What do you think of editorializing and directing commentary? November 19, 2001 11:38 AM Subscribe
What do you think of editorializing and directing commentary toward a discussion that the poster prefers? Particularly in the FPP text? (See Steven Den Beste's post.)
Inappropriate for Metafilter, I think.
posted by Carol Anne at 11:49 AM on November 19, 2001
posted by Carol Anne at 11:49 AM on November 19, 2001
I think it depends on whether a good discussion can come of it. No matter what the post, the poster is going to have some opinion on it, and that's part of what makes the discussion interesting. The only thing I would be concerned about with this one is that there's really no other side without invoking some sort of "the donors don't know what's best for their money"-argument, and I don't think that'd fly.
posted by j.edwards at 11:49 AM on November 19, 2001
posted by j.edwards at 11:49 AM on November 19, 2001
LOL, Carol Anne!
I definitely prefer it to the one liner, judge-for-yourself FPP's. For a start it sets the tone for a serious discussion, and will most likely get people's argumentative juices flowing. Reading a more inside type editorial that touches a few nerves is likely to lead to a much more thoughtful and well-argued counterpost. I think it helps avoid the "What a pile of crap", "Seen it before", and "Learn to post" follow-on comments that are typical of more terse posts, by setting the tone for the rest of the thread.
posted by dlewis at 12:03 PM on November 19, 2001
I definitely prefer it to the one liner, judge-for-yourself FPP's. For a start it sets the tone for a serious discussion, and will most likely get people's argumentative juices flowing. Reading a more inside type editorial that touches a few nerves is likely to lead to a much more thoughtful and well-argued counterpost. I think it helps avoid the "What a pile of crap", "Seen it before", and "Learn to post" follow-on comments that are typical of more terse posts, by setting the tone for the rest of the thread.
posted by dlewis at 12:03 PM on November 19, 2001
Either the poster is going to map out a direction that the discussion will take or the thread will take one itself. This being MeFi, I would genrally think that the latter would be more suiting, but the former is not much different than a comment taking a thread in a different direction.
What I have more of a problem with is when a comment in a thread does redirect the discussion (not hijack, mind you, but redirect in a direction that is still recognizable to the original thread) and the original poster (or others) throw up that damned "This thread is about this and not this," type of response. I wish I could point to an example, but I can't remember which threads I've seen it in, I just know I have increasingly been seeing it.
posted by eyeballkid at 12:05 PM on November 19, 2001
What I have more of a problem with is when a comment in a thread does redirect the discussion (not hijack, mind you, but redirect in a direction that is still recognizable to the original thread) and the original poster (or others) throw up that damned "This thread is about this and not this," type of response. I wish I could point to an example, but I can't remember which threads I've seen it in, I just know I have increasingly been seeing it.
posted by eyeballkid at 12:05 PM on November 19, 2001
As far as I'm concerned, I like the "more inside" posts a lot -- they don't prevent the thread from taking its own direction, but they show that the poster put some thought into it. And that, in turn, means that I'm more likely to take the whole thing seriously. All this without clogging the FP.
Of course, this does mean some sermonizing, which is boring. But I think as long as a good faith effort is made to raise an issue for discussion, which reasonably follows from an in-itself interesting link, and not just to circulate an editorial, a longish explanation by the poster is perfectly fine.
And like eyeballkid, I also think that attempts by the poster to corral the drift of conversation tend to be counterproductive.
posted by BT at 12:26 PM on November 19, 2001
Of course, this does mean some sermonizing, which is boring. But I think as long as a good faith effort is made to raise an issue for discussion, which reasonably follows from an in-itself interesting link, and not just to circulate an editorial, a longish explanation by the poster is perfectly fine.
And like eyeballkid, I also think that attempts by the poster to corral the drift of conversation tend to be counterproductive.
posted by BT at 12:26 PM on November 19, 2001
I like the "more inside" posts a lot
I really enjoy the [More] format, too. Gives one the opportunity to follow the link and develop an opinion from an unbiased standpoint, rather than simply looking at it from the point-of-view encouraged by the poster. Once you've done this, there's a meaty, (usually) thoughtful comment waiting inside, framing the discussion in a (usually) mature manner, and identifying the issue to be debated (at least initially). I don't think it's a coincidence that [More inside] threads seem to me to be more successful than their proselytizing counterparts.
(Of course, in some cases, the framing of a link is an integral part of the post, and is right to be included in the post proper; this is a different kind of sheep.)
posted by Marquis at 12:39 PM on November 19, 2001
I really enjoy the [More] format, too. Gives one the opportunity to follow the link and develop an opinion from an unbiased standpoint, rather than simply looking at it from the point-of-view encouraged by the poster. Once you've done this, there's a meaty, (usually) thoughtful comment waiting inside, framing the discussion in a (usually) mature manner, and identifying the issue to be debated (at least initially). I don't think it's a coincidence that [More inside] threads seem to me to be more successful than their proselytizing counterparts.
(Of course, in some cases, the framing of a link is an integral part of the post, and is right to be included in the post proper; this is a different kind of sheep.)
posted by Marquis at 12:39 PM on November 19, 2001
Metafilter is a weblog (what's a weblog? | comprehensive history of weblogs) that anyone can contribute a link or a comment to.
Am I missing something?
posted by eyeballkid at 1:08 PM on November 19, 2001
Am I missing something?
posted by eyeballkid at 1:08 PM on November 19, 2001
according to the posting guidelines:
A good post to MetaFilter is something that meets the following criteria: most people haven't seen it before, there is something interesting about the content on the page, and it might warrant discussion from others.
not everything fits, in other words.
that other charities and charitable efforts lose out (and consequently need an infusion of funding) in the wake of the WTC tragedy has been seen and discussed, as have the notion of some charities as scams. i remember some previous discussion about some percentage of donations to the red cross and the united way going towards administrative costs or other charities in another thread, which upset some people at the time, though a google search was unsuccessful. i felt like the red cross link was something similar to what has been discussed in the past, and thus questionable, and i felt like the link was simply an excuse for steven to break out the podium and lecture.
to me, the issue is metafilter as debate forum or metafilter as link filter. i prefer the latter; i would guess steven prefers the former.
posted by moz at 1:43 PM on November 19, 2001
A good post to MetaFilter is something that meets the following criteria: most people haven't seen it before, there is something interesting about the content on the page, and it might warrant discussion from others.
not everything fits, in other words.
that other charities and charitable efforts lose out (and consequently need an infusion of funding) in the wake of the WTC tragedy has been seen and discussed, as have the notion of some charities as scams. i remember some previous discussion about some percentage of donations to the red cross and the united way going towards administrative costs or other charities in another thread, which upset some people at the time, though a google search was unsuccessful. i felt like the red cross link was something similar to what has been discussed in the past, and thus questionable, and i felt like the link was simply an excuse for steven to break out the podium and lecture.
to me, the issue is metafilter as debate forum or metafilter as link filter. i prefer the latter; i would guess steven prefers the former.
posted by moz at 1:43 PM on November 19, 2001
Moz, is this excellent previous discussion on the Red Cross post-9/11 what you were thinking of?
posted by snarkout at 4:27 PM on November 19, 2001
posted by snarkout at 4:27 PM on November 19, 2001
Moz, I can see that you prefer Metafilter as link filter since you have posted/commented only 900+times in 6 months.:-) I thought Stevens post was neither redundant nor redirecting, and on threads re:opinion, I like to know what the poster thinks.
posted by Mack Twain at 7:12 PM on November 19, 2001
posted by Mack Twain at 7:12 PM on November 19, 2001
The jarring thing in this front-page post? Ending it with "I think this is wrong." It invites replies along the lines of "Oh, do you? Well, good for you. Next link, please." In similar terms, the follow-up comment has more "I"s than Argus. It's reflexive rather than outward-looking, and it reads like a post to a personal weblog.
posted by holgate at 7:32 PM on November 19, 2001
posted by holgate at 7:32 PM on November 19, 2001
Since we are now into derogatory comments about having more "eyes than Argus," I am definitely taking offense.
*kick his ass, dad*
posted by eyeballkid at 7:53 PM on November 19, 2001
*kick his ass, dad*
posted by eyeballkid at 7:53 PM on November 19, 2001
to me, the issue is metafilter as debate forum or metafilter as link filter. i prefer the latter; i would guess steven prefers the former.
So is the objection that the link wasn't good enough? Because apart from that, what's the problem? It seems to me that both sides are catered for: if you don't want the discussion, don't go to the comments, just follow the front page links.
(My impression of the original objection was that the discussion was driven in one direction, or that the poster had posted too many comments - but the "more" post was no longer than many other long posts in the past and while he commented quite a bit more on the thread, he didn't dominate it (imho)).
posted by andrew cooke at 12:25 AM on November 20, 2001
So is the objection that the link wasn't good enough? Because apart from that, what's the problem? It seems to me that both sides are catered for: if you don't want the discussion, don't go to the comments, just follow the front page links.
(My impression of the original objection was that the discussion was driven in one direction, or that the poster had posted too many comments - but the "more" post was no longer than many other long posts in the past and while he commented quite a bit more on the thread, he didn't dominate it (imho)).
posted by andrew cooke at 12:25 AM on November 20, 2001
If you’re trying to ween MetaFilter off the debate-club atmosphere (which seems to have reached its absurd pinnacle) then [more] topic posts are your anathema. I’m not sure if [more] posts actually increase intelligent discussion, either.
I’m not into it for three reasons:
1) It’s sort of like first posting.
2) If you’re posting the topic then you’re starting the discussion. Give somebody else a chance before you open your yap again. If you’re starting a conversation do you say something like: “Whattya think of Harry Potter? I thought it sucked and here’s why...”
3) If you want to write editorials try Kuro5hin. Which isn’t to say thoughtful remarks don’t have their place, just give someone else a chance. MetaFilter isn’t your editorial page.
Chances are you’re posting a topic for two reasons: 1) It’s curious and you want to share or learn more about it. 2) You have your understanding of the topic, and you’d like to open the question for discussion. If it’s either, not only is it polite to wait for replies, but chances are higher you might learn something by listening. Or reading in this case.
Like lots‘o’links, this is just my little style preference. I like to think of MetaFilter as more of a conversation than a debate.
posted by raaka at 12:34 AM on November 20, 2001
I’m not into it for three reasons:
1) It’s sort of like first posting.
2) If you’re posting the topic then you’re starting the discussion. Give somebody else a chance before you open your yap again. If you’re starting a conversation do you say something like: “Whattya think of Harry Potter? I thought it sucked and here’s why...”
3) If you want to write editorials try Kuro5hin. Which isn’t to say thoughtful remarks don’t have their place, just give someone else a chance. MetaFilter isn’t your editorial page.
Chances are you’re posting a topic for two reasons: 1) It’s curious and you want to share or learn more about it. 2) You have your understanding of the topic, and you’d like to open the question for discussion. If it’s either, not only is it polite to wait for replies, but chances are higher you might learn something by listening. Or reading in this case.
Like lots‘o’links, this is just my little style preference. I like to think of MetaFilter as more of a conversation than a debate.
posted by raaka at 12:34 AM on November 20, 2001
Like lots'o'links
But not too many.
I like to think of MetaFilter as more of a conversation than a debate.
But not too chatty.
The goalposts are once again moving all over the place. The only thing we can be certain of is that Metafilter has more rules than Mornington Crescent.
posted by dlewis at 3:37 AM on November 20, 2001
But not too many.
I like to think of MetaFilter as more of a conversation than a debate.
But not too chatty.
The goalposts are once again moving all over the place. The only thing we can be certain of is that Metafilter has more rules than Mornington Crescent.
posted by dlewis at 3:37 AM on November 20, 2001
But it wasn't that good last night, was it? (well, apart from Jack and Arthur ;-)
posted by andrew cooke at 4:01 AM on November 20, 2001
posted by andrew cooke at 4:01 AM on November 20, 2001
dlewis: that you are master of the rollover is well known. But that you show such consideration for others less lazy and click-happy than you...well, that is truly humbling.
*searches feverishly for famous rollover thread; desists; doffs hat to Master Lewis; goes sullenly back to WebMonkey tutorial*
posted by MiguelCardoso at 4:39 AM on November 20, 2001
*searches feverishly for famous rollover thread; desists; doffs hat to Master Lewis; goes sullenly back to WebMonkey tutorial*
posted by MiguelCardoso at 4:39 AM on November 20, 2001
Just testing. Meaning, of course, more lazy and less click-happy. So, how many of you spotted my deliberate mistake?
posted by MiguelCardoso at 4:43 AM on November 20, 2001
posted by MiguelCardoso at 4:43 AM on November 20, 2001
Between IRC and parlimentary procedure. Between memepool and threeoh. That’s a wide open space.
posted by raaka at 4:44 AM on November 20, 2001
posted by raaka at 4:44 AM on November 20, 2001
Between a whisper and a scream...what the hell song is that again?
*wanders off to check*
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:38 AM on November 20, 2001
*wanders off to check*
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:38 AM on November 20, 2001
What raaka said. The difficulty is deciding whether Mefi is a forum for debate or an exhibition of links - right now it does both, and the debate here is between those two factions, and I'm not certain that it'll ever be decided definitively. There is a continuum where we reside as posters between those who post links and those who offer opinion and debate other members, and we all fall in that continuum somewhere.
Point being, part of Mefi's attractiveness is the combination of both. If Matt wanted this to be memepool or threeoh, he'd have designed it differently and monitored/modified it accordingly. Mefi is popular because it is not like other sites, and to try and mold it toward another site's aesthetic will inevitably decrease that individuality.
Like in the "how to handle trolls" threads, it comes down to the individual poster and his behavior - do I participate in an opinion thread? Do I post a long FPP? Do I editorialize? And while the most extreme examples of either behavior are policed, the middle ground will be determined by the member at the keyboard. Lately, I ask myself before I post: "does this add to the discussion? Am I contributing?" I can't tell you how many lengthy rants I've backed out of, because the answers of those questions was "no" and "no," and the mere act of typing it out was sufficient to ameliorate the desire to react. So my advice: measure twice, cut once. Or in this case, read twice, post once.
posted by UncleFes at 7:45 AM on November 20, 2001
Point being, part of Mefi's attractiveness is the combination of both. If Matt wanted this to be memepool or threeoh, he'd have designed it differently and monitored/modified it accordingly. Mefi is popular because it is not like other sites, and to try and mold it toward another site's aesthetic will inevitably decrease that individuality.
Like in the "how to handle trolls" threads, it comes down to the individual poster and his behavior - do I participate in an opinion thread? Do I post a long FPP? Do I editorialize? And while the most extreme examples of either behavior are policed, the middle ground will be determined by the member at the keyboard. Lately, I ask myself before I post: "does this add to the discussion? Am I contributing?" I can't tell you how many lengthy rants I've backed out of, because the answers of those questions was "no" and "no," and the mere act of typing it out was sufficient to ameliorate the desire to react. So my advice: measure twice, cut once. Or in this case, read twice, post once.
posted by UncleFes at 7:45 AM on November 20, 2001
another link with annoying editorializing in the link text (re: mefi pacifist club). the next time i post a thread, does anyone mind if i tack onto the end: "all republicans can suck my cock"?
posted by moz at 8:13 AM on November 20, 2001
posted by moz at 8:13 AM on November 20, 2001
That's a lotta knob-gobblin', Mr. Moz. You reckon you're up to it? This is a mission for a MeFi Superhero!
::shudders, thinking of all the ugly old, wattled, male republicans...::
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:25 AM on November 20, 2001
::shudders, thinking of all the ugly old, wattled, male republicans...::
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:25 AM on November 20, 2001
Maybe just *type* it, moz, and then hit the back button and go read something else...? That's what I do when someone posts something equally trolly from the left :)
And "all republicans can suck my cock" seems like more of a usenet sig, I think. Good luck with that, though.
posted by UncleFes at 8:37 AM on November 20, 2001
And "all republicans can suck my cock" seems like more of a usenet sig, I think. Good luck with that, though.
posted by UncleFes at 8:37 AM on November 20, 2001
well put, Fes -- your remark before (you having commented again, you slippery devil).
Did you guys catch rodii's post and jpoulos' post in that thread moz mentions? They know better.... If there were a movie of this, there would be that scene where you see, say, rodii reading darren's post and clenching his fist (crushing a can of Mountain Dew in his rage) and, seething, composing that retort, and then the slow-mo as he moves to click "post" while the audience screams, "No-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o . . . . "
And then there's Mo's comment, in which he character-assassinates a whole bunch of MeFites for their ill-advised remarks. Fascinating what that thread is doing to some people....
posted by mattpfeff at 8:46 AM on November 20, 2001
Did you guys catch rodii's post and jpoulos' post in that thread moz mentions? They know better.... If there were a movie of this, there would be that scene where you see, say, rodii reading darren's post and clenching his fist (crushing a can of Mountain Dew in his rage) and, seething, composing that retort, and then the slow-mo as he moves to click "post" while the audience screams, "No-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o . . . . "
And then there's Mo's comment, in which he character-assassinates a whole bunch of MeFites for their ill-advised remarks. Fascinating what that thread is doing to some people....
posted by mattpfeff at 8:46 AM on November 20, 2001
My reaction to the thread : wheeeeeeeeee!
(mad props to jpoulos)
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:59 AM on November 20, 2001
(mad props to jpoulos)
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:59 AM on November 20, 2001
stavros:
well, but there's always ann coulter.
(i can't believe i'm discussing this on a metatalk thread.)
posted by moz at 9:07 AM on November 20, 2001
well, but there's always ann coulter.
(i can't believe i'm discussing this on a metatalk thread.)
posted by moz at 9:07 AM on November 20, 2001
I think it was a good post. Of course, I haven't kept up with recent posts, so I don't know if it's a conceptual double post or not. I don't think there's anything wrong with mentioning your opinion in the front page text, although I don't think one should ramble on. Still, on "issue posts" like this one, I would prefer a summary of the issue on the front page, and a summary of the poster's personal opinion as a followup comment.
posted by daveadams at 9:12 AM on November 20, 2001
posted by daveadams at 9:12 AM on November 20, 2001
Is this discussion really about editorializing and directing commentary , or is it a backdoor attack on Steven in response to his challenge to the antiwar crowd? I really wish one or more of you would just take him up on it, there are at least four of you in this post that are more than up to the task. Or, is it really about drowning logic with quadracious amounts of rhetoric?
posted by Mack Twain at 10:03 AM on November 20, 2001
posted by Mack Twain at 10:03 AM on November 20, 2001
If you equate a prediction of disagreement with fellatio, well, I "predict you will disagree" with me frequently.
posted by kindall at 10:15 AM on November 20, 2001
posted by kindall at 10:15 AM on November 20, 2001
mack:
it's really about sticking the damn editorializing in the comments where they belong. i don't know what else it takes to convince you; i would hope my honesty be enough.
posted by moz at 10:19 AM on November 20, 2001
it's really about sticking the damn editorializing in the comments where they belong. i don't know what else it takes to convince you; i would hope my honesty be enough.
posted by moz at 10:19 AM on November 20, 2001
Thanks moz, and "is it really about drowning logic with quadracious amounts of rhetoric?" actually referred to Steven...Steven, please stop editorializing!
posted by Mack Twain at 3:37 PM on November 20, 2001
posted by Mack Twain at 3:37 PM on November 20, 2001
Did you guys catch rodii's post and jpoulos' post in that thread moz mentions? They know better....
I'm not sure if this means that I should know better or if I'm smart because I didn't do something.
Darren is a troll and is invited to bite me. This is not the first time he's done this lately. I registered my contempt, didn't take the bait otherwise, and moved on. I should have been more polite, it's true, but I promise you no cans were harmed in the making of that post.
posted by rodii at 4:03 PM on November 20, 2001
I'm not sure if this means that I should know better or if I'm smart because I didn't do something.
Darren is a troll and is invited to bite me. This is not the first time he's done this lately. I registered my contempt, didn't take the bait otherwise, and moved on. I should have been more polite, it's true, but I promise you no cans were harmed in the making of that post.
posted by rodii at 4:03 PM on November 20, 2001
I'm not sure if this means that I should know better or if I'm smart because I didn't do something.
Hmm. I guess I think it pays very little to call someone out in a thread, and threatens the thread itself. Y'know, the ol' "take it to MeTa" line. But, that said, you and the rest of the thread did move on, as you say.
posted by mattpfeff at 5:04 PM on November 20, 2001
Hmm. I guess I think it pays very little to call someone out in a thread, and threatens the thread itself. Y'know, the ol' "take it to MeTa" line. But, that said, you and the rest of the thread did move on, as you say.
posted by mattpfeff at 5:04 PM on November 20, 2001
I found the expletitive. *waving* Hi Moz!
holgate: "It reads like a weblog post, though."
Lemme clue ya in: this is a blog. Maybe I should repeat that because for some reason I find it vaguely important. METAFILTER IS A WEBLOG. It logs the web. It fits the definition. No argument there? Good. Let's move on.
raaka said [MORE] formatting is like first posting? Bull. If you start the thread it's your responsibility to explain WHY you put it there in the first place. If you tell a friend to see a movie you just saw, I hope you tell them WHY.
dlewis pointed out "The goalposts are once again moving all over the place." Y'know why? The "goalposts" of the vocal minority are not fixed. Matt's guidelines are fixed, but people interpret them differently, as evident in Moz's responses to own post above, in which by the way Moz is directing the thread with opinion. Therefore proving the self to be hypocritical.
It's impossible to properly enjoy participating in MeFi without sharing one's own opinion. If people stop doing that, this place will become exceedingly boring, and double plus unfun.
MeFi is a debate forum that filters the Internet through the interests and opinions of its supporters. It's all good. MeFi is not precisely what YOU and only YOU want it to be, whoever YOU are. Whether inappropriate or appropriate, each and every link is still MeFi. Unless Matt deletes the thread, at which point that thread stops being MeFi and starts being nonexistent and immaterial.
Y'know I really don't think anyone really knows what MeFi is. Maybe even Matt loses a couple minutes of sleep now and then as his mind drifts to the thought, "I've created an effin' monster."
MeFi is great though. We keep coming back for more. Moz? You prefer the former? You prefer the latter? I prefer both. I prefer it all. I even prefer the parts of MeFi that sometimes piss me off and upset me. It's like a year round Thanksgiving Day Parade that never stops and each post is a float or something presented by somebody somewhere out there. Sometimes floats suck. Sometimes they're marching bands that bastardize Barry Manilow's Copa Cabana. Sometimes they're the Rockettes. Sometimes they're balloons of pathetic modern icons which do not hold a candle to Snoopy, Superman or Clifford. Sometimes they're Snoopy, Superman or Clifford. Sometimes they're Willard Scott on a paper mache turkey. Sometimes they're Santa Claus.
Even when MeFi sucks, it's still good. It's still enlightening. It's still entertaining. Gonads and strife, man.
Bottom line: if you don't like a linkpost? Don't participate. That's your "vote." Like a post? Participate.
Beyond that, this thread and others like it, where we extemporize ad infinitum about what MeFi is and whether other people are doing it right like you must be doing, well it's all just snakes swallowing their own tails, and I for one applaud it and hope to see such time-space folding to continue forever until we create the first online blackhole of words.
"Please continue the petty bickering. I find it most fascinating."
posted by ZachsMind at 6:26 AM on November 25, 2001
holgate: "It reads like a weblog post, though."
Lemme clue ya in: this is a blog. Maybe I should repeat that because for some reason I find it vaguely important. METAFILTER IS A WEBLOG. It logs the web. It fits the definition. No argument there? Good. Let's move on.
raaka said [MORE] formatting is like first posting? Bull. If you start the thread it's your responsibility to explain WHY you put it there in the first place. If you tell a friend to see a movie you just saw, I hope you tell them WHY.
dlewis pointed out "The goalposts are once again moving all over the place." Y'know why? The "goalposts" of the vocal minority are not fixed. Matt's guidelines are fixed, but people interpret them differently, as evident in Moz's responses to own post above, in which by the way Moz is directing the thread with opinion. Therefore proving the self to be hypocritical.
It's impossible to properly enjoy participating in MeFi without sharing one's own opinion. If people stop doing that, this place will become exceedingly boring, and double plus unfun.
MeFi is a debate forum that filters the Internet through the interests and opinions of its supporters. It's all good. MeFi is not precisely what YOU and only YOU want it to be, whoever YOU are. Whether inappropriate or appropriate, each and every link is still MeFi. Unless Matt deletes the thread, at which point that thread stops being MeFi and starts being nonexistent and immaterial.
Y'know I really don't think anyone really knows what MeFi is. Maybe even Matt loses a couple minutes of sleep now and then as his mind drifts to the thought, "I've created an effin' monster."
MeFi is great though. We keep coming back for more. Moz? You prefer the former? You prefer the latter? I prefer both. I prefer it all. I even prefer the parts of MeFi that sometimes piss me off and upset me. It's like a year round Thanksgiving Day Parade that never stops and each post is a float or something presented by somebody somewhere out there. Sometimes floats suck. Sometimes they're marching bands that bastardize Barry Manilow's Copa Cabana. Sometimes they're the Rockettes. Sometimes they're balloons of pathetic modern icons which do not hold a candle to Snoopy, Superman or Clifford. Sometimes they're Snoopy, Superman or Clifford. Sometimes they're Willard Scott on a paper mache turkey. Sometimes they're Santa Claus.
Even when MeFi sucks, it's still good. It's still enlightening. It's still entertaining. Gonads and strife, man.
Bottom line: if you don't like a linkpost? Don't participate. That's your "vote." Like a post? Participate.
Beyond that, this thread and others like it, where we extemporize ad infinitum about what MeFi is and whether other people are doing it right like you must be doing, well it's all just snakes swallowing their own tails, and I for one applaud it and hope to see such time-space folding to continue forever until we create the first online blackhole of words.
"Please continue the petty bickering. I find it most fascinating."
posted by ZachsMind at 6:26 AM on November 25, 2001
zach, you say:
Matt's guidelines are fixed, but people interpret them differently, as evident in Moz's responses to own post above, in which by the way Moz is directing the thread with opinion. Therefore proving the self to be hypocritical.
whose "own post," by the way? you didn't post anything prior to that point in the thread. i stated my opinion, expounded on it (somewhat), pointed out a new thread (which i felt was editorializing) plus some perhaps inappropriate frustration, answered a question, and mentioned another thread i felt was editorializing. i wanted to mention other threads so as not to seem as though i was dogpiling on steven -- that yes, i thought others editorialize too (even a "leftist"!), but i can see how you might think that's the same as directing traffic. a sticky situation.
posted by moz at 11:35 AM on November 25, 2001
Matt's guidelines are fixed, but people interpret them differently, as evident in Moz's responses to own post above, in which by the way Moz is directing the thread with opinion. Therefore proving the self to be hypocritical.
whose "own post," by the way? you didn't post anything prior to that point in the thread. i stated my opinion, expounded on it (somewhat), pointed out a new thread (which i felt was editorializing) plus some perhaps inappropriate frustration, answered a question, and mentioned another thread i felt was editorializing. i wanted to mention other threads so as not to seem as though i was dogpiling on steven -- that yes, i thought others editorialize too (even a "leftist"!), but i can see how you might think that's the same as directing traffic. a sticky situation.
posted by moz at 11:35 AM on November 25, 2001
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by moz at 11:42 AM on November 19, 2001