Why was Arafat photo deleted? March 31, 2002 2:12 AM   Subscribe

I think it's uncouth that the 'arafat' front page post was deleted. It was a photograph of a moment captured. Like any moment captured. Except it was explosive. Why must a candid photo of Yasser Arafat under siege be purged from Mefi's memory?
posted by crasspastor to Etiquette/Policy at 2:12 AM (25 comments total)

What was the photo?
posted by donkeyschlong at 3:40 AM on March 31, 2002


Donkey: It was a link to a Yahoo(I think) news page with nothing but a photo of Arafat. The entirety of the post was the word "Arafat."

While I can't really think of a specific reason the post would go, I can definitely say it probably had no reason to stay. Does that make sense?
posted by Su at 3:48 AM on March 31, 2002


un┬Ěcouth (n-kth)
adj.

Crude; unrefined.
Awkward or clumsy; ungraceful.
Archaic. Foreign; unfamiliar.

I'm taking the middle line for once. If you really think that, send Matt some free intros' to ballroom dancing lessons.
posted by lucien at 3:58 AM on March 31, 2002


"Why must a candid photo of Yasser Arafat under siege be purged from Mefi's memory?"

To avoid freeping carpism?
Reaping crapism?
CREEPING FARKISM!
posted by lucien at 4:02 AM on March 31, 2002


Why was it deleted? Because it broke just about every guideline there is, with not one single redeeming feature; that's why. It consisted of the single word arafat, linking to a single Yahoo photograph with a short caption, referring to the Ramallah siege, in which case it would also be a double post. It was boring, lazy, unimaginative, gratuitously inflammatory...let me know if you need more possible reasons for deleting it.

There were some interesting comments, though, because one or two posters started speculating and composing, by proxy, possible hooks for the photograph. Was it a study in despair? Was the photograph exceptional? Bathed in some unearthly light? Good amateur art critic stuff.

Next step has to be the wordless post linking to a single question mark. That would get the creative juices flowing. But it wouldn't exactly epitomize be the MetaFilter experience we all crave and love. ;)
posted by MiguelCardoso at 4:19 AM on March 31, 2002


If every deleted post gets its own MeTa thread, the jokers have won.

MetaFilter: We never say Nay. If you strike out on the blue; you can always catch up on the grey.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 4:24 AM on March 31, 2002


I'm guessing this is the photo.
posted by rcade at 4:33 AM on March 31, 2002


lucien's reason is sounds a lot more on the ball than miguel's.

miguel. this is the point of metatalk. get over it.
posted by jcterminal at 4:33 AM on March 31, 2002


If every deleted post gets its own MeTa thread...

Careful, the jokers may be reading this.


posted by mischief at 5:22 AM on March 31, 2002


Not to mention carping freepism...
posted by sudama at 7:44 AM on March 31, 2002


i could have sworn it was this picture.
posted by quonsar at 8:30 AM on March 31, 2002


rcade is correct as to the photo.

[sics the pastel suited jackals on quonsar for rampant farkism.]
posted by Slithy_Tove at 9:18 AM on March 31, 2002


Great Googly Moogly! Enough with the Middle East stuff already. Between my Jewish girlfreind and Lebanese brother-in-law, I hear enough of this stuff at family functions. I understand that it's an important issue, but I don't need to be updated everytime Sharon hiccups, for pete's sake. If there are any MeFites who aren't aware that there's a crisis in those parts, I don't think it'll ever sink in.
posted by jonmc at 9:28 AM on March 31, 2002


Crisis? What crisis? Who's this Sharon lady? And Pete, what's Pete got to do with anything? I'm so confused. . .
posted by ashbury at 9:31 AM on March 31, 2002


Next step has to be the wordless post linking to a single question mark. *laughs so hard eyes explode*
posted by Mack Twain at 10:50 AM on March 31, 2002


Just to clear the air (at least for me). I meant no disrespect to Matt. I understand there has been an oversaturation of Israel/Palestine discussion here, some of it heated and angry. I just thought the link served another purpose, by which it simply linked to a grainy photograph of a man who's surrounded by tanks and troops. Perhaps I just read too much into the thing.
posted by crasspastor at 12:14 PM on March 31, 2002


?
posted by skwm at 12:20 PM on March 31, 2002


At the very least isn't there an article somewhere explaining the situation Arafat is in or ..or something? Seems to me that the only crime the original poster committed was laziness, which has been happening more often than not as of late.

Some might argue that this is the natural tendency towards entropy. If we don't expect more from MeFi participants - don't require more through peer pressure, browbeating, better enforced guidelines and whatnot, that people will begin posting links to foo and then grunt unintelligibly at the screen like monkeys in 2001 a Space Odyssey.
posted by ZachsMind at 12:41 PM on March 31, 2002


Jon, what's a middle east?

You mean like Philly?
posted by dong_resin at 2:42 PM on March 31, 2002


miguel. this is the point of metatalk.

To belabor the obvious? Surely not.
posted by rushmc at 3:04 PM on March 31, 2002


It was deleted because you're not at filepile.
posted by skallas at 3:17 PM on March 31, 2002


The Management certainly has the right to deem improper commentary on a photo. The filepile reference is certainly accurate, even if filepile isn't terribly political.
posted by ParisParamus at 4:18 PM on March 31, 2002


You mean like Philly?

Oddly enough, dong_resin, the aforementioned Lebanese bro-in-law grew up in Philly. Freaky coincidence, perhaps it's a harbinger or perhaps it's the St. Ides.
posted by jonmc at 5:13 PM on March 31, 2002


No, I'm just that clever.
Zima? That was mine.
Hail satan.
posted by dong_resin at 6:19 PM on March 31, 2002


The Management certainly has the right to deem improper commentary on a photo. The filepile reference is certainly accurate, even if filepile isn't terribly political.

That'd be different.
posted by crasspastor at 1:22 AM on April 1, 2002


« Older a personal, human editorial slant   |   The First Time Ever I Saw Your Face Newer »

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