Try the Schiavo tag

March 31, 2005 8:06 AM

The sideblog says:

>If you're looking for info on the Schiavo case, try the Schiavo tag. It's been talked about quite a bit, so please direct comments there instead of new posts.

Then there's this post. It's already spawning a fair few comments, so I guess it'll be stuck there. Is this a violation? How strict is the policy?
posted by gsb to Etiquette/Policy at 8:06 AM (61 comments total)

This is just a ploy to open another Schiavo thread, isn't it?
posted by breezeway at 8:07 AM on March 31, 2005

It was gonna happen. There was no avoiding it. If 90% of the people that wanted to talk about Schiavo death's but were good mefites and posted in the old thread, there'd still be the 10% that would have started a new one. I don't think there was any way of avoiding it at all. If Matt had deleted it, another one would take it's place within minutes, I think. As long as this is right up there at the top and very obviously the "Schiavo is dead" post, it'll probably be the only one.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 8:13 AM on March 31, 2005

"it's"

Ooh, I can't believe I did that (well, of course I can. You know what I mean). An example from the conversation a few weeks ago where I (and others) pointed out that people that well know the difference occasionally, for some reason, still make that mistake.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 8:14 AM on March 31, 2005

Can I post when she becomes undead?
posted by Saucy Intruder at 8:15 AM on March 31, 2005

see my comment for a reason for more threads.
posted by thomcatspike at 8:17 AM on March 31, 2005

The apostrophe catastrophe is more widespread than you think, EB.
posted by breezeway at 8:18 AM on March 31, 2005

Can I post when she becomes undead?
posted by Saucy Intruder

No, you can't.
And you can't post when her image shows up on burnt toast, or a soiled bedsheet, or an oil stain on your garage floor, either.
posted by Floydd at 8:20 AM on March 31, 2005

EB, few readers would have thought you didn't know its correct spelling. You may want to realize readers are smarter than you think.
posted by thomcatspike at 8:21 AM on March 31, 2005

And you can't post when her image shows up on burnt toast, or a soiled bedsheet, or an oil stain on your garage floor, either.

Except if any of those things show up on ebay, in which case someone's sure to post it.
posted by clevershark at 8:25 AM on March 31, 2005

EB : Schiavo death's [sic]

Heh. Sorry, I just thought it funny that you got all exercised over "it's" but missed the transposition of the 's that makes it look like you think plurals are formed by adding an apostrophe-S. Man, I mean, how freakin' ignorant can you get?
posted by soyjoy at 8:32 AM on March 31, 2005

I give up on subtlety.
posted by breezeway at 8:37 AM on March 31, 2005

You know, when I saw bshort's post, I thought: "thank god I'm finally looking at the last Terry Schiavo post ever." But I guess I was wrong.
posted by scarabic at 8:38 AM on March 31, 2005

I said on the last two schavio posts that one last one on the death was just fine. I'll update the sideblog entry.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 8:40 AM on March 31, 2005

matteo is on the ball.

scarabic, this isn't about feeding tubes, I really don't care about it.
posted by gsb at 8:45 AM on March 31, 2005

The Bush machine keeps right on winning. The more bad news there is for him, the more it selects stories like this to keep us occupied. Sigh.
posted by ORthey at 8:45 AM on March 31, 2005

Oh fuck, maybe I was wrong. Please close this down.
posted by gsb at 8:48 AM on March 31, 2005

why no, gsb, don't feel bad, the community needs these incessant and precise probings of the nuances of mefi policy. imagine if a policy or guideline were skirted and nobody noted it in meta? its about time someone had the sheer gumption to engage the issue, and i for one and eternally grateful for your heroic fortitude in forging the path for us all.
posted by quonsar at 8:55 AM on March 31, 2005

Plus, it takes a few days for a thread to die once you remove its... ah, forget it.
posted by breezeway at 8:59 AM on March 31, 2005

Metafilter: incessant and precise probings
posted by euphorb at 9:04 AM on March 31, 2005

I give up on subtlety.

hey! why not try images?!
posted by quonsar at 9:06 AM on March 31, 2005

quonsar, this has probably been said before: you are a very good sarcastic bastard.
Getting sauced was on the cards for tonight, I'll go along to Jim Morrison's grave and piss on it for you guys -- since he's dead, too.
posted by gsb at 9:07 AM on March 31, 2005

That thread is a really sad example of metafilter. The existence of the thread in itself was expected - I think even a number of people who were annoyed by the multiple threads said something like, let's have the one thread about her case, and then when she dies, the one about her death. That seems perfectly reasonable to me as well.

But this thread is not about her case or her death or anything except adolescent snarking, and bitching about the thread, and dumb jokes about "her" blog. Farkification is really going too far around here.
posted by mdn at 9:10 AM on March 31, 2005

Uh, this thread is on MetaTalk.
posted by breezeway at 9:13 AM on March 31, 2005

It's not, perhaps, so awful that the moment I saw on Yahoo that Schiavo had died I knew there'd be a thread on MeFi about that. But it's disappointing that I could count on their being a MeTa thread about the MeFi thread even before I looked at the blue.
posted by anapestic at 9:22 AM on March 31, 2005

This value of this thread leaves me starving and partched. I need a glass of water.
posted by Peter H at 9:26 AM on March 31, 2005

I could count on their being a MeTa thread about the MeFi thread even before I looked at the blue

You are now qualified to write sitcoms and soap operas. Well, except for that 'their'.
posted by mischief at 9:27 AM on March 31, 2005

Don't tell Matt, but there's some protestors assembling outside (they have some free time to kill now, or um to save from killing, um ..shit, to um, look for something else to rudely shit their opinions on) Anyway, if anyone kills this thread, all I can say is watch out for the consequences. The bible belt leaves a nasty lash! WHIPSNAP.
posted by Peter H at 9:31 AM on March 31, 2005

Well, except for that 'their'.

Alas.
posted by anapestic at 9:38 AM on March 31, 2005

Brown Note.
posted by freebird at 9:59 AM on March 31, 2005

I don't want to create yet another thread, so:

There are several of you out there--you know who you are--who should be deeply ashamed of yourselves for your behaviour in the thread announcing Mrs. Schiavo's death. Someone died; have some respect.

I know, I know, it's not intarweb-cool to actually do that. But it is what adults do.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 10:06 AM on March 31, 2005

farts.
posted by Peter H at 10:09 AM on March 31, 2005

dirtynumbangelboy, if respect for the dead were an issue, few would have ever heard of Terry Schiavo.
posted by breezeway at 10:23 AM on March 31, 2005

Uh, this thread is on MetaTalk.

Yeah, but I meant "that" one. I went into it thinking it could be interesting and the first (howevermany) comments were just all stupid little jokey bullshit. maybe it's since been saved - haven't looked again yet, but it definitely started badly.
posted by mdn at 10:30 AM on March 31, 2005

The guitarist from Foghat died today and all anybody cares about is that Terri woman. Such a damn shame.
posted by bondcliff at 10:41 AM on March 31, 2005

I see what you mean, mdn. You used the words "that thread," which I didn't notice. I thought you were talking about the jokefest here. I'm sorry.
posted by breezeway at 10:41 AM on March 31, 2005

I haven't taken any part in any of the Schiavo threads. But I did go in to the death thread, and then I quickly left because it was distasteful.
posted by orange swan at 10:44 AM on March 31, 2005

But this thread is not about her case or her death or anything except adolescent snarking, and bitching about the thread, and dumb jokes about "her" blog. Farkification is really going too far around here.

Disagree. Snarking is incredibly justified in this case. The Schiavo was something that should have been a total non-story that was blown out of proportion by the news media and the fundy's. The media loves stories like this because they can advertise them as a continuing soap opera and the fundy's had their own warped reasoning. Besides, there's no subject that is off limit for joking, especially the big ones. If you can't stare into the abyss and laugh at the dark then you, um, can't do that.

(Is Berek the only one who finds it amusing that blog isn't in the Metafilter spellcheck. It suggested bog, which might not be all that inaccurate.)
posted by berek at 10:53 AM on March 31, 2005

breezeway >>> dirtynumbangelboy, if respect for the dead were an issue, few would have ever heard of Terry Schiavo.

And that excuses the behaviour of many people in that thread... how, exactly?

trharlan >>> Ever see the Reagan thread?

I think I did, yes. And while Reagan was equally deserving of a moment of respect, there is one fundamental difference; Reagan made the choice to be a public figure, which by definition is going to incur ridicule. Mrs. Schiavo, on the other hand, most certainly did not.

I think it's fair to make jokes about someone's death in certain circumstances. Saying "Now he finally gets some respect" about Rodney Dangerfield, for example. It's topical, it's appropriate, it pays homage to his life and his career. But that poor woman was kicked around as a political football, and many of the same people who were decrying the media and politicians' treatment of her were the same people making the tasteless jokes.

Aren't we better than this? From what I can see here on MeFi, we seem to have an astonishing group of people, who generally seem to be towards the right-hand side of the bell curve when it comes to intelligence, humanity, and so forth. Is it really too much to ask for people to drop the ultra-hip, super-edgy, uber-cool-crueler-than-thou image for five minutes, and either show some respect in the way this community has chosen to do so, or at a bare minimum refrain from pissing in the thread?

Berek >>> Disagree. Snarking is incredibly justified in this case.

No, no it's not. How hard is it to take one moment to show a little respect for some people (the Schiavos and the Schindlers) who have been stuck in a horrifying situation for years? Please. The snarking over the media and government spin on the issue has been done. Grow up and show a little respect, or don't commoent. It's not difficult.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 11:11 AM on March 31, 2005

Album covers inspired by Terri Schiavo

/not mean, just silly
posted by dhoyt at 11:18 AM on March 31, 2005

I am nearly certain that none of the principals in the Schiavo/Schindler dispute is aware of what's being said on MetaFilter. And I don't understand the notion of being insulted on behalf of someone you don't know simply because you perceive that disrespect is being shown to a dead person. You can pass over the snarks as easily as the snarkers can pass over a thread.

More to the point, while I don't support snarking, it's evident to me that good threads attract fewer snarks than bad threads, and the extreme amount of snarking in that thread is a good indicator of its quality.

When something's been discussed as thoroughly and incessantly as this matter has, then people are going to get tired of it and rude about it. This is an utterly predictable reaction and hardly worthy of moral outrage.
posted by anapestic at 11:30 AM on March 31, 2005

And that excuses the behaviour of many people in that thread... how, exactly?

Good question, dirtynumbangelboy. Now that you mention it, I guess what I wrote doesn't excuse them at all.

Good thing, too, because that wasn't my intention. What I wrote was in response to the assertion that, being dead, Schiavo deserves our respect. Your assertion.

Holy shit, did you just pollute any argument you could possibly have had by saying Reagan deserved respect? Fuck that. Ask the same question in El Salvador. That fucking murderer.

You want my take on the Schiavo matter? Me neither.
posted by breezeway at 11:44 AM on March 31, 2005

Dirtynumbsomethingsometing, This whole Terri Schiavo situation is a sham on all counts. From the parents, to the husband, to the politicians involved, to all the activists standing in the background of the media circus holding up signs. They should all be ashamed of how they behaved in this. Most people are tired of this entire situation and the thread reflects that mentality. We have all long since decided where we stand on the issue and the inevitability of the situation combined with how long it has been dragged out is what is creating the snarky comments. That's not an excuse, just a reason.
posted by Arch Stanton at 12:03 PM on March 31, 2005

I think he's a dick.
posted by breezeway at 12:44 PM on March 31, 2005

I think he's a dick.

I bet your inline image finger was just itching on that one, eh breezeway?
posted by gigawhat? at 12:52 PM on March 31, 2005

The guitarist from Foghat died today and all anybody cares about is that Terri woman. Such a damn shame.
He died twice? He was pronounced dead March 22nd.
posted by thomcatspike at 1:31 PM on March 31, 2005

(Is Berek the only one who finds it amusing that blog isn't in the Metafilter spellcheck
No and we can read your name under your comment if you were unaware how we know it's your comment.
posted by thomcatspike at 1:34 PM on March 31, 2005

I think he's a dick.

Does referring to yourself with the first and the third person in the same sentence average out to the second person?
posted by anapestic at 2:18 PM on March 31, 2005

Only if the first person and the third person are consenting. Even then, it's like, say, one in a thousand.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 2:52 PM on March 31, 2005

Welcome to MeFi, dirtynumbangelboy. ;-P
posted by mischief at 2:58 PM on March 31, 2005

The guitarist from Foghat died today and all anybody cares about is that Terri woman. Such a damn shame.

He died twice? He was pronounced dead March 22nd.

it's a slow ride for a fool for the city.
posted by quonsar at 4:11 PM on March 31, 2005

thomcatspike: he's just weird. he likes to speak in the third person. weird, huh? so weird that there was a MeTa thread about it.
posted by exlotuseater at 4:20 PM on March 31, 2005

The sudden disappearance of one of my less considered remarks upthread leaves me looking squeaky clean. Can I take back what I said about me being a dick and maybe run for president?
posted by breezeway at 4:42 PM on March 31, 2005

Arch Stanton writes "Dirtynumbsomethingsometing"

Yeah, whenever I see that user name, I misread it as an anti-Semitic slur.
posted by orthogonality at 4:42 PM on March 31, 2005

thomcatspike: he's just weird. he likes to speak in the third person. weird, huh? so weird that there was a MeTa thread about it.

No and we can read your name under your comment if you were unaware how we know it's your comment.
The above is in the third person? You’re weirder for screwing up the call out threads. Then the weirdest part of this how you tied me into your comment as they are speaking about another member being a dick. If I'm following along with you Noobie. Sheesh!


exlotuseater, Please read this linked comment so you can really follow along even better.
Bugbread, in regards to the comment contained in the link I couldn't find after posting where I thought I had read your comment -- I may have confused you for another member’s comment this morning. My comment was only a follow up comment which was intentionally direct to All new members, not an actual shout out!
posted by thomcatspike at 4:56 PM on March 31, 2005

exlotuseater, my mistake end of the day.
Paint me a noobie, then a second coat with weird. I'm guessing the new members don't know I read het site well or been here a while. Matt did you finally work it out for the troubled members that they only have posting privileges that are seen on there screen? He did talk about.
Honestly that was my way of nicely saying you look stupid double posting your name twice on a site that polices double posts.
posted by thomcatspike at 5:04 PM on March 31, 2005

their
posted by thomcatspike at 5:05 PM on March 31, 2005

Honestly that was my way of nicely saying you look stupid double posting your name twice on a site that polices double posts.
Which is why I hate saying I & me when "thomcatspike" is right below it. With all the chatter, I know many of you like seeing I have/do/am/...
posted by thomcatspike at 5:12 PM on March 31, 2005

thomcatspike corrects himself on a there/their flub.

What next???
posted by scarabic at 6:00 PM on March 31, 2005

scarabic, actually I'll some times leave it as when I read other members mistakes because I figure the same. The spelling police don't bother me on the site. As I have never seen any member having perfect English grammar.
posted by thomcatspike at 6:10 PM on March 31, 2005

"No and we can read your name under your comment if you were unaware how we know it's your comment."
posted by thomcatspike

Think of it as having your own personal counterbalance. Or perhaps arch-nemesis!
posted by catachresoid at 6:44 PM on March 31, 2005

yes, thomcatspike, i was basically agreeing with you, but i wasn't as nice about his "habit" as you were.

thom- you are a gentleman.
posted by exlotuseater at 7:38 PM on March 31, 2005