Comments on: Calling out a thread moderator

Calling out a thread moderator

dhoyt — Fri, 15 Oct 2004 08:05:07 -0800

This is the second thread by the same person in as many days in which the poster links to a dopey, middlebrow political site and then self-moderates, taunts anyone who disagrees, and sets up bizarre strawmen like "If you read the domain name as literally as you read your Bible..." What gives?

By: dhoyt

dhoyt — Fri, 15 Oct 2004 08:07:04 -0800

I certainly admit to losing my temper with the poster in question when he seemed unable to accept criticism of the links, but when I went to email him--surprise--no address was provided.

By: jonmc

jonmc — Fri, 15 Oct 2004 08:16:33 -0800

dhoyt, I get the feeling fleener thrives on the attention. And to be fair, unlike other equally opinionated people here, he's not big on providing actual evidence or dialogue.

Ignore him.

By: nthdegx

nthdegx — Fri, 15 Oct 2004 08:23:37 -0800

The first post is toilet. On it's strength I didn't have the inclination to look at the content of the second.

By: scarabic

scarabic — Fri, 15 Oct 2004 08:39:55 -0800

You're right, it should have been:

www.bushblockedresearchthatmightleadtotreatmentsforpeopleliketheguywhoplayedsupermanwhojustdied.com

By: monju_bosatsu

monju_bosatsu — Fri, 15 Oct 2004 09:02:52 -0800

Fleener's email addy appears to be schonchin@yahoo.com.

By: matteo

matteo — Fri, 15 Oct 2004 09:06:34 -0800

when he seemed unable to accept criticism

irony is as dead as Derrida, really

By: matteo

matteo — Fri, 15 Oct 2004 09:07:56 -0800

*wonders if "Dead Derridas" would make a good name for a punk band*

By: soyjoy

soyjoy — Fri, 15 Oct 2004 09:27:20 -0800

eh. Two is a pretty weak trend. Three makes a trend. Your point would've been stronger if you'd waited another day and then pounced, dhoyt.

By: Kwantsar

Kwantsar — Fri, 15 Oct 2004 09:50:02 -0800

dhoyt-- If you don't like the raw sewage on the sidewalk, cross the street!

By: jpoulos

jpoulos — Fri, 15 Oct 2004 09:50:33 -0800

Fleener's email addy appears to be schonchin@yahoo.com

WTF? The rules allow us to hide our email addresses. You're "outing" him because you don't like him? That's a total asshole move.

Do I have it wrong?

By: monju_bosatsu

monju_bosatsu — Fri, 15 Oct 2004 10:13:05 -0800

He lists his name, and a simple google search uncovers his email address. I should be willfully blind because he doesn't list an email address in his account here, when he lists it publicly in other places? I don't think so. If I'm wrong, I apologize and Matt should feel free to delete my comment.

By: Kwantsar

Kwantsar — Fri, 15 Oct 2004 10:13:37 -0800

jpoulos-- With a google search, his email address isn't hard to find.

By: monju_bosatsu

monju_bosatsu — Fri, 15 Oct 2004 10:14:00 -0800

And by the way, who ever said I didn't like him?

By: jpoulos

jpoulos — Fri, 15 Oct 2004 10:27:33 -0800

I missed where dhoyt was looking for his email. I saw it as an unsolicited attempt to spark an email campaign against him.

I still don't think it was necessary to post the address, but I somewhat overreacted. For that I apologize.

By: rafter

rafter — Fri, 15 Oct 2004 11:21:39 -0800

The constant thread moderation is pretty annoying, and that first post was pretty terrible.

But the second? I think it's a lot better than half the stuff that gets posted here. You can't discount it just because it's political. It's a creative and arguably interesting video. Well worth a FPP.

By: wendell

wendell — Fri, 15 Oct 2004 11:46:50 -0800

Yep, the second link was way better than the first (which is a GOOD trend), but fleener's one-on-one arguing within the thread falls between 'self-moderating' and 'trolling', and earns him the MetaFilter Award for Heavy-Handedness...
which reminds me, when baseball players win a "Golden Glove", isn't that a little too heavy to play good infield with?

By: Sidhedevil

Sidhedevil — Fri, 15 Oct 2004 12:02:39 -0800

Are we calling people out for making lame FPPs, now, or are we just calling them out for making lame FPPs that we don't agree with?

Because I just want to be clear on what the rules are.

On the other hand, I strongly agree with dhoyt that the purpose of the FPP isn't to start an argument; I think that the "Bush killed Superman" post was a perfect example of how the FPP can be misused as a "Your mother wears army boots" challenge to a back-and-forth slanging match.

And for Heaven's sake, there are already plenty of venues on the interweb for back-and-forth slanging matches; I hate it when MeFi disintegrates into Usenet without the headers.

But I didn't even bother to click through that FPP because it was clear to me that it was just a link to some blogger's lameass ranting. I do think it would be nice to have fewer links to bloggers' lameass rantings, in general.

By: Peter H

Peter H — Fri, 15 Oct 2004 12:30:34 -0800

"Golden Glove"

Is that more O'Reilly talk?

By: a3matrix

a3matrix — Fri, 15 Oct 2004 12:39:29 -0800

metafilter: Usenet without the headers

kinda catchy

By: dhoyt

dhoyt — Fri, 15 Oct 2004 12:42:14 -0800

Are we calling people out for making lame FPPs, now, or are we just calling them out for making lame FPPs that we don't agree with?

The former.

I couldn't disagree more with Bush's stem-cell policies, but I still hammered on fleener for the lame Superman thread because it's that kind of thing that makes me embarassed to even recommend MetaFilter to friends anymore.

I have little-to-no opinion of the second link, other than the smug self-moderating. It wasn't so much the content as it was the tone. If someone posted a "You Know You're a Democrat If..." thread, I'd point out the lameness there too, but it's not like it happens very often.

I still can't wrap my head around the "If you read the domain name as literally as you read your Bible..." quote, and am not holding my breath for an explanation. That fleener hasn't bothered to respond here speaks volumes.

By: Eamon

Eamon — Fri, 15 Oct 2004 12:56:28 -0800

Path: metafilter.com!not-for-mail
From: Eamon Caddigan
Newsgroups: meta.talk
Subject: Dhoyt's Callout
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 19:55:13 +0000 (UTC)
Lines: 6
Sender: mefi@quadragon.net
Message-ID:
NNTP-Posting-Host: dhcpwl-231.beckman.uiuc.edu
X-Trace: metatalk.metafilter.com 1097868433 17486 128.174.209.231 (15 Oct 2004 19:55:13
X-Complaints-To: matt@haughey.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 19:55:13 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: Safari/1.2.3

> I hate it when MeFi disintegrates into Usenet without the headers.

Yeah, the headers definitely make a difference.

--
Eamon

By: euphorb

euphorb — Fri, 15 Oct 2004 12:58:03 -0800

"Hey fleener, do you know some people use your name as a verb, as in "Another decent thread fleenered"?"
-rodii

By: Sidhedevil

Sidhedevil — Fri, 15 Oct 2004 13:08:00 -0800

Got it, dhoyt. I agree with you that there do seem to be more links to lameassed blogger ranting lately, and it's a trend that should be nipped in the bud. But I've already relegated fleener to my mental killfile; he/she will have to do something pretty impressive to get out of it at this point.

(As if anyone cares about being in my mental killfile! Sometimes my own delusions of adequacy crack me up.)

Hey, what is it with people raiding my comments for MeFi taglines lately? I could see "Afghanistan banana stand" and "My buttons have been tender lately", but "Usenet without the headers" isn't even my A material.

Eamon: scrEw yoo, Natzi! imunna get a laywer to sue your aSs. snuh!

Sorry, the headers do make a difference.

By: chicobangs

chicobangs — Fri, 15 Oct 2004 14:00:07 -0800

Metafilter: Hey, what is it with people raiding my comments for MeFi taglines lately?

Metafilter: imunna get a laywer to sue your aSs. snuh!

Ah, the hell with it. one more.
Metafilter: "Usenet without the headers" isn't even my A material.

By: ook

ook — Fri, 15 Oct 2004 19:50:04 -0800

Woulda been better as "MetaFilter: isn't even my A material."

By: amberglow

amberglow — Fri, 15 Oct 2004 20:35:58 -0800

Metafilter: it's a trend that should be nipped in the bud ; >

By: scarabic

scarabic — Fri, 15 Oct 2004 21:40:51 -0800

I agree with jpoulos - posting the email isn't very nice. It isn't terribly, horribly, wickedly cruel either, but have some decorum fer crissakes. I bet some of our home phone numbers are publicly listed too, that doesn't mean it's dandy to post them here once we get called out. Sheesh.

By: quonsar

quonsar — Sat, 16 Oct 2004 09:17:22 -0800

Your point would've been stronger if you'd waited another day and then pounced, dhoyt.

i can't help but note that dhoyt does little but hang around waiting to pounce on something of late.

By: dhoyt

dhoyt — Sat, 16 Oct 2004 14:01:43 -0800

I'm not waiting to pounce.

I'm reading and enjoying the site as always. It's just that sometimes, when The Stupid™ levels get pushed deep into the red for consecutive days and threads get fleenered, I fly off the handle a bit. You have to admit, there have been some threads lately that make the front page look like a college freshman's first political blog, and definitely not something you'd recommend to a friend.

By: y2karl

y2karl — Sat, 16 Oct 2004 18:19:07 -0800

It's just that sometimes, when The Stupid™ levels get pushed deep into the red for consecutive days and threads get fleenered, I fly off the handle a bit.

I have to admit you have been on a tear here, too, running other people down one after another and hijacking thread after thread. It's one dhoyt's grudge du jour after another with you. That you often accuse of other people of seeking attention is rich, considering how you spend almost all your time making yourself right by making other people wrong while talking about yourself constantly in the process.

By: dhoyt

dhoyt — Sat, 16 Oct 2004 19:17:41 -0800

If you're trying to make me feel guilty for calling out shitty threads that no one else will touch with a ten-foot-pole, it ain't gonna happen, Karl. Breathe down my neck all you wish, obsess over my comments all you wish. I'm not going to stop identifying a shitty post as a shitty post. Go back to haunting Faze & hama7 and the rest of them. BTW, it's convenient of you to ignore the flamboyantly awful contributions in question and concentrate on me instead. It speaks volumes about "grudges".

When I start littering the front page with breathless "me-too!" NYT posts and conspiracy du jour drivel, feel free to haul me, deservedly, into MetaTalk.