to stop being such a twat [as we say over here]
please grow some skin!

You're not the only one on this thread who takes things too seriously, for too long. Mind you, you're all yanks...

By: Secret Life of Gravy

Secret Life of Gravy — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 14:46:48 -0800

it's not clear how many, or how few, people read MeTa and it's not clear that MeTa serves the policing function it's intended to serve, particularly with regard to the ongoing newsfilter debate

Often MeTa is my favorite part of reading MetaFilter; I save it for last just as I do dessert or the comics. It is like some bizarre Mexican Soap Opera where I can't understand all the words but I can revel in the naked emotion.

To make it really humorous, I picture the combatants wearing nothing but baggy boxer shorts, rep ties, and indignant expressions while banging away furiously on their keyboards as flames shoot out the tops of their heads. Try it -- it works!

By: freebird

freebird — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 15:05:24 -0800

Mexican Soap Opera where I can't understand all the words but I can revel in the naked emotion.

But surely naked emotion is beside the point in a debate on the significance of references (links) to referents (webpages) which are themselves debates about the significance of refences (medals) to referents (acts or wartime heroism). Nothing can be bare when we traverse this forest of smoke and mirrors, catching funhouse reflections of some truth somewhere, always just around the corner, rendered sinusoidal or corpulent by the very media in which we observe it!

Ah, but that's the genious of your trope, I see it now! A cry, a wounded howl, for the discourse to be Bare once more, undressed by the meta-rhetoric arbitrating what is good rhetoric! To bear up under the onslought of opinion and factoids in a world when the best news comes from a news parody - how are we to take anything seriously for fear of being 'trolled'? We have a bull market on spurious discursiveness, and you long for a bear market in Truth to end the bull.

By: taz

taz — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 15:13:19 -0800

I want freebird and Opus Dark to get together and make a baby.

By: jonmc

jonmc — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 15:30:51 -0800

RACIST!!!

*shrugs*

I've been called that before. Ditto misogynist and homophobe.

Curiously I've also been considered a nigger-lover, a fag-hag, and pussywhipped.

As someone trying to get a rise out of me, witty, you're strictly amateur hour.

By: Ethereal Bligh

Ethereal Bligh — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 15:33:22 -0800

It's topsy-turvy world today, so I'll defend Witty again: I think he intended that as very mildly funny and ironic, not to actually get a rise out of you.

I've been thinking lately that Witty has gotten a bit of a bad rap.

By: coelecanth

coelecanth — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 15:52:21 -0800

Bob Dole - who has made statements supportive of the "Swift Boat" push to smear Kerry's war record - incurred his severe WW2 war wounds when a grenade he had thrown at a bunker bounced back at him and exploded.

troutfishing, according to his web site, Bob Dole received his wounds from German machine gun fire while assisting a wounded radio operator. And Dole criticized Kerry for the combination of 1) alleging before Congress in 1971 that US troops had committed widespread atrocities, then 2) really going out of his way to present himself during the presidential campaign as a hero for having served in that war, 3) when in fact he got out as fast as he could, after receiving three very superficial wounds. The rightness or wrongness of Dole's criticism is of course an open question, but it differs from your characterization.

By: jca

jca — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 15:59:19 -0800

Matt: Now imagine an entire site devoted to just politics. I would think things would get worse in a place devoted to it, and if they did get worse, you'd lose each and every moderate, calm, collected voice, and you'd end up with something akin to DU or the freepers.

Yeah, I'll let you know how that all political thing turns out. ;)

By: Witty

Witty — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 16:29:45 -0800

jonmc - It was a joke... as you were making fun of how an eastern European, (white(ish)), person might mispronounce his or her English. I was referencing how fast some people are likely to call racism when the target of such fun is non-white... much like the big bruhaha we had a while back when someone poked fun at how the Japanese pencil carver (non-white(ish)) might mispronounce some of his or her English (and the resulting meta thread). I know you don't care for me much and that's fine, but you're one of my favorite contributors and I would never seriously toss that term out so thoughtlessly, especially to someone that I know doesn't fit the bill. But anyway... I'm sure I've over-explained/defended myself.

on (super-delayed) preview: EB - thanks for recognizing my "joke". :)

By: weston

weston — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 16:31:16 -0800

Second that thing with Witty. He's made me laugh out loud several times in the last week or two, and while he's an easy antagonist here, I don't think he's really trying hard to be.

By: thomcatspike

thomcatspike — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 16:31:59 -0800

Whadda talk’in about?...some of the comments need to be posted in the correct thread, the one about Bush's medals.

then some of the comments are supporting Seth's meta posts. Worse part about them is when they're supporting Seth by the fact that member’s on the same side are bickering between themselves - "worse of the web". [/hides back under a pancake]

By: Krrrlson

Krrrlson — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 17:01:12 -0800

Let's direct this thread to what's important - should EB be considered an official MeFi celebrity (tm) or should he not?

By: Miles Long

Miles Long — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 17:06:56 -0800

i love you freebird.

rendered sinusoidal or corpulent by the very media in which we observe it

you're the giggle in the infinite fucking echo-chamber this place has become.

once you're done making a baby with Opus Dark, you should get together with thomcatspike. and clavdivs. if it's legal that is. i mean the gay marriage and all.

never mind.

By: wendell

wendell — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 17:23:45 -0800

Mexican Soap Opera where I can't understand all the words but I can revel in the naked emotion...

Should EB be considered an official MeFi Celebrity™?

The real question is: Would even the most badly written Mexican-or-USAmerican Soap-Opera-or-Wrestling-Show have put Ethereal Bligh and Seth together as allies? They are clearly MeFi's Oddest Couple since quonsar and madamjujujive. And whoever's baby freebird wants to have is OK with me (although if it's mine, I'd appreciate at least two week's notice).

By: Ethereal Bligh

Ethereal Bligh — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 17:33:16 -0800

...EB be considered an official MeFi celebrity...

Christ, you know, I get blamed for this shit no matter what. Everyone else talks about me and I get the blame for the thread being about me.

Just fucking stop it already. Stop it. Stop talking about me. It's boring. This comment is boring. Send me an email or something and call me names or praise me or spout nonsense if you need to. But I'm not the topic of conversation, nor do I deserve to be the topic of conversation, nor do I want to be the topic of conversation. (And if you want to say something in response to that last assertion, then fucking email me and don't continue to make me the topic of conversation.) Regardless, don't make the problem worse in the name of trying to make it better. That's stupid.

By: longbaugh

longbaugh — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 17:45:59 -0800

Frankly, tuning into MetaEBTalk can sometimes be fun, but the length of your comments and the need you have to post so many will lead to you being denounced as the antichrist. Cut either the duration or frequency and see people's opinions change for the better.
That's some simple advice for you. Take it or leave it.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 17:50:26 -0800

yeah--Seth is the topic of conversation. This is the third time now we've seen this exact same MeTa post, no? Did anything happen the first 2 times he posted it? Will anything? Give it up already, Seth.

*insert that nolo carborundum...whatever comment here for EB*

By: quonsar

quonsar — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 17:53:06 -0800

considered an official MeFi celebrity...

yes. EponymousBlargh represents a steamtrain of verbiage beyond the polar extremes.

plus, he knows what an RFC is.

By: Wulfgar!

Wulfgar! — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 18:57:38 -0800

Stop talking about me. It's boring.

No shit, Sherman.

Stop it. Stop talking

Now there's a healthy piece of advice for you, EB.

should EB be considered an official MeFi celebrity (tm) or should he not?

Are you nuts... is that your problem?

By: Space Coyote

Space Coyote — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 19:00:28 -0800

Can we submit an RFC, Request for Fewer Comments, in that case?

By: jonmc

jonmc — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 19:07:39 -0800

I know you don't care for me much and that's fine, but you're one of my favorite contributors and I would never seriously toss that term out so thoughtlessly, especially to someone that I know doesn't fit the bill.

Dude, I don't even know you even in the cyber-sense beyond a lot of chip-on-the-shoulder arguments (which would be just fine if you semed to actually be trying to make some kinda point with 'em) so I don't know exactly what to expect from you. Maybe if you relaxed a bit and maybe just joined in a conversation and had some fun occassionally, maybe me and everybody else would be more able to judge.

But you know what, you and Seth and Ethereal Bligh have all been smacked around quite enough in this thread by the usual suspects. Way I learned it, liberal people are supposed to be about defending the weak against the tyranny of the majority*. For a bunch of self-proclaimed liberals, people around here seem to take an inordinate amount of pleasure in gratuitously piling on the same people repeatedly. And yeah, I've been guilty of it, too.

*although it's also supposed to be about representing the long-suffering masses. It's a pardox that'll tie you in knots.

By: Krrrlson

Krrrlson — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 19:11:23 -0800

Are you nuts... is that your problem?

Well! Someone sure is slow on the uptake.

By: Wulfgar!

Wulfgar! — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 20:45:08 -0800

Krrrlson, David Duke is something of a celebrity, too. I don't think that ought to be encouraged. You get that, right? Or, are you nuts? Is that your problem?

By: troutfishing

troutfishing — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 21:00:18 -0800

coelecanth - I had that incident a little garbled. I heard the tale through a bit of "telephone" - which distorted it a bit :Here it is in a less adulterated form.

"Today Bob Dole suggested that one or more of John Kerry's Purple Hearts may have been fraudulent in some way because they were for "superficial wounds."
Dole knows better.

In a 1988 campaign-trail autobiography, here's how Dole described the incident that earned him his first Purple Heart: "As we approached the enemy, there was a brief exchange of gunfire. I took a grenade in hand, pulled the pin, and tossed it in the direction of the farmhouse. It wasn't a very good pitch (remember, I was used to catching passes, not throwing them). In the darkness, the grenade must have struck a tree and bounced off. It exploded nearby, sending a sliver of metal into my leg--the sort of injury the Army patched up with Mercurochrome and a Purple Heart."

-- Josh Marshall"

Dole's own words - "A sliver of metal" : superficial, and technically self-inflicted. I still think he deserves that metal, but Dole's condemnation of Kerry is ugly.

By: Krrrlson

Krrrlson — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 21:31:59 -0800

Or, are you nuts? Is that your problem?

Can I interest you in our free weekend session?
When is this weekend?
It's this weekend
Oh, I see... and how much is this free weekend?
Er... it's free
Uh huh, and when is this weekend?
It's this weekend
And how much are you charging for this free weekend? It's free right?

By: five fresh fish

five fresh fish — Wed, 25 Aug 2004 00:14:55 -0800

I'm going to be, oh what were the words, "uncouth" and "distasteful"? and get a kick, in, too.

Seth, when a hundred people tell you you have nasty B.O., there's probably more than a bit of truth to it. Yes, it hurts to admit that your Right Guard deoderant has failed; yes, it hurts to admit that you grow bacteria in your pits; yes, it hurts to admit that you might have been causing offense... but when that many people tell you so, it's very likely true.

Seth, I'd guesstimate about three dozen people have repeatedly told you to Shut. The. Fuck. Up. Already.

There just may be a clue hidden in what they're saying. Howzabout you be a man, and grab onto that clue with both hands, eh?

By: five fresh fish

five fresh fish — Wed, 25 Aug 2004 00:18:20 -0800

And EB, speech may be silver, but silence is gold. Brevity is the soul of wit.

I think rather more than three dozen people have told you that your posts are tiresomely long.

You're not being paid by the word. Why don't you try to accomodate your audience by writing to their needs, instead of pumping your ego with endless empty words?

[/snarky FFFish, signing out for the night]

By: rushmc

rushmc — Wed, 25 Aug 2004 07:29:21 -0800

Neither of them have shit to do with whether or not someone can lead this country.

So your argument is that character doesn't matter? Unpersuasive, I'm afraid.

By: quonsar

quonsar — Wed, 25 Aug 2004 09:01:07 -0800

...when a hundred people tell you... I'd guesstimate about three dozen people have repeatedly told you ...

only 64 to go...

By: Witty

Witty — Wed, 25 Aug 2004 10:42:10 -0800

So your argument is that character doesn't matter? Unpersuasive, I'm afraid.

Well it's a good thing I wasn't wasting my time trying to persuade you. I don't waste my time judging a person's "character" of 30 years ago either. But if that's important to you, then have at it. I prefer to judge my candidates with a more "what have you done for me lately" approach.

By: scarabic

scarabic — Wed, 25 Aug 2004 11:10:04 -0800

True character might matter greatly, but what passes for the "character debate" in this country is pure crap. It's no wonder people come away from the garbage they spew on the news and think character isn't important. In other words, you may both be right.

By: scarabic

scarabic — Wed, 25 Aug 2004 11:11:10 -0800

"this country" == USA

sorry!

By: rushmc

rushmc — Wed, 25 Aug 2004 11:33:37 -0800

I prefer to judge my candidates with a more "what have you done for me lately" approach.

An approach guaranteed to play right into the hands of the policitos, seems to me, given that they rely on the short attention spans of the citizenry.

By: Witty

Witty — Wed, 25 Aug 2004 11:55:00 -0800

Yea yea yea... now there's a twist. Good one.

Hey, I heard Kerry drank a beaker of cum as part his fraternity hazing, freshman year in college. Fuck if I'll vote for that freak now... that's nasty.

By: dhoyt

dhoyt — Wed, 25 Aug 2004 18:07:05 -0800

Just checked out the DU forums for the first time--

Does it resemble, to anyone else, a hive of one thousand nofundys simultaneously, arrhythmically yanking one another off?

By: XQUZYPHYR

XQUZYPHYR — Wed, 25 Aug 2004 18:36:54 -0800

Hey, I heard Kerry drank a beaker of cum as part his fraternity hazing, freshman year in college. Fuck if I'll vote for that freak now... that's nasty.

Skull and Bones, man. Bush had to do it too. In fact, it was actually Kerry's- they saved it in a jar.

By: john

john — Wed, 25 Aug 2004 19:26:04 -0800

Just to add to the criticism of Dole's comment...

...alleging before Congress in 1971 that US troops had committed widespread atrocities...

I understand that reading the whole statement that John Kerry made is quite a chore, but maybe one should do that before they make false claims like this. Kerry is speaking for a large group of veterans that claim to have commited the acts.