Baseless accusations February 14, 2005 5:54 PM Subscribe
Have unsubstantiated smears become common currency at MeFi too now?
Please stop with the alarmist phrasing of these wimpy-ass callouts. If you see one bad comment, don't get all freaked out that THE NORM has changed. Goddamn. If you're going to raise the alarm about THE NORM then provide a long list of links making your point. And anyway, you're totally overreacting to the instance. "Paid by the X" is a figure of speech, and the point is that you seem to link to these sources a lot.
posted by scarabic at 6:11 PM on February 14, 2005
posted by scarabic at 6:11 PM on February 14, 2005
It's substantiated? How? Have you seen the cheque stubs, bingo?
Seemed like a jibe just beyond the bounds of poor taste, semmi - best to just ignore it, really.
posted by dash_slot- at 6:13 PM on February 14, 2005
Seemed like a jibe just beyond the bounds of poor taste, semmi - best to just ignore it, really.
posted by dash_slot- at 6:13 PM on February 14, 2005
dash-slot-: Nobody was suggesting that actual payments are taking place. The implication was that most of a certain person's FPPs come from two sources. And they do. It's not a very profound point, nor does it say anything bad about semmi, but neither is it an insult worthy of a callout. And if it was, the phrasing of this particular callout would be the wrong phrasing, because there's not much of a smear involved, and the only real accusation, lame as it might be, is fully substantiated. I could call you an 'underscore-loving motherfucker' with as much impunity and as little relevance.
posted by bingo at 7:41 PM on February 14, 2005
posted by bingo at 7:41 PM on February 14, 2005
Have unsubstantiated smears become common currency at MeFi too now?
only in deleted threads.
posted by quonsar at 7:43 PM on February 14, 2005
only in deleted threads.
posted by quonsar at 7:43 PM on February 14, 2005
Have unsubstantiated smears become common currency at MeFi too now?
Depends on the source.
posted by AlexReynolds at 7:59 PM on February 14, 2005
Depends on the source.
posted by AlexReynolds at 7:59 PM on February 14, 2005
Please stop with the alarmist phrasing of these wimpy-ass callouts.
I agree with scarabic. I've been reading Metafilter every day for the better part of two years now, but I only recenly became a member in this latest round. I work for a major daily newspaper, so for reasons of wanting to keep my job, I don't comment much. But I will say this: The callouts are getting silly. Especially when the callout is about a single comment within a thread.
If MeFi has a problem, it is the recent decline in the quality (and an attendant increase in the quantity and verbosity) of FPPs. That seems to me to be the bigger fish to fry. But even in this case, calling someone out might not be the best solution. It might be better to set a good example by posting and commenting judicisously instead.
posted by nyterrant at 8:50 PM on February 14, 2005
I agree with scarabic. I've been reading Metafilter every day for the better part of two years now, but I only recenly became a member in this latest round. I work for a major daily newspaper, so for reasons of wanting to keep my job, I don't comment much. But I will say this: The callouts are getting silly. Especially when the callout is about a single comment within a thread.
If MeFi has a problem, it is the recent decline in the quality (and an attendant increase in the quantity and verbosity) of FPPs. That seems to me to be the bigger fish to fry. But even in this case, calling someone out might not be the best solution. It might be better to set a good example by posting and commenting judicisously instead.
posted by nyterrant at 8:50 PM on February 14, 2005
Er, make that judiciously. And don't forget to use the spellcheck.
posted by nyterrant at 8:51 PM on February 14, 2005
posted by nyterrant at 8:51 PM on February 14, 2005
Are crappy callouts destroying Metafilter? This reporter says yes.
posted by Krrrlson at 8:54 PM on February 14, 2005
posted by Krrrlson at 8:54 PM on February 14, 2005
Hey - wow, though, look at that! I made a spelling error on MeTa and was actually able to correct it after posting! Wow! I'm going to post all my comments as externally-hosted JPEGs from now on, you diseased rhinoceros pizzles!
posted by scarabic at 9:46 PM on February 14, 2005
posted by scarabic at 9:46 PM on February 14, 2005
scarabic, is somebody paying you by MetaTalk comment or something?
posted by taz at 9:51 PM on February 14, 2005
posted by taz at 9:51 PM on February 14, 2005
How dare you! I resent this egregious slander!
[cha-ching!]
posted by scarabic at 9:55 PM on February 14, 2005
[cha-ching!]
posted by scarabic at 9:55 PM on February 14, 2005
Damn, I thought I was the callout for a minute.
But seriously, you blew your one a week on that? Man, that's pretty tame stuff and dhoyt backed it up some with your history of which I saw quite alot of NYT attributions. Kind of a lame waste of a callout, especially on a deleted thread.
scarabic, please, please do not do that or I will be forced to call you rude names that I can not, in a more calm moment, retract and replace with bunnies and pancakes.
posted by fenriq at 10:27 PM on February 14, 2005
But seriously, you blew your one a week on that? Man, that's pretty tame stuff and dhoyt backed it up some with your history of which I saw quite alot of NYT attributions. Kind of a lame waste of a callout, especially on a deleted thread.
scarabic, please, please do not do that or I will be forced to call you rude names that I can not, in a more calm moment, retract and replace with bunnies and pancakes.
posted by fenriq at 10:27 PM on February 14, 2005
I wasn't going to call this out on my own, but since the subject of unsubstantiated smears has been broached, what's up with this?
I'm chastised by one Mefite and another Mefite joins in, for something I didn't actually write.
What the hell?
I mean, sure, by all means, paste me for what I actually write.
But don't make up something I never said, and then proceed to complain that I said it.
posted by orthogonality at 10:57 PM on February 14, 2005
I'm chastised by one Mefite and another Mefite joins in, for something I didn't actually write.
What the hell?
I mean, sure, by all means, paste me for what I actually write.
But don't make up something I never said, and then proceed to complain that I said it.
posted by orthogonality at 10:57 PM on February 14, 2005
some speculators believe that unsubstantiated smears could someday eclipse vapid witticisms as the currency of choice on the international wank market. But they're probably idiots.
posted by delmoi at 11:59 PM on February 14, 2005
posted by delmoi at 11:59 PM on February 14, 2005
If MeFi has a problem, it is the recent decline in the quality (and an attendant increase in the quantity and verbosity) of FPPs
Word.
posted by yerfatma at 4:13 AM on February 15, 2005
Word.
posted by yerfatma at 4:13 AM on February 15, 2005
Speaking of verbosity, check out Miguel's AskMe question this morning. That dude can bring the "more inside" like nobody's business.
posted by stupidsexyFlanders at 5:45 AM on February 15, 2005
posted by stupidsexyFlanders at 5:45 AM on February 15, 2005
Have unsubstantiated smears become common currency at MeFi too now?
Direct answer: No, they haven't. The thread can now be closed.
In the remaining time, allow me to point out that it's not unsubstantiated, in that A) it's an obvious joke, and B) it's in the form of a question (and not a leading question, like "Have you stopped beating your wife?", either). You could answer "No", and that would be that.
And, third, if you mean the background of the insult (that you post a lot of nytimes and newyorker posts) is unsubstantiated, I welcome you to look at your own post history.
Either way you slice it, a single negative comment about yourself != "common currency".
posted by Bugbread at 6:20 AM on February 15, 2005
Direct answer: No, they haven't. The thread can now be closed.
In the remaining time, allow me to point out that it's not unsubstantiated, in that A) it's an obvious joke, and B) it's in the form of a question (and not a leading question, like "Have you stopped beating your wife?", either). You could answer "No", and that would be that.
And, third, if you mean the background of the insult (that you post a lot of nytimes and newyorker posts) is unsubstantiated, I welcome you to look at your own post history.
Either way you slice it, a single negative comment about yourself != "common currency".
posted by Bugbread at 6:20 AM on February 15, 2005
Sorry guys, my connection at home has been down since yesterday.
semmi: I promise I didn't mean it as some deep-cutting personal insult, and I should've mentioned it in MetaTalk, but:
Weren't you already called out for this very thing in recent months? (I couldn't find it in the search)
Don't single-link NYT posts roughly once a week by the same person (not the mention the other plentiful NYT-centric posts) make MeFi more of a watered down, mainstream newsy place instead of a diverse, far-reaching index of cool/obscure links? How many people here don't already read NYT/New Yorker with regularity?
Was your problem with the tone of my comment or the facts it presented? Maybe I'm not understanding your use of the word 'unsubstantiated'.
posted by dhoyt at 7:59 AM on February 15, 2005
semmi: I promise I didn't mean it as some deep-cutting personal insult, and I should've mentioned it in MetaTalk, but:
Weren't you already called out for this very thing in recent months? (I couldn't find it in the search)
Don't single-link NYT posts roughly once a week by the same person (not the mention the other plentiful NYT-centric posts) make MeFi more of a watered down, mainstream newsy place instead of a diverse, far-reaching index of cool/obscure links? How many people here don't already read NYT/New Yorker with regularity?
Was your problem with the tone of my comment or the facts it presented? Maybe I'm not understanding your use of the word 'unsubstantiated'.
posted by dhoyt at 7:59 AM on February 15, 2005
"Unsubstantiated" makes sense if you consider that he actually felt seriously accused of being a paid operative for the NYer/T.
posted by scarabic at 8:26 AM on February 15, 2005
posted by scarabic at 8:26 AM on February 15, 2005
I guess my facetiousness (facetion?) wasn't broad enough.
posted by dhoyt at 8:30 AM on February 15, 2005
posted by dhoyt at 8:30 AM on February 15, 2005
Damn, I thought I was the callout for a minute.
Me too.
posted by norm at 9:51 AM on February 15, 2005
Me too.
posted by norm at 9:51 AM on February 15, 2005
it should be noted that the post in which semmi was "smeared" was deleted for being redundant. i think "try harder to bring us something off the beaten path" was perfectly in order!
i thought dhoyt's comment was a pretty kind way of nudging the poster in the right direction by being a bit funny. of course (i hope) semmi doesn't get paid by the link by NYT or another NY media establishment, but maybe he/she should make more of an effort to make sure it doesn't seem so. when i saw semmi's record, i even considered making a meta post myself, but there were quite a few good links in there drowning in the sea of nytimes, newyorker, ny times magazine, cnn, ny review of books, etc., so i wasn't sure. being new to the site, i decided to leave it to more experienced members to decide if this was worth calling out.
posted by nequalsone at 10:00 AM on February 15, 2005
i thought dhoyt's comment was a pretty kind way of nudging the poster in the right direction by being a bit funny. of course (i hope) semmi doesn't get paid by the link by NYT or another NY media establishment, but maybe he/she should make more of an effort to make sure it doesn't seem so. when i saw semmi's record, i even considered making a meta post myself, but there were quite a few good links in there drowning in the sea of nytimes, newyorker, ny times magazine, cnn, ny review of books, etc., so i wasn't sure. being new to the site, i decided to leave it to more experienced members to decide if this was worth calling out.
posted by nequalsone at 10:00 AM on February 15, 2005
My simple point was about the growing habit of not responding to the specific information, ideas, and analysis found in what is posted, wherever it's coming from, instead blowing a smoke screen of personal attacks and insinuations to derail a conversation from the substance of the article or statement into personal gripe and asswholery by a commitment to stifle fair and intelligent conversation on some subjects.
posted by semmi at 10:26 AM on February 15, 2005
posted by semmi at 10:26 AM on February 15, 2005
As has been pointed out multiple times, "fair and intelligent conversation" had already taken place here. I'm not sure why this is so hard for you to understand. You say that the perspective is not the same. Does that mean that you think each of the hundreds of articles on this subject deserves its own FPP? This is one of the inherent problems with NewsFilter (something which I am guilty of as well, btw) -- especially one-link NewsFilter. I think that is what dhoyt is getting at, however snarky the form.
posted by casu marzu at 10:42 AM on February 15, 2005
posted by casu marzu at 10:42 AM on February 15, 2005
semmi:
If you want more interesting conversations you should post more interesting links from more interesting sources.
The topic had been discussed 24 hours prior, which is what prompted its deletion by mathowie, aka Hater Supreme, who is clearly out to get you. The thread tanked because it was a lazy post, not from "smoke screens of personal attacks" or "a commitment to stifle fair and intelligent conversation" or any other conspiracy.
You've sidestepped the issue here: your penchant for one-link NYT posts which most of us have probably already seen. Do you see why this might turn MeFi into a tedious, newsy linkmill for some?
posted by dhoyt at 10:43 AM on February 15, 2005
If you want more interesting conversations you should post more interesting links from more interesting sources.
The topic had been discussed 24 hours prior, which is what prompted its deletion by mathowie, aka Hater Supreme, who is clearly out to get you. The thread tanked because it was a lazy post, not from "smoke screens of personal attacks" or "a commitment to stifle fair and intelligent conversation" or any other conspiracy.
You've sidestepped the issue here: your penchant for one-link NYT posts which most of us have probably already seen. Do you see why this might turn MeFi into a tedious, newsy linkmill for some?
posted by dhoyt at 10:43 AM on February 15, 2005
My simple point was about the growing habit of not responding to the specific information, ideas, and analysis found in what is posted, wherever it's coming from, instead blowing a smoke screen of personal attacks and insinuations to derail a conversation from the substance of the article or statement into personal gripe and asswholery by a commitment to stifle fair and intelligent conversation on some subjects.
Whoa. If that was the case, it would have been a good idea to reference a post where someone tries to derail a conversation or stifle intelligent conversation by blowing a smoke screen of personal attacks, instead of referencing a post where someone is pointing out the redundancy of the post itself, and, judging from the subsequent deletion, said reference is deserved.
posted by Bugbread at 11:14 PM on February 15, 2005
Whoa. If that was the case, it would have been a good idea to reference a post where someone tries to derail a conversation or stifle intelligent conversation by blowing a smoke screen of personal attacks, instead of referencing a post where someone is pointing out the redundancy of the post itself, and, judging from the subsequent deletion, said reference is deserved.
posted by Bugbread at 11:14 PM on February 15, 2005
bugbread, et al.: read the article and you'll get the parallel, and the connection.
posted by semmi at 8:51 AM on February 16, 2005
posted by semmi at 8:51 AM on February 16, 2005
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by bingo at 6:06 PM on February 14, 2005