I hate legal posts/I love legal posts

February 16, 2006 10:52 AM

Get a legal blog.
posted by furtive to Etiquette/Policy at 10:52 AM (243 comments total)

Three legal judgement posts in four days by the resident lawyer? Could we at least keep the legalese under the fold and have the post explained for the "not a lawyer" crowd above the fold? I am neither a lawyer nor a journalist.
posted by furtive at 10:52 AM on February 16, 2006

If you don't like it skip it.
posted by dios at 10:57 AM on February 16, 2006

If you don't like it skip it

ah the irony
posted by matteo at 10:57 AM on February 16, 2006

I agree, though. If you don't like it, skip it. Some of us find these interesting.
posted by goatdog at 10:59 AM on February 16, 2006

We have to put up with the same people everyday beating their drum over and over about topics that we have already addressed. And when people call them on it, we are told "if you don't like it, skip it." "The solution is more posts to mediate against the crappy partisan wankery."

So if you don't like these, then skip it. If we can have a half dozen posts a day about Bush/Cheney/GOP/Iraq/etc every single day, then you can deal with mine.
posted by dios at 10:59 AM on February 16, 2006

I think the mi was just asking for some clarification... who knows people might like it, but if they have to work too hard to decipher what is being said it will have very limited appeal
posted by edgeways at 11:00 AM on February 16, 2006

Whatever you do, don't go into dios's thread and derail it by complaining about an obscure non-legal matter.

But seriously dios, it look like good hard work on your part, so let us appreciate your effort by providing us with a smattering of context that'll make it interesting to non-JDs.

And don't let us think that you're being intentionally obscurantist just to "punish" people for "Bush/Cheney/GOP/Iraq/" posts, ok?
posted by orthogonality at 11:01 AM on February 16, 2006

If you don't like it skip it.
posted by dios at 10:57 AM PST on February 16

Great post!

/masturbates furiously
posted by dios at 10:10 AM PST on January 13
posted by Optimus Chyme at 11:01 AM on February 16, 2006

I like the posts. I have no problem with occaisionally reading over my head; that's how you learn new things.
posted by sonofsamiam at 11:03 AM on February 16, 2006

What sonofsamiam said.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 11:05 AM on February 16, 2006

MeFites who post things to MetaFilter that I am not interested in should all get their own blogs. Other MeFites should then make single-link FPPs on those blogs so I can mock them for their crappy posts. Still other MeFites should then call the resulting trainwrecks out in MetaTalk, so we can all get our hate on. Thank you!
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 11:05 AM on February 16, 2006

Uh, if you don't like it, feel free to register your disgust but don't expect the consensus to change overnight. Both of you.

Thank you for the informative posts, dios.
posted by Eideteker at 11:07 AM on February 16, 2006

It seems to be keeping Dios out of other threads, so I'm all for his FPPs.

Give the guy a break, would you?
posted by Astro Zombie at 11:08 AM on February 16, 2006

Uh, yeah. If I were dios I would make more of an attempt to construct a post readable by non-Vulcans, but I don't think he should stop trying.
posted by selfnoise at 11:09 AM on February 16, 2006

Unless this is all an attempt to make some kind of point about Metafilter, in which case he should get a life.
posted by selfnoise at 11:10 AM on February 16, 2006

Esthetically, these posts kind of suck. IANAD, but I imagine linking to a bunch of stuff off pubmed, using case numbers instead of plain english, wouldn't lead to much discussion.

But yeah, if you don't like it, skip it. They don't break the letter of the guidelines, only the spirit--these aren't conducive to community discussion, but they could be. le dieu doesn't seem to care what others think, so we'll see how long matt lets him keep up his game.

PS I imagine monju and dios cooked this up through email--if I'm wrong I apologize for the accusation, but if I'm right you guys should come clean. Gaming the posts isn't a crime, but it's kind of a crappy thing to do, no?
posted by bardic at 11:10 AM on February 16, 2006

I like the posts, too. It wouldn't hurt to consider that your audience is not composed entirely of JDs, though, and to elucidate a bit more on the front page.
posted by amro at 11:12 AM on February 16, 2006

interesting to non-JDs
JDs?
posted by boo_radley at 11:12 AM on February 16, 2006

JDs?

Juris doctor. Law degree.
posted by amro at 11:14 AM on February 16, 2006

Three legal judgement posts in four days by the resident lawyer?

Don't like 'em, move on or post something yourself. I found them a hell of a lot more interesting than BushSucksFilter, which gets posted a hell of a lot more often than thrice in four days.

Could we at least keep the legalese under the fold and have the post explained for the "not a lawyer" crowd above the fold?

That's reasonable.
posted by cribcage at 11:15 AM on February 16, 2006

Geez, amro. No need to be all cryptic.
posted by Eideteker at 11:16 AM on February 16, 2006

Sorry, Eideteker, it's the lawyer in me.
posted by amro at 11:18 AM on February 16, 2006

The thing is, a legalfilter series of posts written on interesting legal matters with just a *pinch* of sugary summary for the masses would be great. But these posts lack a hook in a big way.
posted by selfnoise at 11:18 AM on February 16, 2006

cribcage, do you actually read metafilter? There's been a fair amount of good, non-political filter lately. And lots of legal stuff, obviously.
posted by bardic at 11:20 AM on February 16, 2006

*grabs popcorn, props feet up on desk, readies f5 poking stick*
posted by tweak at 11:20 AM on February 16, 2006

If we can have a half dozen posts a day about Bush/Cheney/GOP/Iraq/etc every single day, then you can deal with mine

but at least the Bush stuff you don't like is written in English. this is not a legal journal. see, you're posting stuff on the front page out of spite, and that's always a bad idea. even you, dios, can probably understand that the stuff you're posting on the front page, as of late, is very very dry for non-lawyers (American lawyers) -- it's quite technical.

let me give you an example: you seem to be very unsavvy re: computers, I'm sure that you wouldn't like that much daily dry technical posts about, say, UNIX shell scripts.

having said that, post whatever the hell you like. I'm usually happy to skip your posts anyway
posted by matteo at 11:22 AM on February 16, 2006

IANAL, and I say keep them. They provide diversity and aren't just unthinking one link opinion pieces. But I agree with the first post in the second link:

dios, a short explanation in plain English would be much appreciated.
posted by doctor_negative at 11:22 AM on February 16, 2006

And please, when you're done translating all the legalese mumbo-jumbo such that it is universally understandable and aesthetically pleasing for all 30,000 of us, please edit all of the Mac/Google/iPod/7334/Simpsons/Politics/religion/Intarwebs threads for those of us not in the club. The best of the web must be comfortable and familiar to me. And please - do not make posts that require that I actually read the links in order to understand them. Thank you.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 11:23 AM on February 16, 2006

Hell tweak I think I need a multi-pronged Ctrl-Alt-Del stick some days
posted by edgeways at 11:24 AM on February 16, 2006

I like the posts and I spent quite a bit of time reading some of the 'choice of law' links yesterday. I too appreciate the work that has gone into them.

But I also agree about the accessibility issue - there's a certain element of FPP drafting that's akin to advertising or fishing or....well, you know. As many are saying.
posted by peacay at 11:24 AM on February 16, 2006

Juris doctor. Law degree.
Ah, ok.

Oh, I missed this: "we'll see how long matt lets him keep up his game.". Precedent says a long, long time.
posted by boo_radley at 11:24 AM on February 16, 2006

I have an idea for a website, a community web where users would come to post the best of the web. But I am too lazy to implement it.
posted by LarryC at 11:25 AM on February 16, 2006

(reposted fromthe blue)
dios writes "What are you talking about? Do you even know?"

What I mean is, dios, is that all of us who are any sort of specialists at all could produce an FPP on a subtle issue within our specialty (e.g. "Object ownership and creation issues, value objects, and pointer aliasing: a comparison of, and explication for, the subtly different approaches of C++ and Java, and the practical consequences thereof"; "Null, column null, and row null in ANSI SQL and related implications for inner join members within outer joins including different strategies employed by Sybase, Oracle, and Microsoft, and universal work-arounds using views"; "Protected and private inheritance: uses in C++, absence from Java; and implications for Java collection classes.")

And these would all be interesting topics to the initiated, to the specialists in that particular field. But they'd have little relevance to anyone outside that field, unless the FPP included enough context to make them relevant and interesting to non-specialists.

(Yes, the example subjects are all real ones, and ones I could probably rattle off an FPP on; I didn't just make them up.)
posted by orthogonality at 11:27 AM on February 16, 2006

It's Raining writes The best of the web must be comfortable and familiar to me.

I appreciate the snark, but yeah, it should--or better yet, present something new to a blue reader that at least invites her in a bit, gives her some hand-holds so to speak. A supplemental jurisdiction post that included the legal crunch, along with a relatively recent incident where legal esoterica effected the life of someone who wasn't a lawyer, maybe? It's hypothetical, of course, but there's plenty of stuff going on in the world that allows for an FPP that combines the obscure with the every day.

So keep the legaljargonfilter up (legalfilter was a pretty popular theme before monju and le dieu were posting), but expect crappy FPP's to be treated as such. A little imagination would be nice.

(Although it's funny to imagine a bizzarofilter where the objective "best of the web" types kept getting more and more esoteric, while the rabid newsfilter types kept linking to News of the World, and so on and so on. It would make for great performance art.)
posted by bardic at 11:30 AM on February 16, 2006

People (myself, others) bitched about dios when he was just bitching about MetaFilter and never posting anything.

Now people bitch about dios posting something from his area of (professed) expertise. Fuck that noise.

Thanks, dios, for taking the time and care and actually posting something.

However, I would like to second the motion for "sugary summaries" for us non-laywers. Educate us, if you please. Need input. Etc.
posted by loquacious at 11:31 AM on February 16, 2006

Yeah, dios, don't get mew wrong: as I said above, I appreciate the work you put into your FPP -- I'm just asking that you make it more accessible so your work isn't wasted.
posted by orthogonality at 11:35 AM on February 16, 2006

Whoops, I sure have good timing. Anyway, there is no dastardly conspiracy between dios and I to post all law, all the time. I saw one of his legal posts a couple of days ago, and though I'd have more to offer on that kind of subject than my usual flash and photography posts.

I agree that dios' post today could have been written in plain English, but there's no rule that any post has to be universally accessible. No post will interest all MeFi members, and even if only lawyers are really interested in that post, I don't see the problem. I did try to help out, though, by linking to a pithy 2-page summary of the case which I think captures the gist. In any case, dios' recent posts have been interesting, and have inspired me to write a few of my own. I don't see how it breaks the guidelines.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 11:36 AM on February 16, 2006

Read Monju's post above. That's the way to do it.
posted by selfnoise at 11:38 AM on February 16, 2006

Thanks, dios, for posting about a subject that you're enthusiastic about and familiar with. I wish you would ignore your detractors.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 11:39 AM on February 16, 2006

monju_bosatsu writes "Whoops, I sure have good timing."


But monju, your FPP does have context --- as liberal, I read it as more corporatism, and so it's both of interest and something I'd likely not have stumbled upon myself. So your post I appreciate.

dios's, I see and appreciate the hard work that went into it, but I'm not about to puzzle through 60 pages of pdf to figure out why I should care.
posted by orthogonality at 11:40 AM on February 16, 2006

All snark aside, Dios, these look like well thought-out posts. However, I think you need to remember that we don't know as much about the law as you, and a little explanation is needed for us lay people to understand what you're saying.
posted by unreason at 11:43 AM on February 16, 2006

What selfnoise said. The same with Monju's Blackmun post--legalistic crunch + real world application = best of the web, probably a good discussion as well. le dieu's recent contributions really fall into the category of "Neener neener stuff you aren't smart enough to follow!"

But there is a precedent here I still don't like: theme posting. You guys do have lives outside of the office, right?
posted by bardic at 11:44 AM on February 16, 2006

I'll bet a crisp $2 bill that dios could be diagnosed with Asperger's.
posted by rxrfrx at 11:46 AM on February 16, 2006

cribcage, do you actually read metafilter? There's been a fair amount of good, non-political filter lately.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with my point — which was, to repeat, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 in three days.

But yeah, there's been plenty of good stuff on the front page lately. I've said so. And two of my favorites were law-related (1, 2). So what were you talking about?
posted by cribcage at 11:48 AM on February 16, 2006

rxrfrx writes "I'll bet a crisp $2 bill that dios could be diagnosed with Asperger's."

Dude. Not cool.

Asperger's is the high functioning form of autism.

(I keed, I keed!)
posted by orthogonality at 11:50 AM on February 16, 2006

I like those posts.
posted by killdevil at 11:51 AM on February 16, 2006

cribcage, as I've already stated, legalfilter ! = legaljargonfilter. I like monju's posts too--they're put together in the true spirit of community and discussion.
posted by bardic at 11:53 AM on February 16, 2006

First off, its called a blawg. Secondly, there seems to be an assumption that these posts are interesting to lawyers. I took one look at those things and kept right on scrolling. If I wanted to read shit about the law, I could just do work while I'm at work. I come to Metafilter to be entertained, or to learn about interesting subjects. Supplemental jurisdiction is, in my opinion, not an interesting subject by any stretch of the imagination. Finally, I think that it is pretty clear from this comment that this is all just an elaborate protest of "Bushfilter", which is fine with me. Let the guy spend forty-five non-billable minutes a day putting together a boring legal post to protest whatever he doesn't like. At least he isn't shitting in threads that I do enjoy, and ignoring boring posts is really easy. So, more power to you.
posted by ND¢ at 11:55 AM on February 16, 2006

I appreciate the effort put into the posts, I also think they would be better with about 30% less jargon and 30% more explanation.
posted by empath at 11:59 AM on February 16, 2006

bardic: So your only objection to my comment was that you neglected to read the part where I replied to the legal jargon complaint by saying, "That's reasonable." I see. Instead of reading my entire comment (which was all of 39 words), you saw the first half and decided to leap forward with a snotty remark about people who jump to ignorant conclusions without reading. Way to drain the irony bucket.
posted by cribcage at 12:04 PM on February 16, 2006

This callout has a point: that dios' legal posts are fairly jargon laden and difficult for non-lawyers to understand. Fair enough. You could also say that about many posts about esoteric topics-that they are somewhat baffling to outsiders and would be better recieved if they were more plainspoken and included more exposition. But dios (in this case) isn't any more guilty than a lot of us, and frankly, it's nice to see him trying to contribute something positive.
posted by jonmc at 12:08 PM on February 16, 2006

I tried to write a plain-English summary of the issue in dios' post here, if anyone is interested.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 12:13 PM on February 16, 2006

Hmm, before today I would have thought the vast majority of MeFites were smart enough to comprehend posts like dios's.

I guess I will have to amend my opinion; y'all are a bunch of idiots.
posted by mischief at 12:13 PM on February 16, 2006

... or just lazy. ;-P
posted by mischief at 12:14 PM on February 16, 2006

...there seems to be an assumption that these posts are interesting to lawyers. I took one look at those things and kept right on scrolling. If I wanted to read shit about the law, I could just do work while I'm at work.

Seconding the not interesting to lawyers idea. My eyes glazed over after the first line.

I am agnostic on whether these are good posts or not, because making such a judgment would require that I actually read them. I have a hard enough time reading the legal crap I'm paid to read.
posted by ereshkigal45 at 12:15 PM on February 16, 2006

Might as well jump into the pile-on here too - I had no idea that these were different posts, I thought it was just glitches in the RSS feed/bloglines bringing the same one up a couple different times. So at least now I know they're different posts. Keen. Now, could somebody explain them to me??
posted by antifuse at 12:16 PM on February 16, 2006

mischief writes "Hmm, before today I would have thought the vast majority of MeFites were smart enough to comprehend posts like dios's."

Dude, I can work my way through legal language -- or I can call any one of several friends who are lawyers, and harangue them into explaining it.

But look, it's a post by dios -- if dios can't make the point succinctly, I've got better things to do.
posted by orthogonality at 12:16 PM on February 16, 2006

At least he isn't shitting in threads that I do enjoy, and ignoring boring posts is really easy.

Amen.
posted by CunningLinguist at 12:18 PM on February 16, 2006

mischief, what's your take on supplemental jurisdiction?

My point being, if you'd read this thread, it's not an issue of comprehension as much as framing. Y'all.
posted by bardic at 12:18 PM on February 16, 2006

"if dios can't make the point succinctly"

iow:

MetaFilter: If it's dios, we'll bitch about it.

posted by mischief at 12:19 PM on February 16, 2006

"Framing"? Heheh, what a crock of shit! It's on!
posted by mischief at 12:23 PM on February 16, 2006

I chatted with dios about this elsewhere but I figured I'd chime in here. I thought the posts were interesting in the abstract, clearly revealed a lot of work and thought, and were possibly intended for a different sort of audience than one which is expecting "best of the web" type material. I also did not read them too directly because they were to very long articles.

I contrast this to the Bush/Cheney/Iraq filter posts which I think are interesting in the specific, don't reveal terribly much work (except in rare instances) and are intended for a different sort of audience than one which is expecting "best of the web" Those posts go to short articles often, and I don't read them either. We've had the newsfilter discussion many times before, but these legal posts are easily as interesting to me as the latest newsy post about American malfeasance. Clearly others have different opinions.

However, we do have posters here who develop their own style even though that style may be disliked by some people. While I'd encourage, and have encouraged, dios to be more accessible in his posting style, and maybe a little less quick to get pissed off in his commenting style (does anyone see a difference? I do) I don't think there's cause for GYOBFW alarm here.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 12:23 PM on February 16, 2006

I can't remember how many posts have been made that are difficult to understand, for various reasons.

Every letter being a link, total non-sequiters, legal jargon, single-character posts, the front page has seen it all. Dios' stuff isn't the worst by far.

I say run with it.
posted by Yelling At Nothing at 12:29 PM on February 16, 2006

These posts are unreadable. Dense, esoteric, with no real discussion-sparking "why should I give a shit?" hook or anything. It's not the substance that I object to, it's the quality and style. They sit there with too many links and too much jargon and no visible point. They'd be lame even if it wasn't dios posting them.

However dios did post them, and he should probably know better, so I think it's perfectly fair to speculate that these posts are some passive aggressive gambit created with just this MeTa thread in mind. If so, what's to be done with someone deliberately posting crappy FPPs? But that'd just be speculation. You haven't been posting inentially sub-par FPPs to make a point or anything, have you dios?

What I'm saying minus the snark is please make these posts better. Not because it causes me any pain but you know, person to person, I thought you might like to know your posts are sorely lacking. Let's hold hands and achieve a better LawFilter together.

Now excuse me while I go post a bunch of opaque FPPs in my field of interest and then refer back to dios's posts when someone finally brings it up in MeTa.
posted by fleacircus at 12:29 PM on February 16, 2006

I like them. dios, keep it up.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 12:30 PM on February 16, 2006

Unbelievable. Just unbelievable.

I get yelled at and insulted for criticizing the endless stream of BushSucks posts that occur at least a half dozen times a day. I get told that the "Filter" part means people post whatever they find interesting, so I shouldn't try to self-police. I get told:

"think of the front page as a buffet or potluck supper--you can circle the tables all you want, but the stuff you want is not going to magically appear unless someone cooks it and puts it there. If they haven't put it there that day, either put something there yourself or come back tomorrow.
posted by amberglow at 12:58 PM CST on February 10 "

Fine. That seems to be standard that people want to apply to other users who post about the same topics ad infinitum. Yet I post some legally related posts--which are all completely different and only share the characteristic of being related to the law---and I get called out. And within the callout, I get my motivations questioned and insulted. That's about par for the course with some people here.

Look: the law is interesting (some people have noted that in this thread and the ones that are there). Obviously some people don't find it interesting. That's fine. But it is interesting to me and a number of other people. And at least it has the virtue of being something that people haven't seen or thought about before instead of Redundant Post #1142143242 on why Bush sucks. New and interesting; something not seen before. That seems to be the guidelines on Metafitler.

As far as the claims that it is too dense/obscure, read the articles. How can some of you be criticizing my post for being indecipherable when you openly admit you haven't taken the opportunity to read it? I have included in each of the referenced posts a link to introduction to the topic. As far as it is interest to people, I have included the relevant recent case on the topic which shows why this topic is important. But I'm not going to spoon feed anyone. The information is in the links. I'm surprised that "too dense/hard to understand" is a complaint here at a site that prides itself on intelligent members. I would point out that people don't seem to have any problem deciphering legal opinions and statutes when it is about some topic tangentially related to partisan politics or their pet issue. But when the post is purely procedural law, suddenly opinions are foreign languages? Suddenly statutes are indecipherable? Of course in those cases where Metafilter posters do pontificate about statutes, they usually have some oversimiplified slanted primer from their favorite partisan site or action item from some group.

The posts are good posts under the metric established on posting page. If you don't like them, then skip it. As has been said, these are no different than some other topics which require the reader to have a baseline of understand to even comprehend. Some people will enjoy them, some won't. But I don't see where you get off complaining about these posts with the daily single-link op/eds on the front page. Between the two, which would you like to be more emblematic of the level of thought that occurs here at the site?
posted by dios at 12:31 PM on February 16, 2006

does anyone see a difference? I do

I do, too. Look, I won't lie, dios can be a difficult guy. But then again so can I, and so can a lot of people in this thread. Pointing out and attempting to modify disruptive behavior is all well and good, but when we always focus on one person (as we often tend to, and I'll cop to having participated), it gets a little to glose to junior high level bullying and ostracization for my comfort. We can say that public humiliation/dressing down is a way to get people to modify their behavior, but in my experience it tends to backfire, since it makes them feel persecuted and victimized, and thus justified in hostile behavior.

Just a theory. YMMV.
posted by jonmc at 12:33 PM on February 16, 2006

WHBT.

Again.
posted by dersins at 12:37 PM on February 16, 2006

dios, simmer down. No one has called for any of your posts to be deleted, and they won't be. Just make them better. There's a good example of tasty legalfilter on the front page right now re: the SEC.
posted by bardic at 12:37 PM on February 16, 2006

Well, it's clear that this is, indeed, all some kind of attempt to make a point about Metafilter. Sorry I wasted my time trying to be constructive.
posted by selfnoise at 12:37 PM on February 16, 2006

Unbelievable. Just unbelievable.

And there's the payoff!
posted by ereshkigal45 at 12:38 PM on February 16, 2006

If you don't like them, then skip it.

you don't like Bush/Iraq/etc threads.
but you don't skip them, you shit in them, and cheerfully so.

and, by the way, you still seem to have a pretty short fuse
posted by matteo at 12:39 PM on February 16, 2006

Is it possible to make an interesting post about something called "Supplemental Jurisdiction"?
posted by smackfu at 12:40 PM on February 16, 2006

I'm a troll in every political thread that I particpate in, according to some. And when I make front page posts, I get called a troll for doing that. Of course, if I point out how unfair that is, someone will say I have a persecution complex.

Or, what jonmc said.
posted by dios at 12:41 PM on February 16, 2006

amberglow posts essentially the exact same post over and over, and no one seems to complain.

Maybe you have an inner conflict, one which only a naked dual with dios can ameliorate.
posted by The Jesse Helms at 12:42 PM on February 16, 2006

matteo, as I said before, dios seems to be trying to contribute something positive with his legal threads*, and that should be encouraged. and as I also said, I think repeatedly dressing people down publicly dosen't have the effect we'd like it to.


* and these two FPP's which were very nicely done, IMHO.
posted by jonmc at 12:44 PM on February 16, 2006

amberglow posts essentially the exact same post over and over, and no one seems to complain.

that's a stretch.

look, my advice in a nutshell is as follows:

dios: in Iraq/Bush threads, maybe pull it in a notch. People may get all hot to give you a hard time because of your reputation, which might be unfair, but that's the way it crumbles cookie-wise. If you do act more civil there it will go along way towards showing good faith.

the rest of us: maybe we should resist the opportunity to dress the poor guy down every chance we get. It seems a little mean spirited and I think it has the opposite of the intended effect.

myself: go get a beer.
posted by jonmc at 12:47 PM on February 16, 2006

If so, what's to be done with someone deliberately posting crappy FPPs?

That's your opinion that they're crappy. You don't speak for the community. I think they're great, as do several others in this thread. I do think that most of the bush sucks posts are crappy. But I don't speak for the community either.

It really is quite comical. Just a few threads ago those of us who were complaining about the noise on the front page were told that we should quit crying to mommy and daddy and post things that interested us.

Dios does exactly that an is called out. Let's make up our minds, please.
posted by justgary at 12:48 PM on February 16, 2006

You really think people don't like jargony lawyer posts just because dios posted them?
posted by smackfu at 12:49 PM on February 16, 2006

dios writes "I would point out that people don't seem to have any problem deciphering legal opinions and statutes when it is about some topic tangentially related to partisan politics or their pet issue."

Well, no shit dios. When it involves a "pet issue", it's just human nature that people will be motivated to work harder to "prove" a point or "win" an argument. Human nature, my friend.

But you haven't given anybody a similar motivation to understand your stuff.

amberglow's right: MeFi's a potluck buffet. But you've presented us with an unlabelled casserole dish of mystery meat.

It may be great tasting. It might contain stuff I'm allergic to.* It might be my favorite dish in the whole world. It might be disgusting pork.

But since you won't label it and it's not obvious what it is, most of us are going to say to ourselves, "too much trouble" and head for the obvious shrimp and skewers and kabobs and strawberry short-cake.

Again, human nature.

"But when the post is purely procedural law, suddenly opinions are foreign languages? Suddenly statutes are indecipherable? Of course in those cases where Metafilter posters do pontificate about statutes, they usually have some oversimiplified [sic] slanted primer from their favorite partisan site or action item from some group"

And getting up at the potluck and denouncing everyone for not trying dios's mystery meat, well, I guess that's human nature too, but it doesn't make anyone want to try it.

Hey, dios, I've posted a couple of incomprehensible, over-meaty FPPs too. Ones I worked really hard on, ones that contained some interesting stuff. But since I didn't make the contents clear enough, they got "meh" responses.

Sure, we all hate you, but it's not all about you. Sometimes you work real hard but you end up with mystery meat. Nothing personal.

Again, it's cool you worked so hard, and if you'd explained why I should care I might have gone to the trouble to read the links, and I hope you'll keep working on good meaty FPPs, but add a little seasoning and a label next time, ok?

Good work, and don't fret, and don't be posting jargon just to spite the libtards, ok?
posted by orthogonality at 12:50 PM on February 16, 2006

dios, you don't need to defend yourself. You have done nothing wrong. Your posts are fine, and if others don't understand them or find the links behind them too long or above their reading comprehension level then that is their problem. They can move on to the next Bush sucks/Cheney is evil thread, or they can find something else that does interest them. You are not obligated to entertain everyone here.

This callout was lame.
posted by terrapin at 12:51 PM on February 16, 2006

(turns on hypocracy meter)[BOOOOOOOOM!!!!!!]

(looks around in stunned silence)

You know,I think there's plenty of room under the MeFi tent for obscure law posts, especially considering some of the cruft that has been posted here. I think people are getting their undies in a twist because of the poster, not the post. Well too bad. I didn't read the links in the post Dios made, and I probably wont because I'm not really interested in them, but I am glad they're there because it tells me that there's room for a lot more on Metafilter than I've yet seen. You don't have to love every post or even expect to, but please, whining helps no one.
posted by blue_beetle at 12:52 PM on February 16, 2006

(mourns the death of the blink and marquee tags)
posted by blue_beetle at 12:52 PM on February 16, 2006

* I don't actually have any allergies, of course.
posted by orthogonality at 12:52 PM on February 16, 2006

Dios, read this complaint about my FPP and my response.
posted by orthogonality at 12:59 PM on February 16, 2006

I think it's fantastic that dios is making FPPS. And maybe he is still finding his posting style - the more he makes the better they will become?

But, dios, I don't agree with you saying "I'm not going to spoon feed anyone". There can be up to 50 links a day on just this one website, we don't have the time to figure out if we want to spend some time reading the links. We all skim the front page looking for something that grabs our interest. So a plain English summary would drag many more people into exploring your links. It's not dumbing down - it's summarizing for non-lawyers [and going on some of the comments above for lawyers as well]
posted by meech at 1:00 PM on February 16, 2006

You can call it dumbing down. I am undeniably dumber about the law than someone who went to law school. I'm OK with that.
posted by smackfu at 1:03 PM on February 16, 2006

I'm posting in french to french links from now on.

If any of you complain I will be outraged. Outraged I tell you.

Incomprehensible FPPs about potentially interesting topics that only become interesting once somebody else with the required background translates the issue into plain english deserve respect? I guess when your are perceived as someone who shits all over it is a success when you finally shit in the bathroom even if does end up hitting the floor.

That said...they were interesting once translated...take some of the feedback and you might actually get some interesting discussion about the issues rather than the style and rehab your rep.
posted by srboisvert at 1:06 PM on February 16, 2006

Seriously. Asperger's. Look it up. High-functioning in very specific disciplines, especially ones with a lot of technical aspects or odd details, but a sad inability to communicate about these topics or any others.
posted by rxrfrx at 1:07 PM on February 16, 2006

I'm posting in french to french links from now on.

If any of you complain I will be outraged. Outraged I tell you.

Sacre Bleu!
posted by jonmc at 1:07 PM on February 16, 2006

Would this have made things clearer?

"What is jurisdiction?
Jurisdiction is a term that refers to whether a court has the power to hear a given case. Jurisdiction is important because it limits the power of a court to hear certain cases. If courts did not exercise appropriate jurisdiction, every court could conceivably hear every case brought to them, which would lead to confusing and contradictory results.

The concept of jurisdiction is a little easier to understand in state courts. Every state in the United States has its own court system to hear cases arising from that state. Suppose that a citizen of Mississippi sued a citizen of Alabama in a case involving a real estate transaction that took place in Georgia. The case could be brought in state court in Mississippi, or Alabama, because of where the parties live, or in Georgia, because of where the property at issue is located. However, such a case could not be brought in the state of Alaska, because none of the parties live there, and the state of Alaska has no attachment to the case at all. The Alaska court would dismiss any claims in this example because it would not have the appropriate jurisdiction.

A federal court, on the other hand, has more extensive jurisdiction than a state court. While the jurisdiction of state courts are limited by their boundaries, the federal court system covers the entire nation. For example, the Supreme Court can hear cases from any state. Federal Courts of Appeal can hear cases from any of the states in their region (except for the D.C. Circuit, which only hears cases from the District of Columbia). The federal courts also have jurisdiction on some cases where one party is outside of the United States of America.

Another form of jurisdiction is what is known as "subject matter jurisdiction" -- whether a given federal court can rule on the subject matter of the case in question. For example, no federal court has "subject matter jurisdiction" to probate a will. The probate process has, traditionally, always been left up to the individual state courts. In contrast, cases involving patents are always in the "subject matter jurisdiction" of federal courts. Because the Constitution gives Congress the specific power to regulate the patent system, state courts do not have the appropriate jurisdiction to hear patent cases. Federal courts also have "exclusive" subject matter jurisdiction over copyright cases, admiralty cases, lawsuits involving the military, immigration laws, and bankruptcy proceedings.

There are three main types of "subject matter jurisdiction" in the federal court system - "federal question jurisdiction" , "diversity jurisdiction" , and "supplemental jurisdiction" ."
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 1:09 PM on February 16, 2006

Because that's a pretty jargon-free introduction to the issue.



And it's also what you would have read if you'd clicked the words "Supplemental Jurisdiction" in dios' post.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 1:14 PM on February 16, 2006

But Flo, that ain't "succinct"!
posted by mischief at 1:17 PM on February 16, 2006

I liked the posts because I learned something.
Know what I learned? I learned that an interlocutory appeal can include nonappealable pendent issues, even though the courts are wary of them. I didn't know that before.
I'm going to use that little nugget when I go out drinking with that cute little red-headed lawyer tonight, that'll be sure to rustle her briefs.
Honestly, I don't think dios can post anything here without catching shit anymore, his reputation is just too well established.
I think it's time for you to retire your username, dios. Face it, you're damned if you do, and damned if you're dios.
posted by Floydd at 1:20 PM on February 16, 2006

Que faire du «Clemenceau»?

Au lendemain de l'ordre donné par Jacques Chirac de rapatrier l'ancien porte-avions vers la France, c'est la question que tout le monde se pose:

• Faut-il le désamianter à Brest ?
• Dans une structure spécialement créée au niveau européen

Coming Soon: German-language post on Hans Magnus Enzensberger
posted by matteo at 1:22 PM on February 16, 2006

Coming Soon: German-language post

I see Nussing! Nussing!
posted by jonmc at 1:27 PM on February 16, 2006

dios' post may have included a bit of jargon, but it certainly wasn't a foreign language. Not only was his post perfectly comprehensible English, it linked to a variety of material, including, as IRFH points out, plain English explanations of jurisdictional concepts. Go ahead and post in a foreign language, if you like, but don't pretend it's equivalent.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 1:27 PM on February 16, 2006

Maybe I could post sonnets in binary. That would fucking rock.

Actually, I think this is a good development, in that dios has taken the matter of quality into his own hands, instead of consistently haranguing against the quality of the works of others.

While no one but number 1 (and jessamyn) have the power to censor, we all have the ability to make better posts.
posted by Freen at 1:29 PM on February 16, 2006

Istenlay, it'shay onlyhay a ebsiteway.
posted by jonmc at 1:30 PM on February 16, 2006

Four paragraphs seemed pretty succinct to me. Took maybe 20 seconds to read, eminently comprehensible and dovetails quite nicely into all of the information packed into dios' post. Excellent work.


"But Flo, that ain't "succinct"!"
mischief
posted by Captaintripps at 1:31 PM on February 16, 2006

Except that it doesn't even mention "supplemental jurisdiction" until the last two words and doesn't define the concept. (Though the actual link eventually gets around to that around paragraph 12.)
posted by smackfu at 1:33 PM on February 16, 2006

Like I said. Dovetails nicely.
posted by Captaintripps at 1:34 PM on February 16, 2006

I tried to write a plain-English summary of the issue in dios' post here, if anyone is interested.

I was deeply grateful for it, as I'm sure were others. And dios, I think including at least a hint of explanation in your otherwise excellent legal posts wouldn't hurt them and would attract readers whose eyes might otherwise glaze over.

matteo, your personal vendettas are getting as boring as those of Someone Who Shall Not Be Named Because He's No Longer Here to Defend Himself. That said, I hope you will post on HME, a fascinating guy too little known in the Anglosphere. Your posts, unlike your potshots, are uniformly excellent.
posted by languagehat at 1:36 PM on February 16, 2006

dios's posts were succincter.
posted by mischief at 1:36 PM on February 16, 2006

"at least a hint of explanation"

Alt text isn't enough?
posted by mischief at 1:37 PM on February 16, 2006

I do not understand the argument that is might as well be a foreign language or binary; that it is too hard to understand. People seem quite able to read and understand that foreign language when it comes to expressing opinions on FISA, or some campaign finance law, or Doe v. Goody or any number of other complex legal issues that happen to be in the news. When that is the case, people seem perfectly willing to speak confidently from a position of certainty about what the law is. Yet here, people are saying it might as well be in foreign language even though I clearly marked a link an "introductory explanation" right in the title and there are plain English words used throughout. The argument that it is effectively a foreign language seems hollow.

The links all contain the information necessary to understand this; it is self-contained. It isn't like it is news story that requires people to know about facts X, Y and Z which have already occurred. It's all right there. If people don't want to read the links, then that is fine. But it seems a little odd to criticize the post because it doesn't explain itself when one is refusing to read the links to find out what it is about. It is there to be understood in the link... links which are the focus of the site. I'm not trying to be deliberately obscure, but there is no way for me to make a primer unless I cut and paste an entire article and eat up real estate. I certainly don't want to do that. So I relied on the links to give background to those that needed it.
posted by dios at 1:39 PM on February 16, 2006

Beautiful, more cult/anti-cult of personality stuff. The glue that binds the gears of community together.
posted by sonofsamiam at 1:40 PM on February 16, 2006

Hey dios: ever consider just not responding to a call-out?

I can see responding to someone pooping in your thread, but responding to a call-out in MetaTalk really puts the power in the call-out proponent's hands.

If you never come by to say anything...well...what the hell are they gonna do about it?
posted by Captaintripps at 1:45 PM on February 16, 2006

Another vote FOR dios' posts and AGAINST more bushfilter. The folks calling dios out for this are not doing so out of their love of Metafilter, their disingenous statements aside.

Dios: thanks for the posts.
posted by aberrant at 1:45 PM on February 16, 2006

When that is the case, people seem perfectly willing to speak confidently from a position of certainty about what the law is.

Yeah, but they're usually wrong.
posted by smackfu at 1:45 PM on February 16, 2006

I've enjoyed Dios's legal FPPs. There are lots of other FPPs that don't interest me, so I don't read them. Life is short.
posted by subgenius at 1:51 PM on February 16, 2006

dios, I know what you're saying, and of course you're right that if one follows the links one will be educated enough to understand the post. All I'm saying (and others who are basically supportive) is that if you include a teaser giving an idea of what the post is about, people will have more incentive to click the links. Me, I'd have included something like this (swiping part of monju's summary

Supplemental jurisdiction gives federal courts jurisdiction over class actions involving state law claims. Most plaintiffs like to bring their state-law claims in state court, while corporations like to remove those cases to federal court where they perceive a better chance of prevailing.

You could probably pare it down more, but you see what I'm getting at—with that information, people will get a sense of why they might be interested.
posted by languagehat at 1:51 PM on February 16, 2006

This callout is total bullshit. If you don't understand some aspect of a post then feel free to request a clarification in the thread. dios or somebody else will likely provide a "translation" for you. It's that simple. Whether dios is posting in bad faith is irrelevant. This isn't rocket science people.
posted by nixerman at 1:58 PM on February 16, 2006

Succinctineity, Succinction?
posted by blue_beetle at 2:02 PM on February 16, 2006

bb: I liked it cuz it rhymes with sphincter.
posted by mischief at 2:05 PM on February 16, 2006

Dios, I didn't read your posts. I considered it, but didn't have time. They looked interesting to me. I hope to peruse them in the future. There is no reason they must be accessible to everybody. There is no requirement that people must read (and understand) every post. You are firmly in the right in this matter.
posted by Roger Dodger at 2:21 PM on February 16, 2006

Stupid callout.
posted by event at 2:25 PM on February 16, 2006

From jonmc myself: go get a beer.
Thank god something good came out of this. See you there, man.
posted by boo_radley at 2:33 PM on February 16, 2006

Not a good callout at all .
posted by sgt.serenity at 2:42 PM on February 16, 2006

You could probably pare it down more, but you see what I'm getting at—with that information, people will get a sense of why they might be interested.
posted by languagehat at 3:51 PM CST on February 16

I understand what you are saying. But the teaser line would be have to be something as small as "This deals with whether your case might get removed to federal court." Anything beyond that requires an explanation that was better put forth in the link I entitled "Introduction to Federal Jurisdiction Concepts." That is as distilled as its going to get.

I will see if I can try to include a MI that kind of bullet points the general topic in the future. But I still submit that as it is, it isn't accessible. Nor am I convinced that people are really objecting to the complexity. 28 USC 1367, the statute on pendent jurisdiction, is about 30 lines long, and I linked to the 4 cases which cover the scope of the topic (as well as numerous articles going into the topic further). People are saying that might as well be French because it is too indecipherable. Yet, just now there is a post about the DMCA, 17 USC 1201 et. seq., which is upwards of 1,000 lines long with numerous circuit opinions and splits and AG opinions and Supreme Court opinions all dealing with the multifarious issues involved in that statute. And yet, people seem to think that topic is sufficiently accessible that people speak freely about what the law in the area is. So I am having a hard time understanding why my topic is considered so dense. Does the same complaint attach to my post yesterday, as well?

This topic is interesting to some as is. It could have been interesting to more had I tried to frame as something worthy of strong opinions or interest in (it isn't such a topic; but important nonetheless). Perhaps I should have facilitated that better, but I'm not sure I easily could have done so. Not every topic has to be something that is worthy of outrage or praise. Some topics just are.

It is beyond me why my posts could be the source of such concern.
posted by dios at 2:48 PM on February 16, 2006

(I'm amazed how often I include the "n't" when I shoudln't or forget it when I should).
posted by dios at 2:49 PM on February 16, 2006

dios, your posts do require deciphering. This is not of itself a terrible evil, it just limits the number of members that will click on the links and enter into the discussion.

I think it's just a matter of style. Don't make people work hard to find out what the post is about. Be very clear, very non-technical and very succinct. Then add all the detail that you feel is neccessary in a following paragraph or even better as a [more inside].

Also I don't believe that this is a "dios" callout, but someone calling attention to a member that has made three consecutive FPPs that are outside of the usual Metafilter style. We shouldn't be playing the blame game [and most people aren't] but it is worth discussing.

On Preview: nice work dios
posted by meech at 2:51 PM on February 16, 2006

Beer is for pussies. I'm going out for some pruno.
posted by Astro Zombie at 2:53 PM on February 16, 2006

Now, what have we learned?

when dios recived constructive criticism from me amd the 'hat he reesponded well. Something to keep in mind.

I'm going out for some pruno.

pruno is prison hooch, dude. If you're drinking that, I'll assume you aren't 'going out,' period.
posted by jonmc at 3:02 PM on February 16, 2006

Bogus callout. I enjoyed the supplemental jurisdiction post even though it did give me a flashbacks of being in, shudder, civ pro.
posted by Carbolic at 3:02 PM on February 16, 2006

It is beyond me why my posts could be the source of such concern

brother, i feel ya.
posted by lord_wolf at 3:28 PM on February 16, 2006

brother, i feel ya.

well, shit, man, at least buy him a drink first.
posted by jonmc at 3:30 PM on February 16, 2006

I like them.
posted by onlyconnect at 3:30 PM on February 16, 2006

I'm going out, getting in a fight with some cops, working my way through the resulting legal mess with an incompetent lawyer, cursing at my sentencing judge, and then relaxing afterward in my cell with some pruno. This is a legal thread, after all.

Why is that so hard to understand, johnmc?
posted by Astro Zombie at 3:30 PM on February 16, 2006

well, since you put it that way...

give me and the boys 2 cartons of smokes or we'll rough ya up.

*brandishes sharpened toothbrush*
*brushes teeth, immediately regrets it*
posted by jonmc at 3:42 PM on February 16, 2006

I got a legal thread, once. I had posted a picture on my blog of Goofy schtupping Ava Gardner, and, well, let's just say that I had expected that someone who's worked with Robin Williams as often as Mr. Eisner has to have a better sense of humor.
posted by cortex at 3:48 PM on February 16, 2006

MetaTalk: a dios callout every month or your money back
posted by brain_drain at 3:51 PM on February 16, 2006

> dios' post may have included a bit of jargon, but it certainly wasn't a foreign language.

Neither is German. It's just English with garbled syntax and a thick accent.
posted by jfuller at 4:05 PM on February 16, 2006

Jeez. I'm actually beginning to feel sorry for dios. And he didn't even go quail hunting.
posted by orthogonality at 4:06 PM on February 16, 2006

The real wisdom of this discussion is that jursidiction is a sucky issue to read about, even if you do study law.
posted by Yelling At Nothing at 4:22 PM on February 16, 2006

Astro Zombie : "Beer is for pussies. I'm going out for some pruno."


*passes Astro Zombie a skittlebrau.*
posted by graventy at 4:23 PM on February 16, 2006

Speaking of Legal Shit, you gotta check out this n00b lawyer's idiot response to the firm that was going to hire her!

Diana Abdala.
posted by five fresh fish at 4:25 PM on February 16, 2006

For the Record, I thought the posts sucked before I realized that Dios posted them....But I don't think they sucked enough to warrant a MeTa thread!!
posted by Megafly at 4:46 PM on February 16, 2006

I skipped them, too many links. You put a lot of work into them, I will acknowledge that, but you need an editor. Or at least an {mi}. Your first post was 8 links, your second was 16, your third was twenty.

I will freely admit to not even trying to read them because of the volume of linkage. I might have been more inclined to read them if they'd been constructed differently, as others have described, but they weren't so I didn't. You law-dudes want some comfort food, it's no skin off my nose.
posted by quantumetric at 5:08 PM on February 16, 2006

goddamn it, furtive...
posted by scarabic at 5:42 PM on February 16, 2006

When I came across the first of these posts, I thought it was an aberration. Dios works hard to present us with interesting posts -- of the other 11, only one was a single-link post -- and they are diverse, well-written, and have subject matter that could appeal to the majority of the readers. These last three, however, seem intentionally narrow and obscure and I took them to be a passive-aggressive attack on the MeFi community. I was betting myself there would be a callout after the second one.
posted by forrest at 5:46 PM on February 16, 2006

Apparently I'm one of the only people firmly convinced that dios posts as he does (not what he does, that's of some quality) to show us all what a big ole brain he's got. Here we have folks arguing whether jargon is intelligible
when the point of this all is why the poster posts as he does, a point he's managed to slip, bluster and buffalo his way around since the third comment in this call out.

There are very good legal blogs out there, and not a one of them I've read is as arrogant as any of dios' legal posts here. That's because most of those folks consider and desire an audience. I get the feeling through and through that dios just desired an opportunity to spit out the phrase "if you don't like it, skip it!".
Well okay, cupcake, I don't and I will. And that has nothing to do with your jargon or the quantity of your links and certainly it's not that I don't understand your point. It has to do with the fact that I've no interest in stroking your ego by reading crap much better explained elsewhere.

Let me ask the rest of you something; If you went to an attorney to ask legal advice, and he fed you a dios post as response, would you hire him? I'm thinking ... not so much.

And for what it's worth, I don't support deletion of a dios FPP ego spew. I still believe in just skipping such crap. But those of you offering suggestions to the man as to how to improve his posting skills are completely missing the point. He's smarter than you, in his own mind, and he wants to build cred by letting you know that. Witness his bullshit false-equivalence throughout this thread in equating his posts to political axe-grinders. They want you to agree with their stances, and dios wants you to agree that he's better than you. Not the same thing at all. Methinks he's duping you. Methinks he's doing a good job of that very thing.
posted by Wulfgar! at 5:51 PM on February 16, 2006

People seem quite able to read and understand that foreign language when it comes to expressing opinions on FISA, or some campaign finance law, or Doe v. Goody or any number of other complex legal issues that happen to be in the news.

See, that's because the little box with the pretty pictures and the funny noises tells them what to think.

Me, I like primary sources, and I like reading what the law actually fucking says when I'm reading about the law, rather than reading the generally-uninformed opinion of some twat on Slashdot, in Wired, or in the Times. When I have questions about a court case, I read the fucking decision. When I have questions about copyright, I pull out the copy of USC 17 sitting on my shelf and look up case law (or did, when I had access to Lexis-Nexis). And I dropped out of a fifth-rate junior college. Seriously, have your attention spans been so savagely brutalized by twentieth-century public education that you've become incapable of reading an English paragraph when it's got a § in front of it? Are you really complaining because you're getting links to reliable and informed sources instead of some halfwit blogger's quasiliterate rantings, or some hungover journalist's feeble attempt at legal analysis on deadline? How pathetic.
posted by IshmaelGraves at 5:51 PM on February 16, 2006

Dios posts confuse me because they contain no Flickr photo sets, Google Video or Flash. Please work on that Dios.
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 6:12 PM on February 16, 2006

posted by orthogonality at 6:18 PM on February 16, 2006

I'm just thinking of all the european laws that have been passed and not a single news source in the uk has actually explained them to people - i know i have enhanced rights in some way or other - but the newspapers skipped that bit.
It would be great if somebody could post what they are.

Anyway , never mind me , back on to the business at hand .
posted by sgt.serenity at 6:19 PM on February 16, 2006

Mmm...bile...
posted by event at 6:26 PM on February 16, 2006

I kept at it andgraduated from law school precisely so I wouldn't have to read articles like those any more.
posted by yhbc at 6:49 PM on February 16, 2006

Dios, your bitching about how people think they know a lot on some topics in law, while they plead inaccessability in this case, is a valid point and probably its implications are correct. But you harping on it in this context really, really makes it look like you've constructed these posts for (at least partly) exactly that reason: to prove that metapoint.

Others will disagree, but I think that posts that are implicitly metacommentary on metafilter are bad. They're bad. They hurt America.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 6:52 PM on February 16, 2006

"Get a legal blog."

*gets an illegal blog, ends up in home detention with Kevin Mitnick*
posted by mr_crash_davis at 7:20 PM on February 16, 2006

event, if you have a point, make it. Otherwise mmm.. bile.
posted by Wulfgar! at 7:23 PM on February 16, 2006

My FPP was this big, I tell ya, thiis big.


posted by lalochezia at 7:24 PM on February 16, 2006

Listen, there's one very clear metric by which metafilter posts are valued:

Does it contain a youtube link? If yes, then it's all good. If not, then it's bad.

seriously, though, I think someone (an admin, please?) needs to say that there is absolutely no rule whatsoever about posting repeatedly on a particular area of interest, nor should there be. GYOBFW is a comment that should be pointed at people who use metafilter as their personal journal, and sometimes for excessive soapboxing.

as rarely as I post, it's almost always about video games and/or science fiction.
y2karl has made many quality posts about the history of racism.

there are other posters who have routinely made quality posts about photography, architecture, iraq war abuses, presidential history, brains, art history, music, and pancakes.

none of these people should get their own blogs. No, these people should continue making strong contributions to metafilter, because without them we're just stuck with all of you assholes whining all the time.

If I had to choose my preferred way for this thread to close, it would have mathowie making the last comment and that comment saying this: "there's nothing wrong with consistently making well informed and thoughtful posts about one particular topic."

and then a little note about how the thread is closed to further comments.
posted by shmegegge at 7:44 PM on February 16, 2006

Well at least we have this thread to differentiate between those who objectively criticize dios and those who lash out at him blindly every chance they get.
posted by Krrrlson at 7:55 PM on February 16, 2006

and those of us that have a little shrine to him in the corners of blackened hearts...
posted by jonson at 8:00 PM on February 16, 2006

I support dios or Seth or anyone else making whatever front page post trips his/her trigger. Skip it if you don't like it.

Now, perhaps dios could learn to allow others the same privilege. Too many of his/her comments really come down to this: dios disagrees with your views, your views obviously bother dios on an emotional level, but dios doesn't really have clue one as to how to refute those views. Subsequently, like more than a few other well known conservatives here, dios will repeatedly call for suppression of said views, in thread, and in MeTa, and when he's legitimately criticized for that, he howls that he's Mefi's biggest victim.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 9:29 PM on February 16, 2006

What a load of horseshit.
Dios makes posts that:

a) Require a certain level of thought, and not just a kneejerk response,
b) Isn't something I'll see on every other blog or CNN's homepage,
c) Has more than one link in it,

and people are still bitching?

Repeat after me, whiners: It's "Best of the Web", not "Best of Your Web".
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 10:31 PM on February 16, 2006

MetaTalk: we're just stuck with all of you assholes whining all the time.
posted by loquacious at 11:06 PM on February 16, 2006

Dios:

As I mentioned in the pot-luck thread, it seems (to me) like there are three types of MeFi FPPs:

1) Posts which are bad, which I have no interest in.
2) Posts which are not bad, yet which I have no interest in.
3) Posts which are not bad, which I like.

Of course, this is incredibly subjective and, henceforth, foundationless, but it seems real to me.

Dios's new posts fit in category 2. No inclination to click, no interest, yet not bad. Categories 2 and 3 are fine by me, so I support these posts.
posted by Bugbread at 11:06 PM on February 16, 2006

...you know how to whistle, right? Just pucker up and blow...
posted by loquacious at 11:06 PM on February 16, 2006

It's just English with garbled syntax and a thick accent.
posted by matteo at 6:02 AM on February 17, 2006

Seems to me that what I think of as the standard—that the quality is in the link and the posting is for MeFi and not the poster's own gratification—makes sense and is intuitively obvious.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 6:18 AM on February 17, 2006

Dios's new posts fit in category 2. No inclination to click, no interest, yet not bad. Categories 2 and 3 are fine by me, so I support these posts.

The thing is it is an interesting issue! The problem is that the post is written for a legal technical audience which probably 95% of metafilter isn't. Image if we all started posting in our own discipline specific technical languages how unbelievable obtuse this place would be.

To write a post that ignores the nature of audience and then to get upset about it when they complain is pretty unreasonable. The failure isn't on the readers side when something is too dense or requires too much background to read.

I have no problem with legal posts. I do have a problem with jargon filled discipline specific language that presupposes a background that the writer knows the audience doesn't have. So in that sense I actually agree with Furtive's call out. If you want to presuppose that your audience are legal professionals than go to a legal professional community or start your own. If you want to communicate with the general population then make the actual effort to communicate.

If that is too much bother then don't be surprised by the response.
posted by srboisvert at 6:37 AM on February 17, 2006

I like dios' legal posts and hate his political comments, so I'm for the posts.
posted by By The Grace of God at 7:20 AM on February 17, 2006

Removing the citations (you know, the things in the parantheses), dates, and a few numbers:

"[This US code] was a controversial and confusing attempt by Congress to codify and address the issue of Supplemental Jurisdiction established in [prior] cases. The Supreme Court tried to clarify some of the confusing issues regarding this code in a 2005 opinion. The question of whether the Court clarified the issue or made it more complicated remains arguably nanswered."

"The 2005 Annual Survey on Choice of Law in American Courts. The survey on Choice of Law looks at the recent controversial Supreme Court ruling dealing with conflict of laws. At issue in Spector was whether disability statutes applied to ships that depart from Texas and travel through domestic waters but fly under the flag of the Bahamas."


"[A] Proposed Federal Rule is an attempt to resolve a dispute in federal court practice over the propriety of citations to unpublished opinions. It is an argument that has been played out in academic papers and Circuit Courts. Judge Richard Arnold of the 8th Circuit, writing for the majority, held that local rules which declare that unpublished opinions are not precedent are unconstitutional under Article III. [One case], vacated as moot on reh'g en banc. Judge Alex Kozinski of the 9th Circuit disagreed, holding that nonprecedential decisions are not inconsistent with the exercise of the judicial power. The proposed Rule would resolve the circuit split, but the debate rages on."

Except for reh'g en banc, I do not see one term or sentence construction in those posts that is beyond the comprehension of the average MeFite.

Give it up guys; you're either full of shit or admitting ignorance.
posted by mischief at 7:46 AM on February 17, 2006

... and for goodness sakes, if dios's posts confound you, then don't bother reading any work written prior to the 20th century. I wouldn't want you to hurt your wittle heads.
posted by mischief at 7:55 AM on February 17, 2006

There is nothing wrong with admitting ignorance. ;)
posted by sciurus at 7:57 AM on February 17, 2006

I, for one, welcome our new Judicial Blogging Overlord.
posted by JeffK at 7:59 AM on February 17, 2006

It's mandating ignorance that I have a problem with.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 8:00 AM on February 17, 2006

Removing the citations (you know, the things in the parantheses), dates, and a few numbers:

You didn't really remove them though... you just rewrote them to be less jargony. Which is exactly what people are asking for.
posted by smackfu at 8:02 AM on February 17, 2006

My only complaint, as has been mentioned, is that there is no hook. The FPPs are deliberately obtuse and introverted. There is nothing in the text body of the of the FPP that makes me think I'd understand it more if I were to follow the links.

I look at metafilter FPPs as magazine articles that edify and entertain. The wording is an important part of getting people interested in what you have to say. Quoting numbers and laws without any context is just lazy writing. You don't have to be condescending to make sense to us common people. Dios' FPP reads more like a specialist book for people already well-versed in a specific subject matter. Wulfgar is on to something with his comment. I read plenty of medical blogs that are "over my head" but still grab my interest.

I'm not necessarily saying that metafilter should exclusively have one or the other, just that dios doesn't seem to be looking for conversation or engaging an audience.

And, ultimately, that's his choice. I just feel that I'm missing out on something that I could potentially find fascinating. So, at least occasionally, dios, humour the IANAL-crowd and see if we can't provide some interesting questions/comments.
posted by slimepuppy at 8:04 AM on February 17, 2006

Oh, and mischief is probably right. I'm full of shit and ignorant.
But good use of the Baby Wants His Bottle-method of winning an argument. Top scores for that.
posted by slimepuppy at 8:07 AM on February 17, 2006

Here is what I removed:

28 U.S.C 1367
United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 (1966)
Zahn v. International Paper, Co., 414 U.S. 291 (1973)
Finley v. United States, 490 U.S. 545 (1989)
1367
Exxon Mobil Corp v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., (2005)
(Kennedy, J., writing for the Court)
(Stevens, J., dissenting)
(Ginsburg, J., dissenting)

[pdf]
See Spector v. Norwegian Cruise Line, Ltd., 125 S.Ct. 2169 (2005).
(Kennedy, J., writing the opinion of the Court)
(Ginsburg, J., concurring)
(Scalia, J., dissenting)
(Thomas, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part)
Other 2005 Supreme Court conflict of laws cases included Small v. United States and Pasquantino v. United States.

Appellate Procedure 32.1. Proposed Rule 32.1 [.pdf]
Anastasoff v. United States, 223 F.3d 898, 900(8th Cir. 2000)
Hart v. Massanari, 226 F.3d 1155, 1163 (9th Cir. 2001)\

Now, can you honestly tell me you cannot tell me the gist of each line?

Oh, excuse me, [pdf] might give you some trouble.
posted by mischief at 8:12 AM on February 17, 2006

What I find interesting is how much work people are willing to put into telling dios that his post was too much work to read.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 8:14 AM on February 17, 2006

This thread probably explains why AskMe is so full of stupid questions.
posted by mischief at 8:21 AM on February 17, 2006

I saw this as an opportunity to impart some constructive criticism to somebody who obviously wants to contribute to metafilter. Feel free to disagree and there's nothing here that dios must do. Merely suggestions that I hope he takes into consideration.

And, if nothing else, I now know to ignore mischief.
posted by slimepuppy at 8:25 AM on February 17, 2006

Given your comments, I'll bet "ignore" makes up a large part of your life. Ostrich! heheh ;-P
posted by mischief at 8:30 AM on February 17, 2006

As mischief, It's Raining, and others have pointed out--dios' legal posts are middling at best. With some revision to the framing they'd be much better. Again, if you can't see a difference in spirit between his recent post and monju_bosatsu's, you don't really read metafilter.
posted by bardic at 8:35 AM on February 17, 2006

Um, no, bardic, I thought his posts were much better than 'middling'. 'Pretty good' actually.
posted by mischief at 8:42 AM on February 17, 2006

Ditto.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 8:45 AM on February 17, 2006

mischief and raining, it's interesting that you participated in neither.
posted by bardic at 8:53 AM on February 17, 2006

OK, I'll compromise and recommend that dios no longer use a term that includes a number since varchar may confuse someone.
posted by mischief at 8:54 AM on February 17, 2006

bardic: it's about the links.
posted by mischief at 8:55 AM on February 17, 2006

9:00, time to get to work. Later, everyone!
posted by mischief at 8:59 AM on February 17, 2006

do you know what's really going on here? ... several times, when dios has gotten into political discussions and started talking about the law, a few people have accused him of only pretending to be a lawyer

so he decided to make some posts about the law to prove people wrong about that ... i'm not sure that qualifies as passive/aggressiveness ... not unless one wants to count every bush, fundies, creationists, religion sucks post as a passive/aggressive way of dealing with a world that doesn't seem to be listening to the opinions that most people here have

a lot of people use this board to pat themselves on the back for saying the right things ... but it's not like you're going to change anyone's minds, is it?

anyway ... dios' legal posts are a bit dull and dry to many of us ... i read one and missed the other two ... and whatever his intent might be in posting them, we could give him the benefit of the doubt and just say that he's posting something that doesn't interest a lot of people, but does interest some

i see nothing wrong with that ... and this is a dumb call-out

if people want to post about the arcane and subtle points of law, or programming or whatever, i don't think that's a bad thing ... we can always just ignore it if it bores us

one more thing ... as a parent of a high functioning autistic child i find all the asperger's flames to be lame, tired and ignorant
posted by pyramid termite at 9:04 AM on February 17, 2006

bardic: I mostly choose not to participate in serious threads unless I have something to contribute. I had nothing of substance to add to dios' thread, so I didn't comment there.

My participation in this thread is based on my distaste for the argument that a post isn't suitable for MetaFilter if it's challenging. Personally, I don't want MetaHomogenous. I like one-link Friday Flash bullshit, and obscure art-posts, and even a (very) little bit of newsfilter. Variety, see? It's the spice of life. I like some easy posts, I like some challenging posts. And I like that I can find both types here.

The best of the web comes in all colors, shapes, and sizes. Some of it isn't for me, some of it isn't for you. Could dios have made his post more accessible for the layman? Sure. But should he have to? I don't think so. Many people have complained here that dios didn't tell them why they should care. Personally, I appreciated that there was no editorializing. I was allowed to discover if and why I should care on my own. For me - that was like a gift. If it didn't suit you, I think that's fine. But I resent the idea that posters should have to defend a post solely on the basis of whether it panders to the common preference. The links were good - and did provide plenty of relatively simple explanation. Some of the resulting thread conversation was also quite good. Good original links + good comments thread = good post.

Incidentally, although I do think dios' recent series of posts would have been called out on style points even if it wasn't dios who had made them, I doubt the thread would have approached 200 comments. So to make the context of my comments here absolutely clear - my opinions on this subject have absolutely nothing to do with the identity of the poster (or the identities of any of the commenters here, either, for that matter).

So, having hopefully clarified any misrepresentation of my position here, I think I've probably commented too much in this thread already.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 9:35 AM on February 17, 2006

I didn't even notice they were post from dios, I just knew that they weren't of interest to me. Intentionally or not, who cares? The front page goes so fast these days they are gone before you know it. Please folks, move on. There's plenty more to see.

But I will echo that I'm glad that dios is making an effort to contribute to the community in a more positive way.

See, not all assholes and hats.
posted by fenriq at 9:35 AM on February 17, 2006

i find all the asperger's flames to be lame, tired and ignorant

No kidding.
posted by sonofsamiam at 9:36 AM on February 17, 2006

I can do haiku
spoilers for dios' posts
if you want me to.

I need no payment
simply a plate of pancakes
for me to dine on.

So in other words
stop bitching about his post
and go make your own.
posted by longbaugh at 9:49 AM on February 17, 2006

Commendable work, sir; but may I offer a suggestion?

Replace "for me to dine on" with "on which to dine", if your intent was not to raise, in your choice of phrasing, the scatological odor of Triumph.
posted by cortex at 10:07 AM on February 17, 2006

That messes up the scansion. Maybe "on which I may dine" instead?
posted by Gator at 10:09 AM on February 17, 2006

"for my consumption."
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 10:16 AM on February 17, 2006

Of course! I can't believe I didn't count my syllables. How embarrassing.
posted by cortex at 10:35 AM on February 17, 2006

Take off your panties, Metafilter members. The knots are chaffing your asses.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:47 AM on February 17, 2006

\mails panties to fff
posted by mischief at 11:06 AM on February 17, 2006

I think that the three posts to the blue were mostly a precursor for this callout, that he was betting on comming, so he could post this.

It has all been planned....by Rove.
posted by Balisong at 11:23 AM on February 17, 2006

If dios' supplemental jurisdiction post was too dense for you, I've posted some introductory material here.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 12:01 PM on February 17, 2006

\mails panties to monju_bosatsu
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 12:08 PM on February 17, 2006

There was a young man from the 'Filter,
His writing was all out of kilter,
His posts were all hated,
Objections were stated,
But then everyone settled down and had a nice warm cup of shut the fuck up.

*sips at STFU mug*
posted by longbaugh at 12:23 PM on February 17, 2006

Panties? Raining Florence Henderson?

Eww, I mean, just...

Eww
posted by mischief at 12:25 PM on February 17, 2006

HA!

*not mine*

*hers, either*
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 12:31 PM on February 17, 2006

longbaugh: That was amazing. You touched me.

*stop touching me*
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 12:34 PM on February 17, 2006

*don't couch imperatives in emote quotes, dammit; it annoys me*
posted by cortex at 12:40 PM on February 17, 2006

*OMGLOL!!! >;-p*
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 12:42 PM on February 17, 2006

It's Raining Florence Henderson: "I think I've probably commented too much in this thread already."

Somebody obviously needs to get a life.
posted by the shitty Baldwin at 12:46 PM on February 17, 2006

I loved you in Harley Davidson and the Marlboro Man.

/heterosexually.
posted by longbaugh at 12:54 PM on February 17, 2006

*.*
posted by cortex at 1:07 PM on February 17, 2006

(insert a variation of cliquish mood-lightening metacommentary here)
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 12:40 AM on February 18, 2006

I can't believe any of you think dios has changed at all. Here he is back to old tricks:

So this is a post celebrating American failures at the Olympics?

Classy.

What's that line about hating America?
posted by dios at 2:49 PM EST on February 18 [!]
posted by bardic at 12:00 PM on February 18, 2006

But, that's exactly what your post does and clearly the intent from the tone. How can you be mad that I accurately called your post what it was?

"dios has changed." I don't know what that means. If you thought that I ever proclaimed that I wouldn't call a spade a spade, then you imagined that up yourself.
posted by dios at 12:05 PM on February 18, 2006

Whatever jerk. Practice what you preach, mkay? You've been pulling this shit ever since you joined. Stick to linking 200-page PDF's and stop shitting in other threads.
posted by bardic at 12:27 PM on February 18, 2006

You made a thread celebrating American's losing at the Olympics. If you are angry that someone pointed out your obvious intent, that is your problem. But clarifying that post is not "shitting in a thread." If you don't want to called for being classless and trumpeting your schadenfreude, then don't make a post like that. There are plenty of ways you could have made a post about the Olympics, but you chose that tone, not me.
posted by dios at 12:34 PM on February 18, 2006

You're a sad little fuck dios. I'm glad this thread is still open, because every time you open your mouth you demonstrate this fact more deeply. The olympic thread is still open too--in it, there's a decent discussion going on regarding Shani Davis, the Swiss and Slovak hockey teams, Kildow's bravery, etc. You wouldn't know this, because you don't give a damn. So I'll repeat your own advice: "If you don't like it skip it." What's so hard about that?
posted by bardic at 12:42 PM on February 18, 2006

I didn't say the thread shouldn't be there. I pointed out the clear schadenfreude and celebration of the losing of Americans. You can try to pretend that isn't want you intended. You can allege that you were trying to share good news about a black guy winning a medal. But your post clearly indicates an intent to laugh at the misfortune of Americans.

To make the point clearer:

The first 8 links are about problems Americans have faced. You didn't address any of the positive stories or the leading number of gold medals America has won. You were focusing on American losses and embarassment. Granted you threw in the spoiler bit about the black guy winning (perhaps having a black guy winning was something that you valued more than an American losing). And then you indicated a positive view of the fact that Norway was leading in the medal count.

But the key is in the last comment. "Other losers: NBC."

You called these Olympians losers. These are atheletes who have worked their whole life in their speciality. They get chosed to represent their country, and because they don't finish first, you call them losers.

No thinking individual can read your post and not see the clear schadenfreude.

I called you on it.

I didn't say the post shouldn't be there. I didn't say I didn't like it. I didn't have a need to skip it.

But I was correct to point out the tone in your post. You can act like such a comment was beyond the pale and completely inappropriate. But it was accurate whether you liked it or not.

Classy people don't cheer in the misfortune of others.
posted by dios at 12:50 PM on February 18, 2006

If you don't like it skip it.
posted by dios at 1:57 PM EST on February 16 [!]
posted by bardic at 12:55 PM on February 18, 2006

And thank you for your recent comments here--I've bookmarked them and will direct mefites to them every time you pull one of your stunts.
posted by bardic at 12:56 PM on February 18, 2006

I've bookmarked them and will direct mefites to them every time you pull one of your stunts.
posted by bardic at 2:56 PM CST on February 18

Matt's already said that such behavior is inappropriate, so I would advise against explicitly breaking his rule on that.

But I stand by everything I have said. You are the one who should be embarrassed here. You are whining about someone accurately pointing out your classless revelling in the misfortune in these athletes and calling them losers. You should be embarrassed for your behavior. I'm certainly not ashamed or embarrassed for calling you on it.
posted by dios at 1:05 PM on February 18, 2006

I would also note its very telling that you can't even begin to defend your post against the allegations I made. All you can do is call me names, hurl invective and curse words, and complain that a comment is grossly inappropriate for some non-specified and nebulous reason.
posted by dios at 1:08 PM on February 18, 2006

Given the fact that Matt and Jessamyn routinely clean up your verbal poop, as in your assinine comments in my olympics FPP, it's funny that you'd invoke his authority. I've emailed both of them about this, so have a nice day.
posted by bardic at 1:10 PM on February 18, 2006

Given the fact that you are incapable of contributing to the ongoing conversation re: the olympics, America winning far fewer medals than in Salt Lake 2002 (is that objective enough for you?), advertisers like Nike and Visa angry that they've sponsored athlete who have done very poorly or not even competed, the success of underdogs like the Swiss and Slovak hockey teams, Shani Davis winning an historic gold, etc, etc. You're welcome to act like an adult and join the discussion, but that seems beyond your limited capacities.
posted by bardic at 1:13 PM on February 18, 2006

You don't fool me. Your post is clear. If you wanted to discuss the Olympics like adults, you wouldn't have posted with the tone you did and revelling in their loss. Feel free to continue to insult me or complain to Matt and Jessamyn (though I regret that you are wasting their time). I stand by completely what I said, and note once again that you haven't defended the framing and wording of your post in any substantive manner.

I'm done wit the topic. If you want to contine whining in this thread, then have at it.
posted by dios at 1:21 PM on February 18, 2006

dios, instead of hiding in an old metatalk thread, why don't you have the guts to make a new one since mine was so awful and anti-American? Real classy, tough guy.
posted by bardic at 1:24 PM on February 18, 2006

Because I don't care enough.

And I will note that your whining brought it here. If you think my comment was so out of line, then call me out. But I don't care enough about your classless thread to waste my time and the energy of the website hammering home how classless you are by cheerfully posting a thread celebrating in the misfortune of some atheletes and calling them losers. The point was made, and it is evident enough. A made the comment in the thread, and that is all the concern I had for the topic until you came here to complain.

I am sure anyone can see how weak your position is with your continued immature insults and language and inabillity to substantively address my allegations. Just more blustering and insults including the first-grader retort "no you aren't classy."

Bah. I've wasted more energy responding your childish whining. Silly me.
posted by dios at 1:31 PM on February 18, 2006

cut his mic! cut his mic!
posted by puke & cry at 1:50 PM on February 18, 2006

though I regret that you are wasting their time

see, that time when you got yourself banned for a gay-bashing comment, you wasted their time, too
posted by matteo at 2:00 PM on February 18, 2006

You called these Olympians losers. These are atheletes who have worked their whole life in their speciality. They get chosed to represent their country, and because they don't finish first, you call them losers.

Dios, you make fun of retarded kids, remember? Spare us the faux nobility.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 2:11 PM on February 18, 2006

Bah. I've wasted more energy responding your childish whining. Silly me.

posted by sonofsamiam at 2:43 PM on February 18, 2006

Does it bother any of you that you have become, in the eyes of many other mefites, defined by your attachment to dios? That you have let yourselves become in essence an aspect of dios?

OC, bardic, matteo, Rothko (god rest his soul): all names that scream "dios! dios!"

Maybe that's just my perception. It could be that no one else has noticed this. But, to repeat the question, how do you folks feel about this almost Pavlovian assocation you've built up?
posted by cortex at 3:51 PM on February 18, 2006

OC, bardic, matteo, Rothko (god rest his soul): all names that scream "dios! dios!"

To be honest, I'd started ignoring him a while ago - I only post in his threads or reply to his comments when rank hypocrisy is afoot. I enjoyed baiting him before because that list of his was too goddamn precious to believe. But alas it's gone and my dreams with it.

So I think it's fair to call him out when he says a) "if you don't like it skip it" or b) "you're mean to athletes" because a) he doesn't and b) he makes fun of retarded and handicapped children. I'd do the same to you if you were an asshole, cortex. :)
posted by Optimus Chyme at 4:16 PM on February 18, 2006

I'm wasn't asking whether you think it's fair to call him out. My question was about you, not him. I've thought about my own positions regarding Rothko and dios in particular, and I'm curious about other folks' self-perception regarding those users they react frequently to.
posted by cortex at 5:42 PM on February 18, 2006

Dude, bardic, Dios has posted some shitty comments in the past, and some neutral comments, and some good comments. This time, you're totally going after him for posting a neutral comment.

You got schaudenfreude from America sucking at the Olympics. I can dig it. So did I. I thought it was fucking awesome when Jackobellis, in a bout of hubris, tried to pull a trick at the end of her snowboard cross run, wiped out, and lost the gold.

Dios is pointing out that the post is about revelling in American Olympic losses. He's right. There's nothing wrong with that. Just say, "Yeah, that's what the post is about" and be done with it. He's not shitting in the thread, you just don't like him, so you interpret any difference of opinion between you and him as him shitting. It doesn't always work that way.
posted by Bugbread at 6:03 PM on February 18, 2006

Actually, the post was about a lot of things--did you notice the Shani Davis link? But yeah, the general trajectory was that America is having a hard time at the olympics compared to 2002, and sponsors are not happy about it, nor is the only network carrying it in America. What's-his-name doesn't want discourse, he wants to paint me as anti-American. That's the only thing I can think of to explain his bizarre behavior. Think what you will, but most of my comments in the thread were congratulatory towards those who won medals. Kwan didn't even compete. Bode is the biggest flameout in recent (sporting) history. Kildow was pretty impressive in the face of adversity. Am I cynical about America, or more particularly the fact that the US media hyped athletes based on who they thought looked the best on camera rather than who had the actual skills to win medals? Yes. But I also love the olympics, and sports in general. How is this not a genuine (newsfilter worthy) type of post?

As for the d-dog, yeah, I dislike him. He calls people out for things he does all the time. I might type/post something you don't like, but I don't make a habit of lecturing the entire community as to how they should conduct themselves.

Long story short--people get what they give (I was asked to eat a bucket of cocks for the first time in the deleted meta thread. I think I should get a shoulder patch or something). I just think it's absurd that a poster is judged not by what she posts, but after having their more idiotic/inflammatory statements scrubbed away. Again, it's a lose-lose--leaving garbage up hurts the site, erasing it makes certain posters appear a bit more even-keeled than they really are.
posted by bardic at 6:36 PM on February 18, 2006

I think it's absurd that dios's post got scrubbed away for being "idiotic/inflammatory".

He said:

"So this is a post celebrating American failures at the Olympics?

Classy.

What's that line about hating America?"

Now, I admit I don't know what line he's referring to when he says "that line about hating America". Maybe the line is "People who hate America should be stabbed to death with frozen turds". If so, then, yeah, the comment is idiotic and inflammatory. But from the parts I can understand of the comment, I don't see anything either idiotic nor inflammatory.
posted by Bugbread at 7:03 PM on February 18, 2006

bugbread, Please don't misquote me.
posted by bardic at 7:06 PM on February 18, 2006

Er...which means I should probably ammend what I said above. Instead of "I think it's absurd", I should have said "From the parts I can understand, I think it's absurd". I guess it all hinges on what "that line" is.
posted by Bugbread at 7:07 PM on February 18, 2006

Bardic: the only thing you wrote that I quoted was "idiotic/inflammatory". I didn't misquote you (I used copy/paste), but I gather you think I quoted you out of context? If so, I apologize. I thought you were referring to dios's comment as "idiotic/inflammatory". If I've misinterpreted you, please tell me what you meant.
posted by Bugbread at 7:11 PM on February 18, 2006

bugbread, I was trying to make a point about any user that has her past cleaned up, not just what's-his-name. No big deal, and I do appreciate your point. From another user I wouldn't have cared--from the self-proclaimed Moses of mefi (bringing us the law tablets, etc) the hypocrisy bugs me.

Matta ne!
posted by bardic at 7:18 PM on February 18, 2006

Ah, ok, I misread what you were going after there. Sorry.
posted by Bugbread at 7:23 PM on February 18, 2006

My question was about you, not him.

Oh, okay. No, it doesn't bother me - being defined as the opposite of that guy is a good thing.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 8:23 PM on February 18, 2006

Twerp didn't answer my question.
posted by fleacircus at 4:20 AM on February 22, 2006

bardic, really and truly, the best thing you can do is ignore him. Its really pretty easy when you try it. And vice versa.
posted by fenriq at 10:34 PM on February 22, 2006

Who here likes ice cream? Anyone?
posted by Balisong at 8:41 AM on February 25, 2006

I am a strong supporter of ice cream.
posted by cortex at 10:05 AM on February 25, 2006