658 days until the 2008 US elections January 16, 2007 9:54 AM   Subscribe

There are 658 days between now and the 2008 election in the United States of America. Can we please not start the daily posting of unpostworthy campaign minutia 658 days out? Can we at least hold off until, say, 3 months prior to the election? I shutter in fear at the prospect of having this stuff devour Metafilter for the next 658 days, as we know from experience it will.

The subset of people who are boring obsessive interested enough in this to already care about this us-centric minutia are certainly the same subset of people who already read political blogs. Why does it need to be here?

Please save us, mathowie. You are our only hope.
posted by dios to Etiquette/Policy at 9:54 AM (346 comments total) 1 user marked this as a favorite

Double.
posted by dead_ at 9:55 AM on January 16, 2007


We missed this. We all really did.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 9:57 AM on January 16, 2007


dios is right.
posted by popechunk at 9:58 AM on January 16, 2007 [1 favorite]


best of the web?
posted by niles at 9:58 AM on January 16, 2007


I'm looking forward to 2 years of Metatalk posts on this topic. Really, I am.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 10:03 AM on January 16, 2007 [3 favorites]


Yes, I see that I put 'shutter' instead of 'shudder.' I suck, thanks.
posted by dios at 10:04 AM on January 16, 2007


Prematurely or not, I'm all for re-mottoing Illinois to "The Land of Obama."

But yeah, these posts just will not do.
posted by Terminal Verbosity at 10:06 AM on January 16, 2007


Why does it need to be here?

Um, because some of us loathe the political blogs and their idiot, echo-chamber effect? And because we genuinely enjoy hearing what members of this community have to say about the state of politics in the United States?

Seriously, dios, when the number of posts legitimately gets out of control (and it will), then this complaint will have some merit. But for the moment, why don't you quit your whining and either hit page down or contribute something substantive to the conversation?
posted by felix betachat at 10:06 AM on January 16, 2007 [3 favorites]


Gone fishin'....
... at least until the election is over and the inevitable gloating and/or bitching about electoral conspiracy theories are finished. Because right now, Metafilter--so covered in that feces and with no editorial desire to keep it out--is not any different than a politics site and is therefore not worth reading.


How can we miss you if you won't go away?
posted by empath at 10:06 AM on January 16, 2007 [4 favorites]


How can we miss you if you won't go away?
posted by empath at 12:06 PM CST on January 16


Thanks for pointing that out. That was from the 2006 elections which I haven't gotten around to editing out yet since they just happened. And here we are just a couple months later, and you are ready to start beating us over the head with the 2008 elections two years from now.
posted by dios at 10:09 AM on January 16, 2007


How about that, politics is an ongoing subject of interest in the world's oldest democracy.
posted by empath at 10:11 AM on January 16, 2007 [3 favorites]


Um, because some of us loathe the political blogs and their idiot, echo-chamber effect?

Yeah, MeFi's a real cauldron of disparate voices:

"I'm fer the Dems and agin' the Republicans!"
"Well, I'm agin' the Republicans and fer the Dems!"

I don't hold any ill will against this post, but I wouldn't shed tears for it either, if it meant establishing that weak 2k8 FPPS aren't welcome on the blue.

Also, let's try putting on our big kid pants and leave the personal shit out of this, hm?
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 10:14 AM on January 16, 2007


The real pisser is that during the 2006 elections, when anyone said anything about the crap that was being posted regarding that, what the rejoinder?

'Just wait. The elections will be over soon and these posts will stop.'

Of course, thanks to the obsessive bores, we now have perpetual campaigns of importance that must be talked about and delved into comprehensively.
posted by dios at 10:15 AM on January 16, 2007


I keep my personal shit in my big-kid pants, Alvy Ampersand.
posted by cgc373 at 10:16 AM on January 16, 2007


I think you are projecting a bit.
posted by empath at 10:16 AM on January 16, 2007


Federal elections are the most important events in the United States, so I think that two years of discussion and speculation leading up to the vote itself is suitable and well warranted. By sheer coincidence, federal elections are also scheduled to take place every two years. We should never stop talking about them!
posted by Faint of Butt at 10:17 AM on January 16, 2007


Although I think it has been demonstrated pointless to try to influence what appears and stays on the front page, except by playing one's coglike role in the flagging process, I do agree with Dios in principle. The fact that Mr. Obama is thinking about running for president is not news. What is there to discuss?

Given several issues of context, this particular "does X really belong on Metafilter" does seem particularly unlikely to result in more than general acrimony, though.
posted by nanojath at 10:18 AM on January 16, 2007


It's bad luck to refer to yourself as "god" in any language.
posted by Burhanistan at 10:18 AM on January 16, 2007


>>Why does it need to be here?

>Um, because some of us loathe the political blogs and their idiot, echo-chamber effect? And because we genuinely enjoy hearing what members of this community have to say about the state of politics in the United States?


The more this stuff gets posted here, the more MetaFilter comes to resemble those blogs you loathe.
posted by timeistight at 10:19 AM on January 16, 2007


I'm working on some code right now, but I'll delete the obama post soon.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 10:20 AM on January 16, 2007


Of course, thanks to the obsessive bores, we now have perpetual campaigns of importance that must be talked about and delved into comprehensively.

thanks, dios ... next time i want my irony meter broken like that, i'll just smash it against my forehead like a beer can
posted by pyramid termite at 10:20 AM on January 16, 2007 [1 favorite]


Blame the media.

Christmas is over, so cart out the Valentine's Day candy. When that's over, Easter candy. When that's over, Christmas starts again.

We can't help it. We're force fed this stuff like geese for their delectable liver... Don't hate the geese, Dios.

But don't expect this is gonna be a haven or respite to get away from it. Seal up your eyes with your official War on Terra duct tape if you must.
posted by Dave Faris at 10:22 AM on January 16, 2007


Interesting. So political posts are out now but single link posts (or even multiple link posts) to Cheap Trick videos, products launches (Apple, Microsoft, browsers, etc.) are good because?
posted by juiceCake at 10:27 AM on January 16, 2007


The more this stuff gets posted here, the more MetaFilter comes to resemble those blogs you loathe.

Untrue, actually. It's the conversation that matters to me. So the more conservative MeFites are applauded for trying to control what makes it on the front page instead of for their thoughtful and compelling arguments, the more the conversation suffers and MeFi starts to look like an echo chamber.
posted by felix betachat at 10:28 AM on January 16, 2007


You're fighting a losing battle dios, but I salute you for tilting at windmills.

Also, this comment was probably the funniest thing I've read this year: "Um, because some of us loathe the political blogs and their idiot, echo-chamber effect? And because we genuinely enjoy hearing what members of this community have to say about the state of politics in the United States?"
posted by keswick at 10:28 AM on January 16, 2007


I think, like ANY goddamn FPP, politics, Obit threads, and whatever should be allowed to stay, IF THEY ARE GOOD QUALITY POSTS. That Obama post? Not so good, delete. A post that talks about the '08 elections with decent links and/or original viewpoints... whatever... high quality should stand. A good quality post regarding Obama should stay. Likewise, name your candidate, should stay if well crafted.

I guess I'm advocating for more deletions. Make people work a little bit harder for the FPP.
posted by edgeways at 10:30 AM on January 16, 2007 [3 favorites]


Mathowie writes, "I'm working on some code right now,[...]"

Oh, lordy, it's going to Mathowiemas in January, I can just feel it.
posted by boo_radley at 10:33 AM on January 16, 2007


Can we at least hold off until, say, 3 months prior to the election?

If we do hold off, will you promise not to shit all over them when the time comes?
posted by and hosted from Uranus at 10:33 AM on January 16, 2007


felix betachat writes...
It's the conversation that matters to me.

Metafilter is not about the conversation. More specifically the rationale that "it sparked a good discussion" has again and again been rejected as a reason for an FPP.
posted by tkolar at 10:34 AM on January 16, 2007


A guy announces he might be running for president of some country. Best of the web! How about a candidate who grabs the ballot by the balls and says, "I'm running, who's with me?"

Sure, a lot of people form these committees, but by posting about it, you make him look like more of a whiny ditherer than he is. So the people who are on the fence get a little less enthused. But hey, whatever, go team go!

Personally, I hope the dems run a canteloupe, because then we can see all these folks try to justify the canteloupe as the candidate they had supported all along; the only right choice one could make, right?

Wake me up when the Libertarians have a candidate so I can see if I care.
posted by Eideteker at 10:37 AM on January 16, 2007


I deleted it. It's a lame one-link post to news that is EVERYWHERE right now. This isn't a blanket statement that all poltical or election 2008 posts are out, but the single-link MAJOR BREAKING NEWS ones should be cut for being lame for MetaFilter, regardless of subject matter.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 10:39 AM on January 16, 2007 [1 favorite]


Metafilter is not about the conversation.

Thanks. I got that. And I agree, it was a crap post. But that wasn't dios's complaint.
posted by felix betachat at 10:39 AM on January 16, 2007


thank you mathowie for answering the original question, as badly as I put it.
posted by nj_subgenius at 10:42 AM on January 16, 2007


Thanks for reminded me to update the big board, Eideteker.

Go canteloupe!
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 10:42 AM on January 16, 2007


reminding, reminding...
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 10:43 AM on January 16, 2007


It really sucks that someone forced dios to read the FPP. I would've responded with a retarded call-out in MeTa too, if someone had held a gun to my head and made me read that post and click on all the links.
posted by StrasbourgSecaucus at 10:47 AM on January 16, 2007 [1 favorite]


Rodger Dodger wrote (at a mythical time in a mythical place):
Studies show that posts with dios in them are three times as popular as those without!

Just for the record:

On Metafilter 2004-2006

dios's name was invoked 1166 times across 296 threads.
(a few of those were probably people speaking spanish)

Across all threads there was an average of 36.5 comments per thread.
Across dios threads there was an average of 119 comments per thread.

So at least in terms of number of comments, dios threads are in fact 3.26 times as popular as those without.
posted by tkolar at 10:48 AM on January 16, 2007 [1 favorite]


don't suppose someone would close this post now?
posted by edgeways at 10:53 AM on January 16, 2007


Sweet! And I thought that comment had sunk beneath the shifting sands of time for eternity.
posted by Roger Dodger at 10:53 AM on January 16, 2007


Why close this one, edgeways?
posted by and hosted from Uranus at 10:55 AM on January 16, 2007


I'm not going to argue with deletion or anything, cause mefi is matt's baby, but I think his reason for deletion is kind of weak, considering all the non-political one-link breaking newsfilter posts that don't get deleted.

Just, as an example, the Beckham thread.
posted by empath at 10:59 AM on January 16, 2007


StrasbourgSecaucus: "It really sucks that someone forced dios to read the FPP. I would've responded with a retarded call-out in MeTa too, if someone had held a gun to my head and made me read that post and click on all the links."

Oh, fucking hell. Do we have to go through this tired canard again? The privacy clause of the constitution does not apply to Metafilter posts. If a post is bad, it's bad; it shouldn't be on the front page, and "you don't have to read it" doesn't save it. That's why this one got deleted.

People need to realize that Metafilter isn't a loose confederacy of diverse sites which are meant to go in any or all directions, promote nice long conversations, and have little to no quality regulation. This site is meant to be something of a cohesive whole-- that's why mathowie and jessamyn have resisted increasing the number of moderators-- and, as such, overall quality control will be an issue not 'delegated away' or forgotten in the interest of allowing every snowflake its place in the grand scheme. If you'd like one of those free-and-clear BBSes where you can start a discussion about any old thing and there's nobody there to get annoyed when the discussion you start has no drive or point (or good link) behind it, go find one.

The "if you don't like it, don't read it" argument has no place in any rational discussion of Metafilter.
posted by koeselitz at 11:01 AM on January 16, 2007


How about that, politics is an ongoing subject of interest in the world's oldest democracy.

Sweet! I never hear enough about Iceland.
posted by dreamsign at 11:02 AM on January 16, 2007 [9 favorites]


koeselitz is right, that Beckham FPP should be deleted.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 11:05 AM on January 16, 2007


Just, as an example, the Beckham thread. I missed the Beckham thread?! Brilliant.
posted by econous at 11:09 AM on January 16, 2007


but I think his reason for deletion is kind of weak

it's one of those borderline things ... i'm not impressed by the habit candidates are getting into of announcing they "might" run and i'm really not sure that it's worth our notice

Sweet! I never hear enough about Iceland.

it's cold, they have odd bands and eat rotten shark meat ... what else do you have to know?
posted by pyramid termite at 11:12 AM on January 16, 2007


Well, the Beckham thread should be deleted, but only because it made me look like an ignorant sod when talking about Catalunya.
posted by koeselitz at 11:12 AM on January 16, 2007


Damn, I get all the way down here to reply about Iceland and dreamsign's beaten me by ten minutes. I knew I shouldn't have read the rest of the thread before commenting! THOSE FAVORITES COULD BE MINE!
posted by klangklangston at 11:13 AM on January 16, 2007 [3 favorites]


While I agree with dios's position (and applaud the deletion), I must deplore his unnecessary use of paragraph breaks.

Paragraph breaks

have no place

in posts.











Dammit.
posted by languagehat at 11:33 AM on January 16, 2007 [1 favorite]


THOSE FAVORITES COULD BE MINE!

faveslut. n. one who shows up in MeTa threads with jokey comments for the purpose of being favorited
posted by Rhomboid at 11:34 AM on January 16, 2007 [3 favorites]


Devoter.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 11:44 AM on January 16, 2007


Better a faveslut than a karma whore.
posted by cortex at 11:49 AM on January 16, 2007


My personal beef (because I know you care) isn't that politics in inappropriate, it's that too many political FPPs don't make any attempt to prove WHY they're important. Americans, of course, simply say "OBAMA!" like some bizarre Emeril-Bill O'Reilly monster and everyone stands up. The rest of us... we need some motivation. It's not a bad subject, it was a bad (well, mediocre) post.
posted by GuyZero at 11:58 AM on January 16, 2007


Hey mathowie, can you get people to not click links/threads they have no interest other than too complain about in? The callouts are getting really old.

This post was removed, but pickle surprise stays??? I just hope five or six people don't die today, so I don't have to read DeathFilter all day...........

(see what I did there? Don't like the thread? Then move on and don't clog the tubes with your whining)
posted by Big_B at 11:59 AM on January 16, 2007


Pickle surprise was a shocking revelation for me. That Obama might run for president a year from now was a revelation to no one.
posted by cortex at 12:03 PM on January 16, 2007


I propose that a "perpetualnovember" tag be applied to all US election related posts.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 12:30 PM on January 16, 2007 [1 favorite]


So at least in terms of number of comments, dios threads are in fact 3.26 times as popular as those without.

We'd need to deduct the number of non-dios comments made in those threads and see if there's a corollary between the subject of the post and dio's ineffable, black rage.
posted by beaucoupkevin at 12:40 PM on January 16, 2007


Big_B: "(see what I did there? Don't like the thread? Then move on and don't clog the tubes with your whining)"

You are a flesh-brained, nose-breathing, filth-encrusted moron, and I hope that your genetic code is sufficiently simple so as to prevent its combination with sequences from my species and thereby inhibit whatever desire that you might harbor for procreation.
posted by koeselitz at 12:42 PM on January 16, 2007 [4 favorites]


Er, that was dios's ineffable, black rage, not an improperly-capitalized Dio's.
posted by beaucoupkevin at 12:42 PM on January 16, 2007


As always, if something truly interesting/newsworthy happens, it will be posted to the blue and discussed heartily. If people post boring updates to candidates (or potential candidates) website updates, then they'll probably be deleted if a moderator sees them. This follows the guidelines established for every post on metafilter.

Looking at it from this perspective is more helpful than round ten of it's the End of Metafilter!.
posted by The God Complex at 12:43 PM on January 16, 2007


beaucoupkevin: "...dio's ineffable, black rage..."

Were you talking about this?
posted by koeselitz at 12:45 PM on January 16, 2007


crap, you beat me to it.
posted by koeselitz at 12:46 PM on January 16, 2007


So the Tom Vilsack announcement was worth keeping around, but not Obamas announcement of an exploratory committee... why? Because dios makes a stink? I have that rude little loudmouth killfiled and I barely noticed a handful of comments responding to his incessant whining... and the net result is this MeTa post and the removal of the FPP? /golf clap

Can we please not start the daily posting of unpostworthy campaign minutia 658 days out?

Tell me more, swami, oh "Winner of Metafilter"... /gag

This is seriously pathetic.
posted by prostyle at 12:49 PM on January 16, 2007


I agree the post was weak and didn't deserve to stand, but the reasons are clear, as God Complex points out. Still, I think there is some confusion over the issue of what constitute MAJOR BREAKING NEWS and what doesn't.

Beckham, to be fair, was a surprise, but that was part of what made it MAJOR BREAKING NEWS. iPhone, wasn't a surprise, but it was still, by some standards, MAJOR BREAKING NEWS (these are just two examples.) I suppose the standard of what makes MAJOR BREAKING NEWS and what doesn't make MAJOR BREAKING NEWS is clearly unclear.

However, given this unclear standard, I look forward to FPPs about the Vista launch and the announcement of Toyota's next hybrid car. If they don't stand, neither should the others.

And dios, thanks again for the entertainment. Your over the top Sheehan-like, desperate, shrill, outrage, shitting, and vomiting show is unmatched. Bravo.
posted by juiceCake at 12:53 PM on January 16, 2007 [2 favorites]


People who use killfiles are assholes.
posted by koeselitz at 12:54 PM on January 16, 2007


You are a flesh-brained, nose-breathing, filth-encrusted moron, and I hope that your genetic code is sufficiently simple so as to prevent its combination with sequences from my species and thereby inhibit whatever desire that you might harbor for procreation.

Wow. Tell me how you really feel.
posted by Big_B at 12:58 PM on January 16, 2007


Big_B: I already did. Besides, mathowie already deleted the post in question. Not my fault if you didn't read the thread.
posted by koeselitz at 1:03 PM on January 16, 2007


I don't know what's so hard about just scrolling past threads you're not interested in. /prod
posted by and hosted from Uranus at 1:07 PM on January 16, 2007


I just want to state something in regards to the "Metafilter is about the discussion" meme (which I hate):

...you really just want to chat about current events, and mefi is more about the links to interesting sites first, the interesting comments are secondary.
posted by mathowie at 6:41 PM MST on August 2

posted by blue_beetle at 1:07 PM on January 16, 2007


This is seriously pathetic.

I agree, the post sucked.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 1:07 PM on January 16, 2007 [2 favorites]


and hosted from Uranus: "I don't know what's so hard about just scrolling past threads you're not interested in. /prod"

I'll be sending the bill for the brain aneurysm you just induced right along to you, thanks very much.
posted by koeselitz at 1:09 PM on January 16, 2007


You know what's not pathetic? Dio's ineffable, black Rainbow in the Dark.
posted by koeselitz at 1:12 PM on January 16, 2007


(see what I did there? Don't like the thread? Then move on and don't clog the tubes with your whining)

That goes double for MetaTalk threads.
posted by eyeballkid at 1:13 PM on January 16, 2007


I did read the thread asswipe. I was responding to your childish response. Go file some books or something and let the big kids play.
posted by Big_B at 1:26 PM on January 16, 2007


The "if you don't like it, don't read it" argument has no place in any rational discussion of Metafilter.

Oh, then how about "if you don't like it, just flag it and go on with your day rather than crying in the thread and then posting almost the same exact whining in MetaTalk when you don't get the response you want within 36 minutes of your first flag&whine."

I think that has a place here.
posted by phearlez at 1:28 PM on January 16, 2007


The proper insult term is "mouth-breathing", not nose breathing.
posted by Burhanistan at 1:31 PM on January 16, 2007


...mefi is more about the links to interesting sites first, the interesting comments are secondary.

Only chronologically. I think the FPPs, interesting as they are, amount to little in comparison to the discussions and the quality of their participants. Anytime I come across other boards inviting such discussion, I am always disappointed that the quality of response and quality of responder do not come even close to what we've got around here. A bad post can be redeemed--and often is redeemed--by the time and thought we put into the discussion.

'Best of the web' is people. Not words.
posted by troybob at 1:34 PM on January 16, 2007


Whiny bitch.
posted by bardic at 1:38 PM on January 16, 2007


The proper insult term is "mouth-breathing", not nose breathing.

I sometimes breathe out of my mouth and nose at the same time. As such, I find this whole discussion unnerving.
posted by The God Complex at 1:39 PM on January 16, 2007


I'll check the rulebook, but I don't think you get to call somebody an "asswipe," then claim the mature ground, in the same comment.
posted by cribcage at 1:41 PM on January 16, 2007 [1 favorite]


"I think the FPPs, interesting as they are, amount to little in comparison to the discussions and the quality of their participants."

You can think whatever you'd like; you just happen to be wrong wrong. And it's having quality links that ensures that interesting people come here to discuss them.
posted by klangklangston at 1:48 PM on January 16, 2007


I have gills myself.

And to elucidate my previous brilliant comment, Science H. Logic, it was a crappy post but not qua being about politics. I'm not into anal fisting, but I had no problem with a post about it. Complain about posts qua formatting (thousand of blind youtube links, for example). Stop grinding your goddamn axe.

And for the umpteenth time, you obviously have a high amount of contempt for both this site and many of its members, according to your lovely user page (although I miss the hate list). Why do you bother coming here at all? "So covered in feces"? And wow, the portions sure are small aren't they?

Meh. And I realize I just took your poorly contrived bait yet again, so let me recap the rest of this thread--

Bardic haters swarm in and announce I'm obssesed with dios. I point out that we've had the "politicsfilter" debate before, and that it's still about link quality above all else, and political FPP's can be informative, "best of the web"-type stuff. And LarryC will say "Look, I don't like it but that's the way Matt has it set up" and he will be both disgruntled and correct yet again. And then some complaints about the lack of .gifs.

Beyond that, I thought Obama shouldn't run but now I'm thinking it's Jack Kennedy ca. 1958. You're only young and handsome once, so go for it dawg.
posted by bardic at 1:51 PM on January 16, 2007


This is where I usually chime in and call for the creation of a distinct NewsFilter section of the site. Then a bunch of people will say yeah, that'd be great, and some other people will say that idea sucks ass the whole world needs to read my opinions, and Matt finally says how many times do I have to tell you I am never going to create a site I wouldn't read, and then we start posting funny images.

Bust since we can't post images anymore, I won't bother.
posted by LarryC at 1:56 PM on January 16, 2007


Hah! Bardic totally upstaged me.
posted by LarryC at 1:59 PM on January 16, 2007


Hey! I'm a genius!

Thing is, this was an objectively crap post. No tears. But what bothers me is how "politics" becomes a slur very quickly around here. Obama running for POTUS? Obvious politicsfilter. But how often does a post about, say, Iraq sliding further into hell become branded "politicsfilter" as such? To pick something less obvious, I've seen plenty of instances where "politics" means "this is not something I'm interested in." So if you're going to mount a credible attack on politicsfilter, or yet again call for a subsite, you need to start by defining the term itself. The burden is on you if you want to strike out and dictate just what mefites are "allowed" to be itnerested in.

Your "politics" is another person's daily experience, so to speak.
posted by bardic at 2:01 PM on January 16, 2007


Whups on the double wrong.
posted by klangklangston at 2:02 PM on January 16, 2007


People who don't like this comment should eat Skippy peanut butter through their mouth.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 2:04 PM on January 16, 2007 [1 favorite]


Oh, then how about "if you don't like it, just flag it and go on with your day rather than crying in the thread and then posting almost the same exact whining in MetaTalk when you don't get the response you want within 36 minutes of your first flag&whine."

There are some amongst us that object to what you say, but would defend to the death your right to say it. By flagging it, we'd be associating ourselves with censorship. Censorhip has no part in a democracy.
posted by veedubya at 2:08 PM on January 16, 2007


The gray weather combined will all the 6 story parking garages I see outside my office window make me feel like I'm in communist Russia circa 1985. The parking garages kind of resemble drab Soviet office/apartment buildings.
posted by Burhanistan at 2:15 PM on January 16, 2007


Not that I've ever been to communist Russia in 1985.
posted by Burhanistan at 2:15 PM on January 16, 2007


Yeah, the 'nose-breathing' may have been a mistake. Though I did feel that the bit about genetic sequences was a rather fine turn of phrase.
posted by koeselitz at 2:18 PM on January 16, 2007


It wasn't an objectively crap post, you fuckers.

It was a single link to a video online.

There are dozens and dozens of single link posts to youtube on the blue, and most of them stand.

The ONLY reason it was deleted was the subject matter, not because the post itself was 'objectively bad'.
posted by empath at 2:23 PM on January 16, 2007


what empath said.

dios, you are not objective at all, and this smells. Matt, you're a fool for falling for dios' shit yet again, like always.
posted by amberglow at 2:26 PM on January 16, 2007


Well, this deleted post is one example among many in which several people have put time and effort into posting something thoughtful. (I don't know about other people, but I tend to sit with a topic for a while before I throw out a response.) And so it is those people who are given little consideration (their only offense, really, being that they committed themselves to a topic dios was going to cry about) and have their comments set aside, discussion cut short...to serve whom? A user whose only recourse--when he can't submit a reasonable argument himself, or just can't stay out of it, or otherwise does not like that the discussion is happening at all--is to argue that the discussion itself is not valid.

If the priorities are going to be skewed in this way, at least call it what it is.
posted by troybob at 2:30 PM on January 16, 2007 [1 favorite]


'Subject matter' can be 'objectively bad.'
posted by koeselitz at 2:30 PM on January 16, 2007


Matt, you're a fool for falling for dios' shit yet again, like always.

Awfully big of you to point that out to him.
posted by cortex at 2:30 PM on January 16, 2007


...and, while we all agree that dios was being too shrill here (sorry, dios; you should try to dial it back a little) does it make sense to blame mathowie for "falling for dios' shit yet again?" It sounds to me like Matt made his own decision here, and I can't recall the last time he just went along with whatever dios said. Given that dios has been the subject of disciplinary measures around here, and all.
posted by koeselitz at 2:33 PM on January 16, 2007


i think amberglow needs a timeout
posted by keswick at 2:33 PM on January 16, 2007


It was a single link to a video online.

There are dozens and dozens of single link posts to youtube on the blue, and most of them stand.

The ONLY reason it was deleted was the subject matter, not because the post itself was 'objectively bad'.


Your argument is that either all single-link YouTube posts are objectively good, or else all single-link YouTube posts are objectively bad? That it's not possible for some single-link YouTube posts to be good while other single-link YouTube posts can be bad?
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 2:40 PM on January 16, 2007


Well, no, but I think its ARGUABLE about whether it's good or bad. And THAT's objectively true because people are arguing about it.
posted by empath at 2:47 PM on January 16, 2007


What, are we all trading over to objectivism now?



posted by tkolar at 2:49 PM on January 16, 2007


It was deleted to make an example of it, obviously, which I'm find with, but I think it's pointless. People will be posting Obama and election stories constantly for the next two years, regardless.
posted by empath at 2:50 PM on January 16, 2007


Matt, you're a fool for falling for dios' shit yet again, like always.

It's a shitty one-link post to a lame video that didn't work for many users. You see "dios" or anything not promoting your viewpoint and you cry foul, like always.

Someone could have crafted an interesting "Obama is thinking of running" post, with links to all the Obama '08 stuff (from t-shirts to speculation about his running mates) and his old 2004 speech, articles about how he currently smokes and did coke and pot before without apology, and other interesting factoids about the man.

But this sure ain't it, as I've said for the third time now.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 2:53 PM on January 16, 2007 [3 favorites]


Bush's water boys are already shitting themselves thinking of '08, it's only considerate of mathowie, as our host, to hand them some baby wipes. and a few deletions.

his kindness should be appreciated by all.
posted by matteo at 3:00 PM on January 16, 2007 [2 favorites]


Look, I'm one of those folks that actually loves the newsfilter aspect of Metafilter, but there's really no need for another Obama post, at least not until he actually announces that he's running.

On another note, I find the faux coyness of contemporary American politics mind-numbingly stupid.
posted by The God Complex at 3:00 PM on January 16, 2007


I'll check the rulebook, but I don't think you get to call somebody an "asswipe," then claim the mature ground, in the same comment.

The rulebook recommends "heinyhanky".
posted by Armitage Shanks at 3:01 PM on January 16, 2007 [2 favorites]


There are dozens and dozens of single link posts to youtube on the blue, and most of them stand.

There's also the minor point that the story was almost immediately a lead news story on pretty much any news website you'd care to mention (but I only checked CNN, MSNBC, Fox News and The BBC. Al Jezeera doesn't seem to consider it front page worthy.)

And while I realize I've got slightly shorter leg to stand on here what with my World Cup post and all, I was making a good faith+drunk attempt to keep a spoiler post off the front page, not trying to turn Mefi into a news aggregator. I emailed Jess and asked her to whack it when I realized I'd liked to the final score, i.e. the spoiler I was trying to avoid, in the link. Still seemed to work out OK.

I guess I'm really of two minds about stuff like this. You have to accept the inevitability of certain posts. But I feel like I've been bitten by a radioactive website, because I've developed a Mefi Sense where I can see a news story and pretty much know it's going to be a FPP. That's probably not a good thing since, like a lot of people, I didn't originally come here for the discussion (which I enjoy, don't get me wrong) but for things I hadn't seen before.

But link to the video where he declares he's running. What he's thinking about doesn't make for a great FPP.
posted by Cyrano at 3:10 PM on January 16, 2007


Good lord, amberglow. THAT POST SUCKED!
posted by mediareport at 3:12 PM on January 16, 2007


Nobody died today?
posted by fixedgear at 3:24 PM on January 16, 2007


Good lord, amberglow. THAT POST SUCKED!

Yes, but amberglow's hatred of dios overrides any logical responses to anything else.
posted by languagehat at 3:27 PM on January 16, 2007


The rulebook recommends "heinyhanky".

Duly noted.
posted by Big_B at 3:45 PM on January 16, 2007


As soon as I saw Matt's last post, I know someone would do it.
posted by empath at 4:01 PM on January 16, 2007


mmm, axgrindfilter

IIRC, I got banned last time I used the front page to make a point.

not just sayin'
posted by keswick at 4:23 PM on January 16, 2007


I'm going to be so bummed out when Obama turns out to be just another fucking political scumbag (or, if by some divine intervention, he isn't and actually runs for president, when he gets assassinated).
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:30 PM on January 16, 2007 [2 favorites]


Big_B : "I did read the thread asswipe. I was responding to your childish response. Go file some books or something and let the big kids play."

No reason to get all upset. Nobody forced you to read koeslitz's comment.

amberglow : "dios, you are not objective at all, and this smells. Matt, you're a fool for falling for dios' shit yet again, like always."

A stuck clock is right twice a day. Dios's motives are suspect, but it was a crap post (c'mon, Obama For President has been common knowledge for more than a year, and this wasn't even a confirmation, but a "maybe" confirmation, and it's all over the press anyway, breaking one of MetaFilter's guidelines, which is that posts should be to stuff that most other members probably don't already know). If you automatically state that Mathowie should never delete anything dios requests be deleted, you give Dios the power to keep shitty stuff on the front page, because all he has to say is "Matt, I immediately demand you take down that post", and then the post has been granted unassailable armour.
posted by Bugbread at 4:34 PM on January 16, 2007


I'm going to be so bummed out when Obama turns out to be just another fucking political scumbag

that just made me think of all the brits who voted Nu-Labour in 1997, only to see Blair lead us to war.

Hope you never get that my friends.
posted by dash_slot- at 4:41 PM on January 16, 2007


I knew I shouldn't have read the rest of the thread before commenting! THOSE FAVORITES COULD BE MINE!

I'm sorry, but after this was posted, really...is there anything left to be said? Game over, folks. klangklangston wins. Funniest fucking comment I've seen in a while. Close this sucker up.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 4:54 PM on January 16, 2007


This is bullshit. "Ooh, I know, I'll keep it from being single-link newsfilter by adding a bunch of irrelevant links about religion, MeFi always likes to discuss that!" If this stays, the same collection of links (or variants thereof) will accompany every fucking step of the way along Obama's procession through making up his mind, announcing, getting funds, entering primaries.... The heart sinks just thinking about it. Yeah, he looks like a nice guy. Yeah, he could turn out to be a stooge/wacko/standard-issue pol. We've already talked about it. How many more times do we have to go through this?
posted by languagehat at 4:57 PM on January 16, 2007 [2 favorites]


The heart sinks just thinking about it.

The heart sings just thinking about it! It's not as much fun around here without something to argue about, damn it.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:00 PM on January 16, 2007


Man, I wish we could have :argh: here in metafilter. Like, seriously.

Resurrecting "OMG OBAMA <3 3 dreamy does nobody any good, and if i have to put up with political bickering bullshit fpps -- dem or repub -- for two years, i will em>by god make sure that political bickering bullshit links DO look like the best of the web in comparison. Test me on this.
posted by boo_radley at 5:14 PM on January 16, 2007


:argh: preview :argh:
posted by boo_radley at 5:15 PM on January 16, 2007


Little known fact about Obama -- he's black.
posted by bardic at 5:18 PM on January 16, 2007


You see it's simple, when someone calls me 'flesh brained' and/or 'nose breathing' I find no insult. Even the 'filth-encrusted' is undeniably ambiguous. The 'moron' is the confusing thing. So I ask, koeselitz what are you trying to say? You eyeball owning, opposable thumbed ape?
posted by econous at 5:19 PM on January 16, 2007


dios is right.

anyway, i think you guys jinx the elections over there by posting about them so much - wouldnt you all be better being volunteers or something ?
posted by sgt.serenity at 5:20 PM on January 16, 2007


Knowing that such threads are inevitable, you know, we could actually consciously try to have more reasonable and reasoned discussions about American politics (and fat people and religion and |insert topic here|), ignore and marginalize the ranters, not feed the trolls, and make the site better for all of us by doing so, rather than....

Shit, no, what am I thinking? It's the internet. Never mind.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:22 PM on January 16, 2007 [1 favorite]


bugbread

I wasn't upset, just standing my ground to the call out. No one forced you to respond to my comment either - that game can go on and on...

I just thought it was either a)sarcasm or b) a ridiculous flame. I went with the latter, cuase it was more fun!
posted by Big_B at 5:34 PM on January 16, 2007


Americans, ranters and trolls are what makes meta* so damn great. Reasoned honest debate is what needs to be checked, it's so bloody gay sensible.
posted by econous at 5:50 PM on January 16, 2007


HOLY SHIT! CHECK OUT THIS NAVEL!
posted by quonsar at 5:51 PM on January 16, 2007 [3 favorites]


hey, check out that weirdo staring at his belly button and gesticulating!
posted by Hat Maui at 5:56 PM on January 16, 2007


That's one hell of a nice navel, q. You could lose yourself in that puppy.

But I'm going to have to admit that I still prefer my own.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:58 PM on January 16, 2007


I'm fairly confident that "you need a better sex life" would be the remedy for almost every metatalk callout.
posted by Burhanistan at 6:01 PM on January 16, 2007


whinefilter.
posted by delmoi at 7:37 PM on January 16, 2007


Oh man, I'm late to the party, but let's throw some fun facts about Iceland! Yeah! Let's!

Iceland has the highest consumption of Coca-Cola per capita and is the "most wired" nation in the world. Yup. There's more broadband in Iceland (comparatively) than here in the u-SOFA.

There's also more puffins.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 8:00 PM on January 16, 2007


HOLY SHIT! CHECK OUT THIS NAVEL!

You see that? That was funny.
posted by loquacious at 8:03 PM on January 16, 2007


wow, I'm with languagehat about how fucking bullshit felix betachat's new obama post is. It just goes to show that mathowie's best policy is almost always not to give reasons for anything anymore. It would seem reasonable, wouldn't it, to say "that post would have been made much better if it had some substance to it, like with supplementary links and the like." But nope, someone will take that to mean "I can get away with reposting that deleted thread if I just add meaningless filler to the post!" And so we wind up with just another crap politicsfilter post for an empty press release padded by fluff and nonsense. Yes, we all so desperately needed to discuss Obama again because it's not like we've ever talked about him before. All this new and glorious information is surely going to inform and educate the mefi voter pool. Or it's just another crap post to let us know that a candidate is considering announcing that he might be thinking of running for president.

i swear to god, it's like DailyKOS mated with a dungeons & dragons rules lawyer around here.
posted by shmegegge at 8:05 PM on January 16, 2007 [2 favorites]


The most tiring thing about American politics is that it's all exclusively right-wing politics. There is no true "left" in the USA.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:07 PM on January 16, 2007


"It wasn't an objectively crap post, you fuckers."

You're right— the Platonic essence of the post may have been worthwhile, but we were all misled by our senses and opposed it. Too bad we post under positive law, huh?

"I wasn't upset, just standing my ground to the call out. No one forced you to respond to my comment either - that game can go on and on..."

That only works if you assume that he didn't enjoy pointing out how foolish your doctrine was. He chose what made him happy; you chose what made you unhappy.
posted by klangklangston at 8:09 PM on January 16, 2007


shmegegge, are you seriously that upset about it?

Somebody needs to go outside for a bit.
posted by empath at 8:18 PM on January 16, 2007


Boys, boys, please! It'll be a lot easier for everyone to laugh at your embarassing attempts to play the ref if you take turns!

I think it's pointless. People will be posting Obama and election stories constantly for the next two years, regardless.

And the shitty ones will get flagged and deleted.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 8:21 PM on January 16, 2007


Well, like I said, I'm not all that concerned about whether my post got deleted or not, but I'm terribly amused by the vitriol about it.
posted by empath at 8:22 PM on January 16, 2007


I mean, from the tone of you guys posts in the thread, you'd think I'd FPP tubgirl.

It was like 6 words, taking up 1 line on the screen, about the biggest news story of the day. It was hardly worth the amount of anger about it.

And I'll just note that both threads got 90+ replies so clearly people wanted to talk about it.
posted by empath at 8:28 PM on January 16, 2007


We gots our eyes on the pitcher, doncha know.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 8:30 PM on January 16, 2007


*Big pitcher. Damn my love of writing in patois!
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 8:32 PM on January 16, 2007


It was like 6 words, taking up 1 line on the screen, about the biggest news story of the day.

I think there's something you need to reanalyse there. Biggest news story of the day. So by your logic, it's just gotta gotta gotta be on Metafilter. Yep, that's why we're here.

Metafilter will turn to shit if it becomes dominated by another bloody US election. Especially this far ahead. If I was king, I'd delete anything related to elections that's posted earlier than 6 months before an election, and after the six month threshold I'd moderate the hell out of them.

The only positive is that the extra bullshit on the site might make for some interesting flameouts in Metatalk.
posted by Jimbob at 9:22 PM on January 16, 2007


empath, am I screaming and stamping my feet about it? no. am I annoyed by people, for the millionth time, twisting mathowie's reasonable criteria for a good post into a justification for filling the front page with crap? yeah, and I don't see a reason not to be. I wasn't that bothered by your post. I thought it was crappy and deserved deletion, but it didn't mean enough to me to get involved in another dios-fest. But felix's repost? that's actually more of that vitriol you don't like, cleverly disguised as a smug fluffed up crappy post. I mean, your policy of not caring about any given post enough to criticize it is cool and all. It's a fine personal policy, but I'm going to go ahead and call bullshit when I see it.
posted by shmegegge at 9:23 PM on January 16, 2007


If I was king, I'd make a PoliticsFilter and ALL US political news would be shifted to it.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:24 PM on January 16, 2007


... Please save us, mathowie. You are our only hope.

dios, with the same passion for the good of site with which you made your request, may I make one of you? ... Please have some faith that MetaFilter is capable of governing itself without constant input from you on what you deem postworthy? You do it a lot.

I personally consider all such remarks, no matter who posts them, to be noise when they occur in the blue. Others may set the bar for when such a comment is noise higher than I do, but I do think it's generally accepted that the bar exists. And such comments are particularly shouty coming from someone who has now started nine metatalk threads calling people out. You're sometimes right about these things, but throw in the fact that dios is not one of the things metafilter does well and I really think everyone who would be better off if you just stopped commenting on the quality of other people's contributions to MetaFilter, especially when it's about politics. It probably isn't exactly fair to you, but it may be the best thing for metafilter. Just think about it?

Or, maybe, have more patience for the system to work? Like, don't start complaining in thread just 20 minutes after something is posted to the front page, or waiting more than an hour for a callout in the gray?

And the shitty ones will get flagged and deleted.

So, what happened here? If the post was so bad (and it was) why did it take a callout to get it pulled after 95 comments? On the off chance dios considers my request, let's not let him down with the flagging of shit posts.
posted by If I Had An Anus at 9:26 PM on January 16, 2007 [3 favorites]


The gray weather combined will all the 6 story parking garages I see outside my office window make me feel like I'm in communist Russia circa 1985. The parking garages kind of resemble drab Soviet office/apartment buildings.
posted by Burhanistan at 6:15 AM ACST on January 17


Your communist 1985 Communist Russia looks like my not so Communist 2007 China.
posted by NewBornHippy at 9:40 PM on January 16, 2007


The presidential electoral cycle has become a sort of perpetual motion machine, an always-reliable fount of mainstream news fodder. Why must we perpetually gawk at the never-ending round of the two parties as they whirl about the dance floor, first one leading then the other?

Here's why: a certain Mr GWB and his one singular accomplishment of actually having a (negative) effect on the daily lives of people around the world. Normally, Dem or Republican in office, who cares - what difference. But this last time, what a debacle, what a difference. So now we sit entranced, hoping for any ray of light, any sign that maybe the 6 year nightmare may be coming to an end.

It's called unhealthy obsession. Understandable yes - but dios is right, it's time to change the channel, go outside and play, forget about it for at least a little while.
posted by scheptech at 9:55 PM on January 16, 2007


I personally consider all such remarks, no matter who posts them, to be noise when they occur in the blue.

No. We self-police around these parts. I like the favorites thing, but I hate the whole "flag it and move on" mentality that it has spawned. If you post something that is axe-grinding and sucks, you probably know it and you'd better be prepared to hear about it. In the lame post that you made. On the front page.

Metafilter can be rough. Wear a cup.

It probably isn't exactly fair to you, but it may be the best thing for metafilter. Just think about it?

If that same standard had been applied to the post we've been arguing about, well then we wouldn't have this MetaTalk thread, would we?

Apologies to lauguagehat for the paragraph breaks.
posted by Cyrano at 10:23 PM on January 16, 2007


And I'll just note that both threads got 90+ replies so clearly people wanted to talk about it.
posted by empath


And I'll just note that shows only how little you know and understand about metafilter. That 90 plus people want to talk about a crap post proves nothing except that 90 plus people wanted to talk about crap.
posted by justgary at 11:23 PM on January 16, 2007


Isn't it "minutiae", anyway?

*ducks*
posted by By The Grace of God at 12:20 AM on January 17, 2007


If you post something that is axe-grinding and sucks, you probably know it and you'd better be prepared to hear about it. In the lame post that you made. On the front page.

That's not the intent of self-policing. That's what the grey is for. If you have a problem with a post, keep it out of the blue or you're far more detrimental to the site than a bad FPP is. I'd rather see ten mediocre FPPs on the blue than one self-important blowhard dictating his own beliefs about metafilter under the guise of community policework; the rich and storied history of metatalk shows just how hard it is to pin down what people want and expect from this site--and, more importantly, how totally out to lunch some people are about what metafilter should be.

It's really not that hard to just flag it and shut the fuck up. Really. Or, if, for whatever reason, you think there's some pattern forming that needs to be addressed, to take it to the grey.
posted by The God Complex at 12:26 AM on January 17, 2007


I for one enjoy the insights I've gained in the new Obama thread. That being said, if it and every thread like it were to be killed for the, oh, say next year and a half, that would be just dandy.

I wish people would just have the balls to come out and make a I WANT TO TALK ABOUT X post without any goddamn link since the links are obviously so irrelevant anyway.
posted by dreamsign at 12:28 AM on January 17, 2007


If I was king, I'd make a PoliticsFilter and ALL US political news would be shifted to it.

Actually, it would be a great little experiment to run in the social microcosm mathowie's got here.

No election posts what-so-ever. Forget my 6-month limit. Just delete anything remotely related. We can be an enclave, an escape...the only place on the net where you're guaranteed not to see discussion of the election. It might be a thing of beauty.
posted by Jimbob at 1:58 AM on January 17, 2007


We can be an enclave, an escape...the only place on the net where you're guaranteed not to see discussion of the election. It might be a thing of beauty.

Naw, it'd be like the "Cosby and Hitler" episode of Whose Line, sublimating into all of the comedy and oozing through the pores of other posts.

Had enough of the bitter stuff? An AlObama Slammer is just the thing!
Thirsty for justice? Try a tasty imPeach Schnapps.
Want something hot on a cold day? How about a fuck-Dick-Cheney-in-the-ass-until-he-begs-for-Guantanamo?

Wait, that's not right.
posted by dreamsign at 2:47 AM on January 17, 2007


I want to see the minutiae ducks!
posted by flabdablet at 3:09 AM on January 17, 2007


five fresh fish : "The most tiring thing about American politics is that it's all exclusively right-wing politics. There is no true 'left' in the USA."

The most tiring thing about MetaFilter discussions of American politics are the leftists who pop in to say "there are no leftists in the US".

No, wait, that's not the most tiring thing. There are a multitude of tiring things, all finely balanced to be equally tiring.

empath : "biggest news story of the day."

MetaFilter Post Page : "Found something cool on the web and want to share it with everyone else? Great! Just fill the blanks and it'll go live. A sample link is shown below. If this is your first post, please read the guidelines."

MetaFilter Guidelines : "A good post to MetaFilter is something that meets the following criteria: most people haven't seen it before, there is something interesting about the content on the page, and it might warrant discussion from others."

(Emphasis mine)
posted by Bugbread at 3:55 AM on January 17, 2007


Want something hot on a cold day? How about a

How about a WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU, BOY?

I really don't want to be exposed to the mere idea of my naked junk being anywhere near Dick Cheney, much less his corpulent unwashed junktitude.

So, thanks for that, I guess. Thanks for just totally popping my cherry and stealing my mental virginity. Until now the merest glimmer of possibility of placing my naked junk inside Dick Cheney's rancid bepolyped pooper had never, ever even begun to cross my mind. You fucking fucker.

I'm going to have to spank it to lesbian porn for a month straight to scrub my mind clean from that one. You say that that sounds fun? Not so terrible? Yeah? It stars Margaret Thatcher and Madeline Albright!

*lies back and thinks of Antartica*
posted by loquacious at 3:58 AM on January 17, 2007


Ha ha ha, my comment in the double post got deleted. Hooray for inconsistent moderation!
posted by Eideteker at 4:49 AM on January 17, 2007


MetaFilter Guidelines : "A good post to MetaFilter is something that meets the following criteria: most people haven't seen it before, there is something interesting about the content on the page, and it might warrant discussion from others."

(Emphasis mine)
posted by bugbread at 6:55 AM EST on January 17


The most people haven't seen it before is broken constantly, as was clearly referenced multiple times by citing the Beckham and iPhone posts. That leaves the other criteria, which is often dismissed.

Interest. Very subjective, hence the different views.

Discussion. Summarily dismissed by many and repeatedly cited as not a valid reason for a post, even though it's in the guidelines.
posted by juiceCake at 5:17 AM on January 17, 2007


And the shitty ones will get flagged and deleted.

And reposted again by people determined to ignore the guidelines.

The most people haven't seen it before is broken constantly

Ah, so if Matt doesn't agree exactly with your determination of what people have seen before, or if he's occasionally inconsistent or misses a few posts, then he's obliged to just forget the rules and let the place turn into the hellhole you obviously long for. I think not.
posted by languagehat at 5:57 AM on January 17, 2007


juiceCake : "The most people haven't seen it before is broken constantly, as was clearly referenced multiple times by citing the Beckham and iPhone posts. That leaves the other criteria, which is often dismissed."

No, it "leaves" all three criteria. A criteria for deletion being constantly broken doesn't mean it no longer exists, but that there is a problem with its enforcement.

That is, when the iPhone and Beckham stay, but Obama gets deleted, the problem is not that Obama got deleted unfairly, but that the iPhone and Beckham stories remained unfairly.

In a similar vein, if my neighbor kills his wife, and gets thrown in jail for doing so, we don't say "It was so unjust to throw him in jail! After all, OJ Simpson didn't get thrown in jail!" Instead, we say "Good job on throwing him in jail. OJ should have been thrown in as well."
posted by Bugbread at 6:06 AM on January 17, 2007


Holy fuck, I leave Metafilter for an entire year and this place is stuck in reruns.

Here's what I think: Metafilter has never been a democracy or a community or whatever you want to call it to give it more importance. It's a very quirky coffeehouse in a popular neighborhood called the internet. It's filled with reasonable people having good conversation. Matt and Jessamyn keep the place clean and running with a lot of pride.

Then every once in awhile, the politcal football team hooligans, The Metafilter Outrage, burst in and start screaming about the latest events. The rest of the patrons don't hate on them, hey, they interested in politics too. But god damn, these guys are so loud. They say, "Well you don't have to join our conversation here at in the corner if you don't have to! But they're so brazen that eventually the entire place can't help but revolve around them, and soon every conversation in the quirky place is about the latest events. "This is important shit!" the Metafilter Outrageans say. Of course it is. But you're still just having a very loud conversation in a coffeehouse. And it's harshing the mellow, man.

Nobody hates the politics. It is important shit. But chill the fuck out.
posted by Stan Chin at 6:38 AM on January 17, 2007 [9 favorites]


A criterion.
posted by dame at 6:39 AM on January 17, 2007


not one, but two iphone posts stayed, I believe.

Point being, that if we're going to have a policy of deleting 'election 2008' posts, fine. But we should make that clear and not claim it's because the post is shit or because newsfilter isn't allowed.

The new post is going to have to stand because Matt wasn't really being honest about why he deleted my post. I don't think he REALLY thought that all it needed was some more extraneous links to make it good, and I don't personally think the current FPP is any better than mine.

Maybe it's time for another siren on the 'post' page saying something along the lines of:

"If this is an election 2008 story, please think twice about posting it to the blue unless conditions A), B) and C) are met"

and be pretty clear about what you think a good election 2008-related post would be.
posted by empath at 6:49 AM on January 17, 2007


bugbread : "A criteria for deletion"

dame : "A criterion."

Oops. Thanks.
posted by Bugbread at 7:00 AM on January 17, 2007


not one, but two iphone posts stayed, I believe.

Didn't you say you weren't going to argue about the deletion? Because MetaFilter was Matt's baby?

There's this thing about "not arguing" that you're not doing, which is not arguing.

When you say that, you should do it. Believe me, it feels delicious. There's this whole zen-like calm of being able to walk away from something that's unimportant because it is and actually not giving a fuck.

By all means, do argue. I like arguing. Do whatever you want. Do the moon. But if you're going to pointedly say "I'm not going to argue" and then continue to argue, well, that's annoying and it makes me point at you and laugh.
posted by loquacious at 7:01 AM on January 17, 2007


There's never been a policy or guidelines to what makes a good post. There's never been hard IF A AND B THEN C reasons about post deletions. Sometimes things just get out of hand and they get calmed down. Sometimes things get calmed down by themselves. That's pretty much it.
posted by Stan Chin at 7:01 AM on January 17, 2007


Stan Chin : "There's never been a policy or guidelines to what makes a good post."

This page doesn't exist?

A far more accurate phrasing would probably be "there are guidelines to what makes a good post, but there is no hard-fast rule that all bad or neutral posts will be deleted."
posted by Bugbread at 7:17 AM on January 17, 2007


Do the moon.

Let's just do it. The moon.
posted by cortex at 7:18 AM on January 17, 2007


That page is the big sign on the wall that says "No shirt no shoes no service" that we can point to when unreasonable people walk in.
posted by Stan Chin at 7:20 AM on January 17, 2007


Loquacious: I'm not arguing that my post should have stayed. I'm perfectly happy with the blue being entirely election 2008 free. I'm fairly sure the point of deleting my post wasn't to generate another, longer fpp about Obama, though.
posted by empath at 7:26 AM on January 17, 2007


Let's just do it. The moon.

The Moon, for chrissakes, the fucking moon. Holy fucking shit in a chicken basket. Are you fucking believing this? I'm walking on the fucking moon.
posted by loquacious at 7:29 AM on January 17, 2007


WE LIKE THE MOON
posted by cortex at 7:30 AM on January 17, 2007


"No shirt no shoes no service"

Wait - I have to wear shoes in MetaFilter now? is that because of all the broken glass, or what?
posted by Kirth Gerson at 7:31 AM on January 17, 2007


The Moon, for chrissakes, the fucking moon. Holy fucking shit in a chicken basket.

It's actually "Jesus H Christ in a chicken basket."

Roger that Tranquility. You are walking on the fucking moon.


Over.
posted by GuyZero at 7:41 AM on January 17, 2007


If anyone thought that this post was about the obama post specifically, you are completely missing the point.

That is a symptom of the problem that I was addressing. And it's obviously a problem because the same group of people couldn't tolerate that they didn't have their outlet and basically undercut mathowie's deletion.

In other words, deletion of that post does not resolve the issue, especially when someone just went and reposted it.

Why should we be discussing political campaigns two years before the election???? What happens in the day-to-day campaign right now is irrelevant a month from now. And a year from now, it is almost as relevant as someone posting about what Abe Vigoda ate for lunch.
posted by dios at 7:47 AM on January 17, 2007


Why should we be discussing anal fisting or Gary Gilmore or scanning cats? Because it's something interesting on the web and that's what this site is about.

You want a blanket ban on all posts about political campaigns?
posted by and hosted from Uranus at 8:09 AM on January 17, 2007


Why should we be discussing political campaigns two years before the election?

Why do you feel entitled to dictate what is appropriate for discussion among 47,586 individuals? Why should we be discussing anything?

Seriously. Pathetic.
posted by prostyle at 8:35 AM on January 17, 2007 [1 favorite]


Flag more and sooner, meta less? Let the moderators sort it out as it is their function (not that you have a lack of things to do, mathowie and jessamyn). It is funny to see all the high dudgeon, though.
posted by nj_subgenius at 8:37 AM on January 17, 2007


well, i think getting everybody's concerns and opinion about this out in the open this early is a good thing, though.

Cause the election season is just ramping up, and this time, both parties are having wide-open primaries, so there will be a lot to talk about.

(personally, i'm going to refrain from making any more politically related fpp's until some kind of consensus on this is reached)
posted by empath at 8:40 AM on January 17, 2007


can you guys please stop derailing our moon discussion?
posted by cortex at 8:43 AM on January 17, 2007


Little early in the day for moontalk, ain't it?
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 8:50 AM on January 17, 2007


i think the only thing i learned here is that dios has some sort of spell on mathowie and that all we have to do is make this place really bad and sweet members like Stan Chin will come back to us.

let's get alexreynolds back and we can sucker Cardoso back into the fold!
posted by dflemingdotorg at 8:52 AM on January 17, 2007


Why should we be discussing political campaigns two years before the election????

Wow, you're right! What complete idiots we've been! After shoving my head DEEP INTO MY OWN RECTUM, it all makes sense now! Campaign discussions are only worthwhile less than 423 days before the election! 658 days is definitely too far into the future for any discussion about the matter! It's all so clear to me now!

How about you fuck off and stop telling us what we can and can't talk about?
posted by StrasbourgSecaucus at 8:56 AM on January 17, 2007


Oh- that's why I need shoes.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 8:59 AM on January 17, 2007


It's always moontime somewhere.

WHICH WOULD EXPLAIN ALL THE ASSHOLES
posted by cortex at 9:04 AM on January 17, 2007


If anyone thought that this post was about the obama post specifically, you are completely missing the point.

if you thought anything but that post was going to be affected, you are completely overestimating your significance

That is a symptom of the problem that I was addressing. And it's obviously a problem

for you ... i hardly ever see you object to other questionable posts if politics isn't involved ... you have an agenda and you're quite obvious about following it ... find a way to shut the thread down if it's questionable and offends your political sensibilities ... if that can't be done, find a red herring/overly legalistic nit to pick that will derail the thread

if only you would actually state a political position and bother to discuss it once in awhile
posted by pyramid termite at 9:15 AM on January 17, 2007 [2 favorites]


Why should we be discussing political campaigns two years before the election????

You know, it's funny. It was clear that the prior Obama post failed because it was a single link that everybody had seen or would soon see. But it was obviously an important event that a lot of people here have an interest in. So I tried to improve on the original post by drawing out one of the more interesting and controversial elements in Sen. Obama's character and candidacy, digging a little deeper to put the importance of the event in a broader context. You know...crafting a good FPP.

Some people seem to have gotten it, which is really great. I've learned a lot from the comments that developed. But despite all that, the usual cadre of splenic etiquette trolls are getting their rocks off by characterizing the post as a cheap attempt to game the system.

This criticism has less to do with the quality of the links or the effort put into the post and more to do with pin-headed mindreading and disingenuous speculation about intent. A bit odd, since I've never seen a FPP judged on the merits of its motivation before. It's always the links that make the post, and I tried hard to scare up some interesting and thought-provoking ones.

So, dios: my post isn't "about the election". Taken as a whole, it's about Obama's alliance with the emerging religious left. Even more broadly, it's about democrats trying to learn how to take religious belief seriously. If you'd tone down the outrage a bit, maybe you could see that. Hell, maybe you'd even want to join the discussion rather than trying preemptively to shut it down.

The post as it stands is not newsfilter. It's not even politicsfilter, strictly speaking.
posted by felix betachat at 9:19 AM on January 17, 2007 [2 favorites]


How about a gold star for Stan Chin's insightful comment?
posted by timeistight at 9:38 AM on January 17, 2007


"I personally think we developed language because of our deep inner need to complain." --Jane Wagner
posted by fandango_matt at 9:44 AM on January 17, 2007


How about a gold star for Stan Chin's insightful comment?

I don't get the insight. Nobody, except dios and koeselitz, was really showing outrage about anything. People were just discussing Obama. Somehow I don't think he was referring to actually outraged people though, so the whole thing kinda fell apart for me.
posted by and hosted from Uranus at 9:53 AM on January 17, 2007


"I personally think we developed language because of our deep inner need to complain." --Jane Wagner

Well, we already had the ability to pee on stuff. Speech was just redundant.
posted by jonmc at 10:00 AM on January 17, 2007


Hrm. I have some responding to do:

Big_B: "Bugbread: I wasn't upset, just standing my ground to the call out. No one forced you to respond to my comment either - that game can go on and on..."

Precisely my original point. Not that it matters; the great think about the internet is that it always leads to something bigger and more beautiful than what you started out looking for. And that bigger and more beautiful is this very conversation, Big_B.

"I just thought it was either a)sarcasm or b) a ridiculous flame. I went with the latter, cuase it was more fun!"

You could very well have gone with (c) abject silliness with a hint of the sardonic intended both to provoke a rational response to the discussion and to amuse.

econous: "You see it's simple, when someone calls me 'flesh brained' and/or 'nose breathing' I find no insult. Even the 'filth-encrusted' is undeniably ambiguous. The 'moron' is the confusing thing. So I ask, koeselitz what are you trying to say? You eyeball owning, opposable thumbed ape?"

A brief explication:

"flesh-brained":

This is a subtle dig referring to the 'mind-body problem,' as it is know to today's pseudo-philosophers; this difficulty, which wonders whether mind is prior to matter, seems to have its source in the Meditations and Discourses of Descartes. In his text On The Soul, Aristotle, while being even harsher than Descartes in trimming back the extents of the mind-- he espouses the notion, for example, that the soul only exists so long as it is completely continuous, which would indicate that certain senile older people no longer have the benefit of a soul-- finally, in a climactic chapter, declares that 'mind is the source of all things.' While my intellect is not deep enough to claim to have comprehended Aristotle's, my sense of the meaning here is thus: the priority of the mind to the physical body is a necessity for the obtaining of knowledge. Thus my insult can be seen as a denial of herr Big_B's ability to intellect any kind of truth; that is, an assertion that he does not even attain to the level of stupidity. Quite cruel, that, and perhaps excessive, but it's useful to start off a jab like that comment with a real bang.

"nose-breathing":

At first glance, this one appears pretty simple. Indeed, it's pretty obvious that it's inspired by the common derisive phrase "mouth-breather." But pay attention, please, to the tenor of this one: in attacking his method of breathing, I'm moving on from laying siege to Big_B's intellectual capacities to assaulting his subconscious faculties. The mouth is the proper channel for breath ("mouth-breather" has always struck me as a rather limp jibe) and also for words; bypassing it seems unnatural, and there is no crueler thing than asserting that someone is unaware of something which is natural to them. I'll also mention that the breath has been a common image for the spirit at least since the early Christians and neoplatonists; in tearing down Big_B's breathing, and thus attacking his spirit, I provide a fine segue from my attack of his mind to my next attack, which is of his physical being.

"filth-encrusted":

The next bit was a tough one. My mode had been to insult Big_B's higher faculties (his mind and his spirit) by likening them to lower ones; but how does one insult the lowest order of his being? Fortunately, mankind has provided a fine solution to this problem, and has availed itself of this solution often. You see, certain kinds of physical existence are in fact lower than others; and the lowest kinds have had their place in the pantheon of insults for centuries. The absolute lowest of these, of course, is excrement, the many and various words for which are celebrated in story and song as the finest ways to drag down another human being: shit, poop, poo, piss, pee, crap, et cetera ad hilarium. I chose a more generic term-- filth-- in order to link Big_B's corporeal manifestation as generally as possible with all that is vile.

"moron":

Here's where the real subtlety come in. You see, 'moron' seems at first glance an extremely common and boring epithet. However, if you view it in context, you'll see that the adjectival put-downs were so well-worked as to give the illusion that the one being insulted was worthy of some grand, soaring derision, and therefore, through a kind of inversion, excellent in a certain backwards fashion. The "moron" bit drags it all back down again, and reminds us that Big_B, far from excelling, is even mediocre at being awful.

"...and I hope that your genetic code is sufficiently simple so as to prevent its combination with sequences from my species and thereby inhibit whatever desire that you might harbor for procreation."

After laying waste to Big_B's person in my three-tiered assault of his mind, spirit, and body, I moved on to this much wordier and more complex bit. It's common, when insulting someone, to extend the present insult into the future by wishing certain ills upon the insulted, par ejemple, "I hope you fall in a hole and die," or "I hope your mother finds your awful stash of bestiality porn," or "I wish you'd get hit by a train full of monkeys." The length and density of this one adds to the comic effect; and the point is to curse the insulted's descendants, even to the point of hoping they'll never be born. Now, the bile here uses the terminology of genetics, whereas thus far it has alluded to the metaphysics of the soul. I should say that I don't quite know enough about genetics to sufficiently explicate the deeper significances of this insult, but it is enough to say that my assertion by implication that Big_B is of a different species than human with a simpler genetic sequence is a claim that he and his entire family, even to its evolutionary source, is low. (I probably don't need to explain the fact that the attacking of a person's family is traditionally as revered a mode of insult as the likening of a person to some form of excrement.) The broadening of scope in the insult is, finally, a good conclusion to it, as it shows the sheer force of the audacity which I am willing to put on in insulting Big_B.

I'm rather proud of that one, in fact. I fairly demolished him.
posted by koeselitz at 10:13 AM on January 17, 2007


How will we ever know who is wearing shoes without the img tag? OH NOES.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 10:28 AM on January 17, 2007


I fairly demolished him.

if you have to explain your insults at such length, they're not worth a damn ... i should probably teach you a lesson by insulting you properly, but it would be too much like tearing the wings off of a fly ... everyone would think i was being unnecessarily cruel and the fly wouldn't be smart enough to understand what was happening to it, anyway
posted by pyramid termite at 10:31 AM on January 17, 2007


That is undoubtedly what everyone would think.
posted by cortex at 10:41 AM on January 17, 2007


I'd be thinking of the fly's children. I'm noble like that.
posted by and hosted from Uranus at 10:56 AM on January 17, 2007


Oh, great. Now I've got maggots on my shoes.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 11:01 AM on January 17, 2007


But it was obviously an important event that a lot of people here have an interest in.

No, it's not. It's not obviously anything but a non-event that a handful of obsessives like to talk about constantly.

So I tried to improve on the original post by drawing out one of the more interesting and controversial elements in Sen. Obama's character and candidacy, digging a little deeper to put the importance of the event in a broader context.

No shit? What a surprise then that your context happened to fit precisely the criteria that mathowie gave as an example of a better obama post. Here's an idea: why not create an obama post that didn't even link to his candidacy non-announcement? Oh right, because that wasn't the stuff you wanted to discuss. You wanted to talk about his new committee to discover if there's a reason to consider maybe anouncing a possible intention to run for president. the rest of it? just there to pad out the crap fpp.

I've never seen a FPP judged on the merits of its motivation before.

Yes you have. Don't act like you're new, here. Your post is crap, and the only reason it's not gone is because you specially engineered it to be a fountain of outrage as soon as anyone tried to delete it. "But you said it would have been fine if it had the supplemental links!" You're petty and your post sucks.
posted by shmegegge at 12:03 PM on January 17, 2007


No shit? What a surprise then that your context happened to fit precisely the criteria that mathowie gave as an example of a better obama post.

What is the problem with that again?

People were complaining about the first post breaking the guidelines.

The second one was made, essentially with prior approval from the site owner and all round big boss man, and still the moaning persists.



and the only reason it's not gone is because....

it is pretty much exactly what #1 said would be ok.
posted by Reggie Knoble at 12:31 PM on January 17, 2007


No, it "leaves" all three criteria. A criteria for deletion being constantly broken doesn't mean it no longer exists, but that there is a problem with its enforcement.

That is, when the iPhone and Beckham stay, but Obama gets deleted, the problem is not that Obama got deleted unfairly, but that the iPhone and Beckham stories remained unfairly.


Agreed. Which is why I pointed to them. However, since they weren't deleted I'd have to say that they stood because of the other reasons for a post. 1. Interest. 2. Discussion.

In a similar vein, if my neighbor kills his wife, and gets thrown in jail for doing so, we don't say "It was so unjust to throw him in jail! After all, OJ Simpson didn't get thrown in jail!" Instead, we say "Good job on throwing him in jail. OJ should have been thrown in as well."

Of course. And this is why we're having this debate. It seems that this post failed all three criteria, though the second, interest, is extremely relative, and even the third, discussion, or rather, good discussion, is a judgment call.

Since the others did stand, I can understand the confusion over not why this one didn't, because it is clear, but rather, why we didn't see dios or others shit all over those threads, take them to meta, and have them removed, and indeed, if this one failed, and people like yourselves judge that the others failed the criteria, then why do we have this inconsistency?

We're both pointing out the inconsistency from a different angle. I admit I too was a little confused by Beckham and iPhone stood, but I suppose it's because they could be seen to pass 2 of the 3 criteria. No doubt, others do not.

At least we got to see the dios show again. Why we don't see it consistently is, no doubt, a brilliant commentary on the inconsistency of policing FPPs.
posted by juiceCake at 12:36 PM on January 17, 2007


You can't get a suntan on the moon.
posted by malocchio at 12:39 PM on January 17, 2007


juiceCake : "rather, why we didn't see dios or others shit all over those threads, take them to meta, and have them removed, and indeed, if this one failed, and people like yourselves judge that the others failed the criteria, then why do we have this inconsistency?"

The reason dios didn't do this to the others is that he doesn't have particularly strong feelings / an agenda / an axe (choose as you feel appropriate) about them. I think his motivation in this callout is way beyond suspect. But that doesn't really matter, because, whether it be blind luck or calculation, in regards to this particular post, I think he was probably right.

Now, why do we have the inconsistency?

Well, for one, I suspect a lot of us think a bit of stuff should be culled from the front page, but we don't feel strongly enough about it to start a callout. However, we do feel strongly enough to comment in a callout if someone else makes it. Witness the fact that there are a few people here saying Beckham should go, iPhone should go, yet nobody started a MetaTalk thread about them (as far as I know).

The other reason we have the inconsistency is that MetaFilter is subject to the whims (and I don't say that in necessarily a bad way) of mathowie, and he's more likely to axe some posts that don't meet criteria than others.

When it comes to politics, if memory serves me, he has had a negative view towards political discussions on MeFi starting somewhere around the year or two before the 2004 elections (my memory may be off, though; it feels like longer than that) because of the sheer volume of them. Apple product announcements get FPPed as well, but far, far less often (maybe once a month, or once a week at most, whereas it's not uncommon to get multiple political posts daily).

So he exercises his Delete Hammer more often on topics/posts that annoy him and break the guidelines (political newsfilter) than ones that don't annoy him and break the guidelines (tech product release announcements).
posted by Bugbread at 1:19 PM on January 17, 2007


MetaFilter: You're petty and your post sucks.
posted by StrasbourgSecaucus at 1:29 PM on January 17, 2007


I think his motivation in this callout is way beyond suspect.

Eh?

My motivation is pretty transparent. I think politics threads devour the site with their frequency if left unchecked, inflame too much passion, create conflict unnecessarily that spills into other threads, divide the site and appear unwelcoming to people of different persuasions or nationalities, cause the site to appear to be a political site which in turns give the impression to new readers and the general public that this is an ideologically/politically slanted site, and generally encourage a lot of subpar posts for the sake of discussions for those who obsess over it.

You find that motivation suspect? Because I'm certain that you, bugbread, wouldn't fall for the facile viewpoint constantly presented by amberglow that I disliked it because it was about Obama and that doesn't--in amberglow's estimation--fit with my political worldview. I know from experience that you don't fall victim to such lazy (and wrong) assumptions. Because I can tell you this: on the heels of the 2006 elections and 2 years from the 2008, I would equally feel the urge to start stabbing my eyes with scissors if people wanted to start talking about who was running for the GOP or Libertarian or Green party nominations (and arguing every issue over again through that prism) two years before the fricking election. Because it doesn't have to do with the substance of the political discussion; it is a disgust that the discussion is already occurring with the attendant side effects on the way.

_____

You want to know know why I didn't call out the Beckham post? Because I thought it was junk, but an isolated post of junk. That is, I don't have any past experience that there will likely be a lot of posts about soccer players now. Conversely, I have 6 years of evidence as to what happens around elections here, so this post is not an isolated event.
posted by dios at 1:37 PM on January 17, 2007


Hi Dios!
posted by Balisong at 1:44 PM on January 17, 2007


Please delete Metafilter. It breaks the guidelines.
posted by koeselitz at 1:50 PM on January 17, 2007


You can't get a suntan on the moon.
Why do say that? It would be prohibitively expensive true, and you'd need to some where safe to put the lounger. The sun does shine in space you know.
koeselitz thank you for taking the time to explain your insult, it has a little to much depth for me which explains my confusion.
posted by econous at 1:51 PM on January 17, 2007


"I think politics threads devour the site with their frequency if left unchecked, inflame too much passion,"

This is why Plato won't allow musicians in his City in Speech.
posted by klangklangston at 2:28 PM on January 17, 2007


econous - it's from an old Love and Rockets song. But I'm guessing that without a protective atmosphere, one would just burn to a crisp. It must be nearly impossible to lay down a good base tan in such conditions.
posted by malocchio at 2:33 PM on January 17, 2007


dios : "My motivation is pretty transparent....I think politics threads devour the site with their frequency if left unchecked, inflame too much passion, create conflict unnecessarily that spills into other threads, divide the site and appear unwelcoming to people of different persuasions or nationalities...You find that motivation suspect?"

I agree about the effects of political discussion here (with religion being a similar case). However, you know by now that your activity in political threads, be it participation, or calling them out on the grey, have historically inflamed too much passion, created conflict unnecessarily that spills into other threads, divides the site and appears unwelcoming to people of different persuasions or nationalities. I'm not saying that your participation or commentary should do those, but the fact is that they do (in the same way that political posts shouldn't cause the litany of sins above, but they do).

So, you say that you want to avoid A, B, and C, but then to go about those goals, you do something which causes A, B, and C.

And you're not new. And this pattern isn't new. The fact that A, B, and C occur when you involve yourself in political discussion, or discussion (as here) about political discussion, is not an effect that you're unfamiliar with.

So, yes, I find it suspect that you give the prevention of A, B, and C as the rationale for knowingly doing something that causes A, B, and C.

Now, to be honest, I really don't know why you do what you do. I don't get the troll vibe off you. I don't get the hard-core rightie vibe off you. But since the motivation you profess is one that you know your actions will actually counter, yeah, I suspect your motives.

dios : "You want to know know why I didn't call out the Beckham post? Because I thought it was junk, but an isolated post of junk."

That makes sense. We have a pattern of getting really political here, but not really a pattern of getting really footbally, so I can see why an Obama post would be more worthy of callout than a Beckham post. I just don't think you were a good candidate to make that callout.
posted by Bugbread at 2:35 PM on January 17, 2007


Um, yeah. What pyramid termite said.
posted by Big_B at 2:36 PM on January 17, 2007


"I think politics threads devour the site with their frequency if left unchecked, inflame too much passion..."

Well you get rather passionate and over the top. Venomous words, vomit, shit, and end of the world dramatics. Man overboard, help, help, help. My god, we need to be saved, etc. It was a good show and you're a master at it. How a message and point-of-view is delivered matters, by the way. Fecal presentation doesn't go over to well.

However, keep in mind, that others, as proven by the subsequent improved version of the thread, apparently approved (though not by everyone) may not get so passionate. If they do, what's the issue with them if you can be so over the top?

Posters provide you with a virtual toilet and I suppose they shouldn't be surprised that you shit in it. MetaFilter is your laxative, thanks for trying to make it less so.

and appear unwelcoming to people of different persuasions or nationalities, cause the site to appear to be a political site which in turns give the impression to new readers and the general public that this is an ideologically/politically slanted site, and generally encourage a lot of subpar posts for the sake of discussions for those who obsess over it.

I disagree. Different opinions and all that I suppose. The site has never appeared anything like that whatsoever to me, however, I think it's wonderful that you have a different point of view and express it with so much grace. Your concern for MetaFilter is touching.

Don't see a pattern in posts about soccer players. Nor I. I have seen a pattern in posts about products from Apple and other technology companies. You probably haven't, or have judged them ok because they are below the jeopardy to MeFi threshold.
posted by juiceCake at 2:50 PM on January 17, 2007


You find that motivation suspect? Because I'm certain that you, bugbread, wouldn't fall for the facile viewpoint constantly presented by amberglow that I disliked it because it was about Obama and that doesn't--in amberglow's estimation--fit with my political worldview. I know from experience that you don't fall victim to such lazy (and wrong) assumptions.

Your history here shows what motivates you, darling. I'm certainly not making lazy or wrong assumptions. Please save us??? Grow some perspective. I think you're the only one making assumptions about what the next year and a half will be like here.
posted by amberglow at 3:05 PM on January 17, 2007


So, you say that you want to avoid A, B, and C, but then to go about those goals, you do something which causes A, B, and C.

I see where you are coming from, and believe me, I appreciate your point...

Now, to be honest, I really don't know why you do what you do.

I'll give you an honest answer to this: I post for the same reason anyone else does. That is, I feel like participating with my views. That's why anyone posts here.

But in light of the point you made about the effect of that participation is a valid one to ask when inquiring about why I still post. I'll tell you something that occurred, and the people who participated can own up if they choose. There was a time a couple years ago I wrote an email to dozen or so people associated with the site with whom I had corresponded in the past and respected, and I made the point you just did. I mentioned to them that I was considering abandoning participation here because the absurd reaction that anything I post causes was negatively effecting the site and my enjoyment of it. I received responses back from these people encouraging me to continue to participate. They made the persuasive argument that the fault lies with the predictable assholes who troll me around the site, not with me, and if I keep on, eventually that will become increasingly obvious and it might stop. I don't know how true that has been proven to be, but I suspect its pretty obvious to a lot of people when the same people follow me around to insult me and chide me in a manner my behavior does not warrant. Once that reflexive view is marginalized through exposure, it ought to die down.

So I continue to participate and put all the same jerks on ignore and hope that they tire of their crusade against me when my behavior does not warrant the responses they reflexively give.
posted by dios at 3:13 PM on January 17, 2007


My cat's breath smells like cat food.

It's mouth tastes like cat food too.
posted by weretable and the undead chairs at 3:25 PM on January 17, 2007


Well, whatever the motivation for Dios's actions, by making that one-link newsfilter thread go away by whining about it, it has no effect on reality. Obama is still running for president, and there's another thread to discuss whatever minutia you might need to discuss.

The only downside is that by Matt agreeing with him and deleting the thread, Dios is empowered to whine again another day, while the rest of us mere mortals must satisfy ourselves to merely flag it and move on. Oh, the humanities.
posted by Dave Faris at 3:30 PM on January 17, 2007 [1 favorite]


I'm certainly not making lazy or wrong assumptions.

Nor hubristic.
posted by cortex at 3:30 PM on January 17, 2007


amberglow : "I think you're the only one making assumptions about what the next year and a half will be like here."

No, I'm making assumptions too, kinda in-line with dios' assumptions. Scanning through the thread, it looks like there are a few more of us making those assumptions as well.

dios : "mentioned to them that I was considering abandoning participation here because the absurd reaction that anything I post causes was negatively effecting the site and my enjoyment of it."

Well, keep in mind that that isn't necessarily true if you're talking about general interest (i.e. non-political, non-sexuality, and non-religious) topics. I can't really see everybody blowing up at you for anything you'd post in a thread about drinking straws made of celery, a German woman raised by a New Guinean tribe, pillow fights, diaper changing by paraplegics, or the like. MetaFilter is a big place, and just because there are some topics that your participation in can cause a ruckus, there's a hell of a lot more where it doesn't.
posted by Bugbread at 3:33 PM on January 17, 2007


They made the persuasive argument that the fault lies with the predictable assholes who troll me around the site, not with me, and if I keep on, eventually that will become increasingly obvious and it might stop.

In our own occasionaly correspondence on the subject, I've generally claimed the fault lies with both others and yourself. You do stir things up, both because (a) you sometimes come on too antagonistically, and (b) some folks overreact consistently to your presence.

(a) is something only you can do something about, and I've seen you make good faith efforts there. You're still antagonistic, but generally no more so than a number of argumentative and passionate posters.

(b) is something that you can't control, and, the above quote attests reasonably to that. On the other hand, the "A, B and C" point is valid, as you acknowledge—that 'dios' is a clarion call remains fact so long as the reaction continues, and you can't reasonably pretend surprise that people continue to react to your username. It's kind of tough tits, but you're going to have to take those lumps when you show up. A new username is probably the only way to test this out.
posted by cortex at 3:35 PM on January 17, 2007


(Specifically regarding political threads, that is, as bugbread suggests.)
posted by cortex at 3:38 PM on January 17, 2007


bug, you and the others didn't shit in the thread itself and then come here to post about it tho--nor are you calling for Matt to "save us" from political posts.
posted by amberglow at 3:42 PM on January 17, 2007


There are no ducks here at all.
posted by flabdablet at 3:54 PM on January 17, 2007


I was just noticing that the whole dios reaction seems to have come full circle:

In the old days, dios would post a callout.
People would disagree with dios.
Dios would change the subject so that, instead of talking about the topic of the callout, we were now talking about him.

This time, dios posted a callout.
People disagreed with dios.
Other people then changed the subject so that, instead of talking about the topic of the callout, we are now talking about him.
posted by Bugbread at 4:08 PM on January 17, 2007


has dios buggered off for the next 657.3 days?
posted by nj_subgenius at 4:17 PM on January 17, 2007


dios sounds like a drunk, who, having sobered up, now goes on ad nauseum about how evil alcohol is and how it should be banned.

He can't resist shitting in politics threads, so he thinks that there shouldn't be any politics threads to shit in.
posted by empath at 4:18 PM on January 17, 2007 [3 favorites]


It's an old message, nj_subgenius. Though under the circumstances he should probably update it.

dios or otherwise, it'd be plain nice if there wasn't an unending stream of political threads and attendant shitting, period.
posted by cortex at 4:21 PM on January 17, 2007


indeed, especially one-linky ones that were rightly deleted.
posted by nj_subgenius at 4:22 PM on January 17, 2007


I like tuna sandwiches.

And ice cream. Mmmmmm... ice cream.

Also kittens. We should have more kittens here.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 4:38 PM on January 17, 2007


I believe this calls for a kitten drive. Quick everybody, stop masturbating!

loquacious, that includes you!
posted by cortex at 4:47 PM on January 17, 2007


I think what everyone is missing here is that dios' middle name is Hussein.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 4:47 PM on January 17, 2007 [1 favorite]


Hey how come my first comment got deleted along with Bardic's simultaneous response? Neither post was particularly snarky. WTF?
posted by LarryC at 4:51 PM on January 17, 2007


dios links to 1 MetaFilter user(s):
Eat shit and die, you lib'rul fucks (crush)

posted by loquacious at 5:02 PM on January 17, 2007


dios links to 1 MetaFilter user(s):
Eat shit and die, you lib'rul fucks (crush)


Heh. Whose sock puppet was that? I thought it was funny at the time, but I think that account only made that one comment. Was it banned?
posted by dios at 5:08 PM on January 17, 2007


He-larry-us.
posted by Balisong at 5:12 PM on January 17, 2007


Who is this Larry person? Is he cute? Will he go on a date with me? Will ge give dios a good hard shag?

INQUIRING MINDS WANT TO KNOW
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 6:04 PM on January 17, 2007


I think you mean 'a brisk rogering,' dnab.
posted by phearlez at 6:36 PM on January 17, 2007


Larry is the brother of Darryl and Darryl.
posted by weretable and the undead chairs at 6:37 PM on January 17, 2007


No, he's the brother of Harry, Barry, Gary and Nathan Jr.
posted by nj_subgenius at 6:42 PM on January 17, 2007


No, he's the brother of my best friend Harry. In five days from now, he's gonna marry.
posted by jonmc at 8:26 PM on January 17, 2007


Can we please not start the daily posting of unpostworthy campaign minutia 658 days out? Can we at least hold off until, say, 3 months prior to the election?

Can we please knock off the Church Lady first person plural shit?
posted by George_Spiggott at 8:36 PM on January 17, 2007


Can we please knock off the Church Lady first person plural shit?

What a bizarre complaint. I read it as him saying "can we, as a community..." Am I just way off on that?
posted by shmegegge at 10:30 PM on January 17, 2007


maybe he has multiple personality disorder and has to do everything as a community
posted by pyramid termite at 10:43 PM on January 17, 2007


George_Spiggott's family was killed by the Borg.
posted by weretable and the undead chairs at 10:57 PM on January 17, 2007


Hey how come my first comment got deleted along with Bardic's simultaneous response? Neither post was particularly snarky. WTF?

In Jack Vance's Emphyrio, the Welfare Agency kept track of the criminal history of the noncupatory by recording each infraction a citizen committed as a magnetic charge applied to a steel rod with the citizen's name and number upon it. With a sufficent charge, the rod would fly up and stick to a large magnet suspended above, signifying the need for rehabilitation, a form of punishment apparently something akin to a lobotomy. Something similar apparently operates here.The sin of the present, real or imaginary is viewed in light of the sins of the past, real or imaginary. A charge is built up and the next event, while trivial in itself, crosses the threshold in light of earlier transgressions, which is interpeted according to the toss of three coins to build the moving and unmoving, broken and unbroken lines of the sixty four hexagrams of the Arbi Tra Ching.

The wild goose gradually draws near the shore,
The young son is in danger,
Hurf and durf,
The mob marches upon the castle,
All fall down


Or one can read the entrails of the sacrificed victims.
posted by y2karl at 12:56 AM on January 18, 2007 [4 favorites]


The reason dios didn't do this to the others is that he doesn't have particularly strong feelings / an agenda / an axe (choose as you feel appropriate) about them.

Oh bullshit.

It sucks to hear Christmas music in October because you know you'll be hearing two months of it everywhere you go, shortly, so you have to ask yourself if it was really necessary to break it out so soon.

This was like breaking out Bing Crosby in February. (and you gotta love Crosby)
posted by dreamsign at 1:25 AM on January 18, 2007


Hmph. Looks like I need to bring my own minutiae ducks.

(sings - to the tune of "Stars and Stripes forever")

O, be kind to your web-footed friends,
For a duck may be somebody's mother.
She goes every day to the swamp,
Where the weather is cold and domp (to rhyme with "swamp").
Now, you may think that this is the end,
Well it is
posted by flabdablet at 2:53 AM on January 18, 2007


dios

I wish I had the serenity to ignore him more often than I do (although I'm getting better at it), but it still pole-axes me that some fairly intelligent mefites would defend his presence as a net-gain for the site. Just read over some of his comments and his now disappeared profile (what was it? all of mefi "so layered in feces" or something?) -- he doesn't like this place, and he doesn't like you. Seriously. He's not joking. And yet, people are quick to defend their "god" in the name of this place being fair and balanced. It certainly has problems, but please learn to pick your fights.

Beyond that, wow, a Jack Vance reference. Interesting guy and ideas, but utterly painful prose. Responsible for DnD as well.
posted by bardic at 5:29 AM on January 18, 2007 [1 favorite]


You're convinced that he doesn't like the place and that you know his mind, when from what I know of his feelings from casual conversation that's a clear contradiction. You're deadset against dios and yet you constantly send up anything other than likeminded impaling.

I don't trust the objectivity of your position, bardic.

Now make the cape joke. The cape joke kills.
posted by cortex at 6:20 AM on January 18, 2007


Who woulda thunk dios and I joined on the exact same day?
posted by Balisong at 6:37 AM on January 18, 2007


he doesn't like you. Seriously.

True. He loves me.

Well, if he got to know me a bit better, I know that he would.

*Kisses dios poster that came with my copy of MetaBeat*

posted by Alvy Ampersand at 6:39 AM on January 18, 2007


people are quick to defend their "god" in the name of this place being fair and balanced.

Jesus. This is like Obamanation all over again. Does it occur to you that you can agree with someone about something despite the fact that they personally rub you the wrong way? Try it some time. It won't hurt that much, I promise.

Why don't we all just pick out our favourite posters, and political candidates while we're at it, and despite what they say and do we can just hit some batchfile that inputs "That's brilliant" or "That's total rubbish" based on who it is.

Seriously. The ridiculousness of the anti-Dios crowd is almost that of the pro-Obama crowd, and it's too bad, because there are probably some things I'd dislike about Dios, and like about Obama, if you zealots would just SHUT THE FUCK UP.
posted by dreamsign at 6:53 AM on January 18, 2007


(new Obama thread possibly excepted -- it's the fanboy commenters I have a problem with)
posted by dreamsign at 6:56 AM on January 18, 2007


That's total rubbish.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 7:14 AM on January 18, 2007


Brilliant, Alvy!
posted by cortex at 7:36 AM on January 18, 2007


. . . wow, a Jack Vance reference. Interesting guy and ideas, but utterly painful prose. Responsible for DnD as well.
posted by bardic

Now you've done it. "Utterly painful prose"?
I, uh, read some of your blog - and well, that was painful.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 8:44 AM on January 18, 2007


cortex writes You're convinced that he doesn't like the place and that you know his mind

FFS, what part of "this place is covered in shit" or whatever it was don't you understand? Or every time he starts his thread-crap machine by saying "Yet again, the mefi echo-chamber. . . ." Of the fact that he came here with personal vendettas against certain users? Oh, but I guess you're one of the three or four people he doesn't consider to be a part of it. Bully for you!

But please, now it's time for you to cajole others into making their "Zings!" and "Burns!"

Llike I said, we've picked our fights. I'm a irrational cock-gobbler for thinking he sucks. You're something else for thinking he doesn't.

Kirth Gerson writes I, uh, read some of your blog - and well, that was painful.

And yet, you clicked through and read it. Gotta love the attempts at personal attacks through "objective comment on quality of blog."
posted by bardic at 1:30 PM on January 18, 2007


btw, how come I got no plaudits for calling out this callout before it happened? Tears in my keyboard over here.
posted by bardic at 1:33 PM on January 18, 2007


FFS, what part of "this place is covered in shit" or whatever it was don't you understand?

What part of "people around here often make hyperbolic claims that aren't considered damning, irrefutable evidence of their seething hatred for the site" is giving you so much trouble? The dude is antagonistic in a way that annoys both of us, man. I just haven't made a religion out of overreacting to it.

Oh, but I guess you're one of the three or four people he doesn't consider to be a part of it. Bully for you!

As far as I can tell, the number of people he considers to be "part of it" is a hell of a lot smaller number that he doesn't. And insofar as he reacts characteristically to a set group of people, I think he's behaving foolishly. The same way I think your reactions to him, and my reactions to your reactions to him, are less than stellar. But I don't imagine it as some great conflict with hard lines drawn, and when he's not piqued I'd bet he doesn't really either. You'd probably have to half some frank one-on-one conversation with him some time if you wanted to find out for sure. Horrors, I know.

how come I got no plaudits for calling out this callout

Why would you get plaudits? You frame that whole prediction on the premise of "bardic haters", which I guess includes me even though I don't hate you the least bit. Your complaints about dios' "vendetta" is wrapped in the fabric of your own vendetta. You two are perfect complements, when you're acting like this.
posted by cortex at 1:45 PM on January 18, 2007


Oh c'mon. LarryC coming in right around the time I thought he would? I was pretty proud of that. Total shot in the dark.

What were we talking about? Oh yeah, long-winded defenses of someone who came here with a hate-list or whatever. And who constantly berates every single member of this site. Not through innuendo, mind you, but in his actual words and actions. So fine. I'm an asshole (I've admitted as much on occasion, but it would probably be fair for me to do it more often) who totally harshes your mellow. But please, do something about your drunk uncle who keeps flopping onto the living room table and screaming "Feces covered echo-chamber!" every freakin' time he enters the room for "conversation." IMO, it's inconsistent. (Honestly, I think it's fucking insane but hey, agree to disagree and all.)

But ya know, little known fact about Hitler -- he was an animal lover. Not so sure about that Obama fellow.
posted by bardic at 1:59 PM on January 18, 2007


And who constantly berates every single member of this site.

Do you really mean that?

do something about your drunk uncle

Like what? Obsessively prosecute a war against him?
posted by cortex at 2:04 PM on January 18, 2007


Obsessively prosecute a war against him?

More like an insurgency, actually. You know as well as I do that there's bad-dios and good-dios. Good-dios has, thankfully, been more prevalent as of late, and yet, due to the fact that he was such a serial jerk beforehand, he's insulated against criticism, and any critique of anything he does is "blind irrational hate." It's not. A tad obssesive? I'll cop to that. And I'll try to stop it. It's not like I spend more time in the gray than I do in the blue or anything wierd like that.

So, to re-cap -- shit call-out, stop being a whiny bitch dios let people talk about what they want.

That's the gist of the 15-comment thread that should have happened.
posted by bardic at 2:12 PM on January 18, 2007


Or, conversly, bad post (according to mathowie), and "let[ting] people talk about what they want," is not what the Blue is for.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 2:16 PM on January 18, 2007


any critique of anything he does is "blind irrational hate."

If it's any comfort, I don't see it as such. I see the particularly compulsory objections to whatever the worst visible aspect of whatever he's done lately, the willing continuation of the spiral of antagonism for which he is neither inculpable nor solely responsible, to be annoying and a little self-absorbed, is all. Not that I'm one to talk, considering how much time I spend arguing about crap in metatalk, so fair's fair in internet bloviation.

It's not like I spend more time in the gray than I do in the blue or anything wierd like that.

Hey, now, buddy. My work filters an awful lot of the stuff that gets linked on the blue. I'm a victim of corporate bureaucracy! (Besides, if we want to play with numbers, you're running 2/5 on MeTa callouts, I'm running 0/10. I'm a man of peace, sir.)
posted by cortex at 2:23 PM on January 18, 2007


shit call-out, stop being a whiny bitch dios let people talk about what they want

Another alternative: "divisive, poorly framed callout; presentation aside, clearly an issue of ongoing contention."
posted by cortex at 2:25 PM on January 18, 2007


bardic : "FFS, what part of 'this place is covered in shit' or whatever it was don't you understand?"

I understand all of that. What I don't understand is the part where that somehow also means "it always has been, and it always will be". Dios was writing about the state of MeFi at the time. If you want to be really, really accurate, it's not "dios hates this place, he's serious", but "dios has at some point considered there to be a lot of shit here, not concentrated in one location, but spread around, and he was serious".

bardic : "Or every time he starts his thread-crap machine by saying 'Yet again, the mefi echo-chamber. . . .'"

I understand all of that. And it's largely true, when it comes to politics and religion. Why should we discount what he's saying because he believes MeFi political threads, which are largely (but not entirely) echo chambers, to be echo-chambers?

bardic : "Of the fact that he came here with personal vendettas against certain users?"

Ok, this one, I'll admit, I don't understand. I am not disagreeing with you; that may be true, but it isn't something I was aware of. What's the background on this?

bardic : "And who constantly berates every single member of this site."

Wait, dios doesn't do that, so who are we talking about? Pot & Kettle?
posted by Bugbread at 4:16 PM on January 18, 2007


Sometimes I think it's fun to be a member of this site, and sometimes I think it would be fun to rate every member of this site. I never think it would be fun to berate every member of this site, though. Maybe some people do think it would be fun, so they try, and bardic's talking about them, bugbread?
posted by cgc373 at 4:26 PM on January 18, 2007


My god. I need to start a hot-or-not clone that works on a one-to-ten scale but only provides radio buttons for 1, 2, and 3. I'll call it beratemyrack.com and I WILL MAKE MILLIONS.
posted by cortex at 4:28 PM on January 18, 2007


Kirth Gerson writes I, uh, read some of your blog - and well, that was painful.

And yet, you clicked through and read it. Gotta love the attempts at personal attacks through "objective comment on quality of blog."


I didn't read all of it - just enough to establish that there's no reason to take your criticism of Vance's writing seriously. Because if you were so perceptive about what makes good writing, I probably would have encountered some on your blog. If you want to take that as a personal attack, knock yourself out.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 4:32 PM on January 18, 2007


Jesus, Bardic, chill. When you define yourself as someone's enemy you also become their slave.
posted by LarryC at 4:39 PM on January 18, 2007


Sounds kinda sexy, when you put it like that.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 4:42 PM on January 18, 2007


bardic is IRFH's slave? Or dios, whose enemies are legion—according to bardic—is everybody's slave? Sexy's back, baby! I knew I could trust Justin Timberlake.
posted by cgc373 at 4:51 PM on January 18, 2007


I don't think I have any enemies, cgc373. Sure, there are people who dislike me - but I'm not really important enough to anyone to actually hate. I think it's because I'm so gentle when I fuck their mothers.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 4:56 PM on January 18, 2007


He is, too.
posted by Balisong at 5:02 PM on January 18, 2007


Don't sell yourself short, IRFH. I hate you with every fiber of my being, and nightly at that.
posted by cortex at 5:04 PM on January 18, 2007


Good for you. Fiber keeps you regular.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 5:05 PM on January 18, 2007


I'm pretty sure eyeballkid hates you, too, Flo. But it's still sexy.
posted by cgc373 at 5:21 PM on January 18, 2007


Heh. Didn't know Jack Vance had so many fans.

But you're right Kirth Gerson, I am not entitled to an opinion. I mean, I like Shakespeare, but I guess I'm not allowed to say that because my iambic pentameter is a bit weak.

So, uh, go the hell away tia.
posted by bardic at 5:55 PM on January 18, 2007


And thank you for reading my blog.
posted by bardic at 5:57 PM on January 18, 2007


And thank you for reading my blog.

Heh. That made me laugh aloud, bardic. Let's go to languagehat's place for beer, yeah?
posted by cortex at 5:59 PM on January 18, 2007


I think it's because I'm so gentle when I fuck their mothers.

: >

(it's your username--who could hate you when you namedrop the Brady mom?)
posted by amberglow at 6:04 PM on January 18, 2007


Why should we discount what he's saying because he believes MeFi political threads, which are largely (but not entirely) echo chambers, to be echo-chambers?

Because there's nothing to talk about--if he feels that way, he shouldn't go into those threads--it's simple. And how many times must he rant about them here before he learns that they'll always exist no matter what he wants and no matter how many he persuades matt to kill? You don't have to be a genius to know that some battles are not winnable, and to escalate the rhetoric the way he does just makes it even more discountable.
posted by amberglow at 6:08 PM on January 18, 2007


And how many times must he rant about them here before he learns that they'll always exist no matter what he wants and no matter how many he persuades matt to kill?

But for that complaint to make sense, you have to be presuming that he's the only one who feels this way, and that the only (and, apparently, absolute, voodoo-like-certainty) net effect of him complaining is the death of a specific thread. I think both of those presumptions are wrong.
posted by cortex at 6:12 PM on January 18, 2007


I don't like sports, so i don't watch or play. I wouldn't watch or go to games just to complain about it--why does he have to do that? It's perverse.
posted by amberglow at 6:15 PM on January 18, 2007


But if you or others feel the same, then you can complain. Why is it only dios doing so tho? I don't assume he's speaking for all of us or even some--that's not possible--we're all different. Why does he speak collectively as if we all agree? "save us" "can we please" "can we hold off" "as we know" etc
posted by amberglow at 6:17 PM on January 18, 2007


And he always shits in the threads first too, which is also perverse if his goal is for them not to exist.
posted by amberglow at 6:20 PM on January 18, 2007


But you're right Kirth Gerson, I am not entitled to an opinion. I mean, I like Shakespeare, but I guess I'm not allowed to say that because my iambic pentameter is a bit weak.

You must have forgotten the summary quotes, because I didn't say you're not entitled to an opinion. You can have all the opinions you want. And we weren't talking about something you like - we were talking about your incomprehensible characterization of Vance's writing as "painful". Since your own writing is what it is, that opinion you're entitled to have is getting the respect it deserves.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 6:24 PM on January 18, 2007 [1 favorite]


But if you or others feel the same, then you can complain. Why is it only dios doing so tho?

If it does come up, I do complain, usually. bugbread has been vocal in this thread as well, for one. I don't really like posting callouts—and I agree with your sentiment of not shitting in ugly, stupid threads on the blue even if they are ugly and stupid.

Why does he speak collectively as if we all agree? "save us" "can we please" "can we hold off" "as we know" etc

Because that sort of verbal tic is his thing? If you're that upset over royal we, there's a problem. Callouts tend to have an implied "I'm not the only one who feels this way" feel to them by default.
posted by cortex at 6:31 PM on January 18, 2007


Well Kirth Gerson, I'm really hurt that an anonymous internet jagoff doesn't like my writing. Please keep stalking me checking up on my blog to make sure I'm getting better, mkay?

(Honestly, I'm one of the few human beings who has read two, count 'em, two novels by Jack Vance. I really didn't like them -- some interesting ideas, like I said, but just plain boring to me. I didn't even say "Jack Vance fucking sucks," which would be commonplace around here. But please, relay my apologies at the next Jack Vance Appreciation Society meeting.)
posted by bardic at 6:59 PM on January 18, 2007


Groupthink stops with Jack Vance, perhaps.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 7:03 PM on January 18, 2007


why do people act like dios is fucking superman's evil twin brother? ... he's easily cut down to size, you know
posted by pyramid termite at 10:07 PM on January 18, 2007


amberglow writes "I don't like sports, so i don't watch or play. I wouldn't watch or go to games just to complain about it--why does he have to do that? It's perverse."

If you're talking about pooing in the threads, I totally agree; there's no reason for dios to go into a thread that he hates to mention how much he hates it.

If you're talking about coming to the grey to complain, I don't agree. That analogy would only make sense if MeFi was a site for political discussion, like a sporting game is an event for playing sports.

amberglow writes "But if you or others feel the same, then you can complain."

We do. Some of us are proactive folks who start MetaTalks of complaint, some of us (like me) are reactive, and just chime in when someone else has taken the initiative to start a thread.

amberglow writes "Why is it only dios doing so tho?"

It isn't.

amberglow writes "Why does he speak collectively as if we all agree?"

Dunno. Could be any number of reasons:
1) It's a rhetorical trick to make your side seem to have greater numbers
2) It's softer than saying "you" (Compare: "Open your books" to "Let's open our books")
3) Because he considers himself a member of the community, and he's talking about the actions of the community, hence "we"
4) It's a very, very common form of expression on MeFi (and perhaps other boards, I dunno), so it's not done for any calculated reason, but just rubbed off on him.
5) Because he doesn't think he's alone in his opinions, and, on pretty much any issue, there is at least one person who agrees (in some cases, probably only one or two people, and in other cases, such as this particular one, more)
posted by Bugbread at 10:47 PM on January 18, 2007


Random Thoughts:

-Well put, bugbread.

-Stop stalking, Kirth Gerson.

-Start loving, cortex.
-Please.
-Start loving.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 11:18 PM on January 18, 2007


man, i love these dios threads. really, everybody wins.
posted by shmegegge at 4:32 AM on January 19, 2007


Let's go to languagehat's place for beer, yeah?

I've got Anchor Steam, Yuengling, and Guinness on tap, along with a rotating selection of microbrews and Belgian ales. Just don't hit on the barmaid, OK? She's a black belt, and if your blood gets on the floor she'll make you clean it up.

*awaits 300th comment eagerly*
posted by languagehat at 6:12 AM on January 19, 2007


*starts loving*
posted by cortex at 6:17 AM on January 19, 2007


Well Kirth Gerson, I'm really hurt that an anonymous internet jagoff doesn't like my writing.
See, some of us prefer to keep our more personal activities private. Others are convinced that theirs are bound to be just fascinating to the rest of the world, so those people like to run around shouting about it, and demonstrating their technique.

Please keep stalking me checking up on my blog to make sure I'm getting better, mkay?
So clicking on a link that you supply - to look at a blog you post on the Internet for everyone to see - that's stalking? I guess you'd better call the cops, then. Sorry to disappoint you, though - I don't think I'll be visiting your blog again.

(Honestly, I'm one of the few human beings who has read two, count 'em, two novels by Jack Vance. I really didn't like them -- some interesting ideas, like I said, but just plain boring to me.
What planet do you live on, again? You're talking about an author who has won two Hugos, a Nebula, two World Fantasy Awards, a Jupiter Award, an Edgar, and a SFWA Grand Master Award, but only a "few human beings" have read two of his books? (That last award is from the Science Fiction Writers of America, by the way. I doubt they give it to writers of "painful" prose.)

I didn't even say "Jack Vance fucking sucks," which would be commonplace around here.
No, I think you're wrong. I have not ever seen anyone on this site say that Jack Vance sucks. I assume that's because there's no conceivable reason to do so. Judging by this thread, you save "sucks" for other MeFites that you consider "whiny bitches".
posted by Kirth Gerson at 6:56 AM on January 19, 2007 [1 favorite]


See, some of us prefer to keep our more personal activities private.

i take it "being a complete asshole" isn't one of them
posted by pyramid termite at 7:26 AM on January 19, 2007


Stop stalking, Kirth Gerson.

Oh, for Christ's sake--considering he adopted the name of the protagonist of Vance's Demon Princes series for his onscreen alias, one might gather that Kirth Gerson has an affection for and intimate knowledge of the writing of Jack Vance.

So, when an especially abrasive personality whose signature adjective is shitty and who is well known for defining his own tastes by trashing those of others--your objectively shitty taste in music comes to mind--to fire half cocked, as usual, a blanket snap judgment about another's favorite writer, famous for his mordant dialogue of a flavor nearly unique, Gerson's reaction was hardly a surprise. Especially when Vance is one who could teach the oddly self appelled bardic a few things about writing about music:
"I must perform." Dystar moved back to his bench. He took up the darabence to play a somewhat trivial set of melodies, as might be heard in the Morningshore dancehalls. Just as Etzwane began to lose interest, Dystar altered the set of his blare valve to construct a sudden new environment: the same melodies, the same rhythm, but now they told a disturbed tale of callous departures and mocking laughter, of roof demons and storm birds. Dystar muted the whines, throttled the valves, and slowed his tempo. The music asserted the fragility of everything pleasant and bright, the triumph of darkness, and ended in a dismal twanging chord. . . . A pause, then a sudden coda remarking that, on the other hand, matters might quite easily be the reverse.

...My own belief is that Vance can best be conceived as a tailor of prose, to whom plots are the tailor's dummies on which to array the wonderfully cut and remarkably colored garments that are his real business. The dummies must be sturdy and shaped well enough to properly hold and show off those garments, but fashioning such dummies is not what his craft is all about.

In the other three areas of pleasing, Vance is triumphant. His language use is literally wonderful: he coins exotic words so true to roots that one needs to search an unabridged dictionary to discover which of his unfamiliar terms are real (his vocabulary is monumental) and which of his coining. Nuncupatory, twittler, venefice, tintamar--those are in dictionaries you can pick up and read; sanivacity, malditties--those are pure Vance (hurlothrumbo, though not to be found in my copy of the OED, turns out also to be a real word, or name anyway).
Vance is a very mannered writer and not to everyone's taste. But his prose is crafted beyond belief--to call it painful is merely one man's extremely subjective reaction. And to accuse Gerson of stalking for suggesting in a mild snark that Vance is a far more polished and effective writer than bardic to lowering the bar far so one must dig a trench to Dead Sea level.

Every John Q. Sensitive here accuses any critic of being a stalker, dios being peerless in this regard. And considering that dios has accused bardic, among others, of such, his use of the epithet here was both richly ironic and especially pathetic.
posted by y2karl at 7:28 AM on January 19, 2007 [2 favorites]


This is the biggest nerd fight I have ever seen. I heartily approve.

y2karl, go outside and get some air please.
posted by bardic at 1:25 PM on January 19, 2007


MetaTalk: as Etzwane began to lose interest, Dystar altered the set of his blare valve to construct a sudden new environment
posted by bardic at 1:42 PM on January 19, 2007


Is that Jack Vance or L. Ron Hubbard?
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 2:08 PM on January 19, 2007


Near as I can tell, Elron never won any writing awards. And he's dead. One of these writers is not like the other.

This might interest you:
LP: How heavy an influence was Jack Vance, and how much did you use The Dying Earth as a conscious template for The Book of the New Sun?

GW: It was very considerable. I did not try to write an imitation of The Dying Earth. I certainly took that idea from Jack Vance. I had read that years and years before and had been enormously impressed with it. So yeah, he was a very considerable influence. I'm sure that's where I got the basic idea that's behind The Book of the New Sun, the idea of remote antiquity and looming catastrophe.
. . .

LP: Let's jump back a bit. Who were some of the writers who influenced you in your youth?

GW: Vance was certainly one. G. K. Chesterton. Much earlier than either of those, L. Frank Baum and Ruth Plumly . . .
LP is Lawrence Person. GW is Gene Wolfe.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 3:35 PM on January 19, 2007


I imagine the response will be that Gene Wolfe also can't write.

*awaits further hijinks*
posted by languagehat at 3:37 PM on January 19, 2007


Nor can Gene Wilder act. Good day!
posted by cortex at 3:40 PM on January 19, 2007


Gene Wolfe is a sort of sf Trump (not Donald, but still a suit). People play him when other people pick on sf's Qualities as Literature. You, languagehat, are playing with fire by preempting Wolfe's known Power in this Game, sir. I hope you have resigned yourself to the Consequences of such action.
posted by cgc373 at 4:18 PM on January 19, 2007


You, cortex, are playing with Fizzy Lifting Drinks. Et cetera, et cetera.
posted by cgc373 at 4:20 PM on January 19, 2007


And unless others join in, I'll be left no option but to play with myself.
posted by cortex at 4:33 PM on January 19, 2007


I imagine the response will be that Gene Wolfe also can't write.

AH'MA GONNA KILL YOO!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:17 PM on January 19, 2007


Nor can Gene Wilder act. Good day!
What what what !!!???!!!

/hopes cortex turns into a giant blueberry
posted by amberglow at 5:42 PM on January 19, 2007


And don't get me started about George Washington's crippled political sensibilities.
posted by cortex at 5:43 PM on January 19, 2007


You's a messin' with the wrong dead President, cortex.
posted by cgc373 at 6:23 PM on January 19, 2007


bardic : "Of the fact that he came here with personal vendettas against certain users?"

Ok, this one, I'll admit, I don't understand. I am not disagreeing with you; that may be true, but it isn't something I was aware of. What's the background on this?


For the record, here. I didn't know dios from Adam when he came after me in one of my few visits to #mefi back in the day. He was incredibly nasty. If you've had an argument with a person or insulted a person, it comes as no surprise when that person attacks you on sight. But having a complete and total stranger go after you ? That was new for me at the time. And this was well before before he joined MetaFilter, mind you. So, I found Cunninglinguist's comment unsurprising and entirely believable. So, there's two sources. That's carved in stone true for around here. Heck, with one more corroboration, we could print it in the New York Times.
posted by y2karl at 6:30 PM on January 19, 2007 [2 favorites]


Near as I can tell, Elron never won any writing awards.

Despite the guy being dead for 21 years come this Wednesday, Vegas says he's a lock to sweep this year's Literary Hubbies (Again!), not to mention the Science and Faith Based Hubbies.

The Ascot Hubbies, too, but you didn't hear that from me.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 9:02 PM on January 19, 2007


And the Painful Prose Hubbies, too, don't forget.
posted by y2karl at 9:43 PM on January 19, 2007


Oh, yeah - I missed those.

It was news to me that there actually is an L. Ron Hubbard Future Writers Award. No, he didn't win any, but here are the names of those who did:
L. RON HUBBARD GOLD AWARD WINNERS

WRITERS

1985 Robert Reed
1986 Dave Wolverton
1987 Nancy Farmer
1988 Gary Shockley
1989 James Gardner
1990 James C. Glass
1991 Brian Burt
1992 Karawynn Long
1993 Alan Barclay
1994 Julia West
1995 Arlene C. Harris
1996 Morgan Burke
1997 Brian Wightman
1998 Scott Nicholson
1999 Gary Murphy
2000 Meredith Simmons
Every one a household name. There is also a long "Honor Roll" of other "future" writers, and awards for illustrators. I am left wondering how these future writers were found, since if they'd actually written something, they would be "present" writers.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 3:48 AM on January 20, 2007


Of course, now I see that several of those named are published authors. My bad lazy.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 4:13 AM on January 20, 2007


Thanks, y2karl.
posted by Bugbread at 3:47 PM on January 20, 2007


So, there's two sources. That's carved in stone true for around here. Heck, with one more corroboration, we could print it in the New York Times.
posted by y2karl at 8:30 PM CST on January 19


Well, it is no surprise that your view of sources would be that is two different people said the same thing, then it must be true.

Did I "attack" you on #mefi? I don't recall, but I wouldn't doubt that I said something. I'd be interested to see what you recollection of the substance of this "attack" was, since I probably "attacked" you on #mefi for the same things that frustrate me about you now. That is, I probably did not say "Karl, you need to quit positing about music so much." I probably did say something about your need to get your own blog and quit using Mefi as your soapbox.

That is also how that comment you linked should be read; I think his characterization of my general disposition is just that: a characterization.

Is it at all surprising that someone that lurked before joining would have the same objections after one joins? I fail to see what it supposed to be nefarious about the fact that, as a reader, I felt the same things were problematic about the site that I do as a member. I really don't get how that is supposed to be used as some damning comment with regards to me. Yes, before I joined, y2karl's repetivive soapboxing annoyed me. Before I joined, I thought a lot of Postroad's posts were shit. Before I joined, I thought several member's shrill politicization of the site was revolting. Of course, before I joined, I also thought Stan Chin was funny. Before I joined, I thought that jonson, mjj, and crunchland were posters whose posts I found myself typically enjoying. I'm sure there is nothing nefarious about the fact that I had positive perspectives about certain member's participation. But somehow that is supposed to be nefarious that I had negative perspectives about certain member's participation?
posted by dios at 7:29 AM on January 22, 2007


For the record, here.

For the record, I would also like to say how telling and disgusting it is that the comment you referenced is favorited by certain people.

Favorites as a method for facilitating grudges for small, pathetic little pissants.....

Seriously, how pitiful can you be?
posted by dios at 7:32 AM on January 22, 2007 [2 favorites]


Well, since I know I'm on your killfile, this pitiful:

*mimics dios behind his back, making blah-blah-blah motion with one hand while making jackoff motion with the other*
posted by and hosted from Uranus at 7:38 AM on January 22, 2007


Well, since I know I'm on your killfile,

so, he joins up to blast certain people who annoy him and then he killfiles them?

But somehow that is supposed to be nefarious that I had negative perspectives about certain member's participation?

only in the sense that a yappy poodle would be nefarious
posted by pyramid termite at 7:57 AM on January 22, 2007


Wasn't it the 5th Dimension who sang Age of Nefarious?
This is the dawning of the Age of Nefarious
The Age of Nefarious
Age of Nefarious
Nefarious!
Nefarious!
Anybody remember the rest of thewords?

posted by Kirth Gerson at 8:17 AM on January 22, 2007


VANCE WRITES WITH CRAYONS
posted by cortex at 8:32 AM on January 22, 2007


No, I don't think that was one of the lines . . .



Wait -- what? Vance writes better using crayons than [your favorite author] does with a Mac!
posted by Kirth Gerson at 8:53 AM on January 22, 2007


it's dios that writes with crayons ... on his monitor ... then he hits the print screen button

somehow, it works, but his mother has to wipe it clean after he spits on it a few times to help
posted by pyramid termite at 8:56 AM on January 22, 2007


Vance writes better using crayons than [your favorite author] does with a Mac!

My favorite author is Jonathan Hodgeman! Your petard is hoising you, sir!

it's dios that writes with crayons

Please don't co-opt my stupid jokes for your unrelated stupid personal attacks.
posted by cortex at 9:26 AM on January 22, 2007


Your petard is hoising you, sir!

Bah! Captain Petard should have retired to the vineyards generations ago.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 9:37 AM on January 22, 2007


Sacrilige! I'm putting you on the away team—permanently!
posted by cortex at 9:46 AM on January 22, 2007


That's the gray uniform, isn't it? Unacceptable! It would clash with my wig!
posted by Kirth Gerson at 10:03 AM on January 22, 2007


You'd look good in a red shirt, though. Yeah - go with the red shirt.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 10:05 AM on January 22, 2007


Which department wore the brown shirts?
posted by and hosted from Uranus at 10:10 AM on January 22, 2007


HitlerYouthFleet Academy.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 10:16 AM on January 22, 2007


Sonic Warfare R&D. They consider it a badge of honor.
posted by cortex at 10:18 AM on January 22, 2007


You know who else attended HitlerYouthFleet Academy?
posted by cortex at 10:18 AM on January 22, 2007


ming the merciless
posted by pyramid termite at 10:20 AM on January 22, 2007


Ensign Weszion Crusher?
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 10:25 AM on January 22, 2007


Lieutenant, take a look at these boats. Here's Donald Duck with the striped awning, dollar fifty an hour, and over there is Popeye, a buck twenty. I just can't decide - which one should we use?
posted by Kirth Gerson at 1:24 PM on January 22, 2007


the offica pup for 75c, of course ... bring your own bricks
posted by pyramid termite at 8:22 PM on January 22, 2007


And so, History was made, as General Washington led his ragged army across the Delaware, his inspiring figure erect in the bow of the Offisa Pup.


Geeze, no wonder it's so cheap, there's not enough seats. Nice color though, it sets off my wig!
posted by Kirth Gerson at 3:37 AM on January 23, 2007


your wigs a bloody drama queen, any little thing will set it off
posted by cortex at 6:17 AM on January 23, 2007


Oh, crap - one of the enlisted men got blood all over my wig!
posted by Kirth Gerson at 7:18 AM on January 23, 2007


**Proudly displays honorable "Red Wings" badge**

Is that what you were talking about?
posted by Balisong at 8:34 AM on January 23, 2007


Dude, remember that chap stick I lent you?

Uh, you can keep it.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 8:46 AM on January 23, 2007


« Older World of Warcraft playas! Anyone visiting the...   |   MeFi Callout Newer »

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