Obituary Threads

December 26, 2005 7:42 PM

MeFi obituary posts: Good, Bad and Ugly. Resolved: If you can't be bothered to find anything interesting about the person beyond a syndicated news story announcing their death or a slim encyclopedia-esque entry, you should let someone who does care post the obit to the front page.
posted by mediareport to Etiquette/Policy at 7:42 PM (35 comments total)

I agree. Posting a single-line obit is like taking advantage of someone's fame and death just to cram a post through. If you can't make it a remembrance, an homage, a tribute, leave it open for someone else to do.
posted by scarabic at 7:44 PM on December 26, 2005

Agreed.
posted by cribcage at 7:50 PM on December 26, 2005

I was going to Comment that I found the Media Tycoon Post interesting because of the Comment about his Somewhat Less than Devoted son. Then I realized that Supported your Point, so I will simply add my "Hear hear" to the Chorus.
posted by freebird at 7:57 PM on December 26, 2005

This is trivial bullshit, but as trivial bullshit goes it's absolutely correct. More links, please.
posted by Ryvar at 8:01 PM on December 26, 2005

did you just discover the shift key Freebird?

I agree with mediareport. Also, fewer deaths.
posted by hototogisu at 8:02 PM on December 26, 2005

did you just discover the shift key Freebird?

No indeed, though I Note you seem to have Misplaced it at the Beginning of your Comment. As per a Secret Pact made in the "Women's Petition against Coffee", I am Supporting a Campaign for Olde-Fashioned Capitalization.
posted by freebird at 8:10 PM on December 26, 2005

Er. In the "Women's Petition Against Coffee" thread, of course.
posted by freebird at 8:13 PM on December 26, 2005

The post was super lame-o, especially as old Goanna-face's demise was announced nearly six hours ago.
posted by Wolof at 8:30 PM on December 26, 2005

What does it really matter whether additional links are added inside or in the FPP? Only those who are publicity hounds should really care.
posted by ParisParamus at 8:35 PM on December 26, 2005

The Point, I think, is not so much *where* the Additional Links are added, so much as by Whom. A Post relying on other Commenters to add enough Links to make it interesting seems a Shoddy Post to me.
posted by freebird at 8:44 PM on December 26, 2005

Paris, it might be worth mentioning that this is somewhat different than the absurd "single-link posts always bad" argument, which I've never subscribed to. My point is specific to obit posts, while relying on the assumption that good posts in general come from folks who care about the subject. I'm questioning how much someone cares about the subject if all they can do is post a link to a short syndicated obit. Again, kenko's Derek Bailey obit post is a good example; it appeals to fans *and* gives non-fans entry and insight into the subject who has died. Anything less, I think, is a lazy post, and lazy posts should be discouraged. The fact that others jump in with more details to help salvage the lazy post is a side issue.

pSsT, freEBIrd: pLEasE dECide oN a cONsiSTeNt sTYLe. YoU'rE AlL oVEr ThE Map And IT'S REALLY ANNOYING.
posted by mediareport at 8:53 PM on December 26, 2005

How's that terribly different from posting '.' as a one-character comment? Every time I see one of those I can't help but be reminded of those people at funerals who hadn't seen the deceased for 20 years and put their names in the register just so other people would notice they were there...
posted by clevershark at 8:57 PM on December 26, 2005

(Sigh). I knew instantly who Vincent Schiavelli was, and was grateful for the post. I'd at least heard of Kerry Packer, and also appreciated the post. As for the "good" one, I'd need the extra info to make me give a shit about the subject. Or is it an automatically better post because it's somebody nobody's ever heard of, but should have, thereby making it "Best of the Web"?

(Merry Boxing Day. Flame on.)
posted by evilcolonel at 9:12 PM on December 26, 2005

Or is it an automatically better post because it's somebody nobody's ever heard of

Yeah, that's exactly what I'm saying. Way to suss it out.

(Sigh).
posted by mediareport at 9:14 PM on December 26, 2005

I humbly offer my apologies for what was in honesty a pretty awful post. In retrospect I think I should have had the balls to add all those nasty links that I thought about adding before. Kudos to tapeguy and mediareport for doing so.

I know it was lazy, I was just shocked to see a somewhat minor actor's death mentioned while, nearly six hours after the Packer's death (as mentioned my Wolof) and yet no mention of him in the slightest.
posted by Serial Killer Slumber Party at 9:17 PM on December 26, 2005

*as mention by Wolof

Sheesh, I'm a roll today.
posted by Serial Killer Slumber Party at 9:18 PM on December 26, 2005

SKSP: Your user account is barely old enough to post a FPP and it wasn't a self-link or spam; you're already way, way ahead of the game.
posted by Ryvar at 9:26 PM on December 26, 2005

yup--what Ryvar said--no need to apologize. A lot of us had never heard of him, but the richest guy in Australia dying is postworthy.
posted by amberglow at 9:29 PM on December 26, 2005

I wanted to post it this morning and mention how all the Aussies watching the cricket today could spare him a thought for bringing it to them in the first place (he did a lot for cricket on TV - see the book Compulsive Viewing), but I haven't been active enough thus the system would not let me post.

Tangent - How active does one have to be before you're allowed to post?
posted by d-no at 9:31 PM on December 26, 2005

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I love me some freebird.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 10:08 PM on December 26, 2005

the richest guy in Australia dying is postworthy.

Wealth makes one's death more noteworthy? That's a new one.
posted by justgary at 10:15 PM on December 26, 2005

pSsT, freEBIrd: pLEasE dECide oN a cONsiSTeNt sTYLe. YoU'rE AlL oVEr ThE Map And IT'S REALLY ANNOYING.

I don't know what you mean; every Comment I have made since my Decision has followed this Style of Capitalization. If you mean that sometimes I Rant Wildly and sometimes I offer up more Prosaic Burblings, I do Apologize but suspect I will be Unable to Ameriorate your Annoyance. I certainly have no Intent to annoy, but Neither will I Abandon a Project I find Enjoyable to suit your Tastes; nor will I Adhere to a "Persona" as though I was here to Act out a Role.
posted by freebird at 11:35 PM on December 26, 2005

Not onry arr That, but I won't be abre to Ameliorate your Annoyance either!
posted by freebird at 11:51 PM on December 26, 2005

I'm with the wonderchicken (which, in itself, is a pleasure to write); yay for freebird (freebirde?). I don't find it annoying, I find it Endearing.

He's like a wee Laurence Sterne, he is.
posted by Haruspex at 2:38 AM on December 27, 2005

Well, if Matt ever puts I'm with the wonderchicken on a T-shirt, at least one person would buy it.

Two, if he capitalized it.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 4:09 AM on December 27, 2005

If you mean that sometimes I Rant Wildly and sometimes I offer up more Prosaic Burblings

No, I mean that sometimes you Capitalize Verbs and Sometimes you Don't. "Rant Wildly" but not "Offer Up." "I realized that Supported your Point..." The schtick would be cuter if it made at least a little sense.
posted by mediareport at 6:38 AM on December 27, 2005

But it does make a little sense. Capitalization as an inline form of emphasis. Harkens to the not-so-distant past, when language was not so thoroughly administrated as it is today; when one got by on one's notion of how words, sentences, verbal thoughts in general ought to be rendered.
posted by cortex at 7:58 AM on December 27, 2005

(And wouldn't it be fun to suss out a coherent grammar of capitalization based on the the specimens freebird has provided? Don't cry 'inconsistency', plump out the hidden consistency!)
posted by cortex at 7:59 AM on December 27, 2005

plump?
posted by cortex at 7:59 AM on December 27, 2005

I'm plumping, I'm plumping. But it doesn't really make sense in terms of inline emphasis, either. Not to my ear, anyway.
posted by mediareport at 8:12 AM on December 27, 2005

sometimes you Capitalize Verbs and Sometimes you Don't

I think you Mistake my Goal, mediareport, but you have a Valid Point. I will Freely Admit to an Ignorance as to the exact System of Capitalization employed in the Style I seek to Emulate. It is clearly not like German, in that it's not only Nouns being capitalized - but it's certainly not Consistent in capitalizing Verbs. It would appear to me that there is an Element of Emphasis in what is capitalized, and that I am in fact True to the Original in my Inconsistency. "Mason-Dixon" is a large influence on my attempt, though I would never Claim that to be Historically Accurate. I reproduce here a Chunk of the text that has Nudged me in this Direction, from the Petition Against Coffee:

The Occasion of which Insufferable Disaster, after a serious
Enquiry, and Discussion of the Point by the Learned
of the Faculty, we can Attribute to nothing more than
the Excessive use of that Newfangled, Abominable, Heathenish
Liquor called COFFEE, which Riffling Nature
of her Choicest Treasures, and Drying up the Radical
Moisture, has so Eunucht our Husbands, and Crippled
our more kind Gallants, that they are become as Impotent,
as Age, and as unfruitful as those Desarts whence that
unhappy Berry is said to be brought.


As you can see, a Mixed Bag. It would be Really Fun to find out exactly what the Olde System is, and I will endeavor to Crank Out an AskMe Post in this regard. While on the subject, let me address another Valid Critique - I may well not use other Archaic forms of Syntax and Spelling. In fact, one of my Original Goals was to see how hard it was to Divorce the Capitalization from the Rest, and the Intent is to use my Normal Style (which, admittedly may tend to the Overly Verbose, on past Hyperbolic, and into the Baroque) with the Wierd Capitalization. I am finding this Difficult, and Capitalizing in this Manner seems to bring out my Inner Pipe-Smoking, Vest-With-Pocket-Watch-Chain Wearing Denizen of the Gentleman Pedant Club, and for this (as well as any Annoyance incurred) I Apologize.

Damn Dude! I cannot Fucking Believe how many Single Line Obits be getting Posted by Fools! Word to thy...damme, I have Done It Again.
posted by freebird at 8:26 AM on December 27, 2005

Lest I put more People's Kilts Akilter,
I have Posted the Question to Ask Metafilter.
posted by freebird at 9:42 AM on December 27, 2005

1t h4f com3 t0 my Att3nt10n, th4t c3rtain P3rfonf in thif thr34d fuggeft th4t th3 l4ngu4g3 of Ant1qu1ty h4d a d3fic1t of St4nd4rd1zat10nx0rz, and that teh l4ngu4g3 0f M0d3rn1ty hath an Exc3ss of 5ame. T0 wh1ch I c4n 0nly add: LOLZORZ!!!
posted by arto at 12:20 PM on December 27, 2005

I reserve the right to still find Freebird's various affectations endearing, though. So there.

Daddy-o! *snaps fingers*
posted by arto at 12:22 PM on December 27, 2005

Damn, freebird, that turned into a helluvan interesting AskMe thread. Thanks for that.
posted by mediareport at 8:41 PM on December 27, 2005