MetaFilter-themed post belongs in MetaTalk > MetaFilter-related?

February 27, 2003 5:53 AM

If you're going to frame a link entirely in terms of how it relates to MetaFilter, doesn't it belong in MetaTalk's MetaFilter-related category?
posted by rcade to MetaFilter-Related at 5:53 AM (18 comments total)

The link itself is not about MetaFilter, so no. It would have been just as interesting if Miguel hadn't have mentioned MetaFilter in the post. I think he chose to frame it that was because it was funny.
posted by Fabulon7 at 6:16 AM on February 27, 2003

I don't think how we discuss things with each other is interesting over there. It's the kind of inside baseball topic for which MetaTalk was created.
posted by rcade at 6:40 AM on February 27, 2003

And to think Miguel wasted a precious daily post on the subject when he could have posted it here for free.
posted by crunchland at 6:45 AM on February 27, 2003

I was confused too, but I glad it was a front pager. I keep a small collection of bookmarks on this stuff and while it falls into a category that has been discussed before, at the same time it was a fresh take on the conversational cheap shot.
posted by lampshade at 7:08 AM on February 27, 2003

this is a rather quibbling nitpick for you rcade, you aren't usually this picky. your last FPP bewailed a lack of cruelty over on fark. :-)
posted by quonsar at 7:17 AM on February 27, 2003

rcade: That sounds like a bit of an elitist point of view. What is the theory behind such a judgment? This all sounds like hegemonic discourse for its own sake.

The evidence shows that MetaFilter is often referred to in posts on the site, as well as in the comments. MetaTalk isn't the only place on the Internet where MetaFilter is mentioned, is it?

Sorry for my bluntness, but naturally I'm not as subtle as you are, I don't know how to pick words apart until there's nothing left. Of course, I could be just as wrong as you are.

;-)

(Yes, I'm the first person in the thread to realize you're pulling our legs on this one.)
posted by wackybrit at 7:41 AM on February 27, 2003

Someone needs to take this list and, for each heading, link to a specific humorous example of such a comment on Mefi. Now that would be funny.
posted by Shane at 8:15 AM on February 27, 2003

If you're going to frame a MetaTalk post entirely in terms of how a Metafilter post about rhetoric relates to MetaTalk in the form of a rhetorical question, doesn't it belong in MetaTalk's self-referentialism-spiralling-downwards-to-infinity category?
posted by rory at 8:29 AM on February 27, 2003

shane is repeating himself. someone hand him a tranq!
posted by quonsar at 8:44 AM on February 27, 2003

I should respond to quonsar in a humorous fashion, linking my snarky comment to a fitting entry from the The Woolly-Thinker's Guide to Rhetoric.

I'm too tired. Somebody cover for me for a while.
posted by Shane at 9:59 AM on February 27, 2003

No, Shane, we're too good to have to reply to that obscure elitist armchair dictator!

This post satisfies rule 7, rule 24, rule 18, and rule 23.
posted by wackybrit at 11:47 AM on February 27, 2003

*takes a swig of rubbing alcohol*

Um, I think rcade has a point - so much so that his objections perfectly reproduce my own misgivings. In the end, as the content was humorous and not really technical, I thought it was more of an amusement (as the website itself calls it) than an index of rhetorical devices.

The self-referential character of the post is still in dubious taste, though - as it appropriate's MeTa's style, er, realm of discourse. I agree that if you post something to the blue, you should keep MeFi's name out of it. Which I didn't do. In the end, the wording reflects my hesitation which, in turn, justifies rcade's objection.

In any case, everybody should know by now I have a chronic disability in distinguishing between MeFi and MeTa.

*Must. Remove. Nemesis's. Chip. From. Brain.*
posted by MiguelCardoso at 12:00 PM on February 27, 2003

The self-referential character of the post is still in dubious taste, though - as it appropriate's MeTa's style, er, realm of discourse...etc ‹microscopic analysis› etc...

But nobody else really gives a flying f***. If it truly bothers you and you're into self-flagellation, say 10 Hail Mary's (or repeat the Mefi posting guidlines twice) and we'll consider you forgiven. Honor has been satisfied.
posted by Shane at 12:15 PM on February 27, 2003

The point of the post is the link. I don't see a problem with it. We end up discussing MetaTalk stuff in the MetaFilter all the time.

"I don't think how we discuss things with each other is interesting over there."

The link isn't about Metafilter. The link!!! The link!!!
posted by y6y6y6 at 1:02 PM on February 27, 2003

Um, I think rcade has a point - so much so that his objections perfectly reproduce my own misgivings.
huge disappointment, but i suppose once one has dragged oneself into Meta, it's hard to top oneself.
next week on Mr. Miggleston's Vibrating Pancake Circus: The Healing Power Of Public Self-Flagellation
or
Pour Some Rubbing Alcohol On Me
posted by quonsar at 1:37 PM on February 27, 2003

Public Self-Flagellation

I suppose the American method would be to flagellate myself in private and, once purified, come here and tell rcade to go fuck himself.

Well don't imagine for a moment my tiny Portuguese brain didn't think of it, quonsar. ;)
posted by MiguelCardoso at 1:45 PM on February 27, 2003

ROFL!
posted by quonsar at 1:57 PM on February 27, 2003

In any case, everybody should know by now I have a chronic disability in distinguishing between MeFi and MeTa.
It is easy, Miguel, the blue one is where you post links and the grey one is your 'blog ;-)
posted by dg at 3:05 PM on February 27, 2003