MetaTalk

This post is emotive, shrill and conclusive in tone. Considering it deals with emotionally charged topics, its sure to get a lot of attention. I can take emotive and shrill if the topic had been approached from an interrogative viewpoint, rather than conclusive. [more inside]
posted by Mutant on Jan 30, 2008 - 65 comments

True to form, this post could use a little balance. [more inside]
posted by four panels on Oct 12, 2007 - 85 comments

Incredibly lame.
posted by mzurer on Jun 20, 2006 - 85 comments

Worst post ever? Single link: Check. Editorializing: Check. Conspiracy Theory: Check. Google-as-evil-censor subtext: check.
posted by tiamat on Mar 11, 2006 - 12 comments

I call censorship by the religious majority
posted by cbrody on Dec 11, 2005 - 206 comments

Oh look, someone just took dump on the front page!
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood on Jun 20, 2005 - 63 comments

This isn't a good post and is an example of framing that should be avoided.
posted by dios on Apr 28, 2005 - 155 comments

I have mixed feelings about hoopyfrood's Michael Jackson belongs in jail post. On the one hand, I agree with the general "don't editorialize" philosophy and its corollary "save it for a comment in the thread." On the other, this isn't exactly the New York Times and a poster's take on their subject is arguably an integral part of the post. "Letting the link speak for itself", when it involves a news item, is all very well - but perhaps keeping one's opinion out of the front page text is also an exercise in obfuscation and even dishonesty. Has current policy on editorializing changed? ( I speak as a frequent editorializer, I should add. Even though I agree "pedophile of pop", with its dubious inverted commas, and all-capitals IN JAIL!, as well as the idea that everyone is innocent until proven guilty except Michael Jackson, are way too extreme a way of going about it.)
posted by MiguelCardoso on Nov 19, 2003 - 84 comments

Am I the only one that doesn't like FPPs that begin the political arguement in the post itself. See a post today for what I mean. Nothing against The Jesse Helms, but the links don't point to anything new. It appears to me to be a political broadside instead of interesting information. IMHO, interesting information is what a 'metafilter' is supposed to provide.

I thought the idea of MeFi was to let discussion occur in the comments, not on the front page.

Or am I way off base and should I head back to Slashdot & the WWDN forums?
posted by Argyle on Nov 27, 2002 - 32 comments

Shouldn't you post rants on your own blog if you have one?
posted by dchase on Apr 28, 2002 - 17 comments

Dear longtime visitors to MetaFilter: Don't do this.
posted by rcade on Apr 30, 2001 - 24 comments