Vigilance January 3, 2006 10:51 AM   Subscribe

You have got to be joking? No. Considering the number of self-links that we've been having lately, I think that it's worth everyone's time to appreciate people who are keeping their eyes open for them, and to give them credit for trying, even if that particular link turned out to be a dud.
posted by crunchland to Etiquette/Policy at 10:51 AM (43 comments total)

I have a better idea:

"Hey, that's a cool little bit of code behind the Check Spelling link right above the comment textbox. Thanks matt!"
posted by odinsdream at 10:55 AM on January 3, 2006


crunchland, I read that comment to mean this:

"You call that detective work? It was just his goddam blog. That's not detective work, that's mousing over."

Just to inject another possible interpretation.
posted by cortex at 11:02 AM on January 3, 2006


This should have been posted to the other thread. The fact that it's closed doesn't mean you should post it as a whole new MetaTalk item. It means you should drop it.
posted by smackfu at 11:04 AM on January 3, 2006


cortex and smackfu nailed it
posted by puke & cry at 11:07 AM on January 3, 2006


i hope they used protection.
posted by keswick at 11:19 AM on January 3, 2006


Natural family planning, keswick.
posted by cortex at 11:21 AM on January 3, 2006


ha!
posted by puke & cry at 11:23 AM on January 3, 2006


Let's all pat ourselves on the back one time.
posted by kjh at 11:36 AM on January 3, 2006


I think some of you may be missing the point. Just because Jess closed the thread before I could reply doesn't mean that the point didn't need to be made. And this is a completely different point than the specific subject of the closed thread ... one that I thought needed to be made.

And even if it was as simple as hovering the cursor over the link to recognize it as a self-link, it was something I didn't do. It was something you might not have done, either. I thought it was important to praise tozturk's efforts. I'd rather have people be too trigger happy when it comes to spotting self-links than for more to slip through un-noticed.
But I can understand why I need to spell it out for some of you. I know that giving praise to someone else may be a pretty foreign concept.
posted by crunchland at 11:39 AM on January 3, 2006


Um, I couldn't help but notice that we've already had a metatalk thread about this.

If I'm right in reading this, this entire callout is based on a single throw-away comment in a relatively unimportant meta thread?

Was that really worth a callout? I think not.
posted by delmoi at 11:48 AM on January 3, 2006


MeTa threads are closed for a reason.
posted by delmoi at 11:49 AM on January 3, 2006


i just want to say that no-one should be saying anything here.
posted by andrew cooke at 11:52 AM on January 3, 2006


andrew cooke, if jessamyn closes this I'll have to take your comment into another thread.
posted by geoff. at 11:55 AM on January 3, 2006


I think not, therefore . . .
posted by Kirth Gerson at 11:58 AM on January 3, 2006


MetaFilter: Just because Jess closed the thread before I could reply doesn't mean that the point didn't need to be made.

Perhaps I should make this a MeTalk post.
posted by mischief at 12:00 PM on January 3, 2006


crunchland, I sure wasn't coming down on the notion of praising. I was offering my interpretation of the comment, not rephrasing it to express the dark contents of my own heart. So this:

But I can understand why I need to spell it out for some of you. I know that giving praise to someone else may be a pretty foreign concept.

That's just mismatched to the situation. You're talking about praise while slinging shit in the same paragraph, which isn't cool. Please reconsider what you're trying to achieve here.

I'm all for the detective work, and all for praise.

But, look, it was a throwaway comment. It wasn't even clear enough to cast one unamiguous meaning on readers. Praise is good, paying attention is good, yes; but that comment was not a big deal.
posted by cortex at 12:04 PM on January 3, 2006


It's not that weird to feel burnt at someone sniping at you, but it's also not that weird to over-react when you're feeling burnt, neh?
posted by cortex at 12:09 PM on January 3, 2006


Is this a callout on a callout? I think my head just exploded. It's like instant water! Or microwaving instant rice! Or some other Stephen Wright-esque thingy!

Ok, I'm done for January.
posted by nevercalm at 12:09 PM on January 3, 2006


Matt and Jess don't close a thread because the case is closed. Matt and Jess close threads because if threads are left open, they usually devolve into stupid in-joke jackassery by people who have no self-control and think they're being funny. But do feel free to get your bottom-feeding licks in now before they close this one, too.
posted by crunchland at 12:26 PM on January 3, 2006


crunchland, there are a multitude of reasons they close a thread. Often the issue is closed, and no longer needs to be discussed. Don't bring it down to "being close just because of stupid non-sequitors." Often times if left open people argue for the sake of it. Now you made your point, just let it go and be cool about it.
posted by geoff. at 12:30 PM on January 3, 2006


Issues with self-control are not limited to those who think they're being funny.
posted by OmieWise at 12:42 PM on January 3, 2006


"Issues with self-control are not limited to those who think they're being funny."

Oh! Now I finally understand Charles Whitman.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 1:15 PM on January 3, 2006


What are you aiming for, EB? I mean, shoot, this is the sort of sniping we could do without. Let us rifle through our consciousness and put civility in our sights!
posted by cortex at 1:28 PM on January 3, 2006


*slugs cortex*
posted by mr_crash_davis at 1:50 PM on January 3, 2006


But I still don't understand the attraction of puns.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 2:11 PM on January 3, 2006


Man, I'm always getting flak.
posted by cortex at 2:11 PM on January 3, 2006


Seriously though man, your little sampler of Whitman related puns had a slim chance of being acceptible.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 2:29 PM on January 3, 2006


EB started it! Mooooooom!
posted by cortex at 2:33 PM on January 3, 2006


Metafilter: stupid in-joke jackassery by people who have no self-control
posted by Mitheral at 2:39 PM on January 3, 2006


I think crunchland has a good point, maybe doesn't need a whole thread but it's worth saying: the more people who are helping out, the better.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 3:01 PM on January 3, 2006


I'm sorry, what I should have said:

If one scrolls over his self link one sees a livejournal with a username eerily similar, if not identical, to the Metafilter username. Good detective work is more than 1 + 1 = 2 -- I hope.

I thought I was doing a public service by pointing out the comment devalues the phrase "detective work".
posted by gsb at 3:14 PM on January 3, 2006


I'm not sure the phrase is in all that much danger, gsb. Your wordier version here would have been better if only for being clearer and less snarky.
posted by cortex at 3:21 PM on January 3, 2006


crunchland is playing y'all. of COURSE his original comment on the fine detective work was withering sarcasm. gsb missed that, and now crunch is sitting in DC giggling madly, having one off on ya!
posted by quonsar at 3:40 PM on January 3, 2006


Your wordier version here would have been better if only for being clearer and less snarky.

you have got to be joking.
posted by shmegegge at 3:40 PM on January 3, 2006


oh you are so going to MeTa buddy
posted by cortex at 3:54 PM on January 3, 2006


And, really, no. If you were being straight, I'll be clear: I'm not joking. I am increasingly a true believer in the worthiness of restraint in (as opposed to outright abolition of) snarkiness.

I don't think gsb's comment in the other thread was a big deal, and so I think this thread was silly (at least as presented); but I don't think gsb's comment was intended as much of anything but snark, and that makes it not as good as if he'd actually said what he'd meant. It wouldn't have been as sassy, granted, but it wasn't very good as sassy comments go anyhow and so there wouldn't really be any loss.

posted by cortex at 3:58 PM on January 3, 2006


Metafilter: I think crunchland has a good point
posted by fire&wings at 6:29 PM on January 3, 2006


huh?
posted by exlotuseater at 9:07 PM on January 3, 2006


The self link isn't as bad as that goofy mustache, exlo.
posted by delmoi at 9:36 PM on January 3, 2006


crunchland has my full support in this endeavor.
posted by cellphone at 10:27 PM on January 3, 2006


I'm not sure the phrase is in all that much danger, gsb.

Ripples in a pond: enough of them create constructive waves of devaluation. Gotta draw the line somewhere.

As far as I'm concerned, I was not trying to be snarky, honest. I just found it incredulous. It was not meant to be a personal slight towards anyone. But now it just seems like there's a lot of projection going on. Metafilter is not a dog or a cat, one cannot train it to be something it's not.

please don't ban me!!
posted by gsb at 2:23 AM on January 4, 2006


nah, I was just playin'.
posted by shmegegge at 6:41 AM on January 4, 2006


Sorry, gsb. I didn't mean to make it all about you; I was putting a lot of theory on one little comment just to paint out a principle.

*notes fear and contrition, re-safes the Big Red Button*
posted by cortex at 7:00 AM on January 4, 2006


« Older MeFi is weirdly halting and slow   |   Twin Cities meetup.... Newer »

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