Comments on 11604

Looking at the FPP and the [more inside] and the post from yesterday, I have to agree. It seems like a way to frame a self-link in order to avoid the charge of self-linking. I think that what takes it over the top for me, aside from the first sentence of the [MI] which seems to suggest that that is meant to be the real meat of the post, is the post from yesterday. It seems a bit like the posts we get when people are afraid that their contributions, which are understandably important to them, will be overlooked even though there is already a thread for them.
posted by OmieWise at 8:46 AM on March 30, 2006

Yeah, I didn't like the axgrindfilter when I saw it, but all the links heading to his own site is over the top. Removed. Just post it as a comment on the existing thread.
posted by mathowie at 8:48 AM on March 30, 2006

This is clearly a callout of Trout's post. Why resort to a fake question on the gray? Are we so afraid of hearing "flag it and move on" from each other? Has Matt's heavy handed moderation forced us to use subterfuge to get our point(s) across?
posted by grateful at 8:54 AM on March 30, 2006

Of course it's a callout, grateful; read my first comment above. There's no subterfuge.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 8:58 AM on March 30, 2006

Uh, did you read past the headline?

And I sick of hearing people bitch about Matt's allegedly heavy handed moderation. It's not true, it's fucking rude, and makes the community look like a dictatorship. Never have I been to a place where members have so much freedom to cry and whine about how oppressed they are.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 9:05 AM on March 30, 2006

I sometimes wish MeFi was less link-aggregator and more community blog which allowed for or embraced fully developed written articles, rather then just some links and a few descriptive words.

Not just for my own windbag self, but there's a lot of really well spoken writers and thinkers on the site I'd love to read more of.

I'm not entirely sure where the "get your own fucking blog, fuckwit" thing came from or when it solidified, but sometimes the retort that screams in my head is "We have one, and it's our blog you dogma-licking nunpissers."

Though, it is done to an extent already. And such self-written articles would and should be held to much higher standards.
posted by loquacious at 9:08 AM on March 30, 2006

I think MeFi already allows and embraces article-length posts, loquacious; you just don't see them very often. y2karl has a few doozies in his posting history, as does troutfishing himself. My posts have tended to get longer as I've been a member longer, although I wouldn't call them article length. The problem with trout's post today is not that it was long; it's that it was both a double post and a self-link.

Your contrast of a link aggregator with a community blog is well taken, though. Either we need to encourage the longer and more developed posts at the expense of single links, or Matt needs to develop tools for better filtering by users, as I suggested the other day. I see no reason why MeFi can't be both a blog and a link aggregator, with the right tools.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 9:14 AM on March 30, 2006

Generally speaking, I support Matt's opposition to extensive and exclusive use of one's own content in an FPP. That said, I think trout's collection merits its own FPP. If he had contacted another user, like me, he could have had it posted for him. There is a ton of precedent for that.
posted by squirrel at 9:16 AM on March 30, 2006

I'm not going to post this material to the UCC ad thread for the simple reason that the UCC topic is - as a story - a subset of the post I just made to Metafilter and not vice versa. To add the material to the UCC thread would diminish its significance.

As for "axegrindfilter" - Matt, ad-hominem attacks are not a valid form of logical argument. You know that.

Now, it's your site and you set the rules - and I don't have the time to stomp around like a 2-year old shouting "you deleted my post ! - boo hoo !" (nor time for interminable debates on Metatalk).

But its a shame that Metafilter folks won't get engage with that material - it's a rather significant story. To put it midly - it's not Pepsi Blue.

Still, regardless of whether you axe individual posts of mine or not I still consider metafilter one of the better reads on the net - even if I seem to be a bit unclear now on the ground rules for posting.

Carry on.
posted by troutfishing at 9:17 AM on March 30, 2006

...even if I seem to be a bit unclear now on the ground rules for posting.

troutfishing, don't be wilfully obtuse. Your post included a substantial amount of material from a site your run; it's a self-link. That's clearly against the guidelines, whether you stick it on the front page or skirt the letter of the guidelines by putting it in the first comment. You're had posts deleted for that kind of thing before, so you should know better.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 9:19 AM on March 30, 2006

I, also, felt that the post shouldn't have been deleted.

However, I'm certain this issue will become prominent again in the near future, as cannons are being leveled and lines drawn in the sand.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 9:20 AM on March 30, 2006

it's a rather significant story

In your mind.

You do realize that is a purely subjective judgment on your part, right?
posted by dios at 9:23 AM on March 30, 2006

. . . I think trout's collection merits its own FPP. If he had contacted another user, like me, he could have had it posted for him. There is a ton of precedent for that.
posted by squirrel

I concur. It was actually quite a different topic. Clearly Monju is an IRD agent seeking to protect his organization.
posted by MasonDixon at 9:23 AM on March 30, 2006

That last bit was sarcasm . . . mostly.
posted by MasonDixon at 9:24 AM on March 30, 2006

troutfishing writes "I'm not going to post this material to the UCC ad thread for the simple reason that the UCC topic is - as a story - a subset of the post I just made to Metafilter and not vice versa. To add the material to the UCC thread would diminish its significance."

troutfishing writes "But its a shame that Metafilter folks won't get engage with that material - it's a rather significant story."

You must not want people to engage the content very much if you're unwilling to post the info to a thread currently open about the same thing. As far as what constitutes a subset of what: the FPP was already made. We see this all the time here, someone throws up a one link Newsfilter post, someone else comes along a half-hour later with a better researched and better constructed FPP and the second one gets axed. If you really want people to know about it then you should respect the rules of the community and post the info in the open thread. If you want credit for a fine FPP, then I can see why you would withhold the information from the open thread.
posted by OmieWise at 9:30 AM on March 30, 2006

In your mind.

You do realize that is a purely subjective judgment on your part, right?

dios, don't be a dick about it.
posted by mathowie at 9:34 AM on March 30, 2006

Sarcasm against what, MasonDixon? That trout's collection merits its own FPP? That there's no precedent for posting other people's work? I didn't say anything against Monju.

it's a rather significant story

In your mind.

No, dios, the story is objectively significant. Made so by the number of people impacted and the amount of money involved. You can't make a story insignificant just by wishing it were, unless you're Scott McClellan.
posted by squirrel at 9:36 AM on March 30, 2006

I sometimes wish MeFi was less link-aggregator and more community blog which allowed for or embraced fully developed written articles, rather then just some links and a few descriptive words.

blog.metafilter.com ? A central portal to either a loose collective of mefite blogs or an internal group-blog system, specifically targeted at more personal/editorial posts as a vent to accomdate the more loquacious (ha!) among us in a mefi-centric context without tarring up the blue with such stuff and the grey with arguments about such stuff?

We could call it the Haugheyington Report.
posted by cortex at 9:36 AM on March 30, 2006

I sometimes wish MeFi was less link-aggregator and more community blog which allowed for or embraced fully developed written articles, rather then just some links and a few descriptive words.

I'd certainly be interested to read longer posts or articles by users here, but as a distinct part of the site, not intermingled with the main linky business. I'm thinking more of thoughtful pieces on little-covered topics than 1,000 words of 'This Is Why I Don't Like Bush/Religion/Fat People/SUVs/Gigantic Penises/&c. - Who's With Me?!', obviously. (Actually, I'd maybe post more to a site like that than I do to MetaFilter.)

EssayFilter?
posted by jack_mo at 9:37 AM on March 30, 2006

And yeah, dios. It's a valid point, but you can be a bit nicer making it.
posted by cortex at 9:39 AM on March 30, 2006

...makes the community look like a dictatorship. Never have I been to a place where members have so much freedom to cry and whine...

yeah, that's the trouble with dictatorships: too much freedom.
posted by andrew cooke at 9:39 AM on March 30, 2006

A central portal to either a loose collective of mefite blogs or an internal group-blog system,

That might have the effect of moving that sort of shite off MetaFilter proper, but it would still be shite. I think the ' fully developed written articles' loquacious suggested would be more interesting. (Though, doubtless if, eg., dios were to post a learned piece on some interesting point of legal history, all the comments would still be 'Cock off, fascist!')
posted by jack_mo at 9:42 AM on March 30, 2006

I sometimes wish MeFi was less link-aggregator and more community blog which allowed for or embraced fully developed written articles, rather then just some links and a few descriptive words.

Search the MetaTalk archives for "metafocus" and you'll probably find my idea for a long piece magazine style section of the site. I was gung ho on it in 2001 or so when I had a lot of free time but then I got laid off and had to scramble for a new job.
posted by mathowie at 9:45 AM on March 30, 2006

Before I read the more-inside, monju_, I was thinking "Of course not, that's how you're supposed to add your own content to a relevant post".

Then I clicked into this thread and saw that you really meant to say troutfishing made his FPP solely in order to self-link. That's a unsubstaniated assertion. Trout's first comment has 13 supporting links and only 4 are to talk2action, and contains lengthy text which is reworked, — not directly copied — from talk2action. I seriously doubt merely somebody looking for extra traffic would go to that kind of trouble.

(The existing thread thing is a legitimate beef, though.)

Troutfishing gets a lot of kneejerk reactions simply because of his reputation, much like dios. One big difference is that, in trout's case, Matts often jerks as quickly as anyone.
posted by If I Had An Anus at 9:46 AM on March 30, 2006

Metafilter as liberal echochamber? What a novel perspective, jack!
posted by squirrel at 9:46 AM on March 30, 2006

"As for "axegrindfilter" - Matt, ad-hominem attacks are not a valid form of logical argument. You know that."

"To put it midly - it's not Pepsi Blue."

I'm not seeing the semantic distinction that makes "axegrindfilter" an invalid ad hominem and "Pepsi Blue" a valid one.
posted by klangklangston at 9:48 AM on March 30, 2006

Sarcasm against what, MasonDixon? That trout's collection merits its own FPP? That there's no precedent for posting other people's work? I didn't say anything against Monju.

I thought the "Monju is an agent of the IRD" comment was more or less self-evidently sarcastic -- apparently less.

I was agreeing with you that trout's topic merits its own FPP.
posted by MasonDixon at 9:49 AM on March 30, 2006

One big difference is that, in trout's case, Matts often jerks as quickly as anyone.

As the admin, I read thousands of posts, and when 3 or 4 people pop up over and over and over again posting about the same subject, my patience grows thin. troutfishing is on that list and he knows it. I'd love to see him link to an amazing photo gallery of shots from paris, find an article on a previously-undiscovered mammal, and/or post about long lost genres of music, but my money is that his next ten posts will have something to do with the evils of the GOP.

And that's me jerking quickly as anyone.
posted by mathowie at 9:52 AM on March 30, 2006

Andrew Cooke: Urm, I can't tell if you're agreeing with me, or just riffing.
I meant that all the talk of deletion-happy, heavy-handed mods makes the place look bad to new visitors, who may not be willing to stick around long enough to see that it's horse-pucky, or get past a bad first impression. The fact that wrong-headed comments like that are allowed to remain automatically invalidates them, but still puts Matt in a no-win position. Either he has to leave slander on the site or delete it and play into the bullshitter's hands, opening himself up to more accusations.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 10:02 AM on March 30, 2006

Post your stuff on Wikipedia.org and put together a kick-butt FPP on the topic. People will read it if you can make it interesting enough.
posted by blue_beetle at 10:09 AM on March 30, 2006

Metafilter as liberal echochamber? What a novel perspective, jack!

Hee - I was actually going to use a prominent left-wing user as an example to avoid that truism, but then couldn't think of one off the top of my head who I knew to also post a lot on a particular non-political topic (which is not to say there aren't any, obviously!).

mathowie - yeah, I remember Metafocus from lurking days (and MoJo - did that ever get going?) but it would be good to have straight user-submitted pieces in there too - best of ~~the web~~ our heads, so to speak.

Kind of a huge pony to be asking for though, eh? More of a shire horse, really.
posted by jack_mo at 10:19 AM on March 30, 2006

Metafilter: dios, don't be a dick about it.
posted by dersins at 10:20 AM on March 30, 2006

Couldn't user pieces be submitted to projects? One more good reason for comments on the red.
posted by blue_beetle at 10:21 AM on March 30, 2006

In your mind.

You do realize that is a purely subjective judgment on your part, right?

dios, don't be a dick about it.
posted by mathowie at 11:34 AM CST on March 30

That was being a dick?

Huh?
posted by dios at 10:21 AM on March 30, 2006

jack_mo, if it's A Pony Too Far, you could always submit it as an experimental project -- work up an outline for what you think should happen, and put out a call to arms^H^H^H^Hwords. If we get something cool out of the rough draft, that'd be better incentive for Matt to put in the time, assuming he likes it.
posted by cortex at 10:22 AM on March 30, 2006

There's no subterfuge.

AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA

the last refuge of the passive-aggressive
posted by matteo at 10:25 AM on March 30, 2006

matteo, what are you talking about?
posted by monju_bosatsu at 10:26 AM on March 30, 2006

dios, it was terse to the point of snippiness. "Dick" being a subjective judgement, you should know, if you aren't seeing it, that you came off as kind of a jerk, even if your point is (as I think it is) completely valid.
posted by cortex at 12:23 PM CST on March 30

I don't see it.

I saw a user acting as if we morons who can't seem to understand how important this issue is that he wants to lecture us on. I was asking him if did understand his judgment that it was important (and therefore we needed to read about it) was a subjective judgment. Was it confrontational? I can see that.

But if the bar for being called "a dick" is that low, then we are all in trouble.
posted by dios at 10:28 AM on March 30, 2006

Could we have just arrived at the heart of the dios problem: that he has no idea how obnoxiously he comes across?
posted by CunningLinguist at 10:32 AM on March 30, 2006

I'm not seeing the semantic distinction that makes "axegrindfilter" an invalid ad hominem and "Pepsi Blue" a valid one.

I'll try to weigh-in on this. An "axegrinder" deletion may be seen as ad hominem because it essentially says, "the topic may be worthy, but I'm going to delete it because it's your pet issue and I'm tired of it, and you." Whereas a "Pepsi Blue" deletion says "this topic is for commercial purposes and therefore not valid."

I'm not saying that troutfishing doesn't have an axe to grind, but if Matt finds himself judging trout's political posts more harshly because they come from trout, then we're crossing into ad hominem territory.

I'm not saying that that's the case, btw. Just trying to illustrate a point you asked about.

But if the bar for being called "a dick" is that low, then we are all in trouble.

In your mind, dios.
posted by squirrel at 10:42 AM on March 30, 2006

Well, the bar for being a dick has always been that low. The bar for it really sticking is a lot higher, and I don't think you got anywhere near that (not that that won't discourage people).

Managing the tone of confrontation is hard work in written text. That may be the thing to examine.
posted by cortex at 10:43 AM on March 30, 2006

In your mind.

You do realize that is a purely subjective judgment on your part, right?

That comment is staggeringly idiotic. My eyes glazed over when I looked at the deleted thread; I have no idea what it was about. But the fact is that every post on metafilter is posted because of someone's subjective analysis that the topic is interesting or important.
posted by delmoi at 10:44 AM on March 30, 2006

not that that will. Goddam double negatives.
posted by cortex at 10:45 AM on March 30, 2006

I don't know if EssayFilter is a good idea. Just look what happened to kuro5hin. That site got so fucking boring OMG. Metafilter is much leveler.

I'd like to see something that lets users post links to their latest essays on other blogs though. And we do have projects. Why not post it to projects? Perhaps troutfishing could do some more research, do a write-up and post it to the web, then post a link to projects.
posted by delmoi at 10:47 AM on March 30, 2006

Good idea cortex. I'll make a speculative Projects post over the weekend. It is okay to propose projects there as well as announce them, isn't it?

If lots of folk were interested (and the response to Metafocus way back when suggests they would be), I suppose I could just knock up a site myself with WordPress or Movable Type then beg someone with an eye for design to pretty it up. (Seems safe to assume mathowie has enough on his plate with MeFi as it is!)
posted by jack_mo at 10:47 AM on March 30, 2006

That comment is staggeringly idiotic.

Oh, hush. The fact that everyone thinks their post is post-worthy doesn't mean that pointing out that they might be wrong about that is idiotic. Otherwise, we'd be obliged to never, ever second-guess to a poster the quality of their post, lest we be taken as staggering idiots.
posted by cortex at 10:47 AM on March 30, 2006

It is okay to propose projects there as well as announce them, isn't it?

The general concensus seems to be that there should be some actual meat and function to a Project. From that, I'd recommend you at least get a submission/display system prototype up before you post it -- "hey I have this idea" doesn't seem kosher.
posted by cortex at 10:49 AM on March 30, 2006

What is it about idiots that makes them stagger, anyway? Does stupidity somehow impair mobility --

Whoops. Just fell off my chair.
posted by Astro Zombie at 10:49 AM on March 30, 2006

Also, how did this thread become about Dios so quickly. How bizarre. I mean it's like every every meta thread has to be about Dios now? It's rather hilarious when you think about it.
posted by delmoi at 10:50 AM on March 30, 2006

I don't know if EssayFilter is a good idea. Just look what happened to kuro5hin. That site got so fucking boring

Heh, you're not wrong delmoi. Not to mention the prevailing writing style there that appears to be aiming for, but falling short of, the giddy heights of a school newspaper column. Maybe you're right, and this sort of thing would be better as a subset of Projects...
posted by jack_mo at 10:52 AM on March 30, 2006

Oh, hush. The fact that everyone thinks their post is post-worthy doesn't mean that pointing out that they might be wrong about that is idiotic. Otherwise, we'd be obliged to never, ever second-guess to a poster the quality of their post, lest we be taken as staggering idiots.

Pointing out that they are wrong, and giving factual reasons why they are wrong is not pointless. Merely pointing out the theoretical possibility that they could be wrong is pointless.
posted by delmoi at 10:53 AM on March 30, 2006

An "axegrinder" deletion may be seen as ad hominem

My take on axegrindfilter, as someone who has used it as a reason for deletion, is that it means "You took a topic and turned it into your own soapbox and made it into an argument before it even started." This often happens with people who have pet topics, but sometimes it happens with people who don't, who just come out of the woodwork with some sort of LOL XIANS!! or BUSH SUX AM I RITE?? post. I don't think there is anything ad hominem about it, I think it's saying "please try to keep editorializing to a minimum" Making a massive post+comments FPP doesn't get you out of self-link jail. y2karl has pet topics and hes posted some nice massive FPPs that didn't make everyone all pissed off.

I feel that the self-link line should be fairly clearly delineated and fairly strictly enforced, especially on posts that are going to push everyone's buttons (can someone make me a song of all the hot button MeFi topics like Tom Lehrer's table of elements, please?). There are a set of users who get FPPs removed for specific reasons and go on to post very similar posts about very similar topics over and over, sometimes on this side of the deletion line and sometimes not. If you love those posters, you can go read their blogs because they almost always have them. If you think "well this information SHOULD be in MetaFilter" then you'll have to contend with the equally loud faction who thinks that it SHOULDN'T and for that, we have MetaTalk.
posted by jessamyn at 10:53 AM on March 30, 2006

Pointing out that they are wrong, and giving factual reasons why they are wrong is not pointless. Merely pointing out the theoretical possibility that they could be wrong is pointless.

No, it's just less helpful. I'm generally for people being actively helpful and open with one another, and would prefer that, yeah, people elaborate when they have a complaint or argument or criticism of someone's behavior -- but that can be a pretty fluffy la-la hand-holding exercise and sometimes a body just wants to drop a "wtf" out there in hopes that the criticized person will engage in a little goddam self-reflection. Not as helpful, but not pointless, and certainly not "staggeringly idiotic."

Complaints about the thread becoming about someone you have just been yourself insulting is something that deserves a little self-reflection too.
posted by cortex at 11:00 AM on March 30, 2006

"But if the bar for being called "a dick" is that low, then we are all in trouble."

What are you, Aspy? Stop being such a social 'tard.

"(can someone make me a song of all the hot button MeFi topics like Tom Lehrer's table of elements, please?)"

You hear that, Cortex? You're our songmonkey now, and we want a song!
posted by klangklangston at 11:06 AM on March 30, 2006

At this point I should probably clarify that I would like to see good essay or article content. Essays or articles subject to all or most of the same qualifications and requirements as front page posts are in general.

Official or unofficial permission to write and post essays or articles wouldn't be a carte blanche for unwarranted subjectivity, or axegrinding, as it were.

While getting one's own blog is easy, and I hate to say this, sometimes the fact of having a ready audience is important.

A lot of my, eh, better, longer or more thoughtful comments are directly inspired and motivated by the fact that there's an audience to begin with, as well as the inspiration-seed of a topic at hand.

There's a lot of stuff I've written that now resides solely on MeFi that I would have never bothered to write in the first place if it wasn't for MeFi and its audience and traffic, no matter how much I like typing.

And it's not just an ego thing at all. While I certainly do get a kick and a glow out of getting comments or emails like "That comment was fucking awesome, thank you" it's not why I write those raging four-pagers.

My primary motivation is to attempt to communicate. I also am motivated by the practice of writing itself, of how to refine my writing, how to develop a voice, and all those reasons writers are traditionally motivated by. Except now I don't have to hie myself to some filthy tavern for a writer's group, I can practice in real time, with live audiences and readership, with real, live essays and articles.

I could, of course, just get a damn blog. But I've tried that, and I didn't like it much. There wasn't enough interaction and interplay, and for some reason that may or may not be related to my questionable sanity, it seemed much more narcisstic then participating in an ongoing discussion on a higher quality community blog or other "community" oriented collaborative sites.
posted by loquacious at 11:15 AM on March 30, 2006

That comment is staggeringly idiotic.

AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA the last refuge of the passive-aggressive

What are you, Aspy? Stop being such a social 'tard.

And dios is the one being a dick here? Have I passed through some sort of wormhole into bizarro-land?
posted by monju_bosatsu at 11:17 AM on March 30, 2006

Cortex's musical talents are obvious. I hereby commission him to create a piece of commedia del'arte. From the link: Each was assigned a stock part and had his standard costume and established peculiarities.

Yeah, that's us I think.
posted by bardic at 11:24 AM on March 30, 2006

That Dios is being a dick does not make him "the one," as being a dick is not a finite quality. He was being a dick. I was dickish in my response to him. Matteo's always a dick on MeTa.
posted by klangklangston at 11:25 AM on March 30, 2006

Its entirely possible that more then one person is being a dick, monju.
posted by delmoi at 11:25 AM on March 30, 2006

True, but only dios is called on it. How strange. /sarcasm
posted by monju_bosatsu at 11:26 AM on March 30, 2006

Also, how did this thread become about Dios so quickly.

*blinks*

Hey, wait a minute, how long is a few days anyway? Less than a couple apparently.
posted by If I Had An Anus at 11:38 AM on March 30, 2006

My theory is that Matteo's working overtime 'lest anyone start to suspect that he's not a complete shithead.
That O'Neill FPP was good stuff, it'd be a damn shame if it engendered any goodwill towards the guy, y'know?
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 11:45 AM on March 30, 2006

This would be as good a place as any to point out that "dios" is an anagram for "I, sod".

Also, "matteo" is an anagram of "to meta".
posted by mr_crash_davis at 12:26 PM on March 30, 2006

Also, "matteo" is an anagram of "to meta".

My god. He's been playing us all along!
posted by cortex at 12:29 PM on March 30, 2006

I think squirrel has the right idea, if you've written some stuff you want to see on the site, why not just contact another user - not your best mate or someone who invariably agrees with you - and see if they are interesting in posting it?
posted by teleskiving at 12:41 PM on March 30, 2006

Why should it be such a complicated dance of chimpanzee politics that fails to actually address the issue?

I speak mainly of essays or articles, not self-links to content on 2nd or third party sites.

Self-linking in general is bad, as it's primarily motivated by quick-and-cheap traffic-for-profit. I see this a whole lot on Digg or Reddit, where the poster just posts a link to their own adsense-farming blog which then links to the actual content. It's annoying as hell.

How is the subterfuge and collusion of getting someone else to post it as a link less hamful? How can that not be gamed even easier?
posted by loquacious at 1:25 PM on March 30, 2006

squirrel writes "I'm not saying that troutfishing doesn't have an axe to grind, but if Matt finds himself judging trout's political posts more harshly because they come from trout, then we're crossing into ad hominem territory."

I don't see how this is a problem even if it is true. Matt's not trying to engage in a debate, he's moderating a web forum.
posted by Mitheral at 1:47 PM on March 30, 2006

dios!
posted by Stynxno at 2:03 PM on March 30, 2006

True, but only dios is called on it. How strange. /sarcasm

Can you point to any comments posted before dios' that could be considered dickish?
posted by delmoi at 2:51 PM on March 30, 2006

My point was that I didn't think dios comment was dickish at all, particularly not in comparison to other comments in this thread. Yet he gets called a dick, but Matt, no less, and others get a free pass for much more inflammatory comments.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 2:56 PM on March 30, 2006

I, on the other hand, need an editor.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 3:03 PM on March 30, 2006

I tend to agree, and say as much, that dios gets unfairly targeted for trolling when he's really just disagreeing. In this case, I thought he was being a dick. Not horribly so, but it was a short, snide, dickish comment.
posted by OmieWise at 3:10 PM on March 30, 2006

I think now is a good time to also point out that cortex is an anagram of Ex-ROTC and mr crash davis is an anagram of Dr, I smash VCR
posted by Ryvar at 3:13 PM on March 30, 2006

In fact, the self-same VCR incident is why crash kicked me out of ROTC in the first place.
posted by cortex at 3:15 PM on March 30, 2006

mathowie is an anagram of "How I Meta," "Whom I eat," and "Whoa-time," btw.

Jessamyn is an anagram of "Jams Syne " and Ryvar is an anagram of NOTHING.
posted by Ryvar at 3:27 PM on March 30, 2006

...and Ryvar is an anagram of NOTHING.

Bullshit. You're just embarrassed to discuss your pirate-themed sexlife in public. We all know it's an anagram for "Yarr, V!"
posted by cortex at 3:31 PM on March 30, 2006

stinky!
posted by dios at 3:44 PM on March 30, 2006

Matt ass tuck elk
posted by shnoz-gobblin at 3:44 PM on March 30, 2006

"Yarr, V!"

Is it because V likes it that way? Or Ryvar?
posted by dios at 3:46 PM on March 30, 2006

[Peg-leg joke goes here.]
posted by Ryvar at 3:50 PM on March 30, 2006

Warum "stinky"? And why in two threads?
posted by klangklangston at 3:51 PM on March 30, 2006

It's Talk-Like-A-Pirate-Day speak for "I love V, especially that cold-blooded bitch Diana, she could wax my lizard anytime."

Y'know, I've been up for about twenty hours. I should probably go to bed.
posted by Gator at 3:56 PM on March 30, 2006

klang, ven sumvun greets you, you greet zem back, ja? Ja.
posted by cortex at 3:59 PM on March 30, 2006

stynxno!
posted by cortex at 4:00 PM on March 30, 2006

V is my wife, Gator. *thwap*
posted by Ryvar at 4:09 PM on March 30, 2006

v is me!

Clever, eh?
posted by veronitron at 6:37 PM on March 30, 2006

it was at this point that our intrepid internaut realized that he had stumbled into a den of jabbering ninnys. Escape was near imposibile, but brandishing his keyboard as a shield he slowly backed away, nervously glancing around, trying not to make eye contact or attract their attention. Jabbering Ninnys were know for their bloodlust, attracted by movement and driven by an instinctive need to destroy all that is good and pure, they are compelling foes.
posted by blue_beetle at 7:15 PM on March 30, 2006

I attack the darkness!
posted by jenovus at 8:05 PM on March 30, 2006

Close this damn thread before I spill more wine!
posted by squirrel at 10:06 PM on March 30, 2006

How is the subterfuge and collusion of getting someone else to post it as a link less hamful? How can that not be gamed even easier?

As I understand it, the reason self-linking is not allowed even for "honest" reasons, e.g. you or your mate have written something that you think is worth a post, is that you're too close to the material to judge its worth accurately. By getting someone you respect (not someone that you can guarantee will always post something that supports whatever axe-grinding point about X or Y, and not your mate, I'm talking about someone whose intellectual integrity you really respect) to review it and post it if they like, you're passing off the decision on quality to someone who is in a better position to make that judgement.

Clearly the above only works in an honest spirit of wanting the quality and Metafilter-worthiness of the material to be judged by someone else before they post it.
posted by teleskiving at 10:48 PM on March 30, 2006

"My take on axegrindfilter, as someone who has used it as a reason for deletion, is that it means "You took a topic and turned it into your own soapbox and made it into an argument before it even started." This often happens with people who have pet topics, but sometimes it happens with people who don't, who just come out of the woodwork with some sort of LOL XIANS!! or BUSH SUX AM I RITE?? post. I don't think there is anything ad hominem about it, I think it's saying "please try to keep editorializing to a minimum" " -

Are you really asserting that Metafilter posts tend to be "objective" ? : by what measure ?

Without explicit reference to the specific issue at hand your response has no meaning : you can choose to engage with the material or not, but "editorial omniscience" is - as a position - absurd and it undercuts your authority.

By the way, the topic is inherently partisan. It has also been recently acknowledged by the NYT.
posted by troutfishing at 9:29 PM on April 10, 2006

March 30, 2006 8:27 AM Subscribe

March 30, 2006
8:27 AM Subscribe