Can we have a do over? October 21, 2009 8:18 PM Subscribe
This post didn't suck, but it was rightfully deleted. Someone should do it over. Some rule about knowing people involved was violated.
I honestly think it should, and can be done, but I also know I am not going to rise to the challenge. I tried it before to arguable success. It's not projects worthy, it's not a suck post, and as much as I would like to see not_on_display be totally banned "with fire!" I still think it's attention worthy.
Once you factor in HumanComplex's related link, I laughed and laughed.
Can someone, anyone, make this into a decent post? No is a reasonable answer.
Please?
I honestly think it should, and can be done, but I also know I am not going to rise to the challenge. I tried it before to arguable success. It's not projects worthy, it's not a suck post, and as much as I would like to see not_on_display be totally banned "with fire!" I still think it's attention worthy.
Once you factor in HumanComplex's related link, I laughed and laughed.
Can someone, anyone, make this into a decent post? No is a reasonable answer.
Please?
FIRE! FIRE!!! mheh heh mheheheh mheheh
posted by not_on_display at 8:24 PM on October 21, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by not_on_display at 8:24 PM on October 21, 2009 [1 favorite]
I was wondering whether it was really so bad that he posted it. He wasn't aware, and didn't have anything to do with either its production or promulgation. I was a little suprised at the deletion.
posted by Miko at 8:35 PM on October 21, 2009
posted by Miko at 8:35 PM on October 21, 2009
It was really that there was an obvious link [though not obvious to n_o_d at first, before my name was added to the blog post] and people would know and it might become A Thing, so we all decided it was better to delete it. More of a friendslink situation; there was nothing bad about it particularly. If someone else wants to make a post about the weird contest, it's fine with me.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 8:38 PM on October 21, 2009
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 8:38 PM on October 21, 2009
I just posted a link to the deleted FPP in the comments on the persecuted pets FPP thread.
But I agreed totally that it be taken down, as much as it was a cool FPP (to me). I reposted it a little while later to MeCha, with an explanation.
posted by not_on_display at 8:46 PM on October 21, 2009
But I agreed totally that it be taken down, as much as it was a cool FPP (to me). I reposted it a little while later to MeCha, with an explanation.
posted by not_on_display at 8:46 PM on October 21, 2009
jessamyn: "It was really that there was an obvious link [though not obvious to n_o_d at first, before my name was added to the blog post] and people would know and it might become A Thing, so we all decided it was better to delete it. More of a friendslink situation; there was nothing bad about it particularly. If someone else wants to make a post about the weird contest, it's fine with me."
But aren't we all, in a way, Friends of Jessamyn?
posted by Rhaomi at 8:47 PM on October 21, 2009 [1 favorite]
But aren't we all, in a way, Friends of Jessamyn?
posted by Rhaomi at 8:47 PM on October 21, 2009 [1 favorite]
Deletions - life in general, really - would go so much better with more liberal use of the appellation 'sweetie'.
posted by Abiezer at 8:55 PM on October 21, 2009
posted by Abiezer at 8:55 PM on October 21, 2009
oh
posted by grobstein at 9:10 PM on October 21, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by grobstein at 9:10 PM on October 21, 2009 [1 favorite]
Man, everyone confuses me.
I totally see why it was posted, and understand why it was deleted. Even in ignorance you can't have an appearance of impropriety. Or at least that's what I hear a lot. You know, working at the paper that is a few blocks from where jessamyn may be now. Honestly, I have no idea what she's talking about, since I have never, to my knowledge, admitted to working for any paper, and last time I checked where she may be staying is right next door to that paper I have no idea about! Bah to the "few blocks!"
And hold up. No one said anything about that n_o_d dude coming. He's not coming, right?
By the way, you have to at least look this over.
posted by cjorgensen at 9:16 PM on October 21, 2009
I totally see why it was posted, and understand why it was deleted. Even in ignorance you can't have an appearance of impropriety. Or at least that's what I hear a lot. You know, working at the paper that is a few blocks from where jessamyn may be now. Honestly, I have no idea what she's talking about, since I have never, to my knowledge, admitted to working for any paper, and last time I checked where she may be staying is right next door to that paper I have no idea about! Bah to the "few blocks!"
And hold up. No one said anything about that n_o_d dude coming. He's not coming, right?
By the way, you have to at least look this over.
posted by cjorgensen at 9:16 PM on October 21, 2009
Happy birthday andrew!!!
posted by Damn That Television at 9:35 PM on October 21, 2009 [6 favorites]
posted by Damn That Television at 9:35 PM on October 21, 2009 [6 favorites]
I am going to take out an ad in The Des Moines Register, wishing Andrew a happy birthday, once I get his last name, but only because I get an employee discount. I'll still have to pass the hat, but I'm sure you'll all make it happen.
By the way, anyone tell delmoi about this?
posted by cjorgensen at 9:48 PM on October 21, 2009
By the way, anyone tell delmoi about this?
posted by cjorgensen at 9:48 PM on October 21, 2009
Tee hee, there's an precious endearment in the deletion reason.
posted by nanojath at 10:16 PM on October 21, 2009
posted by nanojath at 10:16 PM on October 21, 2009
It's really weird when cats look at you in a mirror. You're making eye contact, and so you know they know that they're seeing you, but you know that they know that they're not facing you. That must be confusing to them. And what do they think when they see themselves? It's almost as if they try to avoid it. But you know they get the mirror concept because they saw you, so what is going on!?!
posted by iamkimiam at 10:26 PM on October 21, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by iamkimiam at 10:26 PM on October 21, 2009 [1 favorite]
And then you think, that cat has a brain the size of a walnut, so what can it really understand? And even if you do something horrible like step on its tail, how long can it hold something like that against you? And it's not like it could ever prove you did such a thing in a court of law. It would be your word against that cat's, and honestly, if your word isn't better that a cat's, what do you have left? And why doesn't iamkimiam use an interrobang? The world, and cats need more of these!
posted by cjorgensen at 10:46 PM on October 21, 2009
posted by cjorgensen at 10:46 PM on October 21, 2009
We could all use a little more interrobang from time to time, amirite‽‽‽
posted by iamkimiam at 11:01 PM on October 21, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by iamkimiam at 11:01 PM on October 21, 2009 [1 favorite]
I hate to say it, but the reason I don't like the interrobang, is that, um, it's not big enough. I mean, you'd really expect a ! and a ? to mash together in this explosively large symbol of textual synergy, but no, you get this dinky little slanted 'p' with a dot underneath. Whoop‽ <>
posted by iamkimiam at 11:06 PM on October 21, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by iamkimiam at 11:06 PM on October 21, 2009 [1 favorite]
And what do they think when they see themselves? It's almost as if they try to avoid it.
They're probably afraid of catching a glimpse of themselves in strange garb.
posted by tellurian at 11:07 PM on October 21, 2009
They're probably afraid of catching a glimpse of themselves in strange garb.
posted by tellurian at 11:07 PM on October 21, 2009
you get this dinky little slanted 'p' with a dot underneath.
This is the way the sentence ends, not with a bang, but a whimper.
posted by Mrs. Pterodactyl at 11:08 PM on October 21, 2009 [4 favorites]
This is the way the sentence ends, not with a bang, but a whimper.
posted by Mrs. Pterodactyl at 11:08 PM on October 21, 2009 [4 favorites]
And by carrot brackets, I mean "☜ SEE WHAT I MEAN!?!?"
posted by iamkimiam at 11:08 PM on October 21, 2009
posted by iamkimiam at 11:08 PM on October 21, 2009
Today is the most esoteric day ever.
posted by The Devil Tesla at 11:12 PM on October 21, 2009
posted by The Devil Tesla at 11:12 PM on October 21, 2009
*throws hands in air and returns to other things*
posted by The Devil Tesla at 11:13 PM on October 21, 2009
posted by The Devil Tesla at 11:13 PM on October 21, 2009
i think my head just exploded
posted by youcancallmeal at 11:16 PM on October 21, 2009
posted by youcancallmeal at 11:16 PM on October 21, 2009
Interrowhimper?
posted by Mrs. Pterodactyl at 11:19 PM on October 21, 2009
posted by Mrs. Pterodactyl at 11:19 PM on October 21, 2009
Well, I did it. I'm not dating Jessamyn, I'm on a different continent than the paper a few blocks from where she is now... and since I'm not living in the U.S., my dog isn't even eligible. Though she would totally win.
posted by taz at 2:11 AM on October 22, 2009
posted by taz at 2:11 AM on October 22, 2009
Wait, you work at the Register? I used to deliver the Register! Back around the Johnny Gosh era, which made my parents really happy.
posted by DU at 3:06 AM on October 22, 2009
posted by DU at 3:06 AM on October 22, 2009
YAY TAZ! High five!
posted by not_on_display at 3:59 AM on October 22, 2009
posted by not_on_display at 3:59 AM on October 22, 2009
Hi Taz!
posted by Divine_Wino at 4:00 AM on October 22, 2009
posted by Divine_Wino at 4:00 AM on October 22, 2009
Yeah, I delivered the Sioux City Journal back in the Johnny Gosch era. I remember finding out about it at 4 in the morning when I was picking up my paper bundles. You would have thought someone would have made sure all the paper boys were at least aware.
Until it recently closed I would see Noreen Gosch in the skywalk by the Younkers. I think she worked there as a spritzer.
posted by cjorgensen at 6:11 AM on October 22, 2009
Until it recently closed I would see Noreen Gosch in the skywalk by the Younkers. I think she worked there as a spritzer.
posted by cjorgensen at 6:11 AM on October 22, 2009
Comment from the new post:
So, the New Yorker, one of the most famous magazines in the world is now stooping to the sort of annual dress up your pet contest used by small town newspapers for decades.
And if the post had been about such a contest run by such a small town newspaper, I bet it would have been deleted as meh-sauce by now.
posted by Joe Beese at 7:17 AM on October 22, 2009
So, the New Yorker, one of the most famous magazines in the world is now stooping to the sort of annual dress up your pet contest used by small town newspapers for decades.
And if the post had been about such a contest run by such a small town newspaper, I bet it would have been deleted as meh-sauce by now.
posted by Joe Beese at 7:17 AM on October 22, 2009
And even if you do something horrible like step on its tail, how long can it hold something like that against you? And it's not like it could ever prove you did such a thing in a court of law.
This is why cats, all too often, turn to vigilante justice. Consider that the next time you find something dead on the doorstep; it's a message, it's saying "Step on my tail again fucker... and next time, there will be two dead things here, maybe even three... and you'll have to clean it up"
I didn't say cats were bright, just vindictive.
posted by quin at 7:25 AM on October 22, 2009
This is why cats, all too often, turn to vigilante justice. Consider that the next time you find something dead on the doorstep; it's a message, it's saying "Step on my tail again fucker... and next time, there will be two dead things here, maybe even three... and you'll have to clean it up"
I didn't say cats were bright, just vindictive.
posted by quin at 7:25 AM on October 22, 2009
And if the post had been about such a contest run by such a small town newspaper, I bet it would have been deleted as meh-sauce by now.
And if your aunt had a moustache....
I find the whole thing really interesting in a weird way, not because I'm judging but because the "big brand gets a blog" angle always leads to this weird sort of forking or dilution of whatever esoteric ineffableness the brand used to stand for. So there's still the print New Yorker [though considering going bi-weekly, yes?] and then there's the New Yorker blogs. They're a lot less buttoned up, they can do more spur of the moment [and/or dorky] stuff and they're also doing things that are interactive and maybe a little fun. This maybe makes things a little different at New Yorker Inc. where many people are still agonizing over advertisements being in color.
So yeah bla bla pet contest, but it's a way for more people to interact with -- not just be spoon fed by -- the New Yorker than usual and I sort of like that idea even though ultimately it means the "we like this because it's slightly exclusive" angle gets a little crumbly for some.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:56 AM on October 22, 2009
And if your aunt had a moustache....
I find the whole thing really interesting in a weird way, not because I'm judging but because the "big brand gets a blog" angle always leads to this weird sort of forking or dilution of whatever esoteric ineffableness the brand used to stand for. So there's still the print New Yorker [though considering going bi-weekly, yes?] and then there's the New Yorker blogs. They're a lot less buttoned up, they can do more spur of the moment [and/or dorky] stuff and they're also doing things that are interactive and maybe a little fun. This maybe makes things a little different at New Yorker Inc. where many people are still agonizing over advertisements being in color.
So yeah bla bla pet contest, but it's a way for more people to interact with -- not just be spoon fed by -- the New Yorker than usual and I sort of like that idea even though ultimately it means the "we like this because it's slightly exclusive" angle gets a little crumbly for some.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:56 AM on October 22, 2009
I'm not going to worry until the Guardian begins dipping into silly pet pix. That's when it's gonna be time to really start sweating.
posted by taz at 8:05 AM on October 22, 2009
posted by taz at 8:05 AM on October 22, 2009
jessamyn: "And if your aunt had a moustache....."
To be clear, I didn't think the post was getting special treament because of the jessamyn angle. I just thought it was HURF DURF SNOB SELLS OUT at best - and "pictures of cats in wigs" at worst.
posted by Joe Beese at 8:15 AM on October 22, 2009
To be clear, I didn't think the post was getting special treament because of the jessamyn angle. I just thought it was HURF DURF SNOB SELLS OUT at best - and "pictures of cats in wigs" at worst.
posted by Joe Beese at 8:15 AM on October 22, 2009
I have no idea what the hell most of you are on about (or more simply, on.)
Maybe I should enter1 Jellybean2, my black lab puppy, as Captain Ahab or Rodion Romanovich Raskolnikov.
1 - I'm not going to do that
2 - We call her Jellybean because she looks like a shiny licorice jellybean. With a tail and legs. And a head.
posted by double block and bleed at 8:37 AM on October 22, 2009
Maybe I should enter1 Jellybean2, my black lab puppy, as Captain Ahab or Rodion Romanovich Raskolnikov.
1 - I'm not going to do that
2 - We call her Jellybean because she looks like a shiny licorice jellybean. With a tail and legs. And a head.
posted by double block and bleed at 8:37 AM on October 22, 2009
Is there an ethical violation when a mod has a romantic relationship with a lower-ranked Mefite? I don't care about what Jessamyn and not_on_display are up to, I just ask because I think there's some kind of spark between me and cortex, and I don't want to break any rules.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 8:55 AM on October 22, 2009
posted by Pater Aletheias at 8:55 AM on October 22, 2009
cortex [and all the other boymods] are happily married. Take it to adultfriendfinderfilter.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 8:56 AM on October 22, 2009
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 8:56 AM on October 22, 2009
Cortex is a dude? That changes everything!
posted by Pater Aletheias at 9:00 AM on October 22, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by Pater Aletheias at 9:00 AM on October 22, 2009 [1 favorite]
though considering going bi-weekly, yes?
Oh god noooooOOoooo I hadn't heard that. Please no.
posted by Miko at 9:00 AM on October 22, 2009
Oh god noooooOOoooo I hadn't heard that. Please no.
posted by Miko at 9:00 AM on October 22, 2009
Oh yeah. What ever happened to interrobang?
posted by lazaruslong at 9:19 AM on October 22, 2009
posted by lazaruslong at 9:19 AM on October 22, 2009
Last I heard he was drinking coffee naked and stirring up the neighborhood. Or maybe that was someone else... I'm confused now.
posted by taz at 9:36 AM on October 22, 2009
posted by taz at 9:36 AM on October 22, 2009
"Rank" meaning "scent" in this instance.
posted by not_on_display at 11:37 AM on October 22, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by not_on_display at 11:37 AM on October 22, 2009 [1 favorite]
cj_: "28What up, bunch of injokes amongst IRL friends. GYOIRC."
No, sadly, it's not. We're just being weird. Seriously, no hamburger.
posted by iamkimiam at 11:58 AM on October 22, 2009
No, sadly, it's not. We're just being weird. Seriously, no hamburger.
posted by iamkimiam at 11:58 AM on October 22, 2009
Okay, is this an appropriate place to ask to have that freaking hamburger joke explained?
posted by mudpuppie at 12:04 PM on October 22, 2009
posted by mudpuppie at 12:04 PM on October 22, 2009
Mods are higher ranked than non-mods?
Clearly they are, as evidenced by a mod's recent comment making successful use of not only the <big> tag, but several nested <big> tags inside a <marquee> tag. The world is thus demonstrably divided into those who can do that on MetaFilter, and those who cannot.
I mean honestly, who throws a <marquee> tag?
posted by FishBike at 12:16 PM on October 22, 2009
Clearly they are, as evidenced by a mod's recent comment making successful use of not only the <big> tag, but several nested <big> tags inside a <marquee> tag. The world is thus demonstrably divided into those who can do that on MetaFilter, and those who cannot.
I mean honestly, who throws a <marquee> tag?
posted by FishBike at 12:16 PM on October 22, 2009
<marquee></marquee>
wait, I didn't do that right.
posted by not_on_display at 12:26 PM on October 22, 2009
wait, I didn't do that right.
posted by not_on_display at 12:26 PM on October 22, 2009
mudpuppie: "51Okay, is this an appropriate place to ask to have that freaking hamburger joke explained?"
Yeah, there's a MeTa, a couple threads down, where a poster was requesting that the whole entire community stop using sarcasm in an oblique way, and would prefer that we mark all of our sarcastically-intonated communications with a symbol, such as this: {/}
Then somebody said that looks like a hamburger.
Then HAMBURGER became the accepted tag for ironic sarcasm, abstracted from the on-record sarcasm that {/} is supposed to convey. Which is a false construct, since marking sarcasm overtly and seriously subverts the very definition of sarcasm itself.
My comment was a play on that...by writing "Seriously, no hamburger." in lowercase and the context of utter seriousness, contrasted with previous comments where sarcasm and joking are occurring, reinforces the deadpan, literal nature of my sentiment. It also has a somewhat straight read, as in "We're just being weird. Seriously, no hamburger." which could have been, "We're just being weird. Seriously, no lie." Except that, I'm weird, and choosing to substitute a random word for a perfectly normal one.
How meta.
posted by iamkimiam at 12:28 PM on October 22, 2009 [2 favorites]
Yeah, there's a MeTa, a couple threads down, where a poster was requesting that the whole entire community stop using sarcasm in an oblique way, and would prefer that we mark all of our sarcastically-intonated communications with a symbol, such as this: {/}
Then somebody said that looks like a hamburger.
Then HAMBURGER became the accepted tag for ironic sarcasm, abstracted from the on-record sarcasm that {/} is supposed to convey. Which is a false construct, since marking sarcasm overtly and seriously subverts the very definition of sarcasm itself.
My comment was a play on that...by writing "Seriously, no hamburger." in lowercase and the context of utter seriousness, contrasted with previous comments where sarcasm and joking are occurring, reinforces the deadpan, literal nature of my sentiment. It also has a somewhat straight read, as in "We're just being weird. Seriously, no hamburger." which could have been, "We're just being weird. Seriously, no lie." Except that, I'm weird, and choosing to substitute a random word for a perfectly normal one.
How meta.
posted by iamkimiam at 12:28 PM on October 22, 2009 [2 favorites]
{/}
posted by mudpuppie at 12:34 PM on October 22, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by mudpuppie at 12:34 PM on October 22, 2009 [1 favorite]
Deletions - life in general, really - would go so much better with more liberal use of the appellation 'sweetie'.
Oh man, something tells me you missed the "hon" thread.
posted by the littlest brussels sprout at 3:45 PM on October 22, 2009 [1 favorite]
Oh man, something tells me you missed the "hon" thread.
posted by the littlest brussels sprout at 3:45 PM on October 22, 2009 [1 favorite]
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 8:22 PM on October 21, 2009