Why was this deleted? November 4, 2006 12:43 PM Subscribe
Why was this deleted?
Oddly enough, I've been thinking lately that it'd be nice if Matt went on a hardcore news/polifilter deletion streak. I do not think I'd mind one bit if he nuked everything in that vicinity (except for truly exceptional posts) for the next two weeks.
And I mean exceptional posts, not exceptional news. If it's a great big deal, we don't really need the link to cnn, etc.
Ships on different courses, I guess. No disrepect intended, TGC.
posted by cortex at 1:21 PM on November 4, 2006
And I mean exceptional posts, not exceptional news. If it's a great big deal, we don't really need the link to cnn, etc.
Ships on different courses, I guess. No disrepect intended, TGC.
posted by cortex at 1:21 PM on November 4, 2006
It's a fucking editorial. It's not even news. Christ dude, go to Kos and rant away.
posted by peacay at 1:23 PM on November 4, 2006
posted by peacay at 1:23 PM on November 4, 2006
Also, the headline is misleading, as the newspapers issuing the editorials are not part of the military.
posted by concrete at 1:27 PM on November 4, 2006
posted by concrete at 1:27 PM on November 4, 2006
I'm with cortex. Between the mid-term elections and the presidential race inevitably gearing up, MeFi is turning into a newsblog. If Matt is interested in stemming that tide, I think more deletions, rather than less, are in order.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 1:29 PM on November 4, 2006
posted by monju_bosatsu at 1:29 PM on November 4, 2006
Oddly enough, I've been thinking lately that it'd be nice if Matt went on a hardcore news/polifilter deletion streak.
I agree. You just know Mefi is gonna be flooded on Tuesday & Wednesday, but not with great links to great coverage or views or insights.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 1:30 PM on November 4, 2006
I agree. You just know Mefi is gonna be flooded on Tuesday & Wednesday, but not with great links to great coverage or views or insights.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 1:30 PM on November 4, 2006
This not, ...the military breaking its support from the Secretary of Defense less than a week before midterm elections...
This is a bunch of newspapers which target the military audience simultaneously publishing anti-Sec. Def. editorials. If this were, ...the military breaking its support from the Secretary of Defense less than a week before midterm elections..., we would have a constitutional crisis in our laps that would make all that has come before under W's reign look like a picnic.
posted by taosbat at 1:30 PM on November 4, 2006
This is a bunch of newspapers which target the military audience simultaneously publishing anti-Sec. Def. editorials. If this were, ...the military breaking its support from the Secretary of Defense less than a week before midterm elections..., we would have a constitutional crisis in our laps that would make all that has come before under W's reign look like a picnic.
posted by taosbat at 1:30 PM on November 4, 2006
Y'know, there are some times where I wish that Matt and Jess'd never explain any of their actions at all, and just delete things. Then people would try to figure out the fucking pattern all on their own instead of whining to MeTa.
posted by klangklangston at 1:43 PM on November 4, 2006
posted by klangklangston at 1:43 PM on November 4, 2006
klangklangston : "Y'know, there are some times where I wish that Matt and Jess'd never explain any of their actions at all, and just delete things. Then people would try to figure out the fucking pattern all on their own instead of whining to MeTa."
Nah. It would just turn into a game of Mao.
A: "I'm calling out klangklangston, because he didn't say 'Ringo' after posting a link to the four horsemen of the apocalypse."
B: "I'm calling you out, because klangklangston posted on Tuesday, so he didn't have to say 'Ringo'. But your callout started with the letter 'I', and yet it has an even number of words."
C: "You both forgot to say the chairman's name. Take two deletions each."
...Ok, I take that back. Change my vote to "Yes, because it would turn into a game of Mao".
posted by Bugbread at 1:55 PM on November 4, 2006
Nah. It would just turn into a game of Mao.
A: "I'm calling out klangklangston, because he didn't say 'Ringo' after posting a link to the four horsemen of the apocalypse."
B: "I'm calling you out, because klangklangston posted on Tuesday, so he didn't have to say 'Ringo'. But your callout started with the letter 'I', and yet it has an even number of words."
C: "You both forgot to say the chairman's name. Take two deletions each."
...Ok, I take that back. Change my vote to "Yes, because it would turn into a game of Mao".
posted by Bugbread at 1:55 PM on November 4, 2006
Then people would try to figure out the fucking pattern all on their own instead of whining to MeTa.
That is untill you get 10x the whiners asking why their post was deleted in new MeTa posts. Then, there will be another MeTa asking why about the why from the aforementioned MeTa post.
posted by jmd82 at 1:55 PM on November 4, 2006
That is untill you get 10x the whiners asking why their post was deleted in new MeTa posts. Then, there will be another MeTa asking why about the why from the aforementioned MeTa post.
posted by jmd82 at 1:55 PM on November 4, 2006
Ha. It's actually "oldnewsfilter". It is the second time the publications have called for Rumsfeld to resign.
posted by smackfu at 1:57 PM on November 4, 2006
posted by smackfu at 1:57 PM on November 4, 2006
It was a post about a rumor about something which, if it actually does happen, won't be all that important. (As Taosbat says, it's not "the military", it's some commercially produced newspapers which target the military for their readership.)
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 1:59 PM on November 4, 2006
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 1:59 PM on November 4, 2006
I didn't delete it, but it reads like a rumor. It didn't even happen yet. Maybe on Monday post it after it actually happens (if it does) and add a few followup statements from the military?
posted by mathowie (staff) at 2:00 PM on November 4, 2006
posted by mathowie (staff) at 2:00 PM on November 4, 2006
but how can the military breaking its support from the Secretary of Defense less than a week before midterm elections not count as being worthy of a post?
Many in the upper echelons in the US military haven't supported Rumsfeld for some time. It's not like this is some great sea change.
posted by solid-one-love at 2:02 PM on November 4, 2006
Many in the upper echelons in the US military haven't supported Rumsfeld for some time. It's not like this is some great sea change.
posted by solid-one-love at 2:02 PM on November 4, 2006
"That is untill you get 10x the whiners asking why their post was deleted in new MeTa posts. Then, there will be another MeTa asking why about the why from the aforementioned MeTa post."
While there'd be flurry of those posts, if Matt and Jess just didn't discuss it (and immediately closed those MeTas) people would get the picture.
posted by klangklangston at 2:04 PM on November 4, 2006
While there'd be flurry of those posts, if Matt and Jess just didn't discuss it (and immediately closed those MeTas) people would get the picture.
posted by klangklangston at 2:04 PM on November 4, 2006
The people who are saying this is not significant would do better to break into a falsetto chorus of "Tomorrow"-- it would seem less like the most pathetic kind of wishful thinking.
In my opinion, deleting this is poor moderation which harms the site.
posted by jamjam at 2:17 PM on November 4, 2006
In my opinion, deleting this is poor moderation which harms the site.
posted by jamjam at 2:17 PM on November 4, 2006
Jamjam, most of the people commenting about the post not being significant are anti-Bush folks. If they were guilty of wishful thinking, they'd be arguing that it is significant.
posted by Bugbread at 2:23 PM on November 4, 2006
posted by Bugbread at 2:23 PM on November 4, 2006
jamjam, are you that willfully blind? Do you think anyone here is pro-Bush? The only wishful thinking I'm guilty of is wishing that MeFi didn't have so many crappy news posts on the front page.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 2:25 PM on November 4, 2006
posted by monju_bosatsu at 2:25 PM on November 4, 2006
btw, I'm going to do another best post contest, this time for December, with the three best posts of the month getting nice gifts* (no daily winners though). I only mention it because hopefully again it'll flood the site with fascinating stuff that has nothing to do with current events.
* I'm thinking a Wii to the winner (if I can get one before Dec. 1st), and maybe a nano and a shuffle to 2nd and 3rd.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 2:33 PM on November 4, 2006
* I'm thinking a Wii to the winner (if I can get one before Dec. 1st), and maybe a nano and a shuffle to 2nd and 3rd.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 2:33 PM on November 4, 2006
oh cool, i can get to work on that groundbreaking FPP on a phenomenon called synaesthesia, entited 'gee, your angst smells terrific'
posted by troybob at 2:37 PM on November 4, 2006
posted by troybob at 2:37 PM on November 4, 2006
I know it's a long way off, but a best post contest in October 2008 would be great. Otherwise, the month before elections will be pretty tiresome on Metafilter.
posted by matthewr at 2:39 PM on November 4, 2006
posted by matthewr at 2:39 PM on November 4, 2006
Oddly enough, I've been thinking lately that it'd be nice if Matt went on a hardcore news/polifilter deletion streak.
Damnit, stop making me so hot. Take me now you spicy umami bastard!
posted by loquacious at 2:43 PM on November 4, 2006
Damnit, stop making me so hot. Take me now you spicy umami bastard!
posted by loquacious at 2:43 PM on November 4, 2006
The contests sure have a terrific effect on the quality of posts. August was the best month in years. I don't think it has anything to do with the prizes, it just focuses us and reminds us about what we love about MetaFilter.
posted by LarryC at 2:54 PM on November 4, 2006
posted by LarryC at 2:54 PM on November 4, 2006
I often am willfully blind, monju, and please accept my apology for using your really quite amusing joke about Merle Haggard to take a swipe at you in the second 'pastor Ted' thread; that was a case of willful blindness, and I regret it.
Here, I hope to be excused of that charge, and my feeling about the significance of the deleted post has little to do with my admittedly extreme anti-Bush views.
Much of what has gone wrong in this hemisphere south of the Rio Grande has a lot to do with failures of civilian governments to keep control of the military. I believe we teeter at the edge of that precipice at the moment, and we have forgotten to strap on our parachute. That is the significance of the deleted thread, and I think it is a very considerable significance.
If we're not careful, no president for a generation will be able to tell the military to do anything it doesn't want to do, or worse, not to do anything it really does want to do.
posted by jamjam at 3:01 PM on November 4, 2006
Here, I hope to be excused of that charge, and my feeling about the significance of the deleted post has little to do with my admittedly extreme anti-Bush views.
Much of what has gone wrong in this hemisphere south of the Rio Grande has a lot to do with failures of civilian governments to keep control of the military. I believe we teeter at the edge of that precipice at the moment, and we have forgotten to strap on our parachute. That is the significance of the deleted thread, and I think it is a very considerable significance.
If we're not careful, no president for a generation will be able to tell the military to do anything it doesn't want to do, or worse, not to do anything it really does want to do.
posted by jamjam at 3:01 PM on November 4, 2006
That would be a danger, jamjam, if the deleted posted had anything to do with what the military is actually doing...except maybe reading an editorial on Monday...which, in itself, is neither illegal nor a threat.
posted by taosbat at 3:06 PM on November 4, 2006
posted by taosbat at 3:06 PM on November 4, 2006
jamjam : "That is the significance of the deleted thread, and I think it is a very considerable significance."
The post was about a message to the military, not a message from the military. Conflating the two is like saying that Bush announced that he was going to impeach himself, when in reality it's that he read a protest sign pointed at him saying "Impeach Bush". (Obviously, this example would be in pre-free-speech-zoning days).
posted by Bugbread at 3:11 PM on November 4, 2006
The post was about a message to the military, not a message from the military. Conflating the two is like saying that Bush announced that he was going to impeach himself, when in reality it's that he read a protest sign pointed at him saying "Impeach Bush". (Obviously, this example would be in pre-free-speech-zoning days).
posted by Bugbread at 3:11 PM on November 4, 2006
"I've been thinking lately that it'd be nice if Matt went on a hardcore news/polifilter deletion streak. I do not think I'd mind one bit if he nuked everything in that vicinity (except for truly exceptional posts) for the next two weeks."
Oh god yes. At least anything from this "Daily Cos" site. No one really cares what the fuck a washed up old comedian has to say on the internets; not since he killed House of Cosbys, at least. Fuck the fucking fucker.
posted by Eideteker at 3:26 PM on November 4, 2006
Oh god yes. At least anything from this "Daily Cos" site. No one really cares what the fuck a washed up old comedian has to say on the internets; not since he killed House of Cosbys, at least. Fuck the fucking fucker.
posted by Eideteker at 3:26 PM on November 4, 2006
I thought it was newsworthy enough to stay, but I'll the last one to complain about the admins erring on the side of suspicion when it comes to deleting news posts.
posted by gsteff at 3:54 PM on November 4, 2006
posted by gsteff at 3:54 PM on November 4, 2006
It was a post about a rumor about something which, if it actually does happen, won't be all that important.
There is no question that it would happen, the article is already written and read by people. It's like saying an article posted to nyt.com at midnight or 2am or whatever won't appear in the paper.
Still a boring and misleading story (lots of people thought the papers were part of the military)
posted by delmoi at 4:38 PM on November 4, 2006
There is no question that it would happen, the article is already written and read by people. It's like saying an article posted to nyt.com at midnight or 2am or whatever won't appear in the paper.
Still a boring and misleading story (lots of people thought the papers were part of the military)
posted by delmoi at 4:38 PM on November 4, 2006
I'm thinking a Wii to the winner
Another contest is a wonderful, wonderful idea, but isn't the Wii going to be region-locked?
posted by soundofsuburbia at 4:57 PM on November 4, 2006
Another contest is a wonderful, wonderful idea, but isn't the Wii going to be region-locked?
posted by soundofsuburbia at 4:57 PM on November 4, 2006
In the unhappy circumstance that Matt buys a Region 1 Wii and the winner lives elsewhere, I'm willing to take one for the team and accept the Wii in their stead.
posted by cortex at 5:32 PM on November 4, 2006
posted by cortex at 5:32 PM on November 4, 2006
that's silly...rumsfeld probably doesn't know what a Wii is...
posted by troybob at 6:54 PM on November 4, 2006
posted by troybob at 6:54 PM on November 4, 2006
Rummy's reply makes this kind of worthwhile, thanks SCDB.
posted by taosbat at 6:56 PM on November 4, 2006
posted by taosbat at 6:56 PM on November 4, 2006
I know you didn't delete it, Matt, but "it read like a rumor" is the worst possible reason to do so. It's been announced by the papers in question, confirmed by MSNBC et al.
If you don't like Newsfilter posts, don't participate in Newsfilter threads.
posted by ibmcginty at 6:58 PM on November 4, 2006
If you don't like Newsfilter posts, don't participate in Newsfilter threads.
posted by ibmcginty at 6:58 PM on November 4, 2006
lame deletion, but we have a lot of the same sort of stuff going for comments so no big loss
(lame because the apparent loss of confidence in the commander of the army by the troops is reasonably big news, except only sort of lame because this has sort of been known)
posted by caddis at 7:00 PM on November 4, 2006
(lame because the apparent loss of confidence in the commander of the army by the troops is reasonably big news, except only sort of lame because this has sort of been known)
posted by caddis at 7:00 PM on November 4, 2006
At the time it was posted, it was a rumor.
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 9:17 PM on November 4, 2006
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 9:17 PM on November 4, 2006
At the time it was posted, it was a rumor.
This is false.
posted by gsteff at 10:01 PM on November 4, 2006
This is false.
posted by gsteff at 10:01 PM on November 4, 2006
I agree this was a bad deletion but hey, shit happens. Everyone make sure to come back on Monday after its not a rumor. I do find it peculiar that there's already a "reply" as posted above (why would they reply if it were just a rumor? uh oh, logic trap, eject, eject, eject!).
Of course, now other sites will think they got the scoop on us. Bastards.
posted by fenriq at 10:17 PM on November 4, 2006
Of course, now other sites will think they got the scoop on us. Bastards.
posted by fenriq at 10:17 PM on November 4, 2006
I removed that post. Speculationfilter on what people might say is the worst sort of newsfilterish posts.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 10:51 PM on November 4, 2006
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 10:51 PM on November 4, 2006
Jess, it wasn't speculation. The military papers released an advance copy of the editorial to many publications to generate publicity. The text of the editorial wasn't coming from some anonymous source, but from the PR officials at the papers themselves. Read the first sentence of this CNN article - there's no hedging about it. Read the first two sentences of this Bloomberg article- again, there was no speculation, the editorial was being published. I'm really wondering why so many people were confused about this.
posted by gsteff at 11:06 PM on November 4, 2006
posted by gsteff at 11:06 PM on November 4, 2006
Have to agree with gsteff. It's been widely reported as news by major media for almost two days now. The text has been available for over 24 hours. I'm athinking that a gun was jumped, here.
posted by Dunwitty at 2:00 AM on November 5, 2006
posted by Dunwitty at 2:00 AM on November 5, 2006
This post was deleted for the following reason: Mao, Calvinball.
posted by Joeforking at 2:45 AM on November 5, 2006
posted by Joeforking at 2:45 AM on November 5, 2006
"That is untill you get 10x the whiners asking why their post was deleted in new MeTa posts. Then, there will be another MeTa asking why about the why from the aforementioned MeTa post."
While there'd be flurry of those posts, if Matt and Jess just didn't discuss it (and immediately closed those MeTas) people would get the picture.
posted by klangklangston
karl rove wants you for a sunbeam
posted by troybob at 6:43 AM on November 5, 2006
While there'd be flurry of those posts, if Matt and Jess just didn't discuss it (and immediately closed those MeTas) people would get the picture.
posted by klangklangston
karl rove wants you for a sunbeam
posted by troybob at 6:43 AM on November 5, 2006
The DailyKos comments on this story were better than the MeFi ones.
posted by smackfu at 8:19 AM on November 5, 2006
posted by smackfu at 8:19 AM on November 5, 2006
The FPP was just plain misleading: "Military Wants Rummy Gone" is not accurate.
Accurate: Monday (weeks after most of them have already sent in their absentee ballots), members of the military will have an opportunity to read an anti-Rummy editorial in newspapers that cater to their interests.
posted by taosbat at 8:55 AM on November 5, 2006
Accurate: Monday (weeks after most of them have already sent in their absentee ballots), members of the military will have an opportunity to read an anti-Rummy editorial in newspapers that cater to their interests.
posted by taosbat at 8:55 AM on November 5, 2006
I'm really wondering why so many people were confused about this.
I agree with gsteff.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:45 AM on November 5, 2006
I agree with gsteff.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:45 AM on November 5, 2006
gsteff : "I'm really wondering why so many people were confused about this."
I think it's just a general reluctance of people to discuss future events as absolutely likely to happen. People are pretty good with repeating things (the sun rose every day for the last 20 years, so nobody complains when someone says it will happen again tomorrow), but when it's something that happens sporadically, irregularly, or only once, people are likely not to give it absolute faith until it's actually happened. The more spectacular, the harder to believe (i.e. "George Bush will announce tomorrow that an additional 12 stealth bombers will be sent to Iraq" would probably get little doubting, while "George Bush will announce tomorrow that he likes to wear crotchless womens' panties" would get a lot, even if Cheney, Rumsfeld, and CNN had already publicly stated that the announcement would occur.) There was also a second level of confusion about who the Army, Navy, and Air Force Times are, with some people, myself included, initially thought they were the official papers of those armed branches, which made it appear even more unlikely, and hence the increased doubt.
posted by Bugbread at 10:10 AM on November 5, 2006
I think it's just a general reluctance of people to discuss future events as absolutely likely to happen. People are pretty good with repeating things (the sun rose every day for the last 20 years, so nobody complains when someone says it will happen again tomorrow), but when it's something that happens sporadically, irregularly, or only once, people are likely not to give it absolute faith until it's actually happened. The more spectacular, the harder to believe (i.e. "George Bush will announce tomorrow that an additional 12 stealth bombers will be sent to Iraq" would probably get little doubting, while "George Bush will announce tomorrow that he likes to wear crotchless womens' panties" would get a lot, even if Cheney, Rumsfeld, and CNN had already publicly stated that the announcement would occur.) There was also a second level of confusion about who the Army, Navy, and Air Force Times are, with some people, myself included, initially thought they were the official papers of those armed branches, which made it appear even more unlikely, and hence the increased doubt.
posted by Bugbread at 10:10 AM on November 5, 2006
I think it's just a general reluctance of people to discuss future events as absolutely likely to happen.
The argument that this hadn't happened yet is hogwash - as gsteff said, the text of the editorial was released in advance of publication. That said, it was highly misleading to say the military is calling for Rummy's head, and so I agree with the deletion.
posted by CunningLinguist at 10:22 AM on November 5, 2006
CunningLinguist : "The argument that this hadn't happened yet is hogwash"
The question was "why were people confused". My comment is just my guess about why they were confused. It wasn't saying "they were right", just "why they were confused". Maybe it doesn't apply to everyone, but it's certainly why I was confused.
posted by Bugbread at 10:27 AM on November 5, 2006
The question was "why were people confused". My comment is just my guess about why they were confused. It wasn't saying "they were right", just "why they were confused". Maybe it doesn't apply to everyone, but it's certainly why I was confused.
posted by Bugbread at 10:27 AM on November 5, 2006
What does TruthOut.org say?
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 12:57 PM on November 5, 2006
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 12:57 PM on November 5, 2006
from SCDB's link:
CHALLENGE THOSE WHO CLAIM ADMINISTRATION OFFERED A ROSY SCENARIO: We challenge those who say the Secretary has ever painted a “rosy picture” to provide his quotes as well as the full context of those remarks.
Challenge Accepted!
Dec. 18, 2002: KING: What’s the current situation in Afghanistan? RUMSFELD: It is encouraging. They have elected a government through the Loya Jirga process. The Taliban are gone. The al Qaeda are gone.
Feb. 7, 2003: “It is unknowable how long that conflict [the war in Iraq] will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.”
Feb. 20 2003: “‘Do you expect the invasion, if it comes, to be welcomed by the majority of the civilian population of Iraq?’ Jim Lehrer asked the defense secretary on PBS’ The News Hour. ‘There is no question but that they would be welcomed,’ Rumsfeld replied, referring to American forces.”
Mar. 30, 2003: “It happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.”
Here is where I found these quotes and where you can follow the links to the original transcripts and articles.
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 1:49 PM on November 5, 2006
CHALLENGE THOSE WHO CLAIM ADMINISTRATION OFFERED A ROSY SCENARIO: We challenge those who say the Secretary has ever painted a “rosy picture” to provide his quotes as well as the full context of those remarks.
Challenge Accepted!
Dec. 18, 2002: KING: What’s the current situation in Afghanistan? RUMSFELD: It is encouraging. They have elected a government through the Loya Jirga process. The Taliban are gone. The al Qaeda are gone.
Feb. 7, 2003: “It is unknowable how long that conflict [the war in Iraq] will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.”
Feb. 20 2003: “‘Do you expect the invasion, if it comes, to be welcomed by the majority of the civilian population of Iraq?’ Jim Lehrer asked the defense secretary on PBS’ The News Hour. ‘There is no question but that they would be welcomed,’ Rumsfeld replied, referring to American forces.”
Mar. 30, 2003: “It happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.”
Here is where I found these quotes and where you can follow the links to the original transcripts and articles.
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 1:49 PM on November 5, 2006
Assuming you're talking to me, smackfu: I'm responding in this thread to a link I read in this thread. Why would this be a 'silly place' to do that?
Maybe you're thinking that The Department of Defense's challenge deserves to be seen by a wider audience. If so, I agree.
I referenced The Department of Defense Challenge on The Blue as well, in the 3rd thread (so far) about this editorial calling for Rumsfeld's resignation. Although that might be truly a 'silly place,' because that thread might go the way of the other two: consigned to the Graveyard of Axed Threads.
I'm not sure The Department of Defense Challenge would make for a good FPP, so I'm not going to post one (Although here's a good title for one: "In Defense of Donald 'Rosy' Rumsfeld") but if you (or anyone else) want to do it, please feel free.
Also: if there's a less 'silly place' I should be using to respond to links used in this thread, please let me know.
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 3:03 PM on November 5, 2006
Maybe you're thinking that The Department of Defense's challenge deserves to be seen by a wider audience. If so, I agree.
I referenced The Department of Defense Challenge on The Blue as well, in the 3rd thread (so far) about this editorial calling for Rumsfeld's resignation. Although that might be truly a 'silly place,' because that thread might go the way of the other two: consigned to the Graveyard of Axed Threads.
I'm not sure The Department of Defense Challenge would make for a good FPP, so I'm not going to post one (Although here's a good title for one: "In Defense of Donald 'Rosy' Rumsfeld") but if you (or anyone else) want to do it, please feel free.
Also: if there's a less 'silly place' I should be using to respond to links used in this thread, please let me know.
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 3:03 PM on November 5, 2006
"karl rove wants you for a sunbeam"
Yeah, I've been placed here by Rove to support newsfilter deletions as part of his campaign to win hearts and minds on Metafilter, the most significant election demographic.
That's what I'd think if I sat around eating paintchips by the handful too.
posted by klangklangston at 4:16 PM on November 5, 2006
Yeah, I've been placed here by Rove to support newsfilter deletions as part of his campaign to win hearts and minds on Metafilter, the most significant election demographic.
That's what I'd think if I sat around eating paintchips by the handful too.
posted by klangklangston at 4:16 PM on November 5, 2006
What's really sad is that someone went on to do an even shittier version of this post, with a link to Truthout, of all places, and no link to the editorial, even though it is available on the web now.
posted by moss at 4:19 PM on November 5, 2006
posted by moss at 4:19 PM on November 5, 2006
sunbeamston: um, it was more the idea that as quoted above, you've basically proposed discouraging dissent by not only not responding to it, but by cordoning it off into an empty lot a mile away from the metafilter parade route...
posted by troybob at 4:52 PM on November 5, 2006
posted by troybob at 4:52 PM on November 5, 2006
Just let it go.
posted by smackfu
??? Dude, you have totally confused me. If you mean let your first comment to me go, then sure. I'm agreeable.
If you mean let my objections to Rumsfeld's lies go, though... Never!
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 8:03 PM on November 5, 2006
posted by smackfu
??? Dude, you have totally confused me. If you mean let your first comment to me go, then sure. I'm agreeable.
If you mean let my objections to Rumsfeld's lies go, though... Never!
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 8:03 PM on November 5, 2006
unbeamston: um, it was more the idea that as quoted above, you've basically proposed discouraging dissent by not only not responding to it, but by cordoning it off into an empty lot a mile away from the metafilter parade route...
The danger there is that, by comparing the Karl Rove approach to the shutting down of newsfilter posts, you're making Rove's ideas look like good ideas.
posted by Bugbread at 3:01 AM on November 6, 2006
The danger there is that, by comparing the Karl Rove approach to the shutting down of newsfilter posts, you're making Rove's ideas look like good ideas.
posted by Bugbread at 3:01 AM on November 6, 2006
"sunbeamston: um, it was more the idea that as quoted above, you've basically proposed discouraging dissent by not only not responding to it, but by cordoning it off into an empty lot a mile away from the metafilter parade route..."
Ah, so not only do you not know who Rove is, you're using him as a generic rightist boogieman? And totally mistaking both scope and context? Again, try starting your day with corn flakes rather than paint chips.
posted by klangklangston at 5:41 AM on November 6, 2006
Ah, so not only do you not know who Rove is, you're using him as a generic rightist boogieman? And totally mistaking both scope and context? Again, try starting your day with corn flakes rather than paint chips.
posted by klangklangston at 5:41 AM on November 6, 2006
if i mistook anything, it was that you might be bright enough to be a sunbeam...
posted by troybob at 10:45 AM on November 6, 2006
posted by troybob at 10:45 AM on November 6, 2006
Wow, Troybob, you sure zinged me there! With lines like that, you outta step up to writing for Jim Belushi, you card!
posted by klangklangston at 11:58 AM on November 6, 2006
posted by klangklangston at 11:58 AM on November 6, 2006
finally, some recognition! sometimes i wonder why i try...
..and this paint-chip diet has lost me 65 pounds so far, i'll have you know!
posted by troybob at 12:50 PM on November 6, 2006
..and this paint-chip diet has lost me 65 pounds so far, i'll have you know!
posted by troybob at 12:50 PM on November 6, 2006
« Older The return of Jon-o: returnee requests synopsis. | like AskMe? help on NaNoWriMo fora! Newer »
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
It seems to me that the thread had essentially run its course, so it's doubly strange to delete it and invite the news to be reposted by someone else in the coming days.
At any rate, since it's currently the vogue to call out news threads, or flag them, or whatever, I thought I'd at least be the voice from the other side to counter the fervor: put me down for "ease up on the moderation".
posted by The God Complex at 12:43 PM on November 4, 2006