Did not, did too, did not, did too (selective quoting) September 8, 2005 9:47 AM   Subscribe

Steve_at_Linnwood selectively quotes a Washington Post story, is called on it, then denies it. This is a lie.
posted by MrMoonPie to Etiquette/Policy at 9:47 AM (112 comments total)

Strongly supporting a point is one thing. Lying is entirely different, and should not be tolerated.
posted by MrMoonPie at 9:47 AM on September 8, 2005


Flag it as noise.
posted by Rothko at 9:55 AM on September 8, 2005


This is a ridiculous, worthless callout...fueled by a partisan slant. He editorialized the front page, true, which is done by political posters every day here. If there was a MeTa callout for every perverted front page post, the MeFi-MeTa ratio would be 1-to-1. Journalists take "liberties" all the time in writing articles, and had people bothered to read the entire linked story, the full picture could have been found.

Argue the damn facts presented in the original article. You got a problem with the poster, take it to e-mail.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 9:56 AM on September 8, 2005


Let it be. We've had worse before without MeTa threads. Besides, the rest of the discussion brought in some pretty interesting links.

For some reason this has turned into callout season, and it's just getting ridiculous. I'm sick of hearing 3-4 new callouts a day.

The community has been eating itself in the last month, and it's to the point that I'm checking the site less with each passing day. We all need to calm down for a while.
posted by mystyk at 9:58 AM on September 8, 2005


The sky is blue, and Steve_At is an intellectually dishonest troll.

Call me when something new happens.
posted by mosch at 10:01 AM on September 8, 2005


I believe if you’ll look at my posting history, you’ll see that I’m not exactly the type to come crying to MetaTalk at the drop of a hat.

I'm not terribly worried about the "liberties" Steve took with the quotation. What I'm worried about is the blatant, bald-faced lie in his denying that he'd taken such liberties. He quoted two contiguous paragraphs of text, leaving out the first sentence of the second paragraph, then said, and I quote, “I didn't leave out anything.”
posted by MrMoonPie at 10:05 AM on September 8, 2005


S@L should have put the material in quotes (it was lifted directly from the article) and indicated the omitted material with an ellipsis. Were this an academic paper he would be guilty of plagiarism and perhaps receive a failing grade or other trouble. But this is not academia. I wouldn't get too bent out of shape over it.
posted by caddis at 10:06 AM on September 8, 2005


MrMoonPie, I left out as much as you just left out.

I said "I didn't leave out anything. Anyone who reads the article will see that."

If the people who read this site are unable or unwilling read the article linked, that is hardly my problem.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 10:08 AM on September 8, 2005


Metafilter: This is not academia. I wouldn't get too bent out of shape over it.
posted by psmealey at 10:11 AM on September 8, 2005


S@L, MoonPie seems to be disturbed by something that many likely saw (I sure did). For some reason it twisted his panties a bit hard. Because it's an issue, here's the breakdown.

What you did was a selective quote, that when taken alone changes the entire context of the paragraph. That is intellectually dishonest.

You then left it up to readers to find the truth after having led them down an inaccurate path of assumptions. That is intentionally misleading.

Finally you were unrepentant at the nature of your approach to the topic. That's just stupid.

Is this callout worthy? Probably not. I'm even more inclined to say so in light of the current callout fever in the community. It is, however, still wrong of you to have taken that approach.
posted by mystyk at 10:15 AM on September 8, 2005


Who cares? Seems like Steve wanted to summarize the article, not quote it verbatim. If he lied on purpose, what exactly would he get out of it? The article is right there.
posted by sonofsamiam at 10:17 AM on September 8, 2005


Steve_at_Linnwood: this kind of defense is why you have absolutely no credibility.

You'd rather nail yourself to the right-wing cross, but the problem is that you're a dishonest troll.
posted by mosch at 10:17 AM on September 8, 2005


You know, I was wondering when someone would notice this. Steve is called on it by wakko, says "I didn't leave out anything." I expanded on wakko's callout, providing hard evidence of the absolute fact that Steve did leave a sentence out, and nothing came of it.
posted by odinsdream at 10:19 AM on September 8, 2005


sonofsamiam: if he was interested in anything other than trolling, he could have said "I omitted that sentence for brevity, and felt it clarified the overall tone of the article."

Instead he denied editing, and implied that MeFites are incapable of reading.

He's a troll.
posted by mosch at 10:20 AM on September 8, 2005


S@L has always been an antagonistic goofball. What else is new?
posted by xmutex at 10:20 AM on September 8, 2005


Forgive me, but when I read through political posts around here, I'm surrounded by overstatements and misstatements, done by all angles. However, those statements that heavily criticize the current administration stand out since there are so many around here to sift through.

So when I come to MeTa, and of all misstatements, I see one of a conservative slant, I can't help but wonder if perhaps your own liberal sensibilities set off this post.

I agree that what Steve did was probably innappropriate, but I can't really blame him, since conservative thought is not "welcomed" here. Hell, it's barely tolerated. And after years of abuse, when he lashes out in this passive-aggressive manner, while I can't condone his actions, I can empathize.

If this site were as vociferous against trollish "lefties", I'd have more anger. But when people like wakko, cleardawn, and nofundy are allowed to run amuck with no admonishment, my empathy towards conservative posters rises.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 10:22 AM on September 8, 2005


Yes, mosch, as we all know you are the abator of credibility.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 10:24 AM on September 8, 2005


sonofsamiam writes "Seems like Steve wanted to summarize the article, not quote it verbatim."

I'm not really sure this is call-out worthy, but I disagree with you here. Steve wanted to quote verbatim but he was dishonest in that quotation because he couldn't get the unadulterated slant that he needed. If he had summarized, then he wouldn't have, you know, quoted the article to make his whole FPP.

What's amazing to me is that people are willing to let their main point slide in order to score a cheap and easily refuted political point. Despite the criticism in the thread, it's a legitimate topic about which there should be honest discussion. THe point of the article, and therefore Steve's point, is not materially affected by the excised sentence, yet its excision provides the opportunity that Steve must have known everyone would be looking for to dismiss the whole post as partisan bs.
posted by OmieWise at 10:24 AM on September 8, 2005


SiezeTheDay, do you really not understand what's going on? It isn't about Steve's politics at all. It's about the english language and how it works. Steve quotes an article, leaves out a sentence, and changes a lower-case letter to an upper-case letter to make it seem like the sentence began where it didn't.

When someone says "You left something out," Steve said "No, I didn't leave anything out."

No politics yet... just blatant misrepresentation and a subsequent lie. If Steve had said "Yes, I did leave out what I felt was an irrelevant sentence," then we wouldn't be having this discussion.
posted by odinsdream at 10:25 AM on September 8, 2005


since conservative thought is not "welcomed" here. Hell, it's barely tolerated.

Bull. I'm a conservative who has been here for a quite a while. If other conservatives feel persecuted, it's their own damn fault for being such crybabies.

If you are confident in your beliefs, you don't need to boo-fuckin-hoo about the liberal boogeyman, you can argue your ideas on their merits.
posted by sonofsamiam at 10:25 AM on September 8, 2005


changes a lower-case letter to an upper-case letter to make it seem like the sentence began where it didn't.

What part of the brackets around the letter 'h' in "hundreds" did you not understand?
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 10:29 AM on September 8, 2005


SeizeTheDay, the irony is how many members are actually moderate (like I believe myself to be), not true left. The reason lefties are treated better than righties isn't so much the numbers, but rather that liberals are more likely to value open discussion of topics and are significantly more willing to allow their worldview to be altered by new information. I don't hate Bush because he's Repub, I hate him because he's a bigger intellectually dishonest troll than anyone here in MeFi. I'm willing to bet that many people here can connect with that.
posted by mystyk at 10:30 AM on September 8, 2005


"I believe if you'll look at my posting history, you'll see that I'm not exactly the type to come crying to MetaTalk at the drop of a hat."

I checked your posting history. It contains this thread. You are now the sort of poster who has come crying to MetaTalk at the drop of a hat.
posted by y6y6y6 at 10:31 AM on September 8, 2005


Steve: I think you meant arbiter.

An easy mistake to make, when you're in a rush to insult everybody's intelligence, and then nail yourself to a cross.
posted by mosch at 10:31 AM on September 8, 2005


but rather that liberals are more likely to value open discussion of topics and are significantly more willing to allow their worldview to be altered by new information.

LOL That is one of the funniest things I've ever read here.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 10:32 AM on September 8, 2005


Wait.

Wait.

I am "running amuck" by pointing out that S@L left out the most important line in the paragraph he quotes in order to reinforce a threadbare assertion?

I am running amuck?

Wow. I'd better slow down and put down the scissors! I could hurt somebody!!
posted by wakko at 10:32 AM on September 8, 2005


Yes, mosch, as we all know you are the abator of credibility.

abator

\A*ba"tor\ ([.a]*b[=a]t"[~e]r), n. (Law) (a) One who abates a nuisance. (b) A person who, without right, enters into a freehold on the death of the last possessor, before the heir or devisee.



I think he meant avatar.
posted by anapestic at 10:32 AM on September 8, 2005


odinsdream, from a purely semantic perspective, yes, of course Steve left something out. Further, what he left out does in fact change the meaning of the paragraph in question. But, as I said earlier, people here, IN GENERAL, are notorious for leaving out information and writing intellectually dishonest comments. To call someone out for it, while worthwhile, begs the question of why it isn't don't more often IN GENERAL. And because it's almost never done, a MeTa post calling out a conservative voice seems disingenuous.

mystyk, "lefties" are more open to discussion because their values are disparate and often don't overlap with each other. It's dishonest to claim that conservatives are "closed to discussion" simply because their worldview is better contructed. The average "lefty" doesn't have a well-constructed base of common opinions, which is why Dems have always been known as the big-tent party, and is why Reps tend to vote stronger.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 10:33 AM on September 8, 2005


If you are confident in your beliefs, you don't need to boo-fuckin-hoo about the liberal boogeyman, you can argue your ideas on their merits.

Amen.
posted by mmahaffie at 10:33 AM on September 8, 2005


I thought the post was respectful and against the prevailing MeFi current. Good on both counts. Different opinions are good. The last thing we want MeFi to become is an echo chamber, right?

...Right
...right
...

posted by sciurus at 10:37 AM on September 8, 2005


Seize: Then start calling lefties out for intellectual dishonesty, if you're sure it's happening all the time.

Steve's post is clearly slanted and all it takes to find that out is to read the (only) article linked to from the FPP.
posted by wakko at 10:40 AM on September 8, 2005


It's dishonest to claim that conservatives are "closed to discussion" simply because their worldview is better contructed.

This is funny.
posted by mosch at 10:40 AM on September 8, 2005


S@L, new information, not baseless ranting. Slight difference. Liberals are more likely to evaluate information, although they may eventually discount it. Conservatives are more likely to throw out information not fitting their worldview without even a cursory pass. Keep in mind, this is not an absolute, and you can imagine a set of bell curves on a single line of openmindedness to be more accurate than a catchall statement.
posted by mystyk at 10:40 AM on September 8, 2005


Remember, lib·er·al adj.
    1. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
    2. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
    3. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
    4. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.
from dictionary.com
posted by mystyk at 10:53 AM on September 8, 2005


LOL
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 10:53 AM on September 8, 2005


SeizeTheDay, you misunderstand the reason for the callout. It's not that Steve left out a sentence; it's that when called upon it, in the original thread, he denied having left out the sentence. He said “I didn't leave out anything” when, in fact, he did leave out something.

He made a direct statement that is in clear opposition to the objective truth. It's not "intellectually dishonest." It's not a matter of opinion. It's not a partisan slant. It's a lie.

It doesn’t matter (to me) what he left out. It doesn’t matter why he left it out. It doesn’t even really matter that he left something out. What matters is that he directly denied having left anything out.
posted by MrMoonPie at 10:55 AM on September 8, 2005


Steve_at_Linnwood is an abattoir of credibility.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 11:01 AM on September 8, 2005


So Steve@linwood, what was your thinking as you excised those 15 words?

Did you think they were irrelevant?

Holds breath...
posted by dash_slot- at 11:02 AM on September 8, 2005


mystyk, all modern political thought expoused by Democrats, Republicans, Greens, Libertarians, etc. are liberal by definition. Our entire political construct (US) is liberal. To suggest that Democrats are "more liberal" is bullshit.

And MrMoonPie, so you're basically calling out his lie. Is that really necessary? Are you going to call out all liars from now on? Why Steve? Why not mathowie when he said that the projects page would be up August 1st. That LIAR! This whole MeTa post seems kinda assinine if that's your only reason.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 11:03 AM on September 8, 2005


What part of the brackets around the letter 'h' in "hundreds" did you not understand?

S@L- Ellipses are the proper notation for what you're expressing. Please use them properly. All the brackets denote is that the "h" used to be something else, not even necessarily a non-capitalized letter. Ellipses denote omitted content.

That said, why on earth is this callout here? It belongs in the post. Oh wait, it was already hashed out extensively over there.

What exactly are you going for, MrMoonPie? Metatalk isn't for public shaming over petty issues. Flag it and move on.
posted by mkultra at 11:05 AM on September 8, 2005


Steve finds an article that is a bit against the grain. Steve has an opinion, and reads what he wants out of it, and posts the most pertinent (to his opinion) passage.

Sure there was other stuff in the article refuting it and it was pointed out many times by other members. But to claim Steve is doing something different than any other political-themed post does here is being dishonest. People selectively quote the most damning passages all the time on metafilter's front page.

And when members instantly refer to him as a "troll" for doing this, well, they just lose all credibility in my mind.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 11:05 AM on September 8, 2005


What part of the brackets around the letter 'h' in "hundreds" did you not understand?

You do not understand how English works (i.e, saying "I did not leave out anything."), and you don't understand how brackets work.

"a bracketed ellipsis [...] is used to indicate deleted material;"

"bracketed comments are used to indicate when original text has been modified for clarity"

Neither of these cases applies to changing a lowercase letter to an uppercase letter to redefine the beginning of the sentence.
posted by odinsdream at 11:05 AM on September 8, 2005


Why not mathowie when he said that the projects page would be up August 1st. That LIAR! This whole MeTa post seems kinda assinine if that's your only reason.

The actual equivalent, would, of course be:

Everybody: Hey, when's the project page going up?
Matt: It's already up.
Everybody: Not it isn't.
Matt: Yes, it is.
Everybody: No, really, it's not.
Matt: LOL.
posted by odinsdream at 11:10 AM on September 8, 2005


are significantly more willing to allow their worldview to be altered by new information.

well, slightly more, maybe, which is among the reasons I'm still a liberal.
posted by jonmc at 11:12 AM on September 8, 2005


But to claim Steve is doing something different than any other political-themed post does here is being dishonest. People selectively quote the most damning passages all the time on metafilter's front page.

Oh, bullshit. People here by custom use ellipses to indicate omissions in quoted text. I know I sure do. When the omission was pointed out, he claimed he had made no omission. In other words, what part of What matters is that he directly denied having left anything out did you not understand ? It was dishonest and suprisingly stupid, even factoring in the soft bigotry of our low expectations regarding him.

But, at least, it involved neither Michael Moore or the state of Chelsea Clinton's nipples as an indicator of her moral depravity. So, there is that.
posted by y2karl at 11:14 AM on September 8, 2005



And when members instantly refer to him as a "troll" for doing this, well, they just lose all credibility in my mind.


I called him a troll for claiming he didn't edit it, and for insinuating that people are incapable of reading. Not for posting something that "goes against the grain."
posted by mosch at 11:14 AM on September 8, 2005


I don't think I can express my problem with what Steve did any more clearly than I did upthread, so I guess I'll just leave it be.
posted by MrMoonPie at 11:15 AM on September 8, 2005


Politics aside (as it is beginning to derail, sorry), this callout is unnecessary. I suggest a 1 week cool-off from callouts across the board. I don't mean a time-out, but a voluntary chill period so everyone can see how often they're unnecessary. Let's return MeTa to what it was intended for, meaningful discussion that doesn't fit in the blue.
posted by mystyk at 11:15 AM on September 8, 2005


Not to mention that it was a single link to a newspaper article. Steve would have been here, calling it a shitty post if its slant had been different.
posted by crunchland at 11:20 AM on September 8, 2005


I had to blink twice when I saw steve's post this morning. How strange to find something actually slanted right. Seemed so out of place on metafilter.

But the one katrina post slanted right is called out.

liberals are more likely to value open discussion of topics and are significantly more willing to allow their worldview to be altered by new information.

You keep telling yourself that. In theory, maybe. In reality, not on metafilter.

And matt's right. Anyone who believes steve is a troll really loses all credibility on the matter.
posted by justgary at 11:21 AM on September 8, 2005


he got caught red-handed in the thread ... i don't think it was necessary to post it here
posted by pyramid termite at 11:22 AM on September 8, 2005


MetaTalk: Where personal grudges are everyone's business.
posted by mystyk at 11:23 AM on September 8, 2005


How is this even defensible? Intentionally omitting part of the quoted material and then denying it was omitted is stupid and completely illogical. And I will respectfully disagree that this is a bad callout, this is exactly what callouts should be for, I didn't read the thread and wouldn't have known about S@L's intellectual dishonest unless it was brought here.

Here's a Bush quote from this article:
"If it's not going exactly right, we're going to make it go exactly right," Bush vowed. "If there's problems, we're going to address the problems. And that's what I've come down to assure people of."

If what Steve did is okay then I should be able to change this quote to say: "[I]t's not going exactly right," Bush vowed. "[T]here's problems, that's what I've come down to assure people of."

So that's okay now? Cool, this'll make for some very interesting FPPs, I'm sure.
posted by fenriq at 11:25 AM on September 8, 2005


Enjoying the attention, steve?

[turns a little blue]
posted by dash_slot- at 11:30 AM on September 8, 2005


Steve@ needs to use ellipses more strategically.

Pyramid Termite needs to drop them altogether.

Fair?
posted by dhoyt at 11:30 AM on September 8, 2005


when members instantly refer to him as a "troll" for doing this, well, they just lose all credibility in my mind.
posted by mathowie at 11:05 AM PST on September 8 [!]


So right-wing trolling gets the official "okay".

Great to hear.
posted by wakko at 11:41 AM on September 8, 2005


It wasn't trolling.
posted by caddis at 11:43 AM on September 8, 2005


Steve@ needs to use ellipses more strategically. honestly. but it wasn't a troll. and considering the average Katrina front page post, it's wasn't even that bad.
posted by matteo at 11:46 AM on September 8, 2005


Sheesh, if every instance of intellectual dishonesty on MeFi was met with a callout, there would be more links in the gray than in the blue.

This was a pretty crap callout.
posted by clevershark at 11:49 AM on September 8, 2005


when members instantly refer to him as a "troll" for doing this, well, they just lose all credibility in my mind.
posted by mathowie at 11:05 AM PST on September 8 [!]

So right-wing trolling gets the official "okay".

Great to hear.
posted by wakko at 11:41 AM PST on September 8 [!]


What exactly do you think trolling means, wakko? I know what mathowie thinks it means, but you may not think it means the same thing. I am as much of a prescriptivist as anyone, but the usage in question is less than twenty years old, and people would be wise to remember that words, especially new words or new usages of old words, evolve significantly with time.

There is nothing wrong with selectively quoting information to make your point. There is also nothing wrong with callling someone on selective presentation of data. When faced with the callout, it is foolish to deny that you left things out because then you're caught saying something that is demonstrably false, and the discussion shifts away from where you probably wanted it to be.

I don't know why Steve couldn't just say that his point still stands even with the omitted quotation restored. I am tempted to draw a parallel to President Bush who, when asked whether he'd made any mistakes during his first term, was unable to think of any. But bringing it here was a definite overreaction, even if you're right about the tiny little point that you're making.
posted by anapestic at 11:51 AM on September 8, 2005


wakko writes "So right-wing trolling gets the official 'okay'."

I'm really confused by the people here who say that right-wingers on MeFi get special dispensation. I just don't see it. I certainly don't see it here, since Steve wasn't trolling. He was slanting, he was lying, but he wasn't trolling. Unless you judge whether or not something is trolling based on the response, in which case, I guess Steve is always a troll. But that's called the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.
posted by OmieWise at 11:53 AM on September 8, 2005


I'm also not the one who brought it here. Just the one who pointed it out first.
posted by wakko at 11:54 AM on September 8, 2005


I certainly don't see it here, since Steve wasn't trolling. He was slanting, he was lying, but he wasn't trolling.

I guess I'm just so used to him trolling that, when he flipped the script and slanted and lied in an FPP and subsequent comments instead, I just mistook it for more of the same. For that, I am sorry.

Kudos to Steve for keeping it fresh.
posted by wakko at 11:58 AM on September 8, 2005


Jonmc: "well, slightly more, maybe, which is among the reasons I'm still a liberal."
I'm still a liberal because the sex is better.


TO THE REST OF YOU: Look, Steve did omit a line to make his slant seem stronger, then he denied doing it. Either people could have kept harping on him there, or they could bring it to MeTa. So it was brought here.
Steve deserves to be called out on that, and he should take responsibility and apologize.
However, it was not a troll and it doesn't really detract from a discussion on the merits of the article. It's not worth the level of rancor here.

Matt: It was a single-link newsfilter post, and it was deliberately edited to be slanted. Those are generally crap from the left or the right, but it's an interesting perspective. It's your call: do you want Metafilter to be Newsfilter? Because that's what this is. Part of that reflects community interest, part of that reflects your ambivalence over what you see this place as.
Perhaps a seperate page of news.metafilter.com would be better?
posted by klangklangston at 12:01 PM on September 8, 2005


Omie knows.
posted by klangklangston at 12:02 PM on September 8, 2005


I'm so totally surprised and blown away by this startling revelation. Holy shit. My world view is just crumbling.

Hey, wait. Didn't S@L just post a MeTa thread the other day bitching about one like editorializing on the blue?

*head explodes in to fine red mist*
posted by loquacious at 12:13 PM on September 8, 2005


*deploys umbrella*
posted by selfnoise at 12:25 PM on September 8, 2005


But the one katrina post slanted right is called out.

Perhaps you missed this one?
posted by Armitage Shanks at 12:28 PM on September 8, 2005


MetaFilter: It's like Springer™ only with bigger words!
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 12:28 PM on September 8, 2005


it's like a gallagher concert now, let me get my plastic sheet
posted by wakko at 12:30 PM on September 8, 2005


But the one katrina post slanted right is called out.

Perhaps you missed this one?


That I did.
posted by justgary at 12:31 PM on September 8, 2005


I think S_@_L should take this matter under advisement and try to not do it again. So should all the other Mefites, of whatever political orientation, who do pretty much the same damn thing all the damn time. (I'm sure enough people of each general viewpoint can find enough examples of their "enemies" deliberately slanting stuff so that I won't have to sit here and compile a relatively even-handed list of examples.)
posted by davy at 12:31 PM on September 8, 2005


This is embarrassing. Steve, maybe next time you should just include the whole article in the FPP. Ask y2karl for tricks of the trade. I'm sure he'll be happy to help.
posted by Necker at 12:34 PM on September 8, 2005


davy, I for one will be sure to always point out when anyone obviously omits full sentences from quotations. I can't speak for everyone else, though, and that doesn't make this incident any less relevant.

Also, it should be reiterated: Steve flatly denied the omission. I've never seen that happen before. At most, someone quotes only part of a whole document, then leaves the thread entirely and doesn't even answer any followup questions, while in this case, Steve did answer the questions with a bold-faced lie.
posted by odinsdream at 12:39 PM on September 8, 2005


davy, It's not the slanting that bugged everyone. It's his blatant, outright lying about it.
posted by wakko at 12:40 PM on September 8, 2005


And he didn't even get to nail an intern in the process. WTF?
posted by loquacious at 12:40 PM on September 8, 2005


That I did.

It's interesting: I thought that was a really bad post for a bunch of different reasons, and while it got the usual snark pile-on, there were relatively few personal shots at jenleigh (even some backhanded compliments), and no callout posted here. I suspect that's because many people (however grudgingly) acknowledge that she often posts good stuff that definitely doesn't fit the usual political perspective here.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 12:41 PM on September 8, 2005


Incidentally, I got a lot of interesting hate-mail for that post.

So, in a sense, it was called out, quite violently by some, just not publically.
posted by jenleigh at 12:45 PM on September 8, 2005


Incidentally, I got a lot of interesting hate-mail for that post.

I'm really sorry to hear that.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 12:56 PM on September 8, 2005


This is bad. This post should be deleted, and now. Editing is one thing; editing and lying about it is unacceptable. I vote for deletion and timeout.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 12:57 PM on September 8, 2005


Tags:
Louisiana
NOLA
Katrina
Pork
WashingtonPost
Fibs
Distortions
Outright Lies
posted by dash_slot- at 1:08 PM on September 8, 2005


Statistics
posted by cortex at 1:32 PM on September 8, 2005


Ask y2karl for tricks of the trade. I'm sure he'll be happy to help.

Post the entire article (in tiny words) in the post itself? No thanks. One y2karl is enough.

I vote for deletion and timeout.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy


Thank god this isn't a democracy.
posted by justgary at 1:56 PM on September 8, 2005


Man, this is a tedious MeTa thread.

For what it's worth, I don't think Steve@Linwood is a troll.

I do think the information he posts is carefully selected to "prove" a bizarre, rightwing viewpoint which is increasingly rejected by everybody who can read.

And he never answers inconvenient questions.

And he never seems to learn or admit his mistakes.

Everyone who reads the thread can see this. There's no need to call him out on it. This MeTa thread is a waste of space.

Then again, the FPP was a single-link article to the front page of a mainstream media site. If I did that, I'd expect the post to be deleted.

Then again, again, we haven't had much rightwing stuff on MeFi recently (even PP and dios seem to have gone into hiding) so I'm glad to see it. We could do with more rightwing stuff, and I'm sure it will come, once they lose their current sense of shame.

And I hope they're all as easy to discredit as S@L is.
posted by cleardawn at 2:16 PM on September 8, 2005


Man, this is a tedious MeTa thread.

Not really. I see it as a historical document - think 'Rathergate*'.

Hehehe.

*Hype used advisedly (",)
posted by dash_slot- at 2:37 PM on September 8, 2005


Why do you lie, Linnwood?

Why do you lie?
posted by moift at 2:44 PM on September 8, 2005


>So, in a sense, it was called out, quite violently by some, just not publically.

I guess it's public now, so you might as well publish all of the emails in another metatalk thread; for fun, thigh-slapping frolic and commiseration.
posted by gsb at 2:47 PM on September 8, 2005


Because you are my favorite philosopher, moift.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 3:30 PM on September 8, 2005


Steve, do you still stand by this statement:

"No, I didn't leave anything out."
posted by odinsdream at 3:42 PM on September 8, 2005


Added participants of thread to killfile.
posted by Krrrlson at 4:01 PM on September 8, 2005


So, to summarise: editing Washington Post articles is okay [I think we all agree on that]. But complaining about deliberately lying about editing Washington Post articles is just partisan bitching. Jesus. No wonder your media, and your country, is so fucked.*




*And, y'know, I really wish this wasn't the case. Even disregarding the current state of New Orleans, I've been watching America slide into a profoundly depressing state of affairs in which the media does little more than shore up the government thanks to the fact that they've not been silenced so much as castrated, and voluntarily at that. I mean, for all the faults of Britain, or France, or Germany, or any other democratic European country [and Christ knows, there are enough faults there], surely none of them would be this fucked in the aftermath of a hurricane-level event ...
posted by Len at 4:21 PM on September 8, 2005


Added people who talk about their killfile to killf
NO CARRIER
posted by Armitage Shanks at 4:22 PM on September 8, 2005


cleardawn, you didn't enjoy me calling you out and breaking your balls, right? Why are you so eager to join in and bust steve's?

(and yeah, I realize steve goes looking for trouble, dosen't mean we have to give it to him. And when someone is as outnumbered as he is, it's too much like a lynch-mob (there's a right winger among us! burn him!) for my taste.
posted by jonmc at 4:30 PM on September 8, 2005


"I vote for deletion and timeout."
Also, we should burn his house down and kill his family. Only then will his omission serve as a deterent to others!
Jesus, do you guys just stand around with pitchforks and torches waiting for a monster to show up?
posted by klangklangston at 4:38 PM on September 8, 2005


Be quiet Armitage Shanks, you're on my killfile.
posted by Krrrlson at 4:44 PM on September 8, 2005


I realize steve goes looking for trouble, dosen't mean we have to give it to him. And when someone is as outnumbered as he is, it's too much like a lynch-mob (there's a right winger LIAR among us! burn him!) for my taste.

[post edited for clarity]
posted by dash_slot- at 4:48 PM on September 8, 2005


This was no big deal. I really do not understand why so many people are upset with S@L. I think it was a bit poor form but not dishonest. It was a pretty good post too. There are a lot of questions to answer about this disaster and they do not all involve FEMA's failures.

I think the strong reaction against Steve is mostly prejudice. If some more beloved member like y2karl had done this he would have taken a bit of heat but essentially gotten a pass. [y2karl, I know you are not this careless and probably would never get caught up in such a mess.] Steve did not hide the sentence; it was in the article. He should have been more careful with the quoting, or perhaps just put it into his own words but this sort of arguing is just what the Bushies do. If you do not like the message, and you do not have a good direct response, you attack the messenger or how the message was delivered. Frankly, I think it makes Steve_at_Linnwood look good, and his attackers look weak. It makes him look right.
posted by caddis at 5:01 PM on September 8, 2005


dash: come on. Steve's opinions make my butt chafe most of the time, too, but my defending people like him, paris and others has very little to do with what they are and everything to do with what I am (or would like to be) and to a lesser extent the liberal community in general. It helps me sleep better knowing that whatever happens, we don't act as assholish as they often do. That's why I'm a liberal in the first place, compassion, that thing we're supposed to be famous for?
posted by jonmc at 5:07 PM on September 8, 2005


jonmc, that was fantastic!

You 'broke my balls' by making a complete public dick of yourself? Man I loved watching you do that to yourself HERE!

And here.

And since you seem to have forgotten, here is where you finally admitted you were in the wrong after your inappropriate callout, and offered to buy me a beer.

And you think I'm busting Steve's balls EVEN THOUGH I POSTED HERE TO DEFEND HIS POST?

And then you repeat exactly the same point I made?

I have to say I suspect you're not as stupid as you appear to be from your posts. You're possibly just trying to look stupid for some longer-term purpose.

But then, maybe not.
posted by cleardawn at 5:30 PM on September 8, 2005


cleardawn, I admitted I was wrong, yes. And this tedious callout is wrong, too. For the same reasons. That's what I'm saying. And you're "defense" of steve seems to basically boil down to: it's nice to have a right-winger around that I can use as a tackling dummy."

Did you read this comment? That's what I'm talking about. Take it or leave it, man.
posted by jonmc at 5:36 PM on September 8, 2005


I think the strong reaction against Steve is mostly prejudice.

No, it's because he was a bald faced liar. He's just not the sharpest knife in the drawer about it. It's what you could call implausible deniability.

He could have used ellipses--that is how people do it here. When caught out, he could have acknowledged the edit or simply ignored the comment callling him out. Instead he wrote I didn't leave out anything. Anyone who reads the article will see that. Anyone reading the article saw he omitted part of the first sentence of a paragraph, a telling part that contradicted his post. He omitted it, was called on it and couldn't cop to it. That's our Stevie. Three little dots and he would have been home free. But, no-o-o-o....

I have a friend whose mom remembers things she saw on TV sitcoms as having happened to her and her kids. To be generous, Perhaps a similar mechanism is at work here. Otherwise, one must conclude that, when it comes to character, he's seven cans short of a six pack. Oh, he is a piece of work. Defective work, to be sure.
posted by y2karl at 7:02 PM on September 8, 2005


Three little dots and he would have been home free. But, no-o-o-o....

Or, a simple: "Yes, I did leave out that sentence, it wasn't relevant." At least that 1. Wouldn't be a lie, and 2. Would explain his reasoning for leaving it out.

Politics doesn't even begin to come in to this.
posted by odinsdream at 7:24 PM on September 8, 2005


This is a good call out, MrMoonPie, and one I was considering earlier. There is nothing that can be said to defend S@L's lying. And it is lying, not "overstatement" or stretching the truth. He is deliberately trying to mislead people with that post.

This isn't about politics, it's about community. In a community there are certain beahviors that aren't and can't be tolerated--the chief one being lying and misleading the other members. This is largely why PepsiBlue and self-linking are so severely punished. If S@L was a man and had an ounce of dignity he'd apologize and try and do better. As is, he can be expected to try something like this again. And really, he wonders why people have no respect for his opinions.
posted by nixerman at 8:51 PM on September 8, 2005


There are plenty of "conservatives" or "right leaning" pundits here that don't garner the scorn that Steve@Linnwood does. Politics isn't the issue.

It's his pervasive habit of crapping in threads and derailing them, and transparent displays of double standards like this that rile the peasants.
posted by loquacious at 8:53 PM on September 8, 2005


Nixerman: I agree that it's bad for the community. But the correctives we have here are a) social rebuke/MeTa, b) deletion of post, and c) banning.
Steve clearly doesn't give two shits about the first (the fact that he has a generally contentious political relationship with a large number of the members of the community doesn't help), but the second would deprive us of a good conversation, and the third is too harsh.
I think all that can be done is another round of MeTa kabuki.
posted by klangklangston at 9:46 PM on September 8, 2005


[O]ver the five years of President Bush's administration... hundreds of millions of dollars have gone to unrelated water projects... as wasteful pork-barrel spending

I don't know, Steve-@. That's pretty damning.
posted by dreamsign at 11:03 PM on September 8, 2005


klangklangston - you forget d) timeout. (not that I'm sure that one is called for). To me, the issue is not whether S@L cares about the rebuke or the callout, but whether the community is served by the callout.

I disagree with those who impugn this callout. I think it is a good use of a MeTa thread to expose a deliberate verifiable falsehood (DVF). I didn't have an opinion one way or another about S@L before now, though I was certainly aware of his reputation. Now I will be cautious about any assertions of fact he makes, and if important, look to verify. But more than that, I now have a negative opinion of S@L, because making a DVF in this forum, especially given his reputation which I am sure he knows he has, shows either a disdain for the other members of the community, or a gross lack of awareness of the norms of a verbal community.

I think the tacit acceptance of S@L's DVF by those who decry this callout is troubling. I don't see how it can be called partisan or prejudicial to alert people to such behaviour as a DVF. I'm glad I now know of it, as I would not have otherwise read the thread in which it occurred.
posted by birdsquared at 11:09 PM on September 8, 2005


I added myself to my killfile.

p.s: what's a kill file?
posted by blue_beetle at 12:39 AM on September 9, 2005


There's no way I want a ban, a timeout, or any administrative sanction. Not for s@l, or any rightist, or leftist, just for ordinary common or garden lying.

I really want an explanation; failing that, a remorseful comment including 'I don't intend on lying again'; failing that, a monumental fucking sign to point at whenever the dipshit claims the high ground.

Seeing as there's no way I can tease out the first two of those, I'll settle for this thread.
posted by dash_slot- at 2:30 AM on September 9, 2005


... failing that, a monumental fucking sign to point at whenever the dipshit claims the high ground.

I have a feeling Steve's "I did not leave out anything." will be like ParisParamus' "If WMDs are not found...and in significant quantity...then the president is a liar."

I'm paraphrasing that last quote, since I'm too lazy to search for it. See how I did that? I quoted something but admitted I'm not sure about its content? Neat!
posted by odinsdream at 5:00 PM on September 9, 2005


Here you go, odinsdream.
posted by MrMoonPie at 7:40 PM on September 9, 2005


klangklangston >>> "Also, we should burn his house down and kill his family. Only then will his omission serve as a deterent to others!
"Jesus, do you guys just stand around with pitchforks and torches waiting for a monster to show up?"



Nope. And the exaggeration there was foolish and useless. if $user makes an FPP which includes quoted text, removes some of the text without noting it, and then lies about having done so, they should lose their posting privileges for a little while. Doesn't matter who. Editorialise to your heart's content. But doing so, and changing a quotation without attribution is a huge no-no in my books.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 1:01 PM on September 10, 2005


« Older Can we get the login screen to automatically set...   |   Link to the tags page on the posting page, please. Newer »

You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments