monopolizing your own thread November 15, 2001 12:00 PM Subscribe
Would commenting five times in 24 minutes on your own post be approaching the 'chat threshold'? Just wondering.
That thread is very chatty, another poster commented 8 times in the same thread (on a percentage basis, it's quite high). I'd rather if people talked about the issues and linked to outside sources as much as possible to back things up like in the Scalia thread. It's fantastic, whereas this thread reads like a chat log.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 12:06 PM on November 15, 2001
posted by mathowie (staff) at 12:06 PM on November 15, 2001
Mea maxima culpa. I'll shut up :) In my defense, my points are philosophical, rather than factual per se.
Matt: do you feel that backing one's points with appropriate links is necessary and/or recommended, or are we dealing primarily with opinion rather than fact in most threads?
posted by UncleFes at 12:52 PM on November 15, 2001
Matt: do you feel that backing one's points with appropriate links is necessary and/or recommended, or are we dealing primarily with opinion rather than fact in most threads?
posted by UncleFes at 12:52 PM on November 15, 2001
do you feel that backing one's points with appropriate links is necessary and/or recommended, or are we dealing primarily with opinion rather than fact in most threads?
I mention it because I think it improves an argument of your opinion. You could post "I think the death penalty is horrible and should be banned" in a murder thread, or you could post something that says the same thing, with a couple links to deathpenaltyinfocenter.org (if there is one), to back up your claims.
I mention links because it requires people to think a bit more about replies, and usually that means better replies and less chatty stuff.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 1:09 PM on November 15, 2001
I mention it because I think it improves an argument of your opinion. You could post "I think the death penalty is horrible and should be banned" in a murder thread, or you could post something that says the same thing, with a couple links to deathpenaltyinfocenter.org (if there is one), to back up your claims.
I mention links because it requires people to think a bit more about replies, and usually that means better replies and less chatty stuff.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 1:09 PM on November 15, 2001
Very funny terminology. By the way, there is a Metafilter IRC channel, in case you didn't know. Perhaps that might be mentioned on the front page of Metatalk?
posted by ParisParamus at 1:56 PM on November 15, 2001
posted by ParisParamus at 1:56 PM on November 15, 2001
"My sincere apologies for the big FPP."
This sort of thing irritates me far more than the chattiness.
posted by Carol Anne at 2:05 PM on November 15, 2001
This sort of thing irritates me far more than the chattiness.
posted by Carol Anne at 2:05 PM on November 15, 2001
Carol -- Yeah. Can't you just imagine them sitting at their computer, about to push the post button... "I'm going to regret this!"
posted by j.edwards at 2:15 PM on November 15, 2001
posted by j.edwards at 2:15 PM on November 15, 2001
MetaFilter : "I'm going to regret this!"
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 3:39 PM on November 15, 2001
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 3:39 PM on November 15, 2001
irc.metafilter.com, then #mefi Evenings are best.
posted by j.edwards at 6:28 PM on November 15, 2001
posted by j.edwards at 6:28 PM on November 15, 2001
Don't apologize, UncleFes. I enjoyed your comments and I have a feeling Matt was talking about me. Percentage-wise I was bordering on 14%. So what is a culturally acceptable comment ratio?
posted by dlewis at 12:07 AM on November 16, 2001
posted by dlewis at 12:07 AM on November 16, 2001
dlewis, you posted a lot in that thread, but you were posting somewhat thoughtful stuff that I wouldn't characterize as completely chatty.
Have I mentioned how much I love bunnyfire? Everytime she mentions evil or satan or the devil I just get giddy.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 12:16 AM on November 16, 2001
Have I mentioned how much I love bunnyfire? Everytime she mentions evil or satan or the devil I just get giddy.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 12:16 AM on November 16, 2001
Ok, Matt I think I get your point. Longer, well-argued posts supported by evidence like the Scalia thread encourage a deep smoldering discussion. Quick witted retorts and me-toos start a flash fire of nastiness.
(um... I suppose that was a me-too. Couldn't think of any links to add...)
posted by dlewis at 12:33 AM on November 16, 2001
(um... I suppose that was a me-too. Couldn't think of any links to add...)
posted by dlewis at 12:33 AM on November 16, 2001
So, sue me for not being perfect.
Who hasn't gotten a little chatty every now and then?
posted by trioperative at 4:20 PM on November 16, 2001
Who hasn't gotten a little chatty every now and then?
posted by trioperative at 4:20 PM on November 16, 2001
Criticism ≠ condemnation. You have to grow some skin if you want to play here.
posted by rodii at 10:17 AM on November 17, 2001
posted by rodii at 10:17 AM on November 17, 2001
I'm aware of that. That respose may have been warranted if I had said something to the effect of "Quit picking on me", but I'm pointing out that no one is innocent, in this topic.
posted by trioperative at 12:31 PM on November 17, 2001
posted by trioperative at 12:31 PM on November 17, 2001
?
"So, sue me for not being perfect" sounds a little defeinsive. All I'm saying is, no need to be--nobody's condeming you for "not being perfect," but it's easy to feel that way the first time you MeTa's censorious gaze lands on you. In time, you will become a hardened, battle-scarred veteran able to endure the scorn of bitter oldsters and angry newbies alike.
Plus I wanted to use ≠!
posted by rodii at 3:21 PM on November 17, 2001
"So, sue me for not being perfect" sounds a little defeinsive. All I'm saying is, no need to be--nobody's condeming you for "not being perfect," but it's easy to feel that way the first time you MeTa's censorious gaze lands on you. In time, you will become a hardened, battle-scarred veteran able to endure the scorn of bitter oldsters and angry newbies alike.
Plus I wanted to use ≠!
posted by rodii at 3:21 PM on November 17, 2001
Understood. It's hard to find a good use for that character.
Almost as hard as ¥, if you happen to be an American.
posted by trioperative at 11:20 AM on November 18, 2001
Almost as hard as ¥, if you happen to be an American.
posted by trioperative at 11:20 AM on November 18, 2001
Matt, were you being sarcastic? If so I suppose I need to find my kleenex (tm)....(sniff)....
In my defense, I DO try to be entertaining.......
posted by bunnyfire at 4:13 PM on November 30, 2001
In my defense, I DO try to be entertaining.......
posted by bunnyfire at 4:13 PM on November 30, 2001
Oh-one other thing-when I actually POST a link-which ain't often, I would like to think it was a weighty substantive subject-see, I do pay attention!
posted by bunnyfire at 4:16 PM on November 30, 2001
posted by bunnyfire at 4:16 PM on November 30, 2001
Oh god, you've gone and invoked bf, matt. Don't you know about not naming things, lest they manifest?
posted by Lynsey at 2:23 PM on April 17, 2002
posted by Lynsey at 2:23 PM on April 17, 2002
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by iamjacksamnesia at 12:06 PM on November 15, 2001