Ray Charles Obit Thread June 10, 2004 1:23 PM Subscribe
I think this is the comment in question, just to be specific. The rest of the thread is in fine form.
posted by o2b at 1:28 PM on June 10, 2004
posted by o2b at 1:28 PM on June 10, 2004
lets pretend to be all sensitive and offended about it.
Who's pretending? This isn't Reagan who was a political public figure where it comes with the territory. And even there it was excessive. It'd be a depressing thing if we can't observe the passing of a legend with some semblance of dignity.
posted by jonmc at 1:36 PM on June 10, 2004
Who's pretending? This isn't Reagan who was a political public figure where it comes with the territory. And even there it was excessive. It'd be a depressing thing if we can't observe the passing of a legend with some semblance of dignity.
posted by jonmc at 1:36 PM on June 10, 2004
"It'd be a depressing thing if we can't observe the passing of a legend with some semblance of dignity."
Well, we can't. Right? I mean we just can't. It isn't going to ever happen. There was plenty of snarkiness when Mr. Rogers died fer shit sake.
We can't.
posted by y6y6y6 at 1:42 PM on June 10, 2004
Well, we can't. Right? I mean we just can't. It isn't going to ever happen. There was plenty of snarkiness when Mr. Rogers died fer shit sake.
We can't.
posted by y6y6y6 at 1:42 PM on June 10, 2004
Server ErrorCan't we agree that comments like this should never happen here?
The server encountered an internal error and was unable to complete your request.
Could not connect to JRun Server.
posted by sequential at 1:43 PM on June 10, 2004
what sequential said--that JRun bastard should be banned.
and what y6 said--we can't, nor should we...one of the best things about here is the honesty, even if it sucks sometimes too.
posted by amberglow at 2:17 PM on June 10, 2004
and what y6 said--we can't, nor should we...one of the best things about here is the honesty, even if it sucks sometimes too.
posted by amberglow at 2:17 PM on June 10, 2004
Sure as shit I'll be snarky when JRun passes on.
posted by quasistoic at 2:27 PM on June 10, 2004
posted by quasistoic at 2:27 PM on June 10, 2004
Why is only Meta-Talk working?
Whadda they say, whadda they say...
posted by thomcatspike at 2:28 PM on June 10, 2004
Whadda they say, whadda they say...
posted by thomcatspike at 2:28 PM on June 10, 2004
The comment wasn't snarky about the subject of the post, the comment questioned the worthiness of the post through snark. To which I say:
Let's pretend that everyone already knew Ray Charles was dead. Why shouldn't it be posted to the front page? How else are we going to have a conversation about it?
I don't mind criticism of the subject (if you hated Ray Charles, you certainly have the right to say so), but to criticize the existense of the thread is just trolling. And I'm taking the bait. So I'll shut up.
posted by o2b at 2:47 PM on June 10, 2004
Let's pretend that everyone already knew Ray Charles was dead. Why shouldn't it be posted to the front page? How else are we going to have a conversation about it?
I don't mind criticism of the subject (if you hated Ray Charles, you certainly have the right to say so), but to criticize the existense of the thread is just trolling. And I'm taking the bait. So I'll shut up.
posted by o2b at 2:47 PM on June 10, 2004
Come on Matt, get Metafilter back up and working so I can post my FPP about Ray Charles dying!
posted by PrinceValium at 2:47 PM on June 10, 2004
posted by PrinceValium at 2:47 PM on June 10, 2004
ponies are dead, and someone snarked. lets pretend to be all sensitive and offended about it.
posted by Smart Dalek at 2:50 PM on June 10, 2004
posted by Smart Dalek at 2:50 PM on June 10, 2004
>"The comment wasn't snarky about the subject of the post"
Oh the enquirer comment iirc. Which needed a little more explantion since most tabloid news is false before the fact.
posted by thomcatspike at 2:55 PM on June 10, 2004
Oh the enquirer comment iirc. Which needed a little more explantion since most tabloid news is false before the fact.
posted by thomcatspike at 2:55 PM on June 10, 2004
Heh, I'll probably never say this again, but I agree with y2karl's sentiment. Ethereal Bligh really needs to go through the MeTa archives to understand that we've had the "are obits post-worthy" conversations before. You'd think that such a prolific poster would have a better awareness of this site's past.
posted by BlueTrain at 5:36 PM on June 10, 2004
posted by BlueTrain at 5:36 PM on June 10, 2004
Bah... all this business about how self-policing ends as soon as we're talking about a dead guy.... whatever. It wasn't that rude of a comment. It was an obit post. Not the best kind of post, and not even very good for its kind.
If it had been called out here in MeTa, then you're right, BlueTrain, the conversation has been had already. But don't expect all the people people to adhere all the time to a standard you think was long-ago set in stone. They won't. And this EB comment was hardly over-the-line by any measure.
People are so touchy nowadays. One little note that says nothing negative about the dead guy, and we're the Bunched Panty Emporium. The site's going to hell! People are such ruthless bastards!
How about we revere Ray Charles by not having another goddamn slapwank in the Grey over him?
posted by scarabic at 5:46 PM on June 10, 2004
If it had been called out here in MeTa, then you're right, BlueTrain, the conversation has been had already. But don't expect all the people people to adhere all the time to a standard you think was long-ago set in stone. They won't. And this EB comment was hardly over-the-line by any measure.
People are so touchy nowadays. One little note that says nothing negative about the dead guy, and we're the Bunched Panty Emporium. The site's going to hell! People are such ruthless bastards!
How about we revere Ray Charles by not having another goddamn slapwank in the Grey over him?
posted by scarabic at 5:46 PM on June 10, 2004
congrats scarabic: you invented a word! And a good one at that.
posted by PrinceValium at 5:53 PM on June 10, 2004
posted by PrinceValium at 5:53 PM on June 10, 2004
And this EB comment was hardly over-the-line by any measure.
In my opinion, being over the line, or not, is not the point. He posts a LOT here, which is great, but being such a prolific poster opens you up to much further scrutiny, since your posts are seen everywhere (and boy do I mean everywhere). Therefore, again in my opinion, he needs to be more careful with what he contributes.
I agree with some of Ethereal Bligh's insights, but y2karl's reaction was not surprising, nor was it unwarranted, which is why I agreed with it.
posted by BlueTrain at 5:54 PM on June 10, 2004
In my opinion, being over the line, or not, is not the point. He posts a LOT here, which is great, but being such a prolific poster opens you up to much further scrutiny, since your posts are seen everywhere (and boy do I mean everywhere). Therefore, again in my opinion, he needs to be more careful with what he contributes.
I agree with some of Ethereal Bligh's insights, but y2karl's reaction was not surprising, nor was it unwarranted, which is why I agreed with it.
posted by BlueTrain at 5:54 PM on June 10, 2004
You gotta admit that that was a pretty substandard placeholder post, though, no matter how you feel about eulogy threads.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:57 PM on June 10, 2004
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:57 PM on June 10, 2004
You'd think that such a prolific poster would have a better awareness of this site's past.
Isn't the past open for change, though?
People are so touchy nowadays. One little note that says nothing negative about the dead guy, and we're the Bunched Panty Emporium. The site's going to hell! People are such ruthless bastards!
Did you read the Reagan post???
posted by jmd82 at 5:57 PM on June 10, 2004
Isn't the past open for change, though?
People are so touchy nowadays. One little note that says nothing negative about the dead guy, and we're the Bunched Panty Emporium. The site's going to hell! People are such ruthless bastards!
Did you read the Reagan post???
posted by jmd82 at 5:57 PM on June 10, 2004
Isn't the past open for change, though?
Um, no. Otherwise we'd all be immortal and never age.
posted by y2karl at 6:03 PM on June 10, 2004
Um, no. Otherwise we'd all be immortal and never age.
posted by y2karl at 6:03 PM on June 10, 2004
As with the female genital mutilation VS. circumcision debacle recently, I ask you the following:
Why does the room smell like shite? Is it because 1 or 2 people took the piss? Or because a dozen people immediately and indignantly shat themselves over it?
posted by scarabic at 6:13 PM on June 10, 2004
Why does the room smell like shite? Is it because 1 or 2 people took the piss? Or because a dozen people immediately and indignantly shat themselves over it?
posted by scarabic at 6:13 PM on June 10, 2004
being such a prolific poster opens you up to much further scrutiny, since your posts are seen everywhere
I still don't understand this. He posts more, so he should be held to a higher standard? Obviously, someone who's out there more is going to have more opportunities to bump into critics (and no doubt they will attract resentment from anyone who doesn't like them because of all the attention they get), but I really don't see why anyone here should be judged any differently than anyone else. I really don't.
You don't like what he said? Okay. Critique. You're worried that because his username is on a lot of pages on this site that his negative comment is somehow more "out there" than other people's comments? What are you, the Minister of Ecumenical Index Ranking?
posted by scarabic at 6:23 PM on June 10, 2004
I still don't understand this. He posts more, so he should be held to a higher standard? Obviously, someone who's out there more is going to have more opportunities to bump into critics (and no doubt they will attract resentment from anyone who doesn't like them because of all the attention they get), but I really don't see why anyone here should be judged any differently than anyone else. I really don't.
You don't like what he said? Okay. Critique. You're worried that because his username is on a lot of pages on this site that his negative comment is somehow more "out there" than other people's comments? What are you, the Minister of Ecumenical Index Ranking?
posted by scarabic at 6:23 PM on June 10, 2004
If you have to post NewsFilter, then at least make an effort to add some content. You know, some links to interesting and relatively unknown information about Charles, some good retrospectives on his life, whatever. This post was simply newsfilter. Hey, look, Ray Charles died! That's a waste of fucking time.
Whether I like Ray Charles or not (I do) is beside the point. Whether it saddens me that he's dead (it does) or if I think it's an occasion worth noting and discussing (I do) is beside the point. A FPP with no content or presentation other than to simply provide an opportunity for community discussion is misplaced. This isn't primarily a chat board.
Of course I'm aware that ObitFilter has been metad to death in the past. That's why I didn't meta it. I really could not care less if a portion of the community is okay with it. I'm not. I'm sick of learning of some big, breaking news story only to find it posted to MeFi ten minutes later. It's fucking pathetic.
And, Karl, with all due respect—which isn't much—go fuck yourself. And get a blog.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 6:28 PM on June 10, 2004
Whether I like Ray Charles or not (I do) is beside the point. Whether it saddens me that he's dead (it does) or if I think it's an occasion worth noting and discussing (I do) is beside the point. A FPP with no content or presentation other than to simply provide an opportunity for community discussion is misplaced. This isn't primarily a chat board.
Of course I'm aware that ObitFilter has been metad to death in the past. That's why I didn't meta it. I really could not care less if a portion of the community is okay with it. I'm not. I'm sick of learning of some big, breaking news story only to find it posted to MeFi ten minutes later. It's fucking pathetic.
And, Karl, with all due respect—which isn't much—go fuck yourself. And get a blog.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 6:28 PM on June 10, 2004
Oh jesus christ we'd better break those two up now or we'll have a 20,000 page Meta thread.
posted by Stan Chin at 6:32 PM on June 10, 2004
posted by Stan Chin at 6:32 PM on June 10, 2004
::points at Stan Chin's comment::
It's funny because it's true.
posted by BlueTrain at 6:39 PM on June 10, 2004
It's funny because it's true.
posted by BlueTrain at 6:39 PM on June 10, 2004
Whether I like Ray Charles or not (I do)
Well, that's a relief. Otherwise we would've had to string you up.
posted by jonmc at 6:39 PM on June 10, 2004
Well, that's a relief. Otherwise we would've had to string you up.
posted by jonmc at 6:39 PM on June 10, 2004
No, I've said my piece.
(For those who naturally pay far less attention to such things than I do, the normally [though there are notable exceptions] mild-mannered Y2Karl has now posted numerous attacking comments against me...and it rankles. I try to be thick-skinned these days, but I have my limits.)
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 6:41 PM on June 10, 2004
(For those who naturally pay far less attention to such things than I do, the normally [though there are notable exceptions] mild-mannered Y2Karl has now posted numerous attacking comments against me...and it rankles. I try to be thick-skinned these days, but I have my limits.)
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 6:41 PM on June 10, 2004
slapwank: (n):
1. Tribal ritual resembling a duel, recorded in early 13th century ethnographic accounts of West Indies merchant marines, in which two rivals face each other in a circle drawn on the ground and masturbate with one hand while slapping each other in the face with the other. The winner achieves climax first.
2. A 20,000 page Meta thread
posted by scarabic at 6:43 PM on June 10, 2004
1. Tribal ritual resembling a duel, recorded in early 13th century ethnographic accounts of West Indies merchant marines, in which two rivals face each other in a circle drawn on the ground and masturbate with one hand while slapping each other in the face with the other. The winner achieves climax first.
2. A 20,000 page Meta thread
posted by scarabic at 6:43 PM on June 10, 2004
Oh jesus christ we'd better break those two up now or we'll have a 20,000 page Meta thread.
And 19,950 won't be mine.
posted by y2karl at 6:43 PM on June 10, 2004
And 19,950 won't be mine.
posted by y2karl at 6:43 PM on June 10, 2004
I thought the first comment in that thread was way snarkier than Cap'n Bligh's. Just for the record.
posted by chicobangs at 6:50 PM on June 10, 2004
posted by chicobangs at 6:50 PM on June 10, 2004
It was a shit post about something worthy of notice. We get a lot of those. And bitching about it in the thread isn't all that helpful. We do a lot of that. I should know, I've tried to pull the same stunt and fallen on my ass repeatedly.
posted by majick at 7:50 PM on June 10, 2004
posted by majick at 7:50 PM on June 10, 2004
He posts more, so he should be held to a higher standard?
It's kind of like how a public figure such as Reagan is upon to open scrutiny to a larger extent than the rest of the population.
posted by jmd82 at 8:07 PM on June 10, 2004
It's kind of like how a public figure such as Reagan is upon to open scrutiny to a larger extent than the rest of the population.
posted by jmd82 at 8:07 PM on June 10, 2004
For the record, I don't disagree with the idea that because of my prolificacy I should be held to a higher standard.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 8:13 PM on June 10, 2004
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 8:13 PM on June 10, 2004
You wish!
posted by MiguelCardoso at 8:22 PM on June 10, 2004
posted by MiguelCardoso at 8:22 PM on June 10, 2004
Because I can!!!
MetaFilter: a good man is dead, let's be snarky!
You're welcome. ;-P
posted by mischief at 8:30 PM on June 10, 2004
MetaFilter: a good man is dead, let's be snarky!
You're welcome. ;-P
posted by mischief at 8:30 PM on June 10, 2004
While there's snark, there's life.
Or something like that.
posted by weston at 8:38 PM on June 10, 2004
Or something like that.
posted by weston at 8:38 PM on June 10, 2004
my reaction was pretty much in line with y2karl's... when i saw the thread i thought well here's the place where i'll share a personal story about ray charles and maybe even post the photos of him and my dad jamming in an empty nightclub, but the moment i walked into the thread and found eb shitting on it i thought 1.) its amazing how one person can render a whole community not worth sharing with. and 2.) dude, just once, stfu !
posted by t r a c y at 9:13 PM on June 10, 2004
posted by t r a c y at 9:13 PM on June 10, 2004
That might have made a decent FPP, t r a c y; except, of course, that it would have been a self-link. You should makde a web page of it, or blog it, and someone else could post it.
In the meantime, MetaFilter isn't CNN Headline News. Or it shouldn't be.
On Preview: Bargle, why put that news here in a comment? It deserves a FPP, surely. Just as it is: I found a dead robin today. Then, people could post little "." moments of silence in respect. It would be a sweet and an endearing act of "community".
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 9:21 PM on June 10, 2004
In the meantime, MetaFilter isn't CNN Headline News. Or it shouldn't be.
On Preview: Bargle, why put that news here in a comment? It deserves a FPP, surely. Just as it is: I found a dead robin today. Then, people could post little "." moments of silence in respect. It would be a sweet and an endearing act of "community".
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 9:21 PM on June 10, 2004
I kind of agreed with both of them. I did think it was asinine to post the link in the first place - especially without any interesting backup - but once it was already there, there was no reason to complain about it.
I have the feeling that there's a certain type of poster here that just wants to harvest comments, or *be the first* to bring something up. I have "Yahoo's Most Viewed" bookmarked, and so should you.
posted by interrobang at 9:23 PM on June 10, 2004
I have the feeling that there's a certain type of poster here that just wants to harvest comments, or *be the first* to bring something up. I have "Yahoo's Most Viewed" bookmarked, and so should you.
posted by interrobang at 9:23 PM on June 10, 2004
EB, your arguments are crap. The post was not "Hey look! Ray Charles died!" It included questions obviously designed to get a conversation started. The fact that it didn't match up to your personal standards of what a post should be is irrelevant. If you feel the poster could have done better, do a damn Google search yourself and say, "Look, we all know who Ray Charles is, but did you know this? This is the kind of info that would have been great to see included in the FPP."
You aren't held to a higher standard because you're prolific, you drag yourself to a lower standard with all your pissing.
Want MeFi to rise to your desired standard? Pull it up with you. Don't drag it down.
posted by o2b at 9:34 PM on June 10, 2004
You aren't held to a higher standard because you're prolific, you drag yourself to a lower standard with all your pissing.
Want MeFi to rise to your desired standard? Pull it up with you. Don't drag it down.
posted by o2b at 9:34 PM on June 10, 2004
I'm sorry for calling your arguments crap. But I was serious with my MeTa post a few days ago... I don't understand the bile around such matters.
I'm not saying double posts or unworthy posts should be tolerated, it's jsut that positive reinforcement and constructive criticism could do so much more than the negativity that appears all too frequently.
posted by o2b at 9:40 PM on June 10, 2004
I'm not saying double posts or unworthy posts should be tolerated, it's jsut that positive reinforcement and constructive criticism could do so much more than the negativity that appears all too frequently.
posted by o2b at 9:40 PM on June 10, 2004
For the record, I don't disagree with the idea that because of my prolificacy I should be held to a higher standard.
Why?
posted by scarabic at 9:44 PM on June 10, 2004
Why?
posted by scarabic at 9:44 PM on June 10, 2004
Oh jesus christ we'd better break those two up now or we'll have a 20,000 page Meta thread.
And 19,950 won't be mine.
posted by y2karl at 6:43 PM PST on June 10
Yeah. They probably will be someone else's words that you cut and paste in giant block quotes.
posted by Seth at 9:53 PM on June 10, 2004
And 19,950 won't be mine.
posted by y2karl at 6:43 PM PST on June 10
Yeah. They probably will be someone else's words that you cut and paste in giant block quotes.
posted by Seth at 9:53 PM on June 10, 2004
Yeah. They probably will be someone else's words that you cut and paste in giant block quotes.
No doubt about some flippety flop fudges on violating the Geneva Conventions--like Bush Side-Steps Chance to Denounce Torture.
President George W Bush said he ordered US officials to follow the law while interrogating suspected terrorists, but he side-stepped an opportunity to denounce the use of torture.
Bush’s comments came as a two-year-old State Department document surfaced warning the White House that failing to apply international standards against torture could put US troops at risk.
“What I’ve authorised is that we stay within US law,” Bush told reporters at the close of the G-8 summit in Savannah, Georgia.
Asked if torture is ever justified, Bush replied, “Look, I’m going to say it one more time. ... The instructions went out to our people to adhere to law. That ought to comfort you.”
posted by y2karl at 10:03 PM on June 10, 2004
No doubt about some flippety flop fudges on violating the Geneva Conventions--like Bush Side-Steps Chance to Denounce Torture.
President George W Bush said he ordered US officials to follow the law while interrogating suspected terrorists, but he side-stepped an opportunity to denounce the use of torture.
Bush’s comments came as a two-year-old State Department document surfaced warning the White House that failing to apply international standards against torture could put US troops at risk.
“What I’ve authorised is that we stay within US law,” Bush told reporters at the close of the G-8 summit in Savannah, Georgia.
Asked if torture is ever justified, Bush replied, “Look, I’m going to say it one more time. ... The instructions went out to our people to adhere to law. That ought to comfort you.”
posted by y2karl at 10:03 PM on June 10, 2004
Karl, I've said before that I think you're an artist of metafilter (like a sculptor of information) but let this go. Don't get pulled into this any further.
posted by interrobang at 10:06 PM on June 10, 2004
posted by interrobang at 10:06 PM on June 10, 2004
"Why?"—scarabicHmm. I don't think it should scale downward, as well. There should be a minimum. I guess my argument would be what was mentioned earlier: that the more a person posts, the more an influence he/she has. This implies a greater responsibility.
Thank you for your defense of me in this thread, by the way. Such things shouldn't be personal and should be based on the merits only—but that doesn't mean that I don't feel personally grateful when someone defends my point of view, or, particularly, me.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 10:10 PM on June 10, 2004
Karl, I've said before that I think you're an artist of metafilter (like a sculptor of information)...
/belittling sarcasm
Haha... good one.
posted by Witty at 10:13 PM on June 10, 2004
/belittling sarcasm
Haha... good one.
posted by Witty at 10:13 PM on June 10, 2004
Witty, compared to y2karl - on metafilter, at least - *you* are totally fucking useless. Save your sarcasm and go back to the Yahoo! message boards, or Fark, where someone might think you're funny and clever.
posted by interrobang at 10:19 PM on June 10, 2004
posted by interrobang at 10:19 PM on June 10, 2004
If Metafilter were an island, someone's ass would be voted off for this thread, that's for damn sure.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 10:23 PM on June 10, 2004
posted by mr_crash_davis at 10:23 PM on June 10, 2004
"That's a waste of fucking time."
then... skip... the... damn... thread?
I agree the post didn't give much background info, and I'd have appreciated, say, a link to some good Ray Charles fan sites, or something. but still, if you don't appreciate it, skip it. Flash Friday links bored me beyond belief -- I skip them, always. I must have opened two or three or them in more than 3 years on MetaFilter. skip them. if you meta-lecture people about topics they feel strongly about (a death of as legend, for example) be prepared to receive some snarks
"your favorite band/artist sucks" or MetaTalki-ish comments are not constructive to good discussion in threads such as Ray Charles', sorry.
posted by matteo at 12:01 AM on June 11, 2004
then... skip... the... damn... thread?
I agree the post didn't give much background info, and I'd have appreciated, say, a link to some good Ray Charles fan sites, or something. but still, if you don't appreciate it, skip it. Flash Friday links bored me beyond belief -- I skip them, always. I must have opened two or three or them in more than 3 years on MetaFilter. skip them. if you meta-lecture people about topics they feel strongly about (a death of as legend, for example) be prepared to receive some snarks
"your favorite band/artist sucks" or MetaTalki-ish comments are not constructive to good discussion in threads such as Ray Charles', sorry.
posted by matteo at 12:01 AM on June 11, 2004
MetaFilter: skip them, always
Sorry matteo ;) It's just that the word "filter" is in the URL, it isn't going anywhere, and people are going to advance opinions about what should and should not pass through said filter.
In other words: there's a reason the site is not called MetaScrollDown
the more a person posts, the more an influence he/she has. This implies a greater responsibility.
It's a good principle to live by. But I think this kind of thing is only applicable on the macro level, and it's a matter of choice. I don't want to see 99 good comments from someone make 1 bad one even worse, unless the person in question feels they've let their own standards down, of course.
Many irreplaceable fixtures in this community behave totally "irresponsibly," right and left, yet they add character and keep the "responsible" ones from taking themselves too seriously. The iomportant thing is to maintain some kind of balance. Perhaps some folks saw your comment as out of character for you, but expecting too much consistency drives us toward becoming charicatures of ourselves.
Such things shouldn't be personal and should be based on the merits only
I totally agree, which is why I'm arguing for taking each comment as it comes, and not judging it based on who said it. So fear not! I may be ripping you a new one tomorrow. While I do get the general impression that you meant no harm, what pissed me off most of all was the "solemnity crackdown" that many people seemed to think came automatically with the obit. Frankly, I think people were reach for personal reasons to apply that crackdown to you, and that pisses me off too.
posted by scarabic at 12:30 AM on June 11, 2004
Sorry matteo ;) It's just that the word "filter" is in the URL, it isn't going anywhere, and people are going to advance opinions about what should and should not pass through said filter.
In other words: there's a reason the site is not called MetaScrollDown
the more a person posts, the more an influence he/she has. This implies a greater responsibility.
It's a good principle to live by. But I think this kind of thing is only applicable on the macro level, and it's a matter of choice. I don't want to see 99 good comments from someone make 1 bad one even worse, unless the person in question feels they've let their own standards down, of course.
Many irreplaceable fixtures in this community behave totally "irresponsibly," right and left, yet they add character and keep the "responsible" ones from taking themselves too seriously. The iomportant thing is to maintain some kind of balance. Perhaps some folks saw your comment as out of character for you, but expecting too much consistency drives us toward becoming charicatures of ourselves.
Such things shouldn't be personal and should be based on the merits only
I totally agree, which is why I'm arguing for taking each comment as it comes, and not judging it based on who said it. So fear not! I may be ripping you a new one tomorrow. While I do get the general impression that you meant no harm, what pissed me off most of all was the "solemnity crackdown" that many people seemed to think came automatically with the obit. Frankly, I think people were reach for personal reasons to apply that crackdown to you, and that pisses me off too.
posted by scarabic at 12:30 AM on June 11, 2004
Why does the room smell like shite? Is it because 1 or 2 people took the piss? Or because a dozen people immediately and indignantly shat themselves over it?
I have nothing to add to this.
posted by majcher at 1:02 AM on June 11, 2004
I have nothing to add to this.
posted by majcher at 1:02 AM on June 11, 2004
I refrained from comment when I saw this on the blue yesterday, but since there's a fair bit of ganging up on EB I felt obligated to join in come to the defense.
MetaFilter is NOT the place for breaking news. Most of us can agree on that. But we do make some exceptions here, for whatever reason. So where do we draw the line? Who is worthy of a MeFi obit? What story is worthy of MeFi coverage? Who decides?
Well, we do. And EB's post is an example of how we do it. The snarkiness that is often descried here is actually useful. It lets the community overall indicate the perceived worthiness of a post that goes beyond the stated intentions of MeFi. A former US president dying is acceptable. But I bet the death of a former.... say, Belgian Prime Minister probably wouldn't be. If someone as important as Ray Charles (and honestly, although I love soul and R&B, and I respect his status and contributions, my feelings for his music range from tolerance to annoyance) can evoke a bit of snarkiness (and EB's was mild, folks, so put out the torches), then that serves to warn another poster that perhaps a FPP mourning the death of Zsa Zsa Gabor might not be worth doing.
We don't want this to become ObitFilter, so we have to have some way of letting the community know if someone is worth breaking the rules. That's something we can't (or wouldn't want to) do in advance, so we must rely on precedent. Maybe next time someone dies, a MeFite will think to find a second link with a little more content than just a CNN or AP newsflash, or reconsider posting altogether. Obits aren't verboten here, but thoughtless FPPs are. The Ray Charles FPP was crap, total crap, but even the most obscure death could probably be made into a great post with the right supporting links. This ain't a message board, it's a place to find and share great, interesting stuff from the net.
I didn't care for the man, but I think he deserved better from MeFi than one link to MSNBC.
posted by GhostintheMachine at 6:02 AM on June 11, 2004
MetaFilter is NOT the place for breaking news. Most of us can agree on that. But we do make some exceptions here, for whatever reason. So where do we draw the line? Who is worthy of a MeFi obit? What story is worthy of MeFi coverage? Who decides?
Well, we do. And EB's post is an example of how we do it. The snarkiness that is often descried here is actually useful. It lets the community overall indicate the perceived worthiness of a post that goes beyond the stated intentions of MeFi. A former US president dying is acceptable. But I bet the death of a former.... say, Belgian Prime Minister probably wouldn't be. If someone as important as Ray Charles (and honestly, although I love soul and R&B, and I respect his status and contributions, my feelings for his music range from tolerance to annoyance) can evoke a bit of snarkiness (and EB's was mild, folks, so put out the torches), then that serves to warn another poster that perhaps a FPP mourning the death of Zsa Zsa Gabor might not be worth doing.
We don't want this to become ObitFilter, so we have to have some way of letting the community know if someone is worth breaking the rules. That's something we can't (or wouldn't want to) do in advance, so we must rely on precedent. Maybe next time someone dies, a MeFite will think to find a second link with a little more content than just a CNN or AP newsflash, or reconsider posting altogether. Obits aren't verboten here, but thoughtless FPPs are. The Ray Charles FPP was crap, total crap, but even the most obscure death could probably be made into a great post with the right supporting links. This ain't a message board, it's a place to find and share great, interesting stuff from the net.
I didn't care for the man, but I think he deserved better from MeFi than one link to MSNBC.
posted by GhostintheMachine at 6:02 AM on June 11, 2004
What t r a c y said, that's what I was getting at with this post. If you don't like a FPP, call it out in the grey, don't harsh on the people who want to talk about Ray Charles, it drags to discourse down and stops other people from posting relevant thoughts.
It just seems like bad taste and poor form.
posted by Capn at 6:09 AM on June 11, 2004
It just seems like bad taste and poor form.
posted by Capn at 6:09 AM on June 11, 2004
President George W Bush said he ordered US officials to follow the law while interrogating suspected terrorists, but he side-stepped an opportunity to denounce the use of torture.
Having just read a comment by this guy, I read that as,
"W Bush said he ordered US officials to follow the law while interrobanging suspected terrorists."
On review of the latest posts: E.B., backed by scarabic, faced off against Y2K? Where IS that 20,000 page book? ;-) Seriously, congrats on exercizing restraint and avoiding a messy playground scuffle.
posted by Shane at 6:48 AM on June 11, 2004
Having just read a comment by this guy, I read that as,
"W Bush said he ordered US officials to follow the law while interrobanging suspected terrorists."
On review of the latest posts: E.B., backed by scarabic, faced off against Y2K? Where IS that 20,000 page book? ;-) Seriously, congrats on exercizing restraint and avoiding a messy playground scuffle.
posted by Shane at 6:48 AM on June 11, 2004
/belittling sarcasm
Haha... good one.
Witty, I almost told you a simple way to pass your E-Test in AskMe yesterday, but I figured you might get all "/belittling sarcasm" on me ;-)
posted by Shane at 6:49 AM on June 11, 2004
Haha... good one.
Witty, I almost told you a simple way to pass your E-Test in AskMe yesterday, but I figured you might get all "/belittling sarcasm" on me ;-)
posted by Shane at 6:49 AM on June 11, 2004
that the more a person posts, the more an influence he/she has.
::smiles::
That is not what I meant by my comment. Here's what I said: but being such a prolific poster opens you up to much further scrutiny, since your posts are seen everywhere.
The implication of my comment was not that you exert more influence, but that since your comments are seen everywhere, they (the comments) are more likely to be commented upon, and should therefore be more carefully written.
My line of logic extends to those who occasionally pop in and drop stupid one-liners. Because these one-line offenders only show up once every couple of days (albeit there are a lot of these types here), they're more easily ignored because you don't recognize them as consistent contributors of this site.
Again, as I've said before, I'm interested in your insight. But your (sometimes) overwhelming presence can rub people the wrong way (myself included at times), and since your comments are everywhere, it's very easy to critique (or in MetaFilter terms: rip apart) them.
posted by BlueTrain at 7:15 AM on June 11, 2004
::smiles::
That is not what I meant by my comment. Here's what I said: but being such a prolific poster opens you up to much further scrutiny, since your posts are seen everywhere.
The implication of my comment was not that you exert more influence, but that since your comments are seen everywhere, they (the comments) are more likely to be commented upon, and should therefore be more carefully written.
My line of logic extends to those who occasionally pop in and drop stupid one-liners. Because these one-line offenders only show up once every couple of days (albeit there are a lot of these types here), they're more easily ignored because you don't recognize them as consistent contributors of this site.
Again, as I've said before, I'm interested in your insight. But your (sometimes) overwhelming presence can rub people the wrong way (myself included at times), and since your comments are everywhere, it's very easy to critique (or in MetaFilter terms: rip apart) them.
posted by BlueTrain at 7:15 AM on June 11, 2004
positive reinforcement and constructive criticism could do so much more than the negativityThat's YOUR opinion; don't expect others to subscribe to it.
Those who feel death merits solemnity should not be surprised that others deal with death through hilarity. ;-P
posted by mischief at 7:19 AM on June 11, 2004
Foghorn Leghorn wouldn't piss in no jar.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:31 AM on June 11, 2004
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:31 AM on June 11, 2004
I'm pretty sure that evanizer is somebody else, but I don't know who. . .
*waits for somebody to whisper in my ear*
posted by ashbury at 7:34 AM on June 11, 2004
*waits for somebody to whisper in my ear*
posted by ashbury at 7:34 AM on June 11, 2004
I think we should put Ray Charles on US currency.
Why not ?
posted by troutfishing at 7:41 AM on June 11, 2004
Why not ?
posted by troutfishing at 7:41 AM on June 11, 2004
EB, I used to gnaw on Miguel's leg repeatedly because he posted so often and so garrulously (sinto muito, Miguel!), but he was self-effacing and funny and generous (to the point of patting me on the head rather than kicking me as I sank my fangs in). You, on the other hand, are solemn and take yourself far too seriously ("the more a person posts, the more an influence he/she has" indeed!) and have a disturbing tendency to engage in squabbling, albeit highly dignified squabbling. I think you're a valuable member of the community, but you might want to put on shinguards...
I use the past tense for Miguel not because of any sad news from Portugal but because he's started practicing restraint to the point that... I can't say it... I must say it... I sometimes actually miss his comments! Did I say that?
posted by languagehat at 7:44 AM on June 11, 2004
I use the past tense for Miguel not because of any sad news from Portugal but because he's started practicing restraint to the point that... I can't say it... I must say it... I sometimes actually miss his comments! Did I say that?
posted by languagehat at 7:44 AM on June 11, 2004
Ditto on the Miguelian-missing, languagehat. Bastard-friend killed Metafilter, then just walked away. Least he could do is hang around and piss on the corpse with the rest of us!
[/1142]
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:48 AM on June 11, 2004
[/1142]
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:48 AM on June 11, 2004
You know, trout, we missed the opportunity to tell Ray Charles he was already on the currency.
Or maybe we didn't. "Yeah, Ray, sure, you're on the 20. That's you, baby, uh huh. Go on, spend your face..."
I get the feeling it's easier to write longer, smarter, comment-worthy posts than the occasional one liner. But I'll never know.
And I miss Miguel too. I suspect he's either writing or actually getting outside and living his life a little bit. I don't know what that's like, either.
posted by chicobangs at 8:08 AM on June 11, 2004
Or maybe we didn't. "Yeah, Ray, sure, you're on the 20. That's you, baby, uh huh. Go on, spend your face..."
I get the feeling it's easier to write longer, smarter, comment-worthy posts than the occasional one liner. But I'll never know.
And I miss Miguel too. I suspect he's either writing or actually getting outside and living his life a little bit. I don't know what that's like, either.
posted by chicobangs at 8:08 AM on June 11, 2004
I didn't mean to imply that I think I have more influence or that I should have more influence or that I am trying to have more influence. It was just the phrasing that came to mind when I was trying to articulate my point. It does seem reasonable to me that a prolific poster be held to a somewhat higher standard. Ah! It occurs to me that what's throwing people is the positive connotation of the word "influence". But I meant it very neutrally—like, a quiet, taciturn jerk is easier to tolerate than a loud, verbose jerk. If you're going to be loud and verbose, then the reality is that you're affecting more people, more often than if you're not. With that comes an increased responsibility to affect them positively rather than negatively.
And I'm not always solemn. But you're right, I strongly have that tendency. I've always deliberately tried to leaven this with informal language ("y'all", "'cause"), profanity ("fuck"), absurdities ("mallards"), etc. It is an affectation of my writing which, perhaps, does not have the desired effect. That I would assume such affectations for such a reason probably only underscores my solemnity. Realizing this puts my entire life and personality in doubt—I now agree with those who despise me. Haha. Just kidding.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 9:07 AM on June 11, 2004
And I'm not always solemn. But you're right, I strongly have that tendency. I've always deliberately tried to leaven this with informal language ("y'all", "'cause"), profanity ("fuck"), absurdities ("mallards"), etc. It is an affectation of my writing which, perhaps, does not have the desired effect. That I would assume such affectations for such a reason probably only underscores my solemnity. Realizing this puts my entire life and personality in doubt—I now agree with those who despise me. Haha. Just kidding.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 9:07 AM on June 11, 2004
That's YOUR opinion; don't expect others to subscribe to it.
I know it's an opinion, but it doesn't seem like others have even considered the possibility.
posted by o2b at 9:08 AM on June 11, 2004
I know it's an opinion, but it doesn't seem like others have even considered the possibility.
posted by o2b at 9:08 AM on June 11, 2004
EB: Now you're disarming me with your self-awareness. Damn you! Damn you to hell!
Oh, and I should add that I've been engaging in too much squabbling myself, lately. But at least I do it in an unseemly, undignified manner and get sloppy drunk afterwards!
posted by languagehat at 9:20 AM on June 11, 2004
Oh, and I should add that I've been engaging in too much squabbling myself, lately. But at least I do it in an unseemly, undignified manner and get sloppy drunk afterwards!
posted by languagehat at 9:20 AM on June 11, 2004
I'm sick of learning of some big, breaking news story only to find it posted to MeFi ten minutes later. It's fucking pathetic.
I would suggest that you don't grok the site quite as well as you insist that you do. And that's not an attack, as I generally enjoy your contributions, just a gentle suggestion that one is almost always better-served here by sticking to what one does well rather than getting all twisted up trying to fight lost causes (believe me, I know).
posted by rushmc at 10:49 AM on June 11, 2004
I would suggest that you don't grok the site quite as well as you insist that you do. And that's not an attack, as I generally enjoy your contributions, just a gentle suggestion that one is almost always better-served here by sticking to what one does well rather than getting all twisted up trying to fight lost causes (believe me, I know).
posted by rushmc at 10:49 AM on June 11, 2004
In other news, Ronald Reagan is still dead. That deserves a post, surely? Hey, did anyone hear about his funeral?
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 11:27 AM on June 11, 2004
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 11:27 AM on June 11, 2004
Only post this now because this thread lives though it should have been deleted imho.
"The comment wasn't snarky about the subject of the post"
Oh the enquirer comment iirc. Which needed a little more explanation since most tabloid news is false before the fact."
Ack! my comment was off by one which was about the one below it. Reminded by my comment, can we go any lower than pissing on one grieving? Adding what will the 4th of July fireworks be w/o Ray Charles beautiful songs.
posted by thomcatspike at 11:55 AM on June 11, 2004
"The comment wasn't snarky about the subject of the post"
Oh the enquirer comment iirc. Which needed a little more explanation since most tabloid news is false before the fact."
Ack! my comment was off by one which was about the one below it. Reminded by my comment, can we go any lower than pissing on one grieving? Adding what will the 4th of July fireworks be w/o Ray Charles beautiful songs.
posted by thomcatspike at 11:55 AM on June 11, 2004
I think my favorite part of the original thread was when y2karl made no less than three bitter (yet uncontested) comments about EB's behavior--essentially disrupting the thread more than the EB's initial comment had--before again reproaching him, "You just don't know when to quit!"
y2klassic
posted by dhoyt at 3:35 PM on June 11, 2004
y2klassic
posted by dhoyt at 3:35 PM on June 11, 2004
dhoyt never comments about topics in the blue--just other users in the gray. The term for such in real life is a gossip.
posted by y2karl at 3:46 PM on June 11, 2004
posted by y2karl at 3:46 PM on June 11, 2004
Except, of course--In Japan, don't they use the Lichter Scale? ---when he's the topic here himself. Then he gets quite touchy.
posted by y2karl at 4:16 PM on June 11, 2004
posted by y2karl at 4:16 PM on June 11, 2004
reproaching him, "You just don't know when to quit!"
Indeed, especially coming from one of the most brazen and tireless Iraqfilterers we've got.
I've never given you shit for all the Iraq posts, karl, because as much as I think you're defying the plurality of the user base by posting them one after the other after the other, I'm content to scroll past and let you do your thing. Why don't you extend that courtesy onward?
posted by scarabic at 4:20 PM on June 11, 2004
Indeed, especially coming from one of the most brazen and tireless Iraqfilterers we've got.
I've never given you shit for all the Iraq posts, karl, because as much as I think you're defying the plurality of the user base by posting them one after the other after the other, I'm content to scroll past and let you do your thing. Why don't you extend that courtesy onward?
posted by scarabic at 4:20 PM on June 11, 2004
In other news, Ronald Reagan is still dead.
So NOT a zombie, then?
And, sorry, y2karl, but I have to agree that your multiple comments to EB in the thread were uncalled for and more disruptive than his single remark.
posted by rushmc at 6:04 PM on June 11, 2004
So NOT a zombie, then?
And, sorry, y2karl, but I have to agree that your multiple comments to EB in the thread were uncalled for and more disruptive than his single remark.
posted by rushmc at 6:04 PM on June 11, 2004
all things considered, it's better to witness a pointless argument between two guys who have something on the ball than two idiots, right?
See, there's always an upside.
posted by jonmc at 6:31 PM on June 11, 2004
See, there's always an upside.
posted by jonmc at 6:31 PM on June 11, 2004
o2b - I'm not saying double posts or unworthy posts should be tolerated, it's jsut that positive reinforcement and constructive criticism could do so much more than the negativity that appears all too frequently. I'm right there with you, but it will never happen and you can't let it get to you. Just do your part by complementing those people who make worthy posts and let other people act the cop/shithead in the mediocre or worse posts...
posted by vito90 at 9:24 AM on June 12, 2004
posted by vito90 at 9:24 AM on June 12, 2004
Metafilter: A Slapwank in the Grey
posted by SteelyDuran at 10:05 AM on June 12, 2004
posted by SteelyDuran at 10:05 AM on June 12, 2004
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by quonsar at 1:27 PM on June 10, 2004 [1 favorite]