Same link? No. Double post? Yes. June 27, 2006 11:03 AM   Subscribe

Isn't this a double post?
posted by monju_bosatsu to Etiquette/Policy at 11:03 AM (15 comments total)

I know it's not the same link, but it's a lame 150-word editorial on a study we already discussed. Seems like a good candidate for deletion to me.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 11:03 AM on June 27, 2006


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


You're a double-post!

(Flees weeping.)
posted by Astro Zombie at 11:12 AM on June 27, 2006


Like the man says: "Flag it and move on."
posted by briank at 11:24 AM on June 27, 2006


No.
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


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


Nope.
posted by bardic at 11:29 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


Double. String up this post.
posted by zpousman at 11:37 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


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


Yes.
posted by raysmj 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


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


« Older NSFW Porn link in user profile   |   Jokey non-answer? That's a [n-length] bannin'. Newer »

This thread is closed to new comments.