Some people don't like Kottke December 10, 2001 9:04 PM   Subscribe

"Anyone who posts Kottke.org to Metafilter.com should die. heh. uhh?" Feel free to post any derogative posts about this MeFi post which are not helpful to the actual thread here. "I'm tired of Kottke." "Zach's a loser." All that stuff goes right here. I reserve the right to defend myself.
posted by ZachsMind to Etiquette/Policy at 9:04 PM (32 comments total)

Given both the marginal interest of yet another Kottke link to the MeFi populace and the precedent of posting media mentions of weblogging to MetaTalk, wouldn't it have fit better in MeTa's "general weblog-related"?
posted by snarkout at 9:10 PM on December 10, 2001


I think posting in a way that seems antagonistic was a poor start Zach.
posted by Doug at 9:11 PM on December 10, 2001


The fact that you felt the need to start a pre-emptive MeTa thread 17' after the FPP is also quite telling.
posted by signal at 9:14 PM on December 10, 2001


Hm... I think you're misquoting.

I assumed that Kottke was the one who is supposed to die. I could be wrong.

And come now, can't one make light jest over another's choice of reading material? Certainly a little snobbish mockery of a commoners' guide to the 'net (we musn't let them spoil the exclusive A-list haunts!) can be deflected with ease.

Or maybe I'm misreading... Ah well, could I at least get a cookie for having never visited this Kottke fellow's site?
posted by whatnotever at 9:19 PM on December 10, 2001


i *like* kottke, but he has his own site to discuss this kind of thing
i dont think tired is the best word to describe how mefi feels about kottke postings either (then again i still get a chuckle from the ascii art goatse man when it shows up on slashdot)

i (personally) dont feel like the post was really frontpage material, which makes it read like a troll, an impression which is only enhanced by this whole 'taking yourself to meta' thing

posted by sawks at 9:21 PM on December 10, 2001


Personaly, I'm not convinced all of the above posters aren't merely pseudonyms of Zachsmind.
posted by Kafkaesque at 9:23 PM on December 10, 2001


Oops. Perhaps I should have worded it thusly:

"And yes. I do read Yahoo Internet Life. Religiously."

You still don't hear the sarcasm and playful self-deprecation? Okay. I'll keep working on it.

I feel the FPP is very justified. However there are people here in MeFi who, were I to post a link announcing that a city in France just turned mauve mysteriously for no unforseen reason and this is causing general consternation among that city's populous, people would complain about how it wasn't interesting enough or that perhaps I should have posted it while standing on my head.

I'm simply trying to accomodate those who enjoy such behavior while still accomplishing the task of posting this new news item about Kottke's inevitable world domination... or is that Lance? I get those two mixed up.
posted by ZachsMind at 9:24 PM on December 10, 2001


Is it news that smart-ass fpps get smart-ass comments in the thread? Is it news that koffke fpps get smart-ass comments in the thread?

Is Zachsmind at all kafkaesque? (After all, it is a sloppily used adjective.)

And what's a koffke, anyway?
posted by mattpfeff at 9:26 PM on December 10, 2001


But wait, you were reading Yahoo! Internet Life?
posted by signal at 9:26 PM on December 10, 2001


You just couldn't resist, could you matt?
posted by Kafkaesque at 9:29 PM on December 10, 2001


I predict the phrase 'taking myself to meta' will soon become the euphemism du jour for onanists everywhere.
posted by xiffix at 9:29 PM on December 10, 2001


You're taking an awful lot of liberties here Zachary. If you grated on my nerves as much as certain other incessant posters and commenters I'd never have clicked on the link. But < drops to knees>I like pretty much everything you ever do around here < /drops to knees> < /slurp>

Wait. . .would I ever make a front page zachsmind post?

Jesus Christ Zach! Clean yourself up.



posted by crasspastor at 9:32 PM on December 10, 2001


The link went to an old post that had little to do with your more comment. It was something more appropriate to the weblog category of metatalk, if it was rewritten.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 9:32 PM on December 10, 2001


apparently not. I was laughing too hard.... oh well.
posted by mattpfeff at 9:32 PM on December 10, 2001


> I'm simply trying to ...
  • Call attention to yourself?
  • Create a nonsense controversy so you can perpetuate your persecution complex?
  • Get yourself into the member-who-must-get-mentioned-in-at-least-50%-of-all-threads role that Miguel finally vacated?
Zach, this was just obnoxious. If you need to post kottke.org to MeFi you can at least wait for someone else to create the MeTa thread.
posted by sylloge at 9:33 PM on December 10, 2001


In case you were wondering what the post was.

Click me.
posted by perplexed at 9:36 PM on December 10, 2001


So the fact he's listed as one of the top 100 sites in a magazine is not interesting and thought provoking? I find that hard to believe. Particularly how Kottke.org, while an impressive blog and one of the better ones out there, is not necessarily THE best blog on the planet. I think this deserves more attention than being sequestered to "general weblog related." I'm not just talking about kottke here. I'm talking about a magazine that claims to have its pulse on the Internet and is only recently getting a handle on weblogs? They practically missed the online diary thing entirely, and barely give weblogs lip service.

I would also like to point out that when I find a topic of interest and post it, and have absolutely no unwritten rule faux pas potential whatsoever, at best I am ignored.

Case In Point.

There's simply no pleasing you people.
posted by ZachsMind at 9:42 PM on December 10, 2001


Matt? It was not an old post. The [more] was a quote from a magazine that just came out. I also didn't just post to the domain name. The link referred to the entry that got him recognition from Yahoo Internet Life, where Jason listed other websites featuring personal reactions to the WTC incident. I feel he deserved this attention, but Yahoo Internet Life is also showing their short-sightedness in regards to weblogs. They admitted in the piece that they didn't know about Kottke prior to 911, yet they claim to know what's going on with the Internet. It's hilarious. This is funny, and thought provoking, and deleting the thread is an insulting, knee-jerk reaction.
posted by ZachsMind at 9:47 PM on December 10, 2001


I was just being a smart-ass. I couldn't give a shit actually. Zach? Zach?

God you're hot.

Seriously though. . .I need to get out of this house!
posted by crasspastor at 9:49 PM on December 10, 2001


However there are people here in MeFi who, were I to post a link announcing that a city in France just turned mauve mysteriously for no unforseen reason and this is causing general consternation among that city's populous, people would complain about how it wasn't interesting enough or that perhaps I should have posted it while standing on my head

bullshit. this is the fairest community I've ever seen, and i've seen a lot. you sink or swim here on your posts, if they're good, someone will say so. If they're not, they won't. If they're really bad, they might respond with hostility.

It's the same rules for everyone, no one has a grudge against you, end of story. This thread is a waste of time but I felt the need to respond because it's beyond annoying.
posted by chaz at 9:55 PM on December 10, 2001


Chaz I've looked through my old contributions to this site and I admit I by no means am up for any awards of greatness, but there is a consistency of either saying something bad or saying nothing at all among the MeFi community. The links I find are things that interest me which I feel compelled to share with others, thinking others might find them interesting as well.

I tried to make this point in another MeTa thread earlier: if you don't personally find a post of interest to you, ignore it. I prefer being ignored to being raked over hot coals regularly just for participating.

My sin is participating. Bite me.
posted by ZachsMind at 10:03 PM on December 10, 2001


It's not that you're participating that annoys people, Zach, it's how. Your post was a troll, and you know it.

"the obligatory monthly Jason Kottke MeFi FPP"

I wish Matt hadn't deleted the post, so that people could see how little it resembles the way you're now describing it.

Maybe if you'd taken a little more time in wording your post (and not tried to be sarcastically funny, which everyone interpreted, right or wrong, as you being obnoxious), we wouldn't be having this discussion. Or maybe you just like to be the center of attention?
posted by Doug at 10:23 PM on December 10, 2001


They admitted in the piece that they didn't know about Kottke prior to 911, yet they claim to know what's going on with the Internet.

this is shocking!
posted by judith at 10:46 PM on December 10, 2001


Jiminy Christmas, I'll get the cross and y'all get the nails -- 'cause somebody sure wants to be crucified.
posted by owillis at 11:42 PM on December 10, 2001



I think posting in a way that seems antagonistic was a poor start Zach.


Lately it seems Zach has been doing nothing but annoying testing the limits of metafilter. He likes people to disagree with him and he's becoming more disagreable and antagonistic to the point where I just ignore him. Shame, he used to be a decent contributor.
posted by skallas at 12:14 AM on December 11, 2001


Dear J Ko, I am sorry your popularity died.
posted by anildash at 12:35 AM on December 11, 2001


*Gives whatnotever a cookie*
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 2:16 AM on December 11, 2001


I would also like to point out that when I find a topic of interest and post it, and have absolutely no unwritten rule faux pas potential whatsoever, at best I am ignored.

If you don't personally find a post of interest to you, ignore it. I prefer being ignored to being raked over hot coals regularly just for participating.

You really can't have it both ways. Choose "feeling snubbed" or "feeling persecuted," but please choose something. As someone who posts random obscurities to MeFi, I'm just happy if I haven't accidentally double posted. Nobody knows my name, I will not show up in Glassdog's next opus about Matt, but I still get just as much out of MetaFilter as the imaginary cabal must. Comfort yourself with the thought (provable by my referrer logs): Just because people don't comment in great volumes doesn't mean they don't read.
posted by headspace at 3:18 AM on December 11, 2001


Get yourself into the member-who-must-get-mentioned-in-at-least-50%-of-all-threads role that Miguel finally vacated?

Yeah! Get your own role, you thieving magpie!
posted by MiguelCardoso at 3:34 AM on December 11, 2001


Reminds me of: "The well-balanced [x] has a chip on each shoulder!"
posted by Carol Anne at 3:56 AM on December 11, 2001


Getting harder to separate the wheat from the chaff.

I am reminded of the old adage: Just because I don't laugh doesn't mean I don't understand it.
posted by Dagobert at 6:26 AM on December 11, 2001


TacoConsumer must die... no, wait...
posted by TacoConsumer at 6:10 PM on December 11, 2001


« Older Are you supposed to reference your source?   |   Please kill this thread Newer »

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