Same link? No. Double post? Yes. June 27, 2006 11:03 AM Subscribe
Yes, it is a double post. If the lame editorial (which is based on the previous links study) is proxy enough to mitigate this standard, everything is up for regurgitation. Apparently it's more hilarious if fifty-plus comments are deleted along with the thread, rather than five.
posted by prostyle at 11:09 AM on June 27, 2006
posted by prostyle at 11:09 AM on June 27, 2006
No.
posted by frecklefaerie at 11:25 AM on June 27, 2006
posted by frecklefaerie at 11:25 AM on June 27, 2006
Like briank says.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 11:26 AM on June 27, 2006
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 11:26 AM on June 27, 2006
You sure had fun commenting in it this post until people stopped agreeing with your viewpoint. I guess it became a double post around that time.
posted by Mr. Six at 11:28 AM on June 27, 2006
posted by Mr. Six at 11:28 AM on June 27, 2006
monju, why didn't you MeTa or flag in the first place?
posted by sonofsamiam at 11:35 AM on June 27, 2006
posted by sonofsamiam at 11:35 AM on June 27, 2006
I flagged it and moved on about 4 hours ago. Even dropped the double link in as the fourth comment. Fifty comments and one MeTa later, here we are! Looks like something's moved on... oh, yes... the never ending march of wasted time.
monju, why didn't you MeTa or flag in the first place?
Tag Team Snark Disorder
posted by prostyle at 11:37 AM on June 27, 2006
monju, why didn't you MeTa or flag in the first place?
Tag Team Snark Disorder
posted by prostyle at 11:37 AM on June 27, 2006
Like the man says: "Flag it and move on."
I flagged it, as I'm sure others did, given that there are several comments pointing out that it's a double. I didn't MeTa it immediately because it seems like such an obvious double--and a lame post to boot--that I thought for sure it would be deleted. Given that Matt has been pruning comments from the thread, I can only assume that he has chosen not to delete it, despite the flags. Hence, this thread.
You sure had fun commenting in it this post until people stopped agreeing with your viewpoint. I guess it became a double post around that time.
You mean my one comment? With no viewpoint other than that the wikipedia links are superfluous? What are you talking about, exactly?
posted by monju_bosatsu at 11:38 AM on June 27, 2006
I flagged it, as I'm sure others did, given that there are several comments pointing out that it's a double. I didn't MeTa it immediately because it seems like such an obvious double--and a lame post to boot--that I thought for sure it would be deleted. Given that Matt has been pruning comments from the thread, I can only assume that he has chosen not to delete it, despite the flags. Hence, this thread.
You sure had fun commenting in it this post until people stopped agreeing with your viewpoint. I guess it became a double post around that time.
You mean my one comment? With no viewpoint other than that the wikipedia links are superfluous? What are you talking about, exactly?
posted by monju_bosatsu at 11:38 AM on June 27, 2006
Something like the Laurel and Hardy of the Diebold set...
posted by Mr. Six at 11:39 AM on June 27, 2006
posted by Mr. Six at 11:39 AM on June 27, 2006
Yeah, sorry. I saw the link to the earlier one but thought the editorial covered more ground (I thought the "150 words!" referred to the links in the old post). Removed.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 11:45 AM on June 27, 2006
posted by mathowie (staff) at 11:45 AM on June 27, 2006
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 11:03 AM on June 27, 2006