I'm going to draw attention to this thread June 16, 2002 8:39 PM Subscribe
At the risk (feh, who am I kidding?) of pouring salt in the proverbial wound, I'm going to draw attention to this thread. These two users were apparently engaged in some buffoonery, and perhaps the community was a little harsh, but their reactions really made me mad. Do I, or we, or MeFi in general, really need these guys maliciously baiting other users?
I think bwg was probably just trying to generate some conversation in a lighter vein. It seems unlikely it would set a trend, so what harm could it really have done? Just so I know for the future, do all the links have to be serious if its not Friday?
posted by Tarrama at 10:12 PM on June 16, 2002
posted by Tarrama at 10:12 PM on June 16, 2002
Jumpin Jesus on a pogo stick!
It was a good post, it's the kind of thing that use to get linked here all the time.
Chill. Out.
posted by Mick at 10:13 PM on June 16, 2002
It was a good post, it's the kind of thing that use to get linked here all the time.
Chill. Out.
posted by Mick at 10:13 PM on June 16, 2002
As I said in the thread, I'm lost. I have no idea what provoked that kind of reaction. I think rusty pointed it out the best.
Though it was the most enjoyable discussion in a long time. Makes me want to have a roast for Matt.
"geoff.'s Metafilter Roast: mathowie"
Next week it could be:
"geoff.'s Metafilter Roast: MiguelCardoso"
posted by geoff. at 11:04 PM on June 16, 2002
Though it was the most enjoyable discussion in a long time. Makes me want to have a roast for Matt.
"geoff.'s Metafilter Roast: mathowie"
Next week it could be:
"geoff.'s Metafilter Roast: MiguelCardoso"
posted by geoff. at 11:04 PM on June 16, 2002
Oh I forgot to add. I really didn't like bmg's use of "My number is small, that makes me better."
posted by geoff. at 11:06 PM on June 16, 2002
posted by geoff. at 11:06 PM on June 16, 2002
Besides a teensy bit of overly caustic rhetoric and the reverse size queen brandishment of user numbers that geoff pointed out, I don't think the discussion or the post was inappropriate. In fact, I hope more of that sort of non-political link gets posted on the blue page in the future because, to tell you the truth, I'm getting weary of the political bitch-fests. There are plenty of sites which specialize in political discussions; I didn't start visiting Metafilter for the political discussions. Sometimes those discussions are good ones, but lately they are small in scope and light in link content. I can usually read the post and foretell the responses inside, and that's boring. I get angry almost every time I visit Mefi, and I don't like that. I would rather see this yacht-silliness kind of post a million times than another limp politics thread. Metafilter seems to be its best when pointing out the weird, the artistic and the fascinating. I think we should do what we can to encourage the preservation of those strengths.
posted by evanizer at 11:22 PM on June 16, 2002
posted by evanizer at 11:22 PM on June 16, 2002
I would rather see this yacht-silliness kind of post a million times than another limp politics thread.
Evanizer tells it like it is. I agree wholeheartedly.
posted by Kafkaesque at 11:24 PM on June 16, 2002
Evanizer tells it like it is. I agree wholeheartedly.
posted by Kafkaesque at 11:24 PM on June 16, 2002
most of us aren't looking for humor/goofiness on the front page (except on Friday.)
????
I look for humor and goofiness everyday on this site. It keeps me away from the shouting matches that the political threads bring.
A little MeTaHistory: First Post. Tell me again what people come here for.
[got up and left for a moment... on preview... right on evan & kafka]
posted by eyeballkid at 11:32 PM on June 16, 2002
????
I look for humor and goofiness everyday on this site. It keeps me away from the shouting matches that the political threads bring.
A little MeTaHistory: First Post. Tell me again what people come here for.
[got up and left for a moment... on preview... right on evan & kafka]
posted by eyeballkid at 11:32 PM on June 16, 2002
bravo, evanizer.
I dont usually bother with "me too" posts but in this case I think its important. Whatever quickly spiraled out of control in that yacht thread I think it better that both sides just let it go. Thats what "Mefi in general" or at least this particular component says.
posted by vacapinta at 11:41 PM on June 16, 2002
I dont usually bother with "me too" posts but in this case I think its important. Whatever quickly spiraled out of control in that yacht thread I think it better that both sides just let it go. Thats what "Mefi in general" or at least this particular component says.
posted by vacapinta at 11:41 PM on June 16, 2002
Oh I forgot to add. I really didn't like bmg's use of 'My number is small, that makes me better.'
I read it as 'my number is small, don't lecture me on the rules as if I'm a newbie'. bwg had just been accused of pulling some sort of self-posting/nepotistic stunt, which would have made anyone defensive.
posted by rory at 2:32 AM on June 17, 2002
I read it as 'my number is small, don't lecture me on the rules as if I'm a newbie'. bwg had just been accused of pulling some sort of self-posting/nepotistic stunt, which would have made anyone defensive.
posted by rory at 2:32 AM on June 17, 2002
But there was a better way to do it than that. bwg could have simply said something like "I've been here a while and know the rules."
Cheers, brother evanizer.
posted by ashbury at 5:25 AM on June 17, 2002
Cheers, brother evanizer.
posted by ashbury at 5:25 AM on June 17, 2002
Yeah, but imagine if he had said "I've been here a while and know the rules." The response would have been "Look who's 'been here a while' and thinks he's better than the rest of us!"
Just because we've all been hypersensitized to the politeness issue lately doesn't mean that we have to stamp out every sign of tetchiness.Sheesh.
posted by rory at 5:34 AM on June 17, 2002
Just because we've all been hypersensitized to the politeness issue lately doesn't mean that we have to stamp out every sign of tetchiness.
posted by rory at 5:34 AM on June 17, 2002
In the future, I think the publishers of all wacky Web pages should come to MetaFilter and angrily berate us for not getting the joke. The more the "Name Our Yacht" contest becomes about MetaFilter, the closer it gets to being funny. I'm glad Kaycee died so Bwg has the time to find things like this.
posted by rcade at 5:44 AM on June 17, 2002
posted by rcade at 5:44 AM on June 17, 2002
Testiness is one thing, but bwg was almost asking for a calling out. Me, I think he was in the right, but in the conservative era that MetaFilter is in, nothing but polite and guarded statements seem to be permitted.
What's going on, that folks are getting bent out of shape at the slightest thing? With a population of over 14k, there has to be room for people to express themselves without the fear of getting censored.
posted by ashbury at 6:02 AM on June 17, 2002
What's going on, that folks are getting bent out of shape at the slightest thing? With a population of over 14k, there has to be room for people to express themselves without the fear of getting censored.
posted by ashbury at 6:02 AM on June 17, 2002
This reminds me of the webcam incident. Interesting to note how the composition of the site/membership has changed since then by the difference in people's reaction. The link was crap, but many are. The juvenile flaming by the site owners was contrary to the policies of the site and probably justified deletion. The saddest thing to me is comments like this, which demonstrate just how clueless some people are about this site. This ain't Usenet, folks.
posted by rushmc at 6:21 AM on June 17, 2002
posted by rushmc at 6:21 AM on June 17, 2002
While it's very noble of you to go way out on a limb there, evanizer, and suggest that the "the weird, the artistic and the fascinating" is preferred over the well-trodden and predictable, the problem with the linked thread is not that people were misunderstanding the goals of MeFi, or that they were ignorant of the appropriate subject-matter. The problem is the lame-ass ad hominem attacks, of the variety most of us just finished condemning.
I mean, look at this!
tacodog: How about the USS Who Gives A Damn.
pjz: ...how about we call it the SS Awww My Meta Filter Pussy Hurts ... Cuz , maybe that might be more relevant to this group.
birddog: this post is a pile. Now that we see the asses behind it
rusty (rusty!?): Dude, you've got to get that sand out of your vagina.
*) The post was acceptable.
*) Criticisms of the post (eg: "it's a spam harvester, I think") were also acceptable.
*) The criticisms of the poster were inappropriate.
*) Because of bwg's connection to the link, criticisms of the post suddenly became personal attacks. (Probably unforeseeable, but bad.)
*) Subsequent sarcastic mud-slinging between the post's critics and its supporters was entirely unacceptable.
posted by Marquis at 7:28 AM on June 17, 2002
I mean, look at this!
tacodog: How about the USS Who Gives A Damn.
pjz: ...how about we call it the SS Awww My Meta Filter Pussy Hurts ... Cuz , maybe that might be more relevant to this group.
birddog: this post is a pile. Now that we see the asses behind it
rusty (rusty!?): Dude, you've got to get that sand out of your vagina.
*) The post was acceptable.
*) Criticisms of the post (eg: "it's a spam harvester, I think") were also acceptable.
*) The criticisms of the poster were inappropriate.
*) Because of bwg's connection to the link, criticisms of the post suddenly became personal attacks. (Probably unforeseeable, but bad.)
*) Subsequent sarcastic mud-slinging between the post's critics and its supporters was entirely unacceptable.
posted by Marquis at 7:28 AM on June 17, 2002
I still don't get this 'bwg's connection to the link' thing. It's not like they're all related. Doesn't he just read their blogs? So, you're allowed to link to things that you only just found, like one-off goofy GeoCities pages or CNN stories, but not to things made by people whose sites you read a lot? (Or once a month, for all we know.) If one of our favourite bloggers builds something or does something we consider MeFi-worthy, should we just forget about posting it?
Debate the MeFi-worthiness of this specific link, by all means, but follow this 'connection to the link' line of reasoning too far and it puts off-limits anything on any personal site that we actually happen to read regularly. Which is nuts.
posted by rory at 7:47 AM on June 17, 2002
Debate the MeFi-worthiness of this specific link, by all means, but follow this 'connection to the link' line of reasoning too far and it puts off-limits anything on any personal site that we actually happen to read regularly. Which is nuts.
posted by rory at 7:47 AM on June 17, 2002
Ack - rory, you got me. I meant:
Because of pjz's connection to the link...
posted by Marquis at 8:12 AM on June 17, 2002
Because of pjz's connection to the link...
posted by Marquis at 8:12 AM on June 17, 2002
The saddest thing to me is comments like this, which demonstrate just how clueless some people are about this site. This ain't Usenet, folks.
Surprise surprise. rushmc once again assuming that he knows me, or understands my thinking. Get a clue, jackass, and get off my back. I'm keeping it off the blue, but I'm not taking this to e-mail. I have no need to privately converse. Find some other "project". Your holiness has no affect upon my posting style.
posted by BlueTrain at 9:09 AM on June 17, 2002
Surprise surprise. rushmc once again assuming that he knows me, or understands my thinking. Get a clue, jackass, and get off my back. I'm keeping it off the blue, but I'm not taking this to e-mail. I have no need to privately converse. Find some other "project". Your holiness has no affect upon my posting style.
posted by BlueTrain at 9:09 AM on June 17, 2002
to clarify:
rory is right: i used the member numbers on purpose because i am so tired of the lecturing by those who don't happen to like a link—not just my links—any links. it had nothing to do with me "being better" as it was put.
and yeah, sure i read pjz's site. but so what? people read zeldman and kottke and link to them all the time, and no one says a thing about it. for God's sake, it was a just a link to a couple of guys i know who had a goofy idea. i thought it was kind of fun. that's all. that's why i posted it. get it?
you know, i stopped coming to mefi for some time because of all the crap i kept seeing: the self-important blowhards, the over-eager police, the annoying "pancake" comments, etc. etc.—name-calling and snide remarks are not intelligent conversation. i can't recall in the 180+ comments i've made at mefi that i've ever attacked someone or belittled them for a so-called "bad post". is it so hard to be pleasant and just let matt delete the posts?
i admit i have posted some less-than-stellar links, but i have managed to post some good ones too. if matt would let me, i'd give him a list of the links i've made to date that i think should be deleted, and let him decide if he will toss them. if i could delete them myself i would.
i recently began participating at mefi again, mostly just leaving comments here and there. but the responses i've been getting to posts make me feel unwelcome. it seems to me that since the whole 'kaycee' situation took place over a year ago, that some people here seem to go out of their way to try to make me feel bad.
so for now i've decided that from here on i will no longer post any links. it's just not worth it.
posted by bwg at 9:09 AM on June 17, 2002
rory is right: i used the member numbers on purpose because i am so tired of the lecturing by those who don't happen to like a link—not just my links—any links. it had nothing to do with me "being better" as it was put.
and yeah, sure i read pjz's site. but so what? people read zeldman and kottke and link to them all the time, and no one says a thing about it. for God's sake, it was a just a link to a couple of guys i know who had a goofy idea. i thought it was kind of fun. that's all. that's why i posted it. get it?
you know, i stopped coming to mefi for some time because of all the crap i kept seeing: the self-important blowhards, the over-eager police, the annoying "pancake" comments, etc. etc.—name-calling and snide remarks are not intelligent conversation. i can't recall in the 180+ comments i've made at mefi that i've ever attacked someone or belittled them for a so-called "bad post". is it so hard to be pleasant and just let matt delete the posts?
i admit i have posted some less-than-stellar links, but i have managed to post some good ones too. if matt would let me, i'd give him a list of the links i've made to date that i think should be deleted, and let him decide if he will toss them. if i could delete them myself i would.
i recently began participating at mefi again, mostly just leaving comments here and there. but the responses i've been getting to posts make me feel unwelcome. it seems to me that since the whole 'kaycee' situation took place over a year ago, that some people here seem to go out of their way to try to make me feel bad.
so for now i've decided that from here on i will no longer post any links. it's just not worth it.
posted by bwg at 9:09 AM on June 17, 2002
bwg said it exactly.
Ya know, I apologize for whatever was "out of order" in your rules.
When I found out that people were just ripping apart my ideas...that's fine. That happens. Most of them didn't understand it was a joke. And when I wasn't getting mature responses, yeah I admit it, I didn't respond in the most mature way either.
What i'm saying is i'm getting criticized about this being a community and not following community rules...but I don't feel welcome at all. I won't post anything in fear of it getting torn apart by a lot of bitter people who take it extremely off topic. I can't even begin to tell you how many hateful entries I got. It's just a joke, guys. Let it go.
And it's because of this all that I really don't feel welcome to do much else here. So, i'm finished.
Thanks for the link BWG and i'm sorry you got ripped up so much just for trying to state something you liked on a "community" weblog.
posted by pjz at 9:22 AM on June 17, 2002
Ya know, I apologize for whatever was "out of order" in your rules.
When I found out that people were just ripping apart my ideas...that's fine. That happens. Most of them didn't understand it was a joke. And when I wasn't getting mature responses, yeah I admit it, I didn't respond in the most mature way either.
What i'm saying is i'm getting criticized about this being a community and not following community rules...but I don't feel welcome at all. I won't post anything in fear of it getting torn apart by a lot of bitter people who take it extremely off topic. I can't even begin to tell you how many hateful entries I got. It's just a joke, guys. Let it go.
And it's because of this all that I really don't feel welcome to do much else here. So, i'm finished.
Thanks for the link BWG and i'm sorry you got ripped up so much just for trying to state something you liked on a "community" weblog.
posted by pjz at 9:22 AM on June 17, 2002
I hate how the response to every form of criticism on MetaFilter is to call on the old stand-bys -- we're all a bunch of mean, juvenile, self-important, self-policing, self-abusing blowhards who derive pleasure only from the pain of others.
BWG: If we're such bad people, why did this become evident only after you posted a gag link with no explanation that sank like a lead balloon?
posted by rcade at 9:27 AM on June 17, 2002
BWG: If we're such bad people, why did this become evident only after you posted a gag link with no explanation that sank like a lead balloon?
posted by rcade at 9:27 AM on June 17, 2002
Get a clue, jackass, and get off my back.
Is anyone else amused that bluetrain couldn't even avoid ad hominem attacks in this thread?!
I also like this part: Surprise surprise. rushmc once again assuming that he knows me, or understands my thinking.
BlueTrain, the whole point of this site is that you use your words to communicate your point of view. All we have to go on are your words. You can't blame other people for "misinterpreting" them forever. Sooner or later you have to take responsibility for the fact that people are judging you on what you post.
posted by palegirl at 9:35 AM on June 17, 2002
Is anyone else amused that bluetrain couldn't even avoid ad hominem attacks in this thread?!
I also like this part: Surprise surprise. rushmc once again assuming that he knows me, or understands my thinking.
BlueTrain, the whole point of this site is that you use your words to communicate your point of view. All we have to go on are your words. You can't blame other people for "misinterpreting" them forever. Sooner or later you have to take responsibility for the fact that people are judging you on what you post.
posted by palegirl at 9:35 AM on June 17, 2002
sank like a lead balloon
eh?
Are the 456 positive entries we got to the contest counted in this ballon of which you speak?
posted by pjz at 9:36 AM on June 17, 2002
eh?
Are the 456 positive entries we got to the contest counted in this ballon of which you speak?
posted by pjz at 9:36 AM on June 17, 2002
My problem, palegirl, is that rushmc tends to target certain posters. The most prominent example I can show is this:
(comment) - MiguelCardoso
(comment) - Avogadro
(comment) - sennoma
I apologize to those members' comments I highlighted. I simply needed to prove a point.
posted by BlueTrain at 9:50 AM on June 17, 2002
(comment) - MiguelCardoso
(comment) - Avogadro
(comment) - sennoma
I apologize to those members' comments I highlighted. I simply needed to prove a point.
posted by BlueTrain at 9:50 AM on June 17, 2002
Surprise surprise. rushmc once again assuming that he knows me, or understands my thinking.
The only surprise, BlueTrain, is that you haven't taken any of MeFi's discussions on personal attacks to heart, and that you continue to support infantile, inflammatory posts so long as they match a right-wing, anti-MeFigemony agenda. Some weeks ago, I respected you - and paid attention to the thoughts contained in your posts - but since being (unfairly) called out as a MeFi "mommy", you've struck back with volley after volley of mean-spiritedness. You're contributing empty vitreol and bitter snark to discussions, not the well-reasoned thoughts I had come to appreciate. Please go back to your old ways - we'll benefit, and you'll save yourself an ulcer.
Lately rushmc has been going on an anti-ad hominem whirlwind, and I appreciate it thoroughly. Rather than dwelling on his past policing peccadilloes (yes, he has it in for aaron), why don't you stop providing him with material that deserves criticism? Even if you find his sanctimony infuriating, could you not perhaps accept that he has a point?
posted by Marquis at 10:01 AM on June 17, 2002
The only surprise, BlueTrain, is that you haven't taken any of MeFi's discussions on personal attacks to heart, and that you continue to support infantile, inflammatory posts so long as they match a right-wing, anti-MeFigemony agenda. Some weeks ago, I respected you - and paid attention to the thoughts contained in your posts - but since being (unfairly) called out as a MeFi "mommy", you've struck back with volley after volley of mean-spiritedness. You're contributing empty vitreol and bitter snark to discussions, not the well-reasoned thoughts I had come to appreciate. Please go back to your old ways - we'll benefit, and you'll save yourself an ulcer.
Lately rushmc has been going on an anti-ad hominem whirlwind, and I appreciate it thoroughly. Rather than dwelling on his past policing peccadilloes (yes, he has it in for aaron), why don't you stop providing him with material that deserves criticism? Even if you find his sanctimony infuriating, could you not perhaps accept that he has a point?
posted by Marquis at 10:01 AM on June 17, 2002
BlueTrain: It seems you're way off the mark, at least with my example. For the record, I not only consider rushmc a friend but value his opinions enormously. I also tend to agree with what he says. The only difference between us I can recall is that I appreciate aaron's posts and he doesn't. Big deal. His criticisms are always compelling and generous. He's one of the free spirits that changes peoples' minds here. I have no idea why he's become "flavour of the month" recently. Too perfect? Writes too well? Thinks things through? Cares about MetaFilter. Beats me. Is it envy? Envy I'd understand. ;)
posted by MiguelCardoso at 10:32 AM on June 17, 2002
posted by MiguelCardoso at 10:32 AM on June 17, 2002
my only issue with the otherwise forgettable thread is the tiresome equation of pussy/vagina with being lame, worthless and complaining. I don't see almost any of the MeFi women behaving half as immaturely as the folks in that thread.
posted by jessamyn at 10:39 AM on June 17, 2002
posted by jessamyn at 10:39 AM on June 17, 2002
Are the 456 positive entries we got to the contest counted in this ballon of which you speak?
And now we come to one of the other great stand-bys, made famous on Usenet: The lurkers are with me.
I've got to give you guys credit. Your phenomenal overreaction to a few snarks on MetaFilter has led to one of the more entertaining pointless pissing matches in recent memory.
posted by rcade at 10:52 AM on June 17, 2002
And now we come to one of the other great stand-bys, made famous on Usenet: The lurkers are with me.
I've got to give you guys credit. Your phenomenal overreaction to a few snarks on MetaFilter has led to one of the more entertaining pointless pissing matches in recent memory.
posted by rcade at 10:52 AM on June 17, 2002
Sigh. Ok.
I feel a little stupid for even bothering, at this point. I posted what I thought was an intelligent response in the original thread, and I probably didn't need to bring it to Meta. So, sorry for stirring up a hornet's nest.
In response to BlueTrain and Tarrama and Mick: I knew I shouldn't have used "we" when I wrote it, and I almost didn't. But I know there are a lot of users, many of them great people, that would prefer not to be involved with the kind of thing going on in the thread. For the record, I didn't think the contest was even that bad a link. What got me was the talk of self-linking a contest, and all the nasty "don't tell me I broke the rules" commentary going on inside.
so for now i've decided that from here on i will no longer post any links. it's just not worth it. -bwg
And it's because of this all that I really don't feel welcome to do much else here. So, i'm finished. -pjz
You'll excuse me for not feeling very sorry for either of you. I mean, you both just gave fairly reasonable explanations of your actions, and had you felt like posting them at the beginning, we might all have hung our heads a bit and apologized. And you'd probably have come up with a lot of funny yacht names, if we stayed true to our usual thread-ending habits.
But you didn't try to make us understand. Somehow we became the immature ones, at least in your eyes. And I won't apologize for taking that at least a little personally.
posted by Yelling At Nothing at 11:41 AM on June 17, 2002
I feel a little stupid for even bothering, at this point. I posted what I thought was an intelligent response in the original thread, and I probably didn't need to bring it to Meta. So, sorry for stirring up a hornet's nest.
In response to BlueTrain and Tarrama and Mick: I knew I shouldn't have used "we" when I wrote it, and I almost didn't. But I know there are a lot of users, many of them great people, that would prefer not to be involved with the kind of thing going on in the thread. For the record, I didn't think the contest was even that bad a link. What got me was the talk of self-linking a contest, and all the nasty "don't tell me I broke the rules" commentary going on inside.
so for now i've decided that from here on i will no longer post any links. it's just not worth it. -bwg
And it's because of this all that I really don't feel welcome to do much else here. So, i'm finished. -pjz
You'll excuse me for not feeling very sorry for either of you. I mean, you both just gave fairly reasonable explanations of your actions, and had you felt like posting them at the beginning, we might all have hung our heads a bit and apologized. And you'd probably have come up with a lot of funny yacht names, if we stayed true to our usual thread-ending habits.
But you didn't try to make us understand. Somehow we became the immature ones, at least in your eyes. And I won't apologize for taking that at least a little personally.
posted by Yelling At Nothing at 11:41 AM on June 17, 2002
I'm just here to sign up for the "Keep the MetaFilter Front Page a Fun Place to Be" petition. And to add a rider that Friday not be singled out as some kind of wacky, braindead, hellzapoppin' link day. If it's really good enough for the front page then it's good enough to go up any day of the week.
posted by MUD at 11:49 AM on June 17, 2002
posted by MUD at 11:49 AM on June 17, 2002
YAN: perhaps the community was a little harsh,
there's no "perhaps" about it.
...we might all have hung our heads a bit and apologized.
this WE stuff gets awful tired real fast. please, just speak for yourself.
But you didn't try to make us understand.
it's not their job to make you understand. it's your job. is it too much to ask to meet the link halfway? as i said in the original thread, calling that site a harvester was uncalled for and absurd. you obviously don't have the same sense of humor as the bloggers in question... so move along. nothing to see here.
however, now you're on MeTa accusing them of acting childish. who do you think starting the mudslinging? it wasn't them.
fine, you (and others) think it's a pisspoor link. well too bad. not everyone agrees with you. is that so hard to accept? i think every goddamn soccer thread is a pisspoor link. i'm not in there crying about them.
Somehow we became the immature ones,
NOT somehow. it's no big mystery. immature accusations were made and people were called on it. (unfortunately, some of the calling on it was also done immaturely. however, that doesn't mean those who started it are without blame. i sincerely doubt that pjz would have made any such comments if the people who obviously didn't get the joke simply stated that instead of acting like six year olds.)
Do I, or we, or MeFi in general, really need these guys maliciously baiting other users?
pot. kettle. black.
posted by dobbs at 1:14 PM on June 17, 2002
there's no "perhaps" about it.
...we might all have hung our heads a bit and apologized.
this WE stuff gets awful tired real fast. please, just speak for yourself.
But you didn't try to make us understand.
it's not their job to make you understand. it's your job. is it too much to ask to meet the link halfway? as i said in the original thread, calling that site a harvester was uncalled for and absurd. you obviously don't have the same sense of humor as the bloggers in question... so move along. nothing to see here.
however, now you're on MeTa accusing them of acting childish. who do you think starting the mudslinging? it wasn't them.
fine, you (and others) think it's a pisspoor link. well too bad. not everyone agrees with you. is that so hard to accept? i think every goddamn soccer thread is a pisspoor link. i'm not in there crying about them.
Somehow we became the immature ones,
NOT somehow. it's no big mystery. immature accusations were made and people were called on it. (unfortunately, some of the calling on it was also done immaturely. however, that doesn't mean those who started it are without blame. i sincerely doubt that pjz would have made any such comments if the people who obviously didn't get the joke simply stated that instead of acting like six year olds.)
Do I, or we, or MeFi in general, really need these guys maliciously baiting other users?
pot. kettle. black.
posted by dobbs at 1:14 PM on June 17, 2002
YAN: perhaps the community was a little harsh,
there's no "perhaps" about it.
...we might all have hung our heads a bit and apologized.
this WE stuff gets awful tired real fast. please, just speak for yourself.
Why is it OK for you to bash the community as a whole, but it's not OK for him to speak for the community as a whole? Make up your mind.
posted by rcade at 1:36 PM on June 17, 2002
there's no "perhaps" about it.
...we might all have hung our heads a bit and apologized.
this WE stuff gets awful tired real fast. please, just speak for yourself.
Why is it OK for you to bash the community as a whole, but it's not OK for him to speak for the community as a whole? Make up your mind.
posted by rcade at 1:36 PM on June 17, 2002
rcade: where did i bash the community as a whole? the "community" that he's referring to in the part i quoted (or at least the way i inferred it) were the members who posted in that thread prior to his initial remarks.
all i said was that there's no "perhaps" that those posters acted harshly. they DID act harshly. the bloggers were called "spammers" (2x), "email harvesters" (2x), "fuckwits", "stupid gits", and insulted for "thinking" of themselves as filmmakers.
that was BEFORE one of the bloggers posted.
where's the perhaps?
posted by dobbs at 1:46 PM on June 17, 2002
all i said was that there's no "perhaps" that those posters acted harshly. they DID act harshly. the bloggers were called "spammers" (2x), "email harvesters" (2x), "fuckwits", "stupid gits", and insulted for "thinking" of themselves as filmmakers.
that was BEFORE one of the bloggers posted.
where's the perhaps?
posted by dobbs at 1:46 PM on June 17, 2002
it's not their job to make you understand. it's your job. is it too much to ask to meet the link halfway? as i said in the original thread, calling that site a harvester was uncalled for and absurd. you obviously don't have the same sense of humor as the bloggers in question... so move along. nothing to see here.
I need to take issue with the first 1/2 of this quote. When you post something to a website (metafilter, slashdot... whatever), it IS your job to at least provide the reader with some idea of what the hell they're going to click on.
I had no idea, so I just passed over the link. It just seemed to be some grandiose description of a yacht (which apparently doesn't exist) by two people I'm really not too interested in. Maybe if they took the time to explain, in clear-fucking-english what they were talking about (Hey, we have a yacht naming contest!!!), there wouldn't be such an uproar.
Of course belittling people when they complain doesn't exactly endear people to your cause, but that's a different story.
posted by SweetJesus at 1:46 PM on June 17, 2002
I need to take issue with the first 1/2 of this quote. When you post something to a website (metafilter, slashdot... whatever), it IS your job to at least provide the reader with some idea of what the hell they're going to click on.
I had no idea, so I just passed over the link. It just seemed to be some grandiose description of a yacht (which apparently doesn't exist) by two people I'm really not too interested in. Maybe if they took the time to explain, in clear-fucking-english what they were talking about (Hey, we have a yacht naming contest!!!), there wouldn't be such an uproar.
Of course belittling people when they complain doesn't exactly endear people to your cause, but that's a different story.
posted by SweetJesus at 1:46 PM on June 17, 2002
So here's my take on it:
All things considered, it was a weak post to MetaFilter, and everything flowed from there..
The description left me scratching my head, and I still didn't see what the point was after going to the site.
Others seemed to have the same reaction, and when you post something to MetaFilter, you're essentially vouching for it being something of quality, something that is interesting and worth visiting. When readers are let down, they natually wonder why it was posted, or ask for clarification.
I'll stick my neck out here and say I think there has been some overreaction on both sides, starting with this post. Like .geoff afterwards, I was still wondering what the point of the post was, and why this person flew off the handle.
Then it degenerated from there (What followed was a train wreck I won't go over point by point, but people freaked out on both sides and they're doing here in this thread as well.), but the bottom line is that the post was weak. It wasn't well described and didn't give much of a "payoff" when people visited it, so criticism followed. I'll venture to guess the link was weak because it was a veiled self-post. bwg had some hand in the site, thought it was worth publicizing, so he did it.
And that's specifically why there are rules against self-posting: because among other things, self-posts tend to produce sub-standard links, and sub-standard links turn into hissy fits and freakouts and pointless pissing matches.
So the bottom line is don't self-link to your stuff, you might think it's just peachy but you're bound to confuse and annoy others if they don't find it lively. Confused and annoyed people don't take kindly to freak outs either, and problems can quickly escalate.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 2:05 PM on June 17, 2002
All things considered, it was a weak post to MetaFilter, and everything flowed from there..
The description left me scratching my head, and I still didn't see what the point was after going to the site.
Others seemed to have the same reaction, and when you post something to MetaFilter, you're essentially vouching for it being something of quality, something that is interesting and worth visiting. When readers are let down, they natually wonder why it was posted, or ask for clarification.
I'll stick my neck out here and say I think there has been some overreaction on both sides, starting with this post. Like .geoff afterwards, I was still wondering what the point of the post was, and why this person flew off the handle.
Then it degenerated from there (What followed was a train wreck I won't go over point by point, but people freaked out on both sides and they're doing here in this thread as well.), but the bottom line is that the post was weak. It wasn't well described and didn't give much of a "payoff" when people visited it, so criticism followed. I'll venture to guess the link was weak because it was a veiled self-post. bwg had some hand in the site, thought it was worth publicizing, so he did it.
And that's specifically why there are rules against self-posting: because among other things, self-posts tend to produce sub-standard links, and sub-standard links turn into hissy fits and freakouts and pointless pissing matches.
So the bottom line is don't self-link to your stuff, you might think it's just peachy but you're bound to confuse and annoy others if they don't find it lively. Confused and annoyed people don't take kindly to freak outs either, and problems can quickly escalate.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 2:05 PM on June 17, 2002
I do, however, like the new linkback .gif they've added: please notice I'm posting a link, not the actual image.
posted by yhbc at 2:11 PM on June 17, 2002
posted by yhbc at 2:11 PM on June 17, 2002
MetaFilter: hissy fits and freakouts and pointless pissing matches.
Oh my!
posted by Kafkaesque at 2:15 PM on June 17, 2002
Oh my!
posted by Kafkaesque at 2:15 PM on June 17, 2002
Honest truth: I hovered the user names because I thought that the thread was the first instance of a completely fabricated thread. I couldn't get annoyed at all the hostility because I was totally unable to understand what was going on.
I think the fact that the web site had weird anti-Mefi slogans on it already by the time I clicked on the post only added to my confusion.
posted by Wood at 2:21 PM on June 17, 2002
I think the fact that the web site had weird anti-Mefi slogans on it already by the time I clicked on the post only added to my confusion.
posted by Wood at 2:21 PM on June 17, 2002
Hey MUD, I'd like to sign the "Keep the MetaFilter Front Page a Fun Place to Be" petition. Do you have it?
posted by timeistight at 2:46 PM on June 17, 2002
posted by timeistight at 2:46 PM on June 17, 2002
We, the below mentioned, do hereby solemnly swear to maintain a sense of fun and indeed - upon occasion - frivolity, so that the good people of this site may never be cast adrift on an ocean of rhetoric, debate or mundanity without a lifeline of good humour. And we do vow that the solemnity of our swearing (which shall not reach excessive levels) shall be outweighed only by the quality of the front page that we shall nurture.
posted by MUD at 3:26 PM on June 17, 2002
posted by MUD at 3:26 PM on June 17, 2002
My problem, palegirl, is that rushmc tends to target certain posters.
Never. Not once. Wouldn't DREAM of it.
As I've said before, I don't even pay that much attention to the "personalities" here, though obviously over time some imprint themselves upon your awareness, for better or worse. What I "target" (if you insist upon such a loaded term) is mean, nasty, aggressive, bullying, belittling, disrespectful-of-all (or even some)-other-users POSTS. Not users. I couldn't give a flying fig who wrote them. The fact that certain individuals are more prone to such abuses has nothing to do with me (but isn't really very surprising if you think about it--someone willing to do it once is more likely to do it repeatedly than someone with no history of it), and I'm not going to ignore someone's bad behavior today just because I remarked on a different incidence of it yesterday. But each post is viewed independently; I don't hold grudges; I don't say "ooh, a new BlueTrain post! Let me tear it apart looking for something I can bitch about!"
On the contrary, nothing would make me happier than to see you stick to the issues and never call someone a name, impugn their character or intentions, or belittle them again, and if you or aaron or anyone else that I've ever questioned in the past started posting fair-minded, considerate, non-insulting stuff tomorrow, you'd never hear from me again, except in the normal course of debate and discussion. But I reserve the right to object to behavior that is contrary to the tone and principles of this site, and to that which threatens to degrade the consideration that we show one another here, differentiating us from most other online forums, which habitually descend into little-brain flamewars and spiteful trolling, whether the offender is you, aaron, a long-time friend, a newbie, or Matt himself.
If caring about preserving the good thing we've got going here, and being willing to stand up for it, is being sanctimonious, then fine, I'm sanctimonious, and I'll wear the badge proudly (if only it, too, had Fonzie on it...sigh). Me, though, I just think it's a responsibility that each of us has, and I'm not about to shirk it. You don't crap in your own sandbox. Post with whatever unique, idiosyncratic, personal style you want--be funny, serious, thoughtful, frivolous; reason by logic, analogy, or anecdote; hold whatever views you want, be they left, right, centrist, or utterly random; find links of whatever flavor taste superdelicious to you and share them with us all--but grant others, too, the right to differ, and debate their ideas, don't attack them personally. One single, simple thing, but it makes all the difference.
posted by rushmc at 3:42 PM on June 17, 2002
Never. Not once. Wouldn't DREAM of it.
As I've said before, I don't even pay that much attention to the "personalities" here, though obviously over time some imprint themselves upon your awareness, for better or worse. What I "target" (if you insist upon such a loaded term) is mean, nasty, aggressive, bullying, belittling, disrespectful-of-all (or even some)-other-users POSTS. Not users. I couldn't give a flying fig who wrote them. The fact that certain individuals are more prone to such abuses has nothing to do with me (but isn't really very surprising if you think about it--someone willing to do it once is more likely to do it repeatedly than someone with no history of it), and I'm not going to ignore someone's bad behavior today just because I remarked on a different incidence of it yesterday. But each post is viewed independently; I don't hold grudges; I don't say "ooh, a new BlueTrain post! Let me tear it apart looking for something I can bitch about!"
On the contrary, nothing would make me happier than to see you stick to the issues and never call someone a name, impugn their character or intentions, or belittle them again, and if you or aaron or anyone else that I've ever questioned in the past started posting fair-minded, considerate, non-insulting stuff tomorrow, you'd never hear from me again, except in the normal course of debate and discussion. But I reserve the right to object to behavior that is contrary to the tone and principles of this site, and to that which threatens to degrade the consideration that we show one another here, differentiating us from most other online forums, which habitually descend into little-brain flamewars and spiteful trolling, whether the offender is you, aaron, a long-time friend, a newbie, or Matt himself.
If caring about preserving the good thing we've got going here, and being willing to stand up for it, is being sanctimonious, then fine, I'm sanctimonious, and I'll wear the badge proudly (if only it, too, had Fonzie on it...sigh). Me, though, I just think it's a responsibility that each of us has, and I'm not about to shirk it. You don't crap in your own sandbox. Post with whatever unique, idiosyncratic, personal style you want--be funny, serious, thoughtful, frivolous; reason by logic, analogy, or anecdote; hold whatever views you want, be they left, right, centrist, or utterly random; find links of whatever flavor taste superdelicious to you and share them with us all--but grant others, too, the right to differ, and debate their ideas, don't attack them personally. One single, simple thing, but it makes all the difference.
posted by rushmc at 3:42 PM on June 17, 2002
Ok, consider me schooled. I'll even sign MUD's petition, and I'll post some more fun ShockWave games. Ok? I promise.
posted by Yelling At Nothing at 4:02 PM on June 17, 2002
posted by Yelling At Nothing at 4:02 PM on June 17, 2002
<club beat a la="Eminem">
rushmc? You wit me yo? YOU FEELIN' ME? That's the shit dawg.
Bounce wit me homie! uhh yeah, lets's get this shit on the road!
Take us AhhhhhhWAY rushmc!!!
<rushmc>
I don't hold grudges;
I don't say "ooh, a new BlueTrain post! Let me tear it apart
looking for something I can bitch about!"
</rushmc>
</club beat>
----------------------------------------
Please keep in mind that the only reason I posted was because I couldn't resist the urge of rushmc's mad rhyme.
All in jest! All in jest!
posted by Why at 5:38 PM on June 17, 2002
rushmc? You wit me yo? YOU FEELIN' ME? That's the shit dawg.
Bounce wit me homie! uhh yeah, lets's get this shit on the road!
Take us AhhhhhhWAY rushmc!!!
<rushmc>
I don't hold grudges;
I don't say "ooh, a new BlueTrain post! Let me tear it apart
looking for something I can bitch about!"
</rushmc>
</club beat>
----------------------------------------
Please keep in mind that the only reason I posted was because I couldn't resist the urge of rushmc's mad rhyme.
All in jest! All in jest!
posted by Why at 5:38 PM on June 17, 2002
I'll venture to guess the link was weak because it was a veiled self-post. bwg had some hand in the site, thought it was worth publicizing, so he did it.
wrong. dead wrong.
i have nothing to do with pjz or brett's sites, either in design or content. my only connection is that i read them. yes, they happen to link to my site, but so do thousands of others.
posted by bwg at 7:19 PM on June 17, 2002
wrong. dead wrong.
i have nothing to do with pjz or brett's sites, either in design or content. my only connection is that i read them. yes, they happen to link to my site, but so do thousands of others.
posted by bwg at 7:19 PM on June 17, 2002
If that link were a film it would be Dude Where's My Car II.
posted by johnny novak at 8:48 AM on June 18, 2002
posted by johnny novak at 8:48 AM on June 18, 2002
The title of the sequel to "Dude, Where's my Car" is going to be "Seriously, Dude, Where's My Car"
posted by palegirl at 11:30 AM on June 18, 2002
posted by palegirl at 11:30 AM on June 18, 2002
Seriously dude?
posted by johnny novak at 3:13 PM on June 18, 2002
posted by johnny novak at 3:13 PM on June 18, 2002
fitler?
anyways, stop complaining. if you can't stand the heat, get out of my pants.
posted by jcterminal at 1:16 PM on June 20, 2002
anyways, stop complaining. if you can't stand the heat, get out of my pants.
posted by jcterminal at 1:16 PM on June 20, 2002
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
One doesn't have to look far, Yelling At Nothing, to see that perhaps "they" are not part of the problem. You assume a great deal when suggesting the purpose of MeFi or its members.
Please feel free to reply to this post with even MORE over used Simpsons quotes and other ironic rhetoric...
I find it great to see how many people are taking this so seriously. Metafilter is a “webpage!”
Remind me just to put on my MeFi t-shirt and act like I care about Star Trek and George Bush to get your guys attention next time. - (all of the above) pjz
I think he makes some valid, if controversial, points.
posted by BlueTrain at 9:55 PM on June 16, 2002