If you don't like the post, at least tell me why.

January 31, 2006 1:04 PM

What? Already. What are you people on about?
Can you be a more explicit in your sugestions for improving my post than just telling me it sucks? A hint, perhaps, to the nature of the suck, rather than just its degree?
posted by If I Had An Anus to Etiquette/Policy at 1:04 PM (46 comments total)

Are people I respect really being that nasty because I said 'suck it, seculars'? I thought the absurdity of gloating over the hatred some nutbag fundies was readily apparent. Perhaps I was mistaken, or perhaps I', missing the point entirely.

What did you flag it as, fandango_matt?
posted by If I Had An Anus at 1:06 PM on January 31, 2006

I love you, Anus.
posted by raedyn at 1:09 PM on January 31, 2006

I liked the post. Grow a hide.

I hear quonsar offers private discipline lessons for hide thickness modification, usually involving a cat-5 o-nine tails.

Booted or unbooted terminal blocks optional.
posted by loquacious at 1:14 PM on January 31, 2006

My take on the post was that it was a link to a blog post on a topic that has been pissing people off all week around here from a poster who is know to sometimes be a bit of a button pusher.

On the other hand, the post you linked to included a lot of good links and potential fodder for discussion, and I thought you made the good point that a lot of the interestingness of the blog post, to you, was what was in the comments. Suck it seculars made me laugh, and the post despite its many flags seemed worth keeping to me. I'd be interested to know what other folks think, or if I'm missing something.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 1:21 PM on January 31, 2006

I had a hide,
but I was told I going to have to do better than that.
posted by If I Had An Anus at 1:22 PM on January 31, 2006

Like the Born-again ex-Catholic ex-Atheist post the other day, this is a single link post to a note in a religious site. I haven't even noticed it until now but it indeed sucks. For me the suckiness comes specially from the single-source non-inclusive link. I am also a bit tired of Christian non-issues.
posted by nkyad at 1:22 PM on January 31, 2006

The content of the page you linked to might be considered a good MeFi FFP. But it's not much more than that.

Linking to two paragraph post at Boing Boing which was basically just links to other good resources and a discussion starter would suck. In the same manner, your post sucks.
posted by y6y6y6 at 1:22 PM on January 31, 2006

Your suck, and then their suck, mashed together around a filling of savory commentitude: it's a suck sandwich!

Really, I think you may need to give the comments a much wider berth with respect to the use of suck based on, yes, your own priming of such comments in your post text. And religion isn't exactly a freshly contentious topic around here, so, doubly so.
posted by cortex at 1:23 PM on January 31, 2006

_matt, I'm not claiming it was a great post. Does a post have to be great if it not to be called sucky?

I agree with moonbird too. I enjoyed many of the comments in the thread, just am puzzled about some of the attitude.
posted by If I Had An Anus at 1:27 PM on January 31, 2006

This thread is doing nothing to cure my priapism.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 1:32 PM on January 31, 2006

I LIKED THIS POST ALOT>

Silence, haters.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 1:33 PM on January 31, 2006

Well, there you have it. Even you admit it's not great, so you shouldn't be surprised when people call it the sucky post that it is.

You're kidding, right?
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 1:39 PM on January 31, 2006

Thanks, IRFH, for my word of the day. Why suckiness does nothing for your priapism, however, would be better left unsaid so please don't share any further.
posted by leftcoastbob at 1:39 PM on January 31, 2006

This thread is doing nothing to cure my priapism.

Could be worse. At least you have a place to hang your bath towel.
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 1:41 PM on January 31, 2006

You people should be ashamed, on his birthday no less!

Seemed like an interesting link. Have we reached a point where a post is either A or B? Great or Suck?

and the post despite its many flags seemed worth keeping to me.

As I always knew. Self policing is but an illusion.
posted by justgary at 1:46 PM on January 31, 2006

Single link post to a poorly reasoned 250 word blog entry = teh suck.

Now your Nuttin' for Christmas post, that was great.
posted by LarryC at 1:46 PM on January 31, 2006

Did someone just say, "I love you, anus?"
posted by horsewithnoname at 1:47 PM on January 31, 2006

That comment was by 'moonbiter' not 'moonbird'
posted by vacapinta at 1:47 PM on January 31, 2006

"Could be worse. At least you have a place to hang your bath towel."

Now, let's not jump to conclusions here. It may only be wash-cloth sized.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 1:48 PM on January 31, 2006

At least the post didn't blow.
posted by Astro Zombie at 1:53 PM on January 31, 2006

I think people who flag a post and then comment saying they've flagged a post are completely missing the point of flagging a post.

Perhaps once you've flagged a post, you should be locked out of commenting in the thread.
posted by occhiblu at 2:03 PM on January 31, 2006

"Could be worse. At least you have a place to hang your bath towel."

"Now, let's not jump to conclusions here. It may only be wash-cloth sized."

Or he could be leveling a mobile home but it's strictly a theory at this point.
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 2:08 PM on January 31, 2006

Did someone just say, "I love you, anus?" - horsewithnoname

No. I said "I love you, Anus." Because it's his name, so it's capitalized.
posted by raedyn at 2:09 PM on January 31, 2006

"Could be worse. At least you have a place to hang your bath towel."

Now, let's not jump to conclusions here. It may only be wash-cloth sized.

Run it up your flagging pole!
posted by loquacious at 2:10 PM on January 31, 2006

In the interest of putting a stop to all the divisive religious/non-religious threads, here is some solid information on the subject. Let's just collectively pick one and be done with it.
posted by ND¢ at 2:25 PM on January 31, 2006

With all the SLOEs of the past couple months and the three undeleted double posts yesterday, who can say anymore that any post sucks?
posted by mischief at 2:26 PM on January 31, 2006

With all the SLOEs of the past couple months...

So let me get this straight. You're saying Metafilter has turned into a regular Sloe gin?
posted by cortex at 2:54 PM on January 31, 2006

Define 'regular'. ;-P
posted by mischief at 2:57 PM on January 31, 2006

Perhaps once you've flagged a post, you should be locked out of commenting in the thread.
posted by occhiblu at 5:03 PM EST on January 31 [!]

I second this.
posted by exlotuseater at 3:00 PM on January 31, 2006

Define 'regular'. ;-P

Hey, now. This is the suck thread. The poop thread is down the hall.
posted by cortex at 3:04 PM on January 31, 2006

^^^ correct
posted by cortex at 3:08 PM on January 31, 2006

is there a reason why you're being so evasive about something that's really pretty straightforward, fandango_matt?
posted by shmegegge at 3:20 PM on January 31, 2006

I HAVE HERE A LIST OF NAMES
posted by cortex at 3:57 PM on January 31, 2006

your favorite fpp sucks.
posted by 3.2.3 at 4:06 PM on January 31, 2006

Perhaps once you've flagged a post, you should be locked out of commenting in the thread.

I disagree. I have no problem with someone commenting in a post they just flagged, as long as they explain why they feel it's lacking. That's a good thing for new posters to learn from.

OTOH, flagging something as sucky, then commenting "This sucks!" is counterproductive. I don't think locking it is the right solution, though.
posted by brundlefly at 4:30 PM on January 31, 2006

I thought it was great post, Anus. The difference between linking to a blog entry and linking directly to the resources is pretty damn trivial. Either way, gave me a bit to think about and an introduction to some academic pro-pagan authors. Just ignore the idiot seculars. It's unfortunate their snarks kill the thread and discussion but hopefully that'll stop once there are per-thread Talk pages.
posted by nixerman at 4:42 PM on January 31, 2006

"Well, then no one will flag posts anymore, lest the post in question becomes another mushroom snarkfest."

Whatever happened to Mushroom Snarkfest, anyway? I heard they broke up after that thing in Toronto and now one of them is singing backup for Clay Aiken, but I can't find any confirmation.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 4:43 PM on January 31, 2006

I'm getting a little tired of everyone talking about flogging each other's posts around here. This is the sucking thread, not the flogging thread.
posted by leftcoastbob at 4:46 PM on January 31, 2006

Flagging posts, you say? Never mind then. Carry on.
posted by leftcoastbob at 4:46 PM on January 31, 2006

its ok just blow it off
posted by JohnR at 5:07 PM on January 31, 2006

"I thought it was a great post, Anus" is one of the best compliments I've ever read on this site. Until nixerman compliments fishfucker with "nice post, fucker", that is.
posted by jonson at 7:28 PM on January 31, 2006

I enjoyed the article and skipped most of the commentary, but I thought your own comment in the thread was excellent. If a discussion like this were possible on MeFi, this "designer religion" aspect of paganism is what I would have wanted to talk about.
posted by BoringPostcards at 7:51 PM on January 31, 2006

this has been a pleasure. *scratches anus*
posted by stirfry at 9:41 PM on January 31, 2006

This post... and the article it contains.... suck.
You're going to have to do better than that.
posted by BlackLeotardFront at 11:43 AM PST on January 31 [!]

is an example of something I really detest... In the middle of an ongoing conversation, someone just pops in to deposit a precious little gem like this.

It's like several people standing around at a party discussing some topic, and a new guest walks in the door, strides up to them and says, "whatever you're talking about sucks," and leaves.

Now, some posts are really so bad that the entire content of the comments is about how hard the post sucks, and that, perhaps, is as it should be, but if an actual conversation is taking place (as opposed to people just lobbing flaming gobs of poo at each other), interrupting it to leave such a worthless contribution is like pulling down your pants and mooning everyone in the room.

To me, this, and dashing in to be the very first person to comment in a thread (usually without even reading the link) just so you can toss off a quick snark are really abusive practices.
posted by taz at 12:03 AM on February 1, 2006

(1) A single link post to a (2) short blog entry on (3) a "dead horse" topic on mefi ending with (4) a snarky sting that is bound to make many readers hostile.

How would I make it better?

(1) I'd explore the evidence a bit further. Why exactly are these people claiming that new-age paganism has replaced secularism?

(2) Blog entries are really only interesting if they could stand on their own as writing. "I saw this cool stuff at a conference," isn't linkworthy IMO. Cut out the middle-man and send us to the meat.

(3) Some topics here have been beaten to death. This raises the bar for future posts on the topic. And before anyone goes off into the "mefi hates religion" thing, links to the recycled essay of the month from Dawkins also get criticized.

(4) If you snark in a post, you should expect for the comments to snark back.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 9:46 AM on February 1, 2006

vacapinta writes "That comment was by 'moonbiter' not 'moonbird'"

I like being agreed with without me having to say anything. I agree with Moonbiter, too,
posted by moonbird at 2:32 PM on February 1, 2006