A "bill under consideration" has little more weight than "my last blog entry"

May 28, 2004 5:19 AM

"Why was this even posted? A 'bill under consideration' has little more weight than 'my last blog entry' unless there's some serious evidence that it's going to get passed." The bill passed the Ohio House yesterday.

posted by Otis to MetaFilter-Related at 5:19 AM (27 comments total)

Ha! ha!
posted by seanyboy at 5:53 AM on May 28, 2004

It still, of course, needs to be passed by the Ohio Senate and signed by the governor. Also, please post these updates in the still active threads.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 6:08 AM on May 28, 2004

Considering all the bills that pass through the Georgia House only to become DOA at the Senate steps, the sentiment of the original comment still applies.

++monju
posted by mischief at 6:34 AM on May 28, 2004

Yes, thanks to Schoolhouse Rock, I'm generally aware of how the legislative process works. Just wanted to point out the the bill was not "promptly torpedoed" as suggested in oissubke's comment.
posted by Otis at 6:39 AM on May 28, 2004

Ohio did not technically approve freedom for slaves until relatively recently.

No, really.

The bulk of Ohio represents the lowest common denominator Bubba (or, sadly, Bubba Wannabe) vote. Politicians keep their finger on the pulse of Ohio actively, just like New Hampshire (which gets more attention to its primary.)

A heinous bill in Ohio, even just a proposed bill, bears close watching, in my opinion.
posted by Shane at 6:58 AM on May 28, 2004

Err, you started a metatalk thread to refute one argument from the original thread? Isn't that what the thread is for?
posted by jacquilynne at 7:13 AM on May 28, 2004

Isn't that what the thread is for?

God, no! If he did that, only the people still interested in that thread would see the put-down. This way, we all get to be impressed.. I'm impressed. Aren't you impressed?
posted by humuhumu at 7:17 AM on May 28, 2004

"Err, you started a metatalk thread to refute one argument from the original thread?"

It's the MeFi way.
posted by y6y6y6 at 7:34 AM on May 28, 2004

MetaFilter: This Way We All Get To Be Impressed....
posted by JollyWanker at 7:41 AM on May 28, 2004

I am impressed
posted by matteo at 7:44 AM on May 28, 2004

       impressed
                   |
                   |
                   |
                   |
                  V
posted by jpoulos at 7:51 AM on May 28, 2004

I'm not impressed, as such, but I do like to see the smug and dismissive get their comeuppance. Being smug, dismissive, and often foiled, I like to compare notes.

GOOD METATALK THREAD A++++ WOULD READ AGAIN.
posted by Hildago at 8:31 AM on May 28, 2004

But I have never read, don't read, and will never read MeTa. So how the hell am I s'posed to be impressed? That sucks man, I feel left out.
posted by freebird at 8:51 AM on May 28, 2004

Speaking of the state-level legislative process, did anybody else notice the wording of the last paragraph of this BBC news piece?
posted by DrJohnEvans at 9:08 AM on May 28, 2004

Freebird has a good point. Perhaps Matt should include a special "fuck you, I was right" sidebar on the front page? That way, anyone who finds themselves proved correct or thinks of a witty thing to say as a comeback days after the thread has lost its original impetus would be able to say 'fuck you!' such that everyone would see it and be impressed.
posted by humuhumu at 9:12 AM on May 28, 2004

Take that, religious guy that doubted my post!
posted by mathowie (staff) at 10:23 AM on May 28, 2004

Woody Allen's right: the English language's sweetest words aren't "I love you" -- they're "It's benign".
but in second place, I'd put "told you so: I was right and you were wrong"
posted by matteo at 10:34 AM on May 28, 2004

Kind of a pyrrhic victory, though, ain't it?
posted by vraxoin at 10:46 AM on May 28, 2004

please post these updates in the still active threads.

Hear, hear!
posted by scarabic at 10:53 AM on May 28, 2004

If it allows just one more person to bask in the glory of my awesome Photoshop skillz, it was all worth it.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 11:31 AM on May 28, 2004

Just wanted to point out the the bill was not "promptly torpedoed" as suggested in oissubke's comment.

Of course, we all know what those House folks are like. I'm sure that this bill will be promptly torpedoed by the SENATORS. That's what I meant to say!

...ossisuake...

What the...??
posted by oissubke at 4:03 PM on May 28, 2004

Or the generic "Why are you posting this?" (I got this from bluetrain recently for purely political reasons)

skallas, let's be honest: I wrote this and this.

Quit pretending like I'm out to get you.
posted by BlueTrain at 4:17 PM on May 28, 2004

Skallas, BlueTrain wasn't questioning your post or your motivations for posting it. His analysis was concentrated solely on the article you linked to, and he speculated on the possible motivations/agenda of the writer of the article. He did ask, "Why bother writing the article," not "Why bother posting the article." However I do definitely recall having to read his comment twice myself before I got the distinction.
posted by orange swan at 7:51 PM on May 28, 2004

skallas is right.

A few who cannot bear to have their beliefs challenged habitually resort to outright whining about content. It's a dishonest way of trying to restrict discussion of ideas they find discomfiting. They constantly duck issues by resorting to the bullshit skallas alludes to, as well as other stupidity (e.g. "the high signal posse"). A free expression of ideas is often anxiety provoking for these folks.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 9:10 PM on May 28, 2004

orange swan: "Why bother writing the article," not "Why bother posting the article."

skallas: There's very little difference between those statements on a weblog.

It's rather presumptuous to suggest that my questioning the author's intent of an article somehow translates to questioning the poster's intent to posting to a weblog. I wouldn't have cared if a notable "conservative" posted the same article, because either way my criticism holds water, in regards to the author. When I posted my first comment, I was making a broader point about authors' intent. If you take personal offense to my questioning of someone you don't even know, so be it.

(and lets make no mistake about bluetrains political leanings)

What are they, exactly?
posted by BlueTrain at 5:27 AM on May 29, 2004

Skallas, as I understand it, your original point was that people should not attack the validity of a post within a thread. Fine. BlueTrain didn't do that. He made an interesting and valid critical comment specifically about the article you posted. I can understand why it isn't a good idea to complain about the fact of posting something within a thread, as it puts the attention on the poster and detracts from any discussion of the posted material. But to say, "Don't attack the content," is another matter. Telling people they can't critique the material is in effect an attempt to shut down or control the discussion.

I can't speak as to BlueTrain's political leanings, because I am not at all familiar with his posting history, but in this instance his behaviour is a perfectly acceptable part of civil discourse.
posted by orange swan at 1:15 PM on May 29, 2004

For what it's worth, my criticism of the post had to do with the fact that it was basically pointing out a silly bill going before the legislature, which is an event that happens on a nearly daily basis. It turned out that this one passed the house, which surprised and disappointed me, but I stand by my original comment.

I was not, however, criticizing it because it wasn't suitably right wing for me. I don't do that. (I may have done it in the past, but I have seen the error of my ways and have stopped.)
posted by oissubke at 10:04 PM on May 30, 2004