Given the chance to respond...

August 6, 2002 9:22 AM

Why was this deleted before it even got off the ground [2 posts]?

Glen Reynolds' Instapundit links to a Meryl Yourish post countering a comment by our own mediareport. I tend to disagree with MR on the Middle East, but seeing as how MeFi is where he expresses himself, it seems appropriate he should have the opportunity to defend himself here.
(This is not an I/P thread, this is a meta-I/P thread. Be nice.)
posted by joemaller at 8:25 AM PST

I thought that joemaller had a good point giving mediareport - and other MeFites - the chance to respond.
posted by i_cola to Etiquette/Policy at 9:22 AM (34 comments total)

For a sec I thought Metafilter had turned into a warblog or something equally crappy. mediareport or anyone else can respond here if they want to, which is where the thread should have been placed anyway. Same goes for the meta grammar thread in my opinion. Note the part about it being a meta-I/P thread also for another clue as to why it was deleted.
posted by euphorb at 9:33 AM on August 6, 2002

Of course, we'll never know.
posted by swift at 9:34 AM on August 6, 2002

This isn't a surrogate discussion site. It seemed like a flimsy reason to start a discussion when it's one person (mediareport) versus another (Yourish) and I suppose another (Glenn Reynolds). Why is that interesting to anyone besides those three? Ideally, any comments should have been placed on Yourish's site, if there was comment capability. The only reason to take it here is to use this site's comments, and if the other people aren't here to respond, what's the point?

I felt leaving it would set a sort of dangerous precident, where it's ok to take sideline discussions from other sites discussing metafilter, to metafilter. Kinda too meta to be interesting.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 9:42 AM on August 6, 2002

Same goes for the meta grammar thread in my opinion

Yes, I thought about that, euphorb. But as it was a follow-up to a MetaFilter post with new, discussable data, I figured it would be out of place here.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 9:43 AM on August 6, 2002

I agree 100% with Matt. Sorry to the poster, I'm sure your intentions were good but this was a terrible post.
posted by cell divide at 9:45 AM on August 6, 2002

Miguel, it was a perfect MetaTalk post. People used to post about mentions in other publications (christian science monitor article, etc) here, because it's a post talking about metafilter.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 9:48 AM on August 6, 2002

I was waffling about posting in on MeTa in the first place, I decided on MeFi because I hoped for a broader range of opinions.

The thread was starting to spiral into an "I love/hate Instapundit" thread, and so was appropriately deleted.

I mentioned Instapundit simply because of it's massive readership, not as an endorsement of any position. Mostly I wanted to know how people felt about one of our discussions being taken off-site. Maybe I should have been more clear.

posted by joemaller at 9:52 AM on August 6, 2002

Oops. Sorry about that, Matt. As it's more of an ongoing discussion than a straightforward mention, I thought MetaFilter was best. I get it now, though.

Just my luck to have you tell me the one and only perfect MetaTalk post in my life was mistakenly posted to MetaFilter. ;)
posted by MiguelCardoso at 9:55 AM on August 6, 2002

The thread was starting to spiral into an "I love/hate Instapundit" thread, and so was appropriately deleted.

The thread should have been on MetaTalk and so was appropriately deleted.
posted by joemaller at 10:08 AM on August 6, 2002

actually joe, I'm not sure if it would have a home here either, unless it could be abstracted from the subject at hand and we wanted to discuss how to handle offsite discussions. I still think this would be accomplished best as comments on other websites making the claims, email between interested parties, or on mediareport's own weblog if he has one.

It's probably due to membership limitations, but why didn't Yourish just post here to begin with?
posted by mathowie (staff) at 10:12 AM on August 6, 2002

joe, also keep in mind we have a lot of new users now, and I'm being especially careful about the quality of posts on the front page. If a new user sees a borderline or weird post stay up, then more borderline posts are sure to follow.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 10:14 AM on August 6, 2002

Thanks for the answers Matt. Points well made.

Is there any easy way of shifting a thread like Miguel's (& joemaller's) to MeTa & leaving a "Moved to MetaTalk" notice in MeFi?
posted by i_cola at 10:22 AM on August 6, 2002

Matt: I don't suppose it would now be possible to move the Knucklerap thread here, so it would be together with the other press and web mentions?
posted by MiguelCardoso at 10:23 AM on August 6, 2002

Me and my perfect timing. For crying out loud, how many things can a man screw up all in once? ;)
posted by MiguelCardoso at 10:26 AM on August 6, 2002

This too: at once.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 10:26 AM on August 6, 2002

Experimenting with the cocktail shaker this evening Miguel? ;-)
posted by i_cola at 10:30 AM on August 6, 2002

It's probably due to membership limitations, but why didn't Yourish just post here to begin with?

That's one of the points I was hoping would come up. I don't know why she didn't. It would be pretty easy to assume that the prospect of an even platform for discussion isn't an attractive one to many people. Posting a personal attack on a one-sided forum (soapbox) doesn't invite dissent, or if it does, it that dissent is tightly controlled. Or maybe it's an ego thing, speaking as a member of a community might be considered a step down. Ultimately, I thought her comments were mostly a personal attack, reinforced by the use of MediaReport's real name instead of his screenname. Maybe she didn't post to MetaFilter because that sort of thing generally doesn't fly here.

and I'm being especially careful about the quality of posts on the front page

Thank you.

posted by joemaller at 10:32 AM on August 6, 2002

mathowie:Miguel, it was a perfect MetaTalk post.

Finally, Miguel has a post that is perfect for MetaTalk and he screws it up.

(I kid because I love, Migs.)
posted by eyeballkid at 10:53 AM on August 6, 2002

Thanks for killing the one about "signs". ugh.
posted by whatnot at 11:14 AM on August 6, 2002

Posting a personal attack on a one-sided forum (soapbox) doesn't invite dissent, or if it does, it that dissent is tightly controlled.

Nice summation of the problem at the heart of the wArBlOg world.

Some of you may enjoy reading the text of an email I sent Meryl last Thursday, and to which she never replied before posting an attack from the safety of her comment-free blog three days later:

"Hi, Meryl. I, too, am shocked at the horror of the latest bombing (made scarier somehow by the fact that it apparently wasn't a suicide attack). But I can't help wondering how many of the people in that picture knew some of the 150 or so wounded or 11 dead babies who were innocent victims of that one-ton bomb Israel dropped on a residential Gaza Strip neighborhood just last Monday. While nothing excuses the monstrosity of children cheering innocent deaths, I do think a reasonable observer would consider the very recent horror of that one-ton bomb as they linked to a story about Gaza Strip reaction to an obvious retaliatory strike from Hamas.

"Does anyone think Hamas *wasn't* going to retaliate for that one? Not justifying it, of course. Just trying to be a reasonable observer of this awful mess."

It couldn't be more clear that Meryl's not interested in reasonable debate here. No comments at her site, no reply to a polite email that disagrees with one of her positions and then a public ad hominem attack? Why am I thinking of the Eightball issue where the Gary Groth character has to pull out a thesaurus to keep finding the right words to tell Dan Pussey how awful his comics are? It's completely disgusting behavior, particularly the part where, in typical wArBlOg style, she paints me as someone who "keeps making excuses for murderers" without offering a single example where I've done so. And Glenn Reynolds' lazy, pathetic cheering of this kind of argument -- with extra added insults, oboy! -- speaks volumes about his interest in reasonable discussion of the complexities of the I/P situation as well. "The New York Times of the bloggers," indeed.

Fuck this kind of blogging. It deserves its growing irrelevance.
posted by mediareport at 11:52 AM on August 6, 2002

There's *spank* no way *spank* this was worthy *spank spank SPANK* of the front page, Miguel. >:(

Ideally, any comments should have been placed on Yourish's site, if there was comment capability.

Oh, I'd have commented there, if I could. Meryl's site first came up in this comment about the cancer of violence eating at Palestinian children. I followed the link, and posted a response as I would to any link offered in a thread I was participating in. As a minor aside near the end, I noted a few things I'd seen at Meryl's site that indicated she wasn't particularly interested in thoughtful discussion of the issues involved (a position that has since been vindicated nicely). Was there really anything about my initial comment, Matt, that you thought was inappropriate?
posted by mediareport at 12:17 PM on August 6, 2002

Oops. Miguel posted that other thread. Joe, do you want one, too?
posted by mediareport at 12:24 PM on August 6, 2002

Whew! For a moment there, I thought the egg twins were kaput!
posted by MiguelCardoso at 12:27 PM on August 6, 2002

Meryl Yourish also claims that the sermon translated here is Saudi government-sponsored calls for the death of Jews. Maybe it loses something in translation, but the triumphalist rhetoric of a cleric on the sabbath (or whatever it is that Friday prayers) saying this:
"... O God... destroy the enemies of Islam, the tyrants and the
corrupt... give support to the mujahidin for the sake of your religion everywhere. O God, help them score victory for the sake of your
religion everywhere. O God, support them and give them victory. O God,
destroy the tyrant Jews. O God, deal with the Jews and their supporters.
O God destroy them for they are within your power..." -
is not the same as the KSA saying 'kill jews, kill all jews'. Or should we take seriously the rhetorical war-mongering of all clerics/prophets/leaders everywhere, whenever? *cough* old testament*cough*

posted by dash_slot- at 12:29 PM on August 6, 2002

For a moment there, I thought the egg twins were kaput!

They can never take that away from us, dear.

But maybe you and Joe should chip in and buy Matt something nice. :)
posted by mediareport at 12:36 PM on August 6, 2002

Was there really anything about my initial comment, Matt, that you thought was inappropriate?

Nope, the only thing I think is inappropriate in all this is using metafilter when the subject of an argument doesn't have comments or answer email.

Seems like this woman isn't interested in debate at all.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 12:58 PM on August 6, 2002

why does anyone care what he/she thinks?

from the little bit of that site i just read, i doubt they are that able/willing to change their minds about any subject.
posted by rhyax at 1:49 PM on August 6, 2002

why does anyone care what he/she thinks?

After this, I'd ask the same thing about Glenn Reynolds.
posted by mediareport at 2:02 PM on August 6, 2002

from the little bit of that site i just read, i doubt they are that able/willing to change their minds about any subject.

Why should 'they' desire to be "able/willing to change their minds"? It's obvious you aren't able/willing to change yours.

But hey, they're on the 'wrong' side and you're on the valiant, righteous, downtrodden one, so I suppose they deserve your vague and misdiredcted scorn.

Or something like that.
posted by evanizer at 4:10 PM on August 6, 2002

I suppose they deserve your vague and misdiredcted scorn.

Hell, I'd settle for a simple commitment to the give-and-take of honest, respectful debate.
posted by mediareport at 4:19 PM on August 6, 2002

No, i was just saying there is no point arguing with most people because they have made up their mind. i'll concede my "on any subject" was inflammatory. What am i not willing to change my mind on? i never even said who i thought was right.

I would probably side with mediareport, just because he said both sides are doing some bad things. i don't really have strong views on the issue though, they keep fighting, i keep being bored. not the most humanitarian way to look at it, but what can i do? i would support change in our relationship with israel, but saying that is about all i can do.

my point was just wondering if this person had a relationship to mediareport and/or metafilter other than them attacking some comment.
posted by rhyax at 4:25 PM on August 6, 2002

just wondering if this person had a relationship to mediareport

Not as far as I know. Again, I agree this shouldn't have been posted here, but I'll be honest and admit I'm glad it was, since it's given me a chance to reply. I've never felt an urgent need to create a personal blog, but now that one of the leading names in wArBloGdOm has just published a pissant attack that says I make excuses for murderers, it may be time to rethink that position.
posted by mediareport at 4:48 PM on August 6, 2002

You should create a weblog, mediareport. Your posts here on MetaFilter are great.
posted by rcade at 4:53 PM on August 6, 2002

Thanks, rcade, but I dunno. Why would I want to set up a fiefdom with one-way communication between me and a handful of readers who'll agree with almost everything I say, instead of mixing it up here with folks like dhartung, evanizer and a ton of others who'll help me sharpen my arguments and call me on my bullshit? And I know this is going to make some folks mad, but people, come on: Debating an issue via dueling personal weblogs has got to be one of the silliest things ever to appear on the 'Net. And that competition is f-i-e-r-c-e.

With great communal possibilities like moderated mailing lists and newsgroups, and a ton of discussion sites like MeFi, Plastic, Kuro5hin, etc, it's laughable (trust me, I'm laughing) that folks actually choose to pontificate from separate perches that insulate them from comments and leave no single record of the conversation. Is there a less efficient a way for two people to use technology to debate? I suppose buying thousands of computers and spelling out your arguments on the side of a mountain so your opponent can read them with a telescope from 20 miles away would be worse, but not by much.
posted by mediareport at 12:10 AM on August 7, 2002