Just because it's "another Coulter thread" September 5, 2002 8:44 AM   Subscribe

Hi, Jack. Just because it's "another Coulter thread" doesn't mean raysmj ought to piss all over it with his off-topic opinions on proper journalistic style. How many other threads have been similarly derailed by snarks on the writing style or site design of the linked page?
posted by mcwetboy to Etiquette/Policy at 8:44 AM (64 comments total)

I didn't appreciate raysmj's comments either, but it is very Metafilterian to comment on the way something is said rather than what is being said.
posted by whatnot at 8:50 AM on September 5, 2002


Actually, I was finding the discussion of journalistic style more interesting than the yet-another-Ann-Coulter-bashing topic.
posted by Slithy_Tove at 8:53 AM on September 5, 2002


I agree that raysmj's comments were derailing and unnecessary at best, but the continued attacks on raysmj were uncalled for, too. I mean, the attacks on him derailed the thread in the same way that his protests about the writing style did. Let him know you didn't appreciate it, and move on to the topic.
posted by adampsyche at 8:53 AM on September 5, 2002


Yes, whatnot, but it usually involves the nature of the subject itself... we're not actually debating here the editor's thoughts... we've all reached an agreement he disliked Coulter and wanted to get rid of her. Everyone's just bitching about whether or not the number of line breaks and where they go are "correct grammar," as if we're all some cranky old man complaining about how poetry these days is nothing more than normal paragraphs with carefully placed spacing rawr grunt grrrr mumble.

posted by XQUZYPHYR at 8:56 AM on September 5, 2002


I think raysmj's comment was spot on. The style is relevant because, despite the megalomaniac posing (the rag isn't the Washington Post) it's so Coulterish, sensational and almost illiterate, making the whole "editorial stance" suspect (and hilarious).

I would also dispute that what is being said and how it is said can be separated, but that's another story. In sum, raysmj made an intelligent comment on the link, replied when criticized and, in my opinion, showed up the attitude for what is was: a sham, a crude publicity-seeking gesture no better than the columnist this guy eagerly sought and happily published.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 8:56 AM on September 5, 2002


Arguments similar to this have been hashed out before in MetaTalk, and the end result made no sense to me whatsoever, so I say go with what feels right.

I mean I thought I understood it, then found myself proved wrong. So the hell with it. If someone wants to derail the thread by condemning how someone gets their point across rather than the content itself, what the hell? It's a free country.

I for one tire of playing Quixote and chasing windmills. If this proves to be the Achilles' heel of MeFi, I say let the great fall. Be Nero and burn Rome! Fiddle while you're at it! Have a gay old time, as Fred Flinstone might say!

I believe it's not going to destroy MeFi. It's just gonna make the place look more and more like Usenet. Such is the way of virtual entropy. Viva la estupido! Or words to that effect.
posted by ZachsMind at 8:56 AM on September 5, 2002


Good heavens, there should be sanctions on people who use that horrid, choppy technique.

I brushed off this comment as an arbitrary opinion on a writer's style. The short-paragraph technique in the article seemed purposeful and effective to me.

I didn't see fit to say, "Ooh, nice writing style," rather than comment on the content of the piece -- but I guess other peoples' "off-topic" style comments didn't bug me much. Just a little more slush and pickiness in the comments thread...
posted by Shane at 8:59 AM on September 5, 2002


I agree with Miguel. I think the nit-pickers are those who piled on raysmj, who I think had something valid and relevant to say.

This whole notion of "derailing" a thread is very problematic. There are many aspects of a given topic that one can choose to focus on and discuss. If someone picks an aspect that doesn't interest you, ignore that sub-thread and continue to discuss the parts that DO. Where's the problem? Too often, it seems to me that people want to force others to only focus on those aspects which interest THEM, and I think that's wrong.
posted by rushmc at 9:12 AM on September 5, 2002


The style is relevant because, despite the megalomaniac posing (the rag isn't the Washington Post) it's so Coulterish, sensational and almost illiterate, making the whole "editorial stance" suspect (and hilarious).

He writes short paragraphs for a small paper, so his decision to drop Ann Coulter is suspect? I guess I should pad this paragraph a little, so you'll give my strong disagreement with your statement more consideration. Long enough yet? How about now?
posted by rcade at 9:13 AM on September 5, 2002


Oh, for God's sake. It was a joke, people, made in an intuitive sort of way. Miguel hits on what annoyed me, though. It's another anti-Coulter thread, including a link to an editorial by some journalistic nobody, whose style is less than wildly impressive. What a bold stand! What needs to be discussed, instead of my comment, is why the editorial was even deemed post-worthy. I mean, heck, the National Review banned her months ago, right? That was a story. If plenty of papers or sites that carry her work had dropped the column, or if book stores were refusing to carry "Slander," you'd have a story worth bringing to metafilter.

Oh well. At least my blog got a little PR here. Publicity is publicity, as Coulter surely understands.
posted by raysmj at 9:16 AM on September 5, 2002


I thought the original intent of MeFi was to critique the design of websites primarily, and discuss their content secondarily.

Or, did the current interpretation of the rules change again? How am I supposed to be the contrarian around here with all this chaos?

;-P . . . Sheesh!
posted by mischief at 9:16 AM on September 5, 2002


I think the link was unusual enough to be worth a link here. As a fellow J school geek, you ought to recognize that it's rare for an editor to drop a columnist in such a public, antagonistic way. He's risking a lot of pissed off readers, and these days, the corporate behemoths who own all the papers never reward editors who take those kinds of risks.
posted by rcade at 9:19 AM on September 5, 2002


We do seem to have difficulty staying on-topic in a thread; it doesn't take much for us to fly off on a tangent. If it's incumbent on us to ignore the derail (i.e., not pile on, as we did on raysmj), then it's equally incumbent on the person not to make the derailing comment in the first place, or, having made it, to leave it alone (raysmj only looks unrepentant and only stokes those who he pissed off in the first place).

An example: skylar calling me an asshole in the Marklar thread caused several people to respond (I chose not to), which cranked up the noise in the thread (not that it was all that substantial a post -- still). Had he responded (or had I reacted), it would have been even worse. We (myself included) need to let things go.

On preview: raysmj, if it was a joke, surely you should have let it sit rather than persist in making your point?
posted by mcwetboy at 9:24 AM on September 5, 2002


I just removed all the crap from that thread.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 9:27 AM on September 5, 2002


*everybody darts back to see what passes the crap test!*
posted by MiguelCardoso at 9:32 AM on September 5, 2002


This issue about "content" versus "style" or "format" or "grammar" or "technical soundness" keeps coming up. To me, what it really means is "I started this thread so I should get to say what we discuss."

When you link to a webpage, everything about that page is fair game for discussion.
posted by timeistight at 9:33 AM on September 5, 2002


Pity that.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 9:36 AM on September 5, 2002


that "derailment" by raysmj's comment was the *most* interesting read in ANY ann coulter thread I've ever looked at on metafilter. typically i read about three comments in just to make sure the peanut gallery found its way inside and then close the window.

Just because it doesn't necessarily have to do with the main topic of the thread (which -- sorry, must be a momentary asshole -- was boring newsfilter crap) doesn't mean it needs to be immediately quashed. What of worth was going to be said (or was said) about coulter in that thread? All I saw, besides the journalism style sub-thread, and the (unnecessary) jumping on raysmj was "good fucking riddance" or "well, whatever" -- which i think we've all read about a trillion times before. I can deal with newsfilter links if they generate *interesting* discussion, and at this point, i don't really care if the discussion is at all tangential, because most of the "on-topic" comments are simply redundant or ill-informed. the best threads I've read on metafilter usually come about because one or two people who REALLY know what they're talking about (ie, have spent quite a bit of time doing research or analysis on a topic, rather than have just seen it on nova or read it in an op-ed or something) contribute information to a thread (and it's not always strictly "on-topic" -- remember miguel's discussion of the various portuguese words for "fuck"?). of course, if the community at large would rather read a bunch of folks mouth off one-liners about coulter rather than a rather reasoned debate about journalism, well -- i'll go sit in the corner and pout.

and on preview:

I just removed all the crap from that thread.

i've got to say i'm a bit disappointed. I can understand trying to keep things on topic in order to make sure the tendancy doesn't spread, but... meh. i always have my beloved lofi version.

posted by fishfucker at 9:39 AM on September 5, 2002


More accurately, mcwetboy, it was half-joking. There were also three or four different responses, and not just one, posted in a "how dare you!" fashion. It was sort of interesting, I thought, at first to say that, No, this style wasn't normal long ago. But that set off a full-scale attack, instead of informed commentary, for God knows what reason. Next thing you know a segment of a blog post is brought up out of context, etc. I'd even explained that the "derailment" post was meant to be amusing, and the attacks continued. Thank heavens for the staunch defenders of mediocre journalism's right to be, I guess.
posted by raysmj at 9:41 AM on September 5, 2002


yet-another-Ann-Coulter-bashing topic.

maybe we should all get together and let someone teach us how to skip over threads with topics that we're tired of discussing or just don't want to discuss. also, that person can teach us that we're not required to post in every thread, so it's ok not to comment.
posted by tolkhan at 9:42 AM on September 5, 2002


I'm with the fish lover here; I think Matt should have removed the thread and left the "crap."
posted by timeistight at 9:43 AM on September 5, 2002


Mcwetboy: Correction: That should be "mediocre-to-pathetic journalism's right to be." You could have a reasoned discussion as to whether respecting a reader's intelligence is as important as being non-hateful, actually, although I think it's probably safe to say that Coulter is the far worse human here (I don't know anything about Mr. State College, Penn. Editorial Page Guy besides the editorial). That being said, the best writing always seems to have no small amount of love in it. Sure I fail to show that love in my own writing too often (although I can be too hard on myself), but I do try. In any case, my post was a small one on a community weblog, not a Big Statement About Hate in a daily newspaper, and posted as a big news event. To try to make the thread about me, personally, was pretty weird.
posted by raysmj at 10:02 AM on September 5, 2002


Really, raysmj. Enough!
posted by ericableu at 10:05 AM on September 5, 2002


I agree with raysmj, even though I disagreed with him in the thread. And I agree with Silthy_Tove and fish_f&*# and timeistight--the discussion of the journalistic style was more interesting than the "she sucks" discussion. Plus, I think it was relevant.
And even if it weren't, I could keep track of two discussion topics at the same time, both stemming from a single post. It's not like one was just a name-calling profanifestival.
posted by Fabulon7 at 10:11 AM on September 5, 2002


ericableu: Mcwetboy asked me a question. I was answering it. "Enough" of the quick and thoughtless use of "enough."

posted by raysmj at 10:15 AM on September 5, 2002


Plus, I think it was relevant.

It was a tedious discussion based on nitpicking and calling out each other's "j-school cred." That's not very relevant. I waited for people to drop it, and they didn't, so I dropped it.

And even if it weren't, I could keep track of two discussion topics at the same time, both stemming from a single post.

People coming into the discussion would not post if they thought the editor's decision was good or not if there are 10+ posts about some USAToday vs. Good Journalism hogging the space. While you or I can keep those two separate, someone is much less likely to engage in what was quickly becoming the minor thread, though it was the reason the post was made.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 10:17 AM on September 5, 2002


Hey! I worked hard on my crap! =P
posted by ZachsMind at 10:19 AM on September 5, 2002


Alright, you guys convinced me. The discussion on journalistic style actually was pretty interesting, and had potential, but just got off to a bad start.
posted by adampsyche at 10:20 AM on September 5, 2002


Yep, I have to agree, that credentials fight was pretty sad. And apart from that, everyone should know that a degree does not a good journalist make.
posted by Fabulon7 at 10:33 AM on September 5, 2002


I really do think he crap was more intersting than the thread, because it was a discussion. Now there isn't any discussion in the thread. I may as well go spread some pancakes for good measure... maybe then the poor thread will get deleted.

And yes, I liked my crap too. I think that, given a few hours, the discussion would've turned to dissimilarities in j-school education, which is where I was going to go next.
posted by SpecialK at 10:44 AM on September 5, 2002


Ann Thrax now manages to fuck up our threads even when we're not discussing her

posted by matteo at 10:47 AM on September 5, 2002


We do seem to have difficulty staying on-topic in a thread...

You can't beat a good Darjeeling, even if it's not first flush per se, and Twinings has an excellent one in its tins of loose-leaf "Vintage."

An example: skylar calling me an asshole in the Marklar thread caused several people to respond (I chose not to)...

Good on ya. Everytime I think I've got that down pat I break down and respond to a nasty comment. I guess it takes constant restraint.
posted by Shane at 10:52 AM on September 5, 2002


The only problem I see is that you guys are all haters.
posted by Hildago at 11:00 AM on September 5, 2002


The funniest thing is that MeFiStazi is now a truly censored republic. Not only do multiple threads disappear on a weekly basis (and not just the silly, pointless ones), but now the odd bit of intelligent diatribe goes missing too. Don't say anything someone else might not like, your words may disappear (quite as I expect these ones to).

Eerily similar to the Ministry of Information in '1984', I think my previous references to 'threadcrime' on MeTa might have been a good premonition!
posted by wackybrit at 11:32 AM on September 5, 2002


Don't flatter yourself, wackybrit.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 11:35 AM on September 5, 2002


First they came for the crap, and I did not speak out...
posted by sad_otter at 11:46 AM on September 5, 2002


Eerily similar to the Ministry of Information in '1984'

Why, yes, if Metafilter was, say, the government instead of a privately owned and maintained website.

I think my previous references to 'threadcrime' on MeTa might have been a good premonition!

Not really! But why stop patting yourself on the back now for a marginally decent witticism made weeks ago?
posted by Skot at 11:52 AM on September 5, 2002


Eerily similar to the Ministry of Information in '1984'

Your comparison is specious. If memory serves, the characters in 1984 were trapped. They couldn't opt out of their society. We, on the other hand, are all here voluntarily, and if someone doesn't like it, he has a pretty easy way to escape.
posted by anapestic at 11:56 AM on September 5, 2002


So far I don't have a problem with Matt. He didn't even delete my comment before this one, where I called him a jackbooted Stalinist dictator. Whoops, wait -- where IS that post?

Just kidding. So far I have no qualms with deletions.
posted by Shane at 12:07 PM on September 5, 2002


SpecialK: Differences in j-school education? Would I have had to send in a certificate of accreditation from my alma mater's j-school? A list of auspicious, average and marginal alumni? Is there a Great God of Journalism who can decide whether I had a decent education (or one as decent as the guy who took on Ann Coulter's column even after she'd be dropped by the freakin' National Review for her extremism)? I'm thankful that the innner thread was cut off if that's where it was headed. I just see this as hilarious, by the way. It's Theater of the Ridiculous type material.
posted by raysmj at 12:36 PM on September 5, 2002


We do seem to have difficulty staying on-topic in a thread; it doesn't take much for us to fly off on a tangent.

One man's tangent is another's point of interest. But apparently the freedom to respond thoughtfully to a post according to our own inclination is being eroded. Few, indeed, are the threads that stick narrowly to one thin take on a topic. If Matt is now taking it upon himself to cleanse all threads of all drift, he will be overworked and harried indeed.

Better he stick to doubleposts and crapposts, IMO, rather than micromanaging.
posted by rushmc at 12:37 PM on September 5, 2002


If Matt is now taking it upon himself to cleanse all threads of all drift, he will be overworked and harried indeed.

Yes, I am now micromanaging every word ever said on the site, for ever, until the heat death of the universe. Doubleplus good and all that.

This would be the second (or third, but pretty sure it was only the second) time I've done this in more than three years, but don't let that stop anyone from overreacting.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 12:44 PM on September 5, 2002


Seems like there was another case of thread-culling within the past week, but I'd have no idea how to track it down.
posted by rushmc at 12:46 PM on September 5, 2002


So much wheat, so little chaff.
posted by y2karl at 12:57 PM on September 5, 2002


raysmj, No, I wasn't thinking that. I think you're overreacting. I was curious because, back when I was in J-school (and on the newspaper staff) four years ago at a small college, the reporting and writing classes and the newspaper staff training focused on writing in different styles aimed at what you were writing about. Writing in long sentances was frowned on in hard news style, and the examples they gave of what 'not' to do was to use the flowery prose you occasionally see in USA Today news stories. Humor me; what kind of distinctions did they make in your school?

On preview, and re-think: Actually, never mind, you're likely to think I'm making fun of you or draw some other incorrect conclusion from my words.
posted by SpecialK at 1:05 PM on September 5, 2002


Hey Matt! Ever pruned a MetaTalk thread?
posted by timeistight at 1:08 PM on September 5, 2002


People coming into the discussion would not post if they thought the editor's decision was good or not if there are 10+ posts about some USAToday vs. Good Journalism hogging the space. While you or I can keep those two separate, someone is much less likely to engage in what was quickly becoming the minor thread

I guess it is this attitude--made explicit here but expressed by others--that I object to. I think it is a futile and wrong-headed task to attempt to dumb down the structure or content of the site for hypothetical newbies who haven't caught on yet. And the "while you or I" idea strikes me as needlessly elitist, and just plain mistaken. Most internet forums show far more complexity than the average 2-3 subthreads typical here, and people manage to follow them and continue to participate. What is the minor thread for 10 posts can quickly be turned around and converted to the major thread with a single post or two if people have enough interest in that thread to do so. And if not, perhaps it does not deserve to be the primary thread. Survival of the fittest. Let the community decide (alas, I don't know the Latin for that).

Metafilter is the interplay between the poster and those-who-respond, and insisting that everyone stick exactly and rigidly to what one perceives as the poster's intent creates an artificial and unhelpful imbalance. If someone chooses to enter a thread and post wacky, unrelated junk, the community will judge them accordingly (and, ideally, ignore them, routing around the damage). If they are genuinely responding to the post--albeit in a way or from an angle very different than you or I would have chosen--well, that's what produces the richness and depth that can result from a group of several thousand intelligent people with different thoughts, backgrounds, perspectives and interests.
posted by rushmc at 1:10 PM on September 5, 2002


Hey Matt! Ever pruned a MetaTalk thread?

I can think of one, where a user got more personal then that person should have, and was offered to have the comments removed.
posted by adampsyche at 1:44 PM on September 5, 2002


SpecialK: Nothing hostile here. Also, no class for prunes, etc. Actually, I was taught to use the form AP does, although my alma mater may have changed somewhat now. Why? A multi-million endowment from a former Gannett exec. But for various reasons I doubt things have changed much. Again, though, the style I was talking about was absolutely not the typical AP style. It was a whole different thang. I showed this with examples. It's irritating. I was tired of Coulter threads, and thought this guy was sounding oddly haughty, so threw the bit in in a half-joking way.

Otherwise, I was never particularly fond of the inverted pyramid, although I understand its use and importance. I think I was corrupted by a former Village Voice editor and teacher, feature writing, a hopelessly wandering mind and my own outside reading.

Oh, you're getting me all nostalgic here. Look what you've done!
posted by raysmj at 1:45 PM on September 5, 2002


I guess it is this attitude--made explicit here but expressed by others--that I object to.

If I come across as having the attitude "I know what's best for you all" it's because I run the place (no, I'm not saying this to pull rank, but to remind you why I'm making this statement and care about this issue) and I've watched people follow patterns for years now. In the rare times I've pruned some side tangent, the discussion has resumed just fine. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that side tangents that overtake a thread kill the original discussion, just as the first two or three comments tend to set the tone for the entire discussion, that's just how members have acted in almost 20,000 threads now.

Let the community decide

if more than three or four people were in on the discussion I'd agree with you, but it sounded like raysmj vs. two others while everyone else waited for them to drop it.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 1:57 PM on September 5, 2002


Oh, there were more than two others involved by the time you started pruning. About five, at least, with more coming around. The guy who posted less than half a paragraph from my blog came into the discussion rather late, then was followed by another person pointing out a sentence fragment, also rather late. It was getting stranger by the sec at the time you pulled the plug, which was OK.
posted by raysmj at 2:05 PM on September 5, 2002


I still don't understand what we're getting out of, "Don't comment on her looks! That's sexist!" for the 47th time. But yeah, the thread was getting too weird.
posted by raysmj at 2:06 PM on September 5, 2002


someone is much less likely to engage in what was quickly becoming the minor thread

Oh, their loss, man. Minor Thread is a great band.
posted by LionIndex at 2:12 PM on September 5, 2002


I can think of one, where a user got more personal then that person should have, and was offered to have the comments removed.

And quite right too. I might have a go, but I never make it personal. Attacking MeFi as an institution could be said to be healthy rebellion, whereas attacking individuals is sheer thuggery.

And rushmc has summed up what I think about this. Community moderation rules. After all, it made Slashdot great. . .

;-)
posted by wackybrit at 2:56 PM on September 5, 2002


There is plenty of evidence to suggest that side tangents that overtake a thread kill the original discussion

Sometimes they do. Quite frequently, in fact. And usually this goes unremarked, much less acted upon.

Again, if that is what occurs, then it is because it is the will of most people involved in the thread to discuss the tangent over the original topic. What is wrong with that? One can't force people to talk about something which, for whatever reasons, doesn't interest them; nor, it seems to me, should one penalize people for discussing what, for whatever reasons, does.
posted by rushmc at 2:59 PM on September 5, 2002



Oh, their loss, man. Minor Thread is a great band.


yeah, well, matt didn't want to shear it, but all you do is talk about you.

*running. fastly. yes. fastly.*

posted by fishfucker at 4:08 PM on September 5, 2002


ff: ha!
posted by adampsyche at 4:21 PM on September 5, 2002


Count me among those who found the journalism subthread far more interesting than the tired main topic.
posted by languagehat at 4:35 PM on September 5, 2002


rushmc: "One man's tangent is another's point of interest. But apparently the freedom to respond thoughtfully to a post according to our own inclination is being eroded."

Why does that sound familiar? Dudes. We've been down this road before. We always come back to the same place. Matt's sandbox. Don't like it when he deletes tangents/points of interest? You don't have to be here. Really. I argued this until my fingers practically bled on the keyboard. Youze guys is barkin' up a deaf tree.

Matthowie: "If I come across as having the attitude "I know what's best for you all" it's because I run the place (no, I'm not saying this to pull rank, but to remind you why I'm making this statement and care about this issue)"

This is one of very rare times when Matt pruned a thread, but more often he just deletes the thread. He's prudent enough to see when a Front Page Post has merit, but the commentators are disrupting the playing field. He doesn't delete without just cause. This place is, without argument, more important to Matt than to any of us. If you think you know better than Matt what's best for his place, you are wrong. He has been at the helm from the start. It was his idea. He runs the server. There is no "let the community decide." Matt CHOOSES if he so desires to listen to the community, but ultimately his decisions are his own.

MeFi is not a free forum. It is a controlled space. Think of it like a bar. Matt owns the bar. He allows people to come in and speak their mind if they wish. Enjoy the ambiance or whatever. If Matt feels someone is out of line, it's his prerogative to curtail actions which he deems offensive or abusive or anything he doesn't like. Hell, if he despised any kind of profanity, he's within his rights to censor our posts. It's on his server. It's on his dime. If he wanted to delete any reference to the word "kumquat" it's his choice.

I've argued against censorship in this place before. I was wasting my breath. So are any of you who go down that road. As censors go, Matt's very liberal, and uses his power in here sparingly. As he pointed out, it's very rare. Be thankful he's at the helm rather than any of the rest of us.

For example, if I had my hands on the delete button, I'd remove any and all terrorist-oriented threads after the first one per day. This place doesn't need more than one thread having to do with the Taliban or Afghanistan or The West Bank or Shrub's War on Terrorism beyond one per day, yet every two out of three threads nowadays is talking about different angles on the same tired topic.

Oh, and I'd delete any reference to the word "kumquat" just for my own personal amusement.
posted by ZachsMind at 7:18 PM on September 5, 2002


Think of it like a bar. Matt owns the bar. He allows people to come in (...)

If I never read another Metafilter analogy it'll be much too soon but I expected something a little more original than bar from you, Zach!

I can remember being invited to think of it as a:

a) playground
b) pool
c) friend's house
d) microphone
e) sandbox
f) party
g) toy

[ I'll leave it to amateur Freudians to comment on what the similes have in common]


Matt is the ___(insert appropriate synonym of "owner"); we are only the ____(insert synonym of "fuckin' lucky to be here")_____ and so it's only fair that he ____(insert synonym for "does what he likes")____ because, remember, it's Matt's ____(choose word from list above) and so anyone who doesn't like something here might as well go____(insert synonym for "making violent, passionate love to himself in a very faraway place").

Isn't this what you people keep calling a meme? :)
posted by MiguelCardoso at 8:00 PM on September 5, 2002


ZachsMind, as earlier suggested, works hard on his crap. We could all learn something from it.
posted by raysmj at 8:03 PM on September 5, 2002


Really. I argued this until my fingers practically bled on the keyboard.

Yes, and revealed yourself just as clueless then as now. For the ten millionth time, Matt's role as Grand Poobah of MeFi is not being questioned. Fortunately, he neither envisions nor imposes himself as the brutish dictator you admit that you would be, but keeps the channels of communication open in order to listen to the views of others. Pretty amazing that, and very laudable. I particularly like the part where he doesn't feel threatened every time someone asks him about one of his views or actions and lash out defensively.
posted by rushmc at 8:27 PM on September 5, 2002


Miguel, I never said I necessarily agree that this is the way it 'should' be in some idealistic world. That IS how it is.

and I DO work hard on my crap, but it IS still crap. Well okay, actually I type almost as fast as I think so I just spew a lot. But the post of mine that Matt deleted involved a lot of copypasting and trying to sarcastically mimic the j-type short paragraphs thing. I am not mad at Matt though, basically cuz despite the length it really wasn't as funny as the idea was in my head.
posted by ZachsMind at 8:28 PM on September 5, 2002


Oh, and I'd delete any reference to the word "kumquat" just for my own personal amusement.
I'd delete the words "viola da gamba"
And "aardvark" too
posted by matteo at 1:30 PM on September 6, 2002


« Older base-ten rollover!   |   Spellcheck flagging 'MeFi' Newer »

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