Op-Ed Deletion June 22, 2005 9:43 AM Subscribe
This post was deleted for the following reason: single link to an op-ed?
Is it policy now to delete op-ed posts, or is this just done on a whim? I guess you could call it a "troll," but then, about half the FPPs I see could be construed as trolls.
Is it policy now to delete op-ed posts, or is this just done on a whim? I guess you could call it a "troll," but then, about half the FPPs I see could be construed as trolls.
If it isn't policy, it should be. Good job, whoever deleted it.
posted by fvw at 9:46 AM on June 22, 2005
posted by fvw at 9:46 AM on June 22, 2005
Maybe the policy ought to be posts based on al-Jezeera posts? I dunno...the most polite thing I can think to say is that Matthowie and I occasionally differ on whether a post is good, but around here he alone gets to play God and the rest of us are mere mortals.
Too bad there isn't some kind of scoring system so people could collectively rate the quality of FPPs and choose not to display those below a user-designated threshold.
posted by alumshubby at 9:53 AM on June 22, 2005
Too bad there isn't some kind of scoring system so people could collectively rate the quality of FPPs and choose not to display those below a user-designated threshold.
posted by alumshubby at 9:53 AM on June 22, 2005
Perhaps adding information would have helped.
For example, the poster could have included information about the reconnaisance flyovers the US military conducts over Iranian airspace, or subtle propaganda tactics employed in the MSM to villify a future enemy, or not-so-subtle discussions on Sunday news programs regarding troop deployment planning (e.g. the recent MTP interview with Senator Biden and Rep. Curt Weldon).
Fleshing out an issue-driven piece with factual information would make the position more compelling for people who do not (want to) keep up on things.
As it stands, a single link to someone else's analysis is lazy. Doing your own analysis and presenting factual evidence to defend your conclusions is more interesting reading, IMO.
posted by Rothko at 9:54 AM on June 22, 2005
For example, the poster could have included information about the reconnaisance flyovers the US military conducts over Iranian airspace, or subtle propaganda tactics employed in the MSM to villify a future enemy, or not-so-subtle discussions on Sunday news programs regarding troop deployment planning (e.g. the recent MTP interview with Senator Biden and Rep. Curt Weldon).
Fleshing out an issue-driven piece with factual information would make the position more compelling for people who do not (want to) keep up on things.
As it stands, a single link to someone else's analysis is lazy. Doing your own analysis and presenting factual evidence to defend your conclusions is more interesting reading, IMO.
posted by Rothko at 9:54 AM on June 22, 2005
By way of example, the UAE vs Flickr post is a good demonstration of the type of well-constructed opinion piece I'm talking about.
posted by Rothko at 9:57 AM on June 22, 2005
posted by Rothko at 9:57 AM on June 22, 2005
The header reads - "Opinion"
"The opinions expressed here are the author's and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position or have the endorsement of Aljazeera."
It's an op-ed piece. We've been deleting those posts for years? What's the issue? And this topic has been posted on repeatedly over the last few years. So it's deleted. Like duh?
posted by y6y6y6 at 9:57 AM on June 22, 2005
"The opinions expressed here are the author's and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position or have the endorsement of Aljazeera."
It's an op-ed piece. We've been deleting those posts for years? What's the issue? And this topic has been posted on repeatedly over the last few years. So it's deleted. Like duh?
posted by y6y6y6 at 9:57 AM on June 22, 2005
Just a suggestion, here, but how about adding a Metafilter Page Two, where posts that don't make the cut are moved, so anybody interested can continue to discuss? Then you could add a Metafilter Page Three where you could post, oh, I don't know, maybe pictures of bikini-clad hotties?
posted by Roger Dodger at 10:03 AM on June 22, 2005
posted by Roger Dodger at 10:03 AM on June 22, 2005
....or....if Matt put the damn thing back, maybe some of that would emerge in the thread? I dunno. The thread that emerged was interesting in its own right -- to me, maybe not to you so much. I've seen plenty of pretty short, to-the-point FPPs related to news items or opinion; if Matt's going to yank this one, it's "like handing out speeding tickets at the Indy 500."
Like I said...the real issue here is the subjective value of posts coupled with lack of any scoring mechanism. I've seen stuff posted on the blue that wasn't anywhere near "best of the Web" in my estimation that not only didn't get yanked but got a ton of replies.
On preview....Hey, Matt! Roger Dodger's suggestion for handling deletions...how hard would that be?
posted by alumshubby at 10:05 AM on June 22, 2005
Like I said...the real issue here is the subjective value of posts coupled with lack of any scoring mechanism. I've seen stuff posted on the blue that wasn't anywhere near "best of the Web" in my estimation that not only didn't get yanked but got a ton of replies.
On preview....Hey, Matt! Roger Dodger's suggestion for handling deletions...how hard would that be?
posted by alumshubby at 10:05 AM on June 22, 2005
there were good comments in the thread, I was sorry to see it go
posted by matteo at 10:05 AM on June 22, 2005
posted by matteo at 10:05 AM on June 22, 2005
I think this one should have gone, but I find it interesting that, minus the political angle, the idea of a one-link post of an op-ed doesn't bug most people (including #1). Say, for example, a link to three paragraphs urging you to write down your passwords.
posted by goatdog at 10:08 AM on June 22, 2005
posted by goatdog at 10:08 AM on June 22, 2005
MeFi isn't IndyPropNews. Sorry, kids.
It isn't FoxNews, either. The Scott Ritter angle is prescient, especially considering the subject matter, but the FPP just needed more flesh. More flesh would keep the derailers to the sidelines, where they belong.
posted by Rothko at 10:14 AM on June 22, 2005
It isn't FoxNews, either. The Scott Ritter angle is prescient, especially considering the subject matter, but the FPP just needed more flesh. More flesh would keep the derailers to the sidelines, where they belong.
posted by Rothko at 10:14 AM on June 22, 2005
Matthowie: If y6y6y6 is correct, how about mentioning this in the policies? That'd be more straightforward -- and seem a lot less capricious.
posted by alumshubby at 10:16 AM on June 22, 2005
posted by alumshubby at 10:16 AM on June 22, 2005
I actually think Roger Dodger's idea is pretty cool. Sometimes thread deletion seems pretty arbitrary.
posted by chunking express at 10:18 AM on June 22, 2005
posted by chunking express at 10:18 AM on June 22, 2005
The thread was bad, though it did have some potentially decent discussion developing from it (as well as potential flame wars). Sometimes thread deletion is necessary to maintain consistent rules, but sometimes to the best conversations can come from the most asinine fpp's. What do we do in those cases?
posted by Pollomacho at 10:25 AM on June 22, 2005
posted by Pollomacho at 10:25 AM on June 22, 2005
I support this deletion.
posted by timeistight at 10:28 AM on June 22, 2005
posted by timeistight at 10:28 AM on June 22, 2005
Like I said...the real issue here is the subjective value of posts coupled with lack of any scoring mechanism. I've seen stuff posted on the blue that wasn't anywhere near "best of the Web" in my estimation that not only didn't get yanked but got a ton of replies.
Great idea! Maybe, with a sophisticated hard-coded point system, we could begin to approach the quality, thoughtfulness, and depth of Slashdot!
posted by IshmaelGraves at 10:36 AM on June 22, 2005
Great idea! Maybe, with a sophisticated hard-coded point system, we could begin to approach the quality, thoughtfulness, and depth of Slashdot!
posted by IshmaelGraves at 10:36 AM on June 22, 2005
Matthowie: If y6y6y6 is correct, how about mentioning this in the policies?
It's always been the norm. I delete one-link op-eds all the time, moreso if they're controversial. How hard is it to do some digging and find more sides of an issue than the one presented as one person's opinion?
posted by mathowie (staff) at 10:40 AM on June 22, 2005
It's always been the norm. I delete one-link op-eds all the time, moreso if they're controversial. How hard is it to do some digging and find more sides of an issue than the one presented as one person's opinion?
posted by mathowie (staff) at 10:40 AM on June 22, 2005
all deletion is done on a whim. all policy is subject to the interpretation of one man, in the moment. it has always been thus here. i have vigorously disagreed with the practice, and will continue to do so, but find expressions of surprise about it and demands that deletion policy be strictly spelled out to be tired and silly after all this time.
posted by quonsar at 10:55 AM on June 22, 2005
posted by quonsar at 10:55 AM on June 22, 2005
goatdog: "I think this one should have gone, but I find it interesting that, minus the political angle, the idea of a one-link post of an op-ed doesn't bug most people (including #1). Say, for example, a link to three paragraphs urging you to write down your passwords."
That's fucking Bruce fucking Schneier. If Condoleezza Rice writes an editorial for Al Jazeera and you post a one-link FPP to it, I think it would stay.
posted by Plutor at 11:00 AM on June 22, 2005
That's fucking Bruce fucking Schneier. If Condoleezza Rice writes an editorial for Al Jazeera and you post a one-link FPP to it, I think it would stay.
posted by Plutor at 11:00 AM on June 22, 2005
Just a suggestion, here, but how about adding a Metafilter Page Two
A Deleted Posts section would be most appreciated, especially if those wishing to continue contributing to these non-FPP threads could do so. Call it MeDungeon, MePurgatory, or UnMePopular, but it's a good idea. Might even demonstrate, through comments that are made, that a few were worthwhile after all.
posted by dreamsign at 11:02 AM on June 22, 2005
A Deleted Posts section would be most appreciated, especially if those wishing to continue contributing to these non-FPP threads could do so. Call it MeDungeon, MePurgatory, or UnMePopular, but it's a good idea. Might even demonstrate, through comments that are made, that a few were worthwhile after all.
posted by dreamsign at 11:02 AM on June 22, 2005
quonsar, I fail to see where anybody demanded anything. You're being kinda shrill, donchathink?
posted by alumshubby at 11:09 AM on June 22, 2005
posted by alumshubby at 11:09 AM on June 22, 2005
A little bit of European input here.....I think you might find that Al - Jazeera is taken more seriously than Fox news, especially as here in S. Europe we have many Arab neighbours. Maybe its a bit difficult to see that from Seattle 9 hours, an ocean and a continent away.
2nd Roger Dodger's idea.
posted by adamvasco at 11:21 AM on June 22, 2005
2nd Roger Dodger's idea.
posted by adamvasco at 11:21 AM on June 22, 2005
Call it MeDungeon, MePurgatory, or UnMePopular, but it's a good idea.
Uh, what about calling it Metachat?
posted by grateful at 11:25 AM on June 22, 2005
Uh, what about calling it Metachat?
posted by grateful at 11:25 AM on June 22, 2005
mathowie : "I delete one-link op-eds all the time, moreso if they're controversial."
I think this is the key. Some op-eds stay, but that's because they present an interesting viewpoint that people can consider and discuss. A political op-ed presents an interesting viewpoint that people can throw shit at eachother about. Shit-throwing is bad enough that there was even a crack-down on factual shitstorm posts (the mini-Polifilter crackdown after the election), so it would seem odd to allow a post to stand which is going to call up a shit-storm and is just based on some other guys' opinion.
Or, at least, that's the way it seems to me. I love the political stuff on Mefi, but I love it like a homepathetic doctor loves arsenic: the less, the better. That's not an underhanded snarky way of saying I dislike it. It's saying that the less there is, the more likely that what remains is really really good, and that it's worth reading. The more there is, the lower the quality.
It works like a filter, of sorts.
posted by Bugbread at 11:52 AM on June 22, 2005
I think this is the key. Some op-eds stay, but that's because they present an interesting viewpoint that people can consider and discuss. A political op-ed presents an interesting viewpoint that people can throw shit at eachother about. Shit-throwing is bad enough that there was even a crack-down on factual shitstorm posts (the mini-Polifilter crackdown after the election), so it would seem odd to allow a post to stand which is going to call up a shit-storm and is just based on some other guys' opinion.
Or, at least, that's the way it seems to me. I love the political stuff on Mefi, but I love it like a homepathetic doctor loves arsenic: the less, the better. That's not an underhanded snarky way of saying I dislike it. It's saying that the less there is, the more likely that what remains is really really good, and that it's worth reading. The more there is, the lower the quality.
It works like a filter, of sorts.
posted by Bugbread at 11:52 AM on June 22, 2005
quonsar, I fail to see where anybody demanded anything.
i fail to see a meteor shower at the present time. ergo, meteor showers don't exist?
posted by quonsar at 12:01 PM on June 22, 2005
i fail to see a meteor shower at the present time. ergo, meteor showers don't exist?
posted by quonsar at 12:01 PM on June 22, 2005
Hey, Matt! Roger Dodger's suggestion for handling deletions...how hard would that be?
My understanding is that Matt doesn't want to encourage people to post bad threads so they'll get moved to the Second place champs and turn into dark cult threads were people post about how they've taken to many drugs and then die while everyone else is urging them on, with dios serving as the only voice of reason, but no one reaches for the telephone.
posted by drezdn at 12:07 PM on June 22, 2005
My understanding is that Matt doesn't want to encourage people to post bad threads so they'll get moved to the Second place champs and turn into dark cult threads were people post about how they've taken to many drugs and then die while everyone else is urging them on, with dios serving as the only voice of reason, but no one reaches for the telephone.
posted by drezdn at 12:07 PM on June 22, 2005
there's a New York Times op-ed about MetaFilter. will it get deleted if I post it?
posted by matteo at 12:10 PM on June 22, 2005
posted by matteo at 12:10 PM on June 22, 2005
Quonsar, you were a total cock, and I was undeniably right.
(I mean, I presume you have been a total cock at some point in your life, and I've been undeniably right about something at some point in my life, if only once).
posted by Bugbread at 12:13 PM on June 22, 2005
(I mean, I presume you have been a total cock at some point in your life, and I've been undeniably right about something at some point in my life, if only once).
posted by Bugbread at 12:13 PM on June 22, 2005
maybe you want to fix the preview here .... Too bad there isn't some kind of scoring system .... if Matt put the damn thing back ... seem a lot less capricious ... you're being kinda shrill
alumshubby, you're being kinda of a dick.
posted by bonaldi at 12:19 PM on June 22, 2005
alumshubby, you're being kinda of a dick.
posted by bonaldi at 12:19 PM on June 22, 2005
A Deleted Posts section would be most appreciated, especially if those wishing to continue contributing to these non-FPP threads could do so. Call it MeDungeon, MePurgatory, or UnMePopular, but it's a good idea. Might even demonstrate, through comments that are made, that a few were worthwhile after all.
Dreamsign: go get this Deleted Threads bookmarklet for Firefox and have a ball. Wield this newfound power judiciously.
Matt's said he doesn't want to create a Hall of Shame. It'd just to Shittiest Post contests and such.
posted by cortex at 12:23 PM on June 22, 2005
Dreamsign: go get this Deleted Threads bookmarklet for Firefox and have a ball. Wield this newfound power judiciously.
Matt's said he doesn't want to create a Hall of Shame. It'd just to Shittiest Post contests and such.
posted by cortex at 12:23 PM on June 22, 2005
Also, alumshubby: what bonaldi said. Feelings noted, now cool it.
posted by cortex at 12:23 PM on June 22, 2005
posted by cortex at 12:23 PM on June 22, 2005
turn into dark cult threads were people post about how they've taken to many drugs and then die while everyone else is urging them on, with dios serving as the only voice of reason, but no one reaches for the telephone
Ooh, ooh, I want this! C'mon, Matt, let us have some fun, dammit!
posted by languagehat at 12:24 PM on June 22, 2005
Ooh, ooh, I want this! C'mon, Matt, let us have some fun, dammit!
posted by languagehat at 12:24 PM on June 22, 2005
all deletion is done on a whim
And the problem with that is? Matt certainly can't catch every lame link, and maybe somedays he's in a bad mood and lets one go, but what is this need/fascination with hard rules?
Deleted Posts section would be most appreciated, especially if those wishing to continue contributing to these non-FPP threads could do so. Call it MeDungeon, MePurgatory, or UnMePopular, but it's a good idea. Might even demonstrate, through comments that are made, that a few were worthwhile after all.
posted by dreamsign
No it wouldn't. A bad link is a bad link. So matt deletes it, people keep commenting on it, and that proves it was worthwhile? Not the case. I'm sure matt wants to keep a certain quality to the site. You could always bring it to metachat.
posted by justgary at 12:55 PM on June 22, 2005
And the problem with that is? Matt certainly can't catch every lame link, and maybe somedays he's in a bad mood and lets one go, but what is this need/fascination with hard rules?
Deleted Posts section would be most appreciated, especially if those wishing to continue contributing to these non-FPP threads could do so. Call it MeDungeon, MePurgatory, or UnMePopular, but it's a good idea. Might even demonstrate, through comments that are made, that a few were worthwhile after all.
posted by dreamsign
No it wouldn't. A bad link is a bad link. So matt deletes it, people keep commenting on it, and that proves it was worthwhile? Not the case. I'm sure matt wants to keep a certain quality to the site. You could always bring it to metachat.
posted by justgary at 12:55 PM on June 22, 2005
If you have something worthwhile that you would have sprung on and dazzled us in a thread, but failed to do so because it got deleted, why not make yourself a fancy little FPP? If it wasn't so great to start with, then, well, was it worth continuing anyway?
posted by Pollomacho at 1:06 PM on June 22, 2005
posted by Pollomacho at 1:06 PM on June 22, 2005
Yeah, just make it better. Flesh it out. Have three links to pose your point, and two dissenters.
You don't have to trash the whole idea of a post if it gets deleted, just make it encompass more, so there will be more to talk about.
Having one link to an op-ed gets snarky because:
It's one person's opinion, Getting 'pushed' on us by the poster.
Without the presentation of the other side, people get all defensive, and attack the post, or the poster.
posted by Balisong at 1:49 PM on June 22, 2005
You don't have to trash the whole idea of a post if it gets deleted, just make it encompass more, so there will be more to talk about.
Having one link to an op-ed gets snarky because:
It's one person's opinion, Getting 'pushed' on us by the poster.
Without the presentation of the other side, people get all defensive, and attack the post, or the poster.
posted by Balisong at 1:49 PM on June 22, 2005
A little bit of European input here.....I think you might find that Al - Jazeera is taken more seriously than Fox news
For those who have seen Control Room, that might hold true, also.
The problem with demonizing anyone who disagrees with you is that the reality makes the demonizing more of a joke would have been the case with mere criticism (witness: war on drugs propaganda, anti-communism propaganda, etc)
So matt deletes it, people keep commenting on it, and that proves it was worthwhile?
Number of comments doesn't determine the validity of any post, deleted or not. But a good discussion can turn a bad FPP around -- if it isn't deleted first, or if it is still available elsewhere.
posted by dreamsign at 2:24 PM on June 22, 2005
For those who have seen Control Room, that might hold true, also.
The problem with demonizing anyone who disagrees with you is that the reality makes the demonizing more of a joke would have been the case with mere criticism (witness: war on drugs propaganda, anti-communism propaganda, etc)
So matt deletes it, people keep commenting on it, and that proves it was worthwhile?
Number of comments doesn't determine the validity of any post, deleted or not. But a good discussion can turn a bad FPP around -- if it isn't deleted first, or if it is still available elsewhere.
posted by dreamsign at 2:24 PM on June 22, 2005
Good work.
posted by Captaintripps at 2:39 PM on June 22, 2005
posted by Captaintripps at 2:39 PM on June 22, 2005
Never put mathowie on the spot and ask him to clarify "policy" based on a single example given. It won't happen. Even in cases like this one, where the rule is pretty clearly defined and frequently applied, he'll still reserve the right to make exceptions to it.
posted by scarabic at 2:40 PM on June 22, 2005
posted by scarabic at 2:40 PM on June 22, 2005
I suggested some improvements and mildly reproved Quonsar, and for that I'm being a dick? That's silly.
Mr. Pot, say hello to Mr. Kettle....
posted by alumshubby at 3:10 PM on June 22, 2005
Mr. Pot, say hello to Mr. Kettle....
posted by alumshubby at 3:10 PM on June 22, 2005
I disagree with the FPP, but I do agree with this:
"I guess you could call it a "troll," but then, about half the FPPs I see could be construed as trolls."
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 4:00 PM on June 22, 2005
"I guess you could call it a "troll," but then, about half the FPPs I see could be construed as trolls."
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 4:00 PM on June 22, 2005
I suggested some improvements
No, you didn't. You whined as if you were correct, Matt was wrong and it was your right that the site be changed nearer to your heart's desire. That's not suggestions, that's arrogant dickery.
posted by bonaldi at 4:06 PM on June 22, 2005
No, you didn't. You whined as if you were correct, Matt was wrong and it was your right that the site be changed nearer to your heart's desire. That's not suggestions, that's arrogant dickery.
posted by bonaldi at 4:06 PM on June 22, 2005
"...how about adding a Metafilter Page Two, where posts that don't make the cut are moved..."
This is subject to what has been called the King of the Shitpile problem for the past few years.
It was a stupid idea for that reason three years ago, it was a stupid idea last year, and it remains a stupid idea today. Please stop suggesting it.
posted by majick at 4:52 PM on June 22, 2005
This is subject to what has been called the King of the Shitpile problem for the past few years.
It was a stupid idea for that reason three years ago, it was a stupid idea last year, and it remains a stupid idea today. Please stop suggesting it.
posted by majick at 4:52 PM on June 22, 2005
Random bitch: this whole "Pot, meet Kettle" affectation is lame. While it might have been a clever twist of "that's the pot calling the kettle black" the first 100,000 times I heard it, it's now lost all novelty. And if you think about it, it has no meaning. The relevant point isn't that the pot and kettle meet or are introuced to one another. It's that one of them hypocritically calls the other black.
WHY DO YOU HATE METAFILTER?
posted by scarabic at 5:35 PM on June 22, 2005
WHY DO YOU HATE METAFILTER?
posted by scarabic at 5:35 PM on June 22, 2005
This is subject to what has been called the King of the Shitpile problem
I had no idea. MoFi has a link to deleted posts, and to my knowledge, that doesn't happen. But third time a charm, I'm willing to believe that for whatever reason, it doesn't work here.
scarabic, I ask the Monkeys that all the time.
posted by dreamsign at 7:26 PM on June 22, 2005
I had no idea. MoFi has a link to deleted posts, and to my knowledge, that doesn't happen. But third time a charm, I'm willing to believe that for whatever reason, it doesn't work here.
scarabic, I ask the Monkeys that all the time.
posted by dreamsign at 7:26 PM on June 22, 2005
dreamsign : "MoFi has a link to deleted posts, and to my knowledge, that doesn't happen."
I think it's a size dynamic issue. There are a bunch of different situations that arise based on the size of any given board, that's why you can see so many dramatic changes when a site/forum gets popular. In a small enough site, the shitpile king issue doesn't really arise.
posted by Bugbread at 8:19 PM on June 22, 2005
I think it's a size dynamic issue. There are a bunch of different situations that arise based on the size of any given board, that's why you can see so many dramatic changes when a site/forum gets popular. In a small enough site, the shitpile king issue doesn't really arise.
posted by Bugbread at 8:19 PM on June 22, 2005
It was a stupid idea for that reason three years ago, it was a stupid idea last year, and it remains a stupid idea today. Please stop suggesting it.
Really now, I just got here this year, so obviously it wasn't me who previously suggested it. If I have to read every single thread on the site before I can discuss something, I might well never say anything. The funny thing about a community is that people come and people go. Some people stick around. Discussing something does no harm to anybody, and your tone, majick, is condescending to say the least.
posted by Roger Dodger at 9:37 PM on June 22, 2005
Really now, I just got here this year, so obviously it wasn't me who previously suggested it. If I have to read every single thread on the site before I can discuss something, I might well never say anything. The funny thing about a community is that people come and people go. Some people stick around. Discussing something does no harm to anybody, and your tone, majick, is condescending to say the least.
posted by Roger Dodger at 9:37 PM on June 22, 2005
Bonaldi, I know who the real whining, arrogant dick is here. I asked for some clarification; I never assumed I was "right" about anything having to do with this post. If you have a problem with that...well, evidently you already have problems, so what's one more matter....
posted by alumshubby at 4:01 AM on June 23, 2005
posted by alumshubby at 4:01 AM on June 23, 2005
alumshubby: you're so blind to your own arrogance it's bewildering.
Take this sentence: "I suggested some improvements". Did you? Were they all improvements, or were they just ways of doing things differently that you assume are better because they came from you?
Or this: "maybe you want to fix the preview here". Is it broken then? Or does it just not operate the way you want it to? It's the "maybe" that's arrogant there, because clearly there's no possible reason for the site not running how you want it to other than indolence.
"Too bad there isn't some kind of scoring system"? Now you're just trolling. How often has it been discussed and swiped down in here? Many, many times.
"if Matt put the damn thing back" ... yes, because that would shortcut all this tedious discussion wouldn't it? If you just got what you wanted, then we could all go our separate ways without you having to, you know, persuade people and shit.
"seem a lot less capricious" Capricious is rather a loaded word for some who comes in all humility, cap in hand, to, ahem, "suggest some improvements".
posted by bonaldi at 9:01 AM on June 23, 2005
Take this sentence: "I suggested some improvements". Did you? Were they all improvements, or were they just ways of doing things differently that you assume are better because they came from you?
Or this: "maybe you want to fix the preview here". Is it broken then? Or does it just not operate the way you want it to? It's the "maybe" that's arrogant there, because clearly there's no possible reason for the site not running how you want it to other than indolence.
"Too bad there isn't some kind of scoring system"? Now you're just trolling. How often has it been discussed and swiped down in here? Many, many times.
"if Matt put the damn thing back" ... yes, because that would shortcut all this tedious discussion wouldn't it? If you just got what you wanted, then we could all go our separate ways without you having to, you know, persuade people and shit.
"seem a lot less capricious" Capricious is rather a loaded word for some who comes in all humility, cap in hand, to, ahem, "suggest some improvements".
posted by bonaldi at 9:01 AM on June 23, 2005
matteo writes "there's a New York Times op-ed about MetaFilter. will it get deleted if I post it?"
You'll be safe as long as the link is in Meta I'd think.
posted by Mitheral at 10:37 AM on June 23, 2005
You'll be safe as long as the link is in Meta I'd think.
posted by Mitheral at 10:37 AM on June 23, 2005
Bonaldi, I know who the real whining, arrogant dick is here.
Ha. Nice work there, Columbo.
posted by cortex at 11:26 AM on June 23, 2005
Ha. Nice work there, Columbo.
posted by cortex at 11:26 AM on June 23, 2005
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by alumshubby at 9:46 AM on June 22, 2005