Join 3,557 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)

Possibly the worst post in the history of Metafilter
June 17, 2005 9:38 AM   Subscribe

This is possibly the worst post in the history of Metafilter.
posted by a thousand writers drunk at the keyboard to Etiquette/Policy at 9:38 AM (108 comments total)

I doubt that. I've been lurking here awhile, and i've seen some stinkers. Bottom 15%, for sure, but the worst?
posted by absalom at 9:42 AM on June 17, 2005


Oh come on. It's a silly post but this is a silly call-out. Can you really fault a normal person for doing a normal thing?
posted by davy at 9:46 AM on June 17, 2005


why?
posted by jikel_morten at 9:47 AM on June 17, 2005


I can't believe it hasn't been deleted, nor that it's getting so many comments.
posted by orange swan at 9:50 AM on June 17, 2005


Probably not the worst but damn. The original poster has been here three years and squeezes out this steaming three-coiler? Fuck that, Kill it.

why?

Beacause we're not E! or Entertainment Tonight? My rough guess.
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 9:50 AM on June 17, 2005


It's not even remotely interesting to me, but is it really worse than something like this?
posted by dersins at 9:50 AM on June 17, 2005


My 'why' was to ATWDATK, btw.
posted by jikel_morten at 9:50 AM on June 17, 2005


It is also possibly the best post in the history of Metafilter.
*raises eyebrow*
posted by eddydamascene at 9:50 AM on June 17, 2005


You can't be serious. This post doesn't even make it in the top 100 of worst posts.

member since: May 22, 2005

So, what you really mean is this is the worst post in the past month. Get your seas legs under you before you start calling out scallywags.

And you're STILL way off.

It's not even the worst post this WEEK.
posted by Ynoxas at 9:51 AM on June 17, 2005



Beacause we're not E! or Entertainment Tonight? My rough guess.
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 9:50 AM PST on June 17 [!]


Not sure that's enough to award the worst-post-ever crown.
posted by jikel_morten at 9:52 AM on June 17, 2005


if you don't like the topic, why would you open it up or bother to make a post within it?

hmm...this conversation looks incredibly trivial and beneath my standards...i think i'll join in so i can say so...

insults to FPPs pretty much turn out less witty or insightful than the author supposes, and in real-life conversation someone who does this is really just an asshole risking a sock to the jaw.
posted by troybob at 9:55 AM on June 17, 2005


seas legs? ya know some may lurk a while, or long while, before hopping on board. maybe I'm wrong... nope. I'm not.
posted by horseblind at 9:56 AM on June 17, 2005


Probably not Jikel but man, even you could agree (I hope) that this link is about as fascinating as someone's "Who's The Boss" Commemorative T.V Guide collection (collect all five!).
Every news site I opened this morning had this as the lead story. As is Orange Swan, I'm amazed it's still there.
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 9:56 AM on June 17, 2005


That thread was a complete rip off. Where were the photos of a nubile Katie Holmes fellating L Ron's "cruise missile"?

I'm just glad we have this "meta-talk" (if you will) area in which I can tell you all what a complete bunch of fuck-humpers you all are.

Thanks, mark howie. You've got a great blogsite or whatever here.
posted by the quidnunc kid at 9:58 AM on June 17, 2005


Incoming Sock puppet at 12 O'Clock...
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 10:05 AM on June 17, 2005


Yeah, reading MetaFilter now means filtering out a lot of mainstream crap on the front page. Too much white noise. Will this get worse?
posted by homodigitalis at 10:08 AM on June 17, 2005


Yes, it's a ridiculous, stupid post. Thanks for saying so here, instead of snarking about it in the thread, like everyone else. I got a big kick out of the stupidness of it, but a even bigger kick out of people who kept coming back to add another comment about how they didn't care.

I'm still congratulating myself that I got the chance to link to that photograph of Tom Cruise twice in one week.

*high fives self*
posted by iconomy at 10:12 AM on June 17, 2005


This isn't that bad.
posted by Count Ziggurat at 10:17 AM on June 17, 2005


dersins writes "but is it really worse than something like this?"

The best part of that thread is the reason for the deletion: "As fascinating as nude push-ups are...", which comes a close to a great tag line as anything else the wits around here can come up with.

*high fives self*
posted by iconomy at 10:12 AM PST on June 17 [!]

iconomy-You would've gotten mad props from me for just linking to it once. I've made it my desktop background.
posted by OmieWise at 10:17 AM on June 17, 2005


There was a gargantuan opportunity to subvert the comments and make the thread a thing of beauty, snarking, silliness, evil, or a paean to Katie's beauty. But, sadly, it's just more maunderings about celebrity. I'm so disappointed in you all. In other news, my vocabulary project is progressing nicely.
posted by theora55 at 10:20 AM on June 17, 2005


Yeah, reading MetaFilter now means filtering out a lot of mainstream crap on the front page.

what, it took you like 0.2 seconds to identify this topic as one you are not interested in, and yet you took the time to make at least two posts whining about it, and we should be concerned about what? that it's wasting your time? that it's using up precious server space?

MetaFilter doesn't get enough FPPs a day to justify this compliant.
posted by troybob at 10:21 AM on June 17, 2005


the "worst"?

Near the bottom, maybe
posted by delmoi at 10:22 AM on June 17, 2005


The best part of that thread is the reason for the deletion: "As fascinating as nude push-ups are..."

*high fives self*

I figured a content-based deletion for the Tom Cruise thread might become its own reason for people getting pissed off. I thought it was lame but not kill-it lame.
posted by jessamyn at 10:26 AM on June 17, 2005


@troybob: I rather prefer to complain about/against this trend - even several times.
posted by homodigitalis at 10:44 AM on June 17, 2005


Thanks for at least complaining on metatalk instead of in the thread. Being strangely fascinated by Tom Cruise, I for one enjoyed the discussion a lot. It's a built-in flaw of metafilter that Matt hasn't found a way to fix: people want to talk ... ON METAFILTER ... about stories which aren't "post-worthy." We were going to talk about the election, the new pope, the tsunami, and Tom Fucking Cruise no matter what. The smart thing to do would be to have a separate category of posts on the main page which might not even have links to allow discussion of the big stories of the day. Non-interested users should be allowed to filter those FPPs out so they don't have to waste .5 seconds scanning each non-postworthy post.

There's obviously a ton of interest in these FPPs.
posted by callmejay at 10:46 AM on June 17, 2005


jess,

1 vote here for kill-it-lame. It seems like the atmosphere and sense of shame that once kept this kind of stuff to a minimum at mefi has fallen by the wayside, perhaps it's time to be a little iron-fisted for a spell?
posted by glenwood at 10:47 AM on June 17, 2005


Ynoxas writes "member since: May 22, 2005

"So, what you really mean is this is the worst post in the past month."


You are not taking sockpuppetry into account while making your elitist comment o' 14ker.
posted by terrapin at 10:49 AM on June 17, 2005


You are not taking sockpuppetry into account while making your elitist comment o' 14ker.
posted by terrapin at 10:49 AM PST on June 17 [!]


And I won't, either. I do not have the time nor energy nor interest required to try to match up one online identity to another online identity.

Anyone who would be compelled to create a phantom account on a board like Metafilter doesn't command enough respect for me to care.

From that linked thread, I also agree that phantom accounts should be flagged, although I know that would never happen.

Even if they were anonymously flagged, as in "This is a 2nd account of an existing MeFi member" that would improve things.

I may be a 14ker, but I've been active since 2002, under one account, whereas this account is from less than a moon ago.

Fuck him, whoever he "really" is.
posted by Ynoxas at 11:01 AM on June 17, 2005


the quidnunc kid wins.
posted by shmegegge at 11:03 AM on June 17, 2005


2 votes for kill-it-lame. Is it the worst? No. But it's in the ballpark. There are a million other places to go on the web to discuss that sort of crap, so why bring it here?

The smart thing to do would be to have a separate category of posts on the main page which might not even have links to allow discussion of the big stories of the day. Non-interested users should be allowed to filter those FPPs out so they don't have to waste .5 seconds scanning each non-postworthy post.

Or start a spinoff site like AskMe. I propose the name LameFilter.
posted by 27 at 11:03 AM on June 17, 2005


This was lamer. Lamer than a hoofless donkey lame. (A band? Playing a gig? O. M. G!)

It seems like the atmosphere and sense of shame that once kept this kind of stuff to a minimum at mefi has fallen by the wayside...

Remember kids: The MeFi Golden Age ended the day before you joined.

Next!
posted by i_cola at 11:04 AM on June 17, 2005


This is probably worse, for the fact that its almost like the guy didn't know the reaction to the one two days ago. Although, I'm actually suprised about who the post was not from.
posted by dios at 11:10 AM on June 17, 2005


Another of the worst:
Opinion on Confessions on teh internet Given Ex Cahtedra from teh Vatican!
posted by caddis at 11:15 AM on June 17, 2005


@troybob: I rather prefer to complain about/against this trend - even several times.

yeah, i can understand that. myself, i too often complain about posters here who are quick with an insult to something they could so easily ignore, offering snarky comments in expectation that we think them clever and that the community might adapt to their sensibilities. you find this in face-to-face conversation as well. and yes, i see that this behavior on my part is self-contradictory--i complain that people complain. i try to offset that by engaging substantially in the metafilter topical conversation itself, when time allows.

i think my point is more than the repeated criticism of triviality quickly becomes itself trivial, particularly when the time lost to the criticism is more than that lost to avoiding the trivial.
posted by troybob at 11:18 AM on June 17, 2005


shakedown, breakdown, takedown...
posted by weretable and the undead chairs at 11:23 AM on June 17, 2005


The Cruise / Holmes post sucked dead dog dicks. Kill it. Thank you for calling it out.

Thank you. Continue your discussion.
posted by marxchivist at 11:30 AM on June 17, 2005


EDDYYYYY!!! WHERE YOU BEEN

COME TO #MEFI, JERK

posted by fishfucker at 11:32 AM on June 17, 2005


It bears repeating: why are you calling out a post using your sock puppet account?

Why should we take anything you say seriously when you are not willing to put your real username behind it?
posted by Mid at 11:39 AM on June 17, 2005


I was pissed the Schiavo thread was deleted. That could have been fun. But it was a crap post and could have been well supported and interesting.

The comment was about Jeb Bush blowing all his political capital on this really bad issue. Keep hollering Jeb, even your powerbase will start to look embarrassed soon enough.
posted by fenriq at 11:42 AM on June 17, 2005


It's a built-in flaw of metafilter that Matt hasn't found a way to fix: people want to talk ... ON METAFILTER ... about stories which aren't "post-worthy."

It's not a flaw, it's the difference between what metafilter is and is not. And there's nothing to fix. If you want to gossip about tom and katie there are a million other sites that do exactly that. Or go to metachat and talk away. And read the mefi guidelines while you're at it. It's amazing how many people come to metafilter and try to change it into something it's not.

It's like going to an italian restaurant and asking for a taco and when told they don't make a taco calling it a flaw.

And the post was not just lame. If any post demanded to be deleted it's this one. By allowing it metafilter is basically saying 'we accept anything'. Scary.
posted by justgary at 11:44 AM on June 17, 2005


It's like going to an italian restaurant and asking for a taco and when told they don't make a taco calling it a flaw.

What if it's a braciole taco with marinara and mozzarella? Huh?
posted by jonmc at 11:46 AM on June 17, 2005


By the way, it would be helpful to know who's using sock puppet accounts to more easily ignore them.
posted by fenriq at 11:49 AM on June 17, 2005


caddis writes "Another of the worst:
"Opinion on Confessions on teh internet Given Ex Cahtedra from teh Vatican!"


On the other hand, the reason for deletion must be among the top 20 or so. Hilarious: "I am r00t. ph34r m3 luz3r. you're p0st suxx0rs. you R 0wnzered."
posted by nkyad at 11:54 AM on June 17, 2005


another crap post that spawned a great closing comment was (I'm sorry I can't find it) the one that mathowie made the "Banned 4 Life" tupac graphic for. unfortunately graphic files don't come up well in MeFi search, but it was awesome.
posted by shmegegge at 12:04 PM on June 17, 2005


the whole determination of what is 'post-worthy' is as fruitless as finding a definition of 'indecency,' and on top of it we get the same church ladies bitching about lowered community standards.

i think what it comes down to is that some are so arrogant as to think that their standards of post-worthiness should be applied to the entire community, and that many lack the creativity to see that a FPP like this creates interest beyond the explicitly stated topic itself. i'm less drawn to the lives of tom and katie than i am to the reaction people have to such landmarks of celebrity culture. i happen to find it interesting how people relate to subjects like this, and thus the conversation around this topic (in particular amongst the community of metafilterites whose personalities have emerged here over time) might shed some light for those of us who don't have the world all figured out, more so were it not for the misplaced whining about post-worthiness. maybe i don't so clearly understand what meta means, but i always thought it implied this kind of analysis.
posted by troybob at 12:05 PM on June 17, 2005


fishfucker:EDDYYYYY!!! WHERE YOU BEEN
getting free hotdogs, bra.

OMGFLOLZAO
posted by eddydamascene at 12:23 PM on June 17, 2005


troybob:
Word!

Come on yall, we've known each other for a while now, can we take a quick own up moment?

Do we get a bigger thrill when peacay or madamjujujive puts together some perfect gem of a post, obscure but not too obscure, well linked and interesting or when someone posts about how Tom Cruise just married a photograph of his own gnarled cock stapled to the face of a girl who is one stage mom and ten valiums away from total sassy self-determination? 'Cause I do suspect some of you enjoy the chance to FREAK THE FUCK OUT. I like em all, the "best of the web", the cock marrages and the freakouts, I'm happy all the time. Except for self-links, that's when I break out the wire-coathangers and the hotplate.

Also, are you guys using the build of firefox that forces you to click and read every link on a page? 'Cause I think they issued a fix for that.
posted by Divine_Wino at 12:27 PM on June 17, 2005


Why should we take anything you say seriously when you are not willing to put your real username behind it?

Why should we take anything you say seriously when you are not willing to put your real username behind it?
posted by timeistight at 12:31 PM on June 17, 2005


justgary: It's not a flaw, it's the difference between what metafilter is and is not.

You're dead wrong. What metafilter IS is a place where posts you consider postworthy reside as well as lots of politicscelebritystupidFilter posts do. You (and Matt!) may want it to be different, but that's the way it is. The "flaw" I'm referring to is Matt not finding a way to work with the reality that tons of MeFites want FPPs like this. It's his site so he can do what he wants, but doing nothing just leads to a ton of bitching which IMO is what really brings the site down.

MeFi needs categories. Users need to be allowed to choose which categories they want to see. Matt and jessamynn need the ability to move a FPP into a different category if it is originally in the wrong one.
posted by callmejay at 12:33 PM on June 17, 2005


Divine_Wino writes "Also, are you guys using the build of firefox that forces you to click and read every link on a page? 'Cause I think they issued a fix for that."

And for those who don't want to upgrade (or use IE), I think there's a workaround for this bug: sometimes, clicking in the button with the left arrow on it (the one whose tooltip says "Back") will take you to the previous page. A god-given relief for misclicks.
posted by nkyad at 12:40 PM on June 17, 2005


> It is also possibly the best post in the history of Metafilter.
> *raises eyebrow*

*lights pipe*
*takes a sip at wine glass*
*raises back eyebrow, inviting to ellaborate*
posted by NewBornHippy at 12:58 PM on June 17, 2005


When I saw the callout my first thought was "sounds like a challenge."

Yeah, reading MetaFilter now means filtering out a lot of mainstream crap on the front page. Too much white noise. Will this get worse?

*applauds*
posted by norm at 1:01 PM on June 17, 2005


MeFi needs categories.

i'm betting the first category created is synaesthesia!

it's not just that the subject variety of posts is too wide and the number of front-page posts is too small for this to be practical (both of these being factors that make the whole white noise argument rather silly)...but imagine the shitstorm that would erupt everytime someone posts something in the wrong category...jeez, 10% of people here have a community grand-mal seizure anytime someone makes a double-post
posted by troybob at 1:15 PM on June 17, 2005


Divine Wino: well said.
posted by Termite at 1:18 PM on June 17, 2005


This taco would be much better with some guacamole. Margarita anyone?
posted by grateful at 1:21 PM on June 17, 2005


callmejay writes "MeFi needs categories. Users need to be allowed to choose which categories they want to see. Matt and jessamynn need the ability to move a FPP into a different category if it is originally in the wrong one."

I completely disagree. I think that one of the things that makes MetaFilter great is that everything is flat-all FPPs on one page, all comments on another. Not only does this allow a quick perusal of the headlines, which is useful in any situation, it also leads to conversations like this. It is these conversations, as acrimonious as they sometimes get, and as paradoxical as this might seem, that I think develop the sense of investment that makes MeFi a good website. Partitioning would leach much of that concern away (just don't go to sections you don't like) and would place much more of the burden for making the site good on Matt and Jessamyn.
posted by OmieWise at 1:34 PM on June 17, 2005


TisT: there's a reason we have usernames. I'm not going to write a thesis here about communities, reputation, and identity, but you know as well as I do that this place would be a lot different if everyone's username was "anonymous." This does not require a disclosure of ones "true" real life identity -- just picking an online identity and sticking with it.

Sock puppets erode the community, plain and simple. Making a MeTa call out via a sock puppet is especially cowardly.
posted by Mid at 1:38 PM on June 17, 2005


*raises back eyebrow, inviting to ellaborate*

Any estimate of the ability of a society to meets its problems depends, as we know from a long series of political manuals, from Thucydides to Machiavelli, on the quality of its leadership and the character of the people. With all our attention to social forces, only a fool would say (as have some Marxists like Georgi Plekhanov) that the individual does not count and that history throws up a leader appropriate to the situation. As Sidney Hook pointed out in The Hero in History, there are "event-making men" as well as eventful men, and the event-making man can create a turning point in history. Is was the unshakable will of Lenin and his tactical sense of timing that were decisive for the victory of the Bolshevik forces in October 1917. On a different scale, it was the force of Charles de Gaulle's authority that turned back the threat of the French Army's seizing power in Algeria in 1958, when a Guy Mollet surely would have faltered. So one of the imponderable, though crucial variables is the character of leadership in the decade ahead.

I'm sorry, what was the question?
posted by eddydamascene at 1:43 PM on June 17, 2005


Making a MeTa call out via a sock puppet is especially cowardly.

One could say that not including contact or biographical information in an account page is cowardly, or not using a real name for a username is cowardly, or...

The qualifications for cowardice are so varied that I suggest that you might be better off concerning yourself with the quality of the call-out, rather than obsessing over who makes it.
posted by Rothko at 1:46 PM on June 17, 2005


Do you want to see a photo of Tony Danza in the nude? It's from when he was younger... and he's uncut. Ok, talk to you later.
posted by shmegegge at 1:50 PM on June 17, 2005


Read my comment above. The basic ground rules here used to hold that everyone had one identity. Yes, you could keep your "real life" identity secret, but you had to stick with one username. If you made an embarrassing post, acted like a fool, or did something great, all of that was recorded as part of your history and your reputation. Sock puppets destroy all of that.

I'm not saying that everyone should attach biometric data and their mother's maiden name to every single post. You're right, we're all "cowardly" in that respect. But I do think it is an essential feature of a community that users stick with one identity.
posted by Mid at 1:51 PM on June 17, 2005


If you made an embarrassing post, acted like a fool, or did something great, all of that was recorded as part of your history and your reputation. Sock puppets destroy all of that.

Perhaps it is a good thing, as it reduces insularity and in-fighting among what are, at the end of the day, "personality" accounts.
posted by Rothko at 2:09 PM on June 17, 2005


Which is to say, either we do attach our biometric data and be done with it, or acknowledge that accounts are not always the same as the people behind them.
posted by Rothko at 2:11 PM on June 17, 2005


The basic ground rules here used to hold that everyone had one identity. Yes, you could keep your "real life" identity secret, but you had to stick with one username.

Well there you go; I did not know that. All along I thought sock puppets were as old as MetaFilter. I didn't realize they were a new phenomenon.

When was the against sock puppets rule rescinded? Do you have any links?
posted by timeistight at 2:13 PM on June 17, 2005


On the topic of trying to figure out if an account is a sockpuppet, I would just like to add the observation that it seems many members do not even take the time to click on another members username.

Answer: "I don't know if you are anywhere near [Southwest United States] but there is a great store in New Mexico that does this type of work."

Location as listed on the profile page of the member asking the question: Rhode Island.

or

"I don't know if you are a man or a woman. . ."

Gender: Female.
posted by mlis at 2:16 PM on June 17, 2005


Hardy har har. When new accounts were closed, which was for most of the last few years, it was pretty hard to get a sock puppet. This is a $5 account issue, at heart.

Don't bother linking to your back door accounts: I know, you've had socks for a long time. Congratulations.
posted by Mid at 2:17 PM on June 17, 2005


Ok you fuckers, I give up. Here I go having my first ultra-MeFi flameout and you come back at me with your well-reasoned, cogent arguments. Goddammit, can't I just blow a gasket and have you cower in fear at my low-usernumber as I wave it in your faces like a 10 inch Jimmy? No? Ok.

How bout that Tom & Katie thing?
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 2:25 PM on June 17, 2005


What is your sense of why there should be one account to one person, when an account is an artificial construct to begin with? For example, what if I were to have one account, into which I placed false gender or location information? Would this not be as dishonest in the one-to-one account-to-person sense, as enabling a second account with different biographical information? Unless we use a notary public service for account registration, I honestly don't see the distinction or utility in fretting over an account. Please help me out, here.
posted by Rothko at 2:26 PM on June 17, 2005


EDDYICAL:
getting free hotdogs, bra.
OMGFLOLZAO


you cosmopolitan fucker. i heard rumors that some girl stole you away from our lovely state.

posted by fishfucker at 2:40 PM on June 17, 2005


I was thinking metafilter just needed a simple script added to the process of creating a post. It could automatically make the first post under a sock-puppet account name decrying the post as the worst ever, and then create a MetaTalk thread about (randomly) the thread or the call-out. I mean, if it happens in every goddamned thread, why not just automate the process?

I anticipate that process could save the MeFi collective seventeen or eighteen hours of collective effort on a per-FPP basis.

PS. Divine Wino, you're beautiful!
posted by FYKshun at 2:48 PM on June 17, 2005


I think posts like the Tom Cruise post should be discouraged. They do cheapen this weblog greatly.
posted by mokey at 2:49 PM on June 17, 2005


I think PepsiBlue and ViralFilter cheapen this place far more than gossip.
posted by amberglow at 2:51 PM on June 17, 2005


Hardy har har. When new accounts were closed, which was for most of the last few years, it was pretty hard to get a sock puppet. This is a $5 account issue, at heart.

I disagree. I do not have the citations for posting at this time so hopefully a old-timer will step forward to offer their understanding.

If you read pre-November 2004 threads there are plenty of references to sock puppets and some sock puppets have even admitted to being old-timers who wanted to see what it is like to have a $5 account.
posted by mlis at 2:55 PM on June 17, 2005



posted by ericb at 3:01 PM on June 17, 2005


Sock puppet since 1998!
posted by ericb at 3:02 PM on June 17, 2005


Never hold discussions with the monkey when the organ grinder is in the room... Winston Churchill
posted by Mack Twain at 3:12 PM on June 17, 2005


orange swan writes "I can't believe it hasn't been deleted, nor that it's getting so many comments."

It's the Scientology angle. Anything Scientology-related is always going to get a lot of comments. It's one of the internet's all-time great hot-button issues.
posted by mr_roboto at 3:17 PM on June 17, 2005


TisT: there's a reason we have usernames. I'm not going to write a thesis here about communities, reputation, and identity, but you know as well as I do that this place would be a lot different if everyone's username was "anonymous."
posted by Mid at 1:38 PM PST on June 17 [!] [quote]


What do you think this is, Lain?

My avatar is a personality removed from the keyboard from which it magically is culled.

This grandstanding is threadjackery! Just like Tom and Katie.


I think PepsiBlue and ViralFilter cheapen this place far more than gossip.
posted by amberglow at 2:51 PM PST on June 17 [quote]


It is ViralFilter, as celebrity is a commodity.
posted by a thousand writers drunk at the keyboard at 3:26 PM on June 17, 2005


/waves to eddydamascene - welcome back, dude!
posted by madamjujujive at 3:40 PM on June 17, 2005


If I were someone whose opinion mattered, I'd kill it.
posted by rdr at 3:42 PM on June 17, 2005


Lets talk about the Church of Appliantology. I could get behind that.
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 3:54 PM on June 17, 2005


about the thread ... not real good, but i wouldn't kill it, i'd just ignore it (and did)

about sock puppet accounts ... proxies, mutliple isp accounts, friends who are willing to loan you their computer for a couple of minutes ... need i say more? ... as long as you can sign up for them, it's going to happen ... at least matt gets paid for it

be thankful it's not the 90s on usenet ... i'd telnet to open news servers in places like malta and forge people ... all part of meow fun and games ...

and no, i don't have a sock puppet account here
posted by pyramid termite at 4:38 PM on June 17, 2005


You know who doesn't have any sockpuppets? PinkStainlessTail. He's such a swell.
posted by $10 Worth of Sex at 4:58 PM on June 17, 2005


Ah, you're making me blush.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 4:59 PM on June 17, 2005


I love Metafilter. My tone was too strong - I see the community as an unmirrorable entity, and the TOMKATIE post was a weight pulling down on the site's rubbery sides. The post may have been made simply to watch the Gregorian horse sickness blow out inside, or just a lazy link from the mainstream. My aim was true.

In a final step, I'll discard the account to assuage and
posted by a thousand writers drunk at the keyboard at 5:26 PM on June 17, 2005


Also, are you guys using the build of firefox that forces you to click and read every link on a page? 'Cause I think they issued a fix for that

LOL!!!!!!!!!!111
posted by delmoi at 5:56 PM on June 17, 2005


Ynoxas : "member since: May 22, 2005

So, what you really mean is this is the worst post in the past month. Get your seas legs under you before you start calling out scallywags."


You can read Mefi without being a member, you know.

i_cola : "Remember kids: The MeFi Golden Age ended the day before you joined."

Nonono, I remember distinctly: the MeFi Golden Age ended around September 11, 2001, which is about three years before I joined.
posted by Bugbread at 6:55 PM on June 17, 2005


You can read Mefi without being a member, you know.

You have to pay to play. Or is that the lottery?
posted by Rothko at 6:59 PM on June 17, 2005


oh dear , who can the quidnunc kid possibly be ?

I'll have to go and scratch my head , maybe draw some graphs or something.
posted by sgt.serenity at 7:17 PM on June 17, 2005


It's worth mentioning that smart celebrity gossip posts *are* possible here. The stuff that's coming to light about Cruise shopping around for brides-to-be and settling on Holmes as his fifth choice, for instance, is not only creepily fascinating but also apparently too edgy to appear for long at places like E!, leaving newer indie sites like Jossip to pick up the slack.

I dunno, that seems interesting. We could have had a decent post about the odd workings of the celebrity machine, one that would have appealed to savvy media-watching MeFites without triggering stupid MeTa callouts like this one. I guess what I'm objecting to is the notion (floating just under the surface of some of the comments above) that celebrity gossip posts are inherently bad.
posted by mediareport at 7:52 PM on June 17, 2005


The quidnunc kid is not a sock puppet. He does wear socks on his head, but he only had the one, and a charming head it is.
posted by jb at 11:35 PM on June 17, 2005


I agree with troybob that any post can be interesting if it generates interesting discussion. Let's face it: lots of MeFites who wouldn't feel comfortable commenting on a post about quantum mechanics jump in when the topic is something more squarely in the public consciousness -- and so in the midst of the Schiavo thread we suddenly find ourselves discussing medical ethics, the rationality of the scientific method, and more, with people who might not otherwise make a peep. In the Jackson thread we had (some really horrendous) views on justice, burdens of proof, the effects of wealth on the criminal justice system, and more. Yes, these things can be discussed on Fark, also, but there's nothing wrong with some more level heads here taking a crack at these underlying topics (what do you suppose the mean age is on Fark anyway, 19?).

Second, does Mid really need to explain how a site of anonymous users would differ from one of single-alias accounts? Total anonymity means that I can nitpick your grammar even though mine is terrible, tear a strip off anyone today because I'm in a bad mood then cry victim tomorrow when you do the same, and post in the most irresponsible fashion possible because you know it will never come back to haunt you if you later decide you have something important to say and want to be taken seriously. But sock puppets? How do you propose to identify them?

In any case, it seems that a majority of MeFites (on this thread) agree that some sort of restriction is warranted. Therefore I make the following recommendations:

- new gadget filter -- NO
- new science filter -- YES
- politics filter -- NO
- newsfilter -- YES
- religion filter -- NO
- philosophy filter -- YES
- new product/film/band tour filter -- NO
- flash game filter -- NO
- celebrity gossip filter -- NO

What, you mean that your list would be slightly different?
Why what are we to do?
posted by dreamsign at 1:56 AM on June 18, 2005


The quidnunc kid is not a sock puppet. He does wear socks on his head, but he only had the one, and a charming head it is.

On a clear day , you can see Casanova.
posted by sgt.serenity at 5:01 AM on June 18, 2005


Let's cut and paste the celebrity gossip column into MetaFilter! Wheeeeee!

How can anyone not see how bad this is?
posted by scarabic at 9:10 AM on June 18, 2005


The iPod and Apple just released a new computer posts are far worse. They survive...
posted by juiceCake at 9:53 AM on June 18, 2005


I hate those too.
posted by scarabic at 10:28 AM on June 18, 2005


Hey, didya' hear Leonardo DiCaprio got hit with a bottle at a party in Hollywood earlier today? Really, it's true!
posted by ericb at 2:02 PM on June 18, 2005


No! Really?
posted by mischief at 2:14 PM on June 18, 2005


Swear to God, cross my heart!
posted by ericb at 2:15 PM on June 18, 2005


Wow!
posted by mischief at 2:25 PM on June 18, 2005


And I hear Michael Jackson didn't show up to his post-acquittal party!
posted by ericb at 2:29 PM on June 18, 2005


Do you think they played "Ben"?
posted by mischief at 2:33 PM on June 18, 2005


Love the eyebrow-raising.
posted by bdave at 4:08 PM on June 18, 2005


Do you want to see a photo of Tony Danza in the nude? It's from when he was younger... and he's uncut. Ok, talk to you later.
That post rocked! If we can't talk about circumcision and celebrities together, then the terrorists really have won, no?
posted by amberglow at 4:18 PM on June 18, 2005


*circumsises entire site in the name of allah*
posted by jonmc at 4:56 PM on June 18, 2005


What's great is my post from earlier in the same week hasn't been mentioned. Wow. Well. I am somehow pervertedly proud of myself!
posted by BrodieShadeTree at 5:28 PM on June 18, 2005


"This post was deleted for the following reason: stop it."

NT. ;-P
posted by mischief at 7:15 PM on June 18, 2005


so gold!
posted by shoepal at 10:49 PM on June 19, 2005


« Older The Thimerosal post could be c...  |  Am I the only one who comments... Newer »

You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments