Was this post deleted? December 12, 2002 9:29 AM   Subscribe

Did I imagine the George W. posting concerning statutory rape yesterday? Or was it just yanked?
posted by puddsharp to Bugs at 9:29 AM (38 comments total)

I find it hard to believe you think you might have imagnined that. In other words, you're asking where the thread went. Judging how it looked when I first came across it and decided to let nature take its course, it was probably deleted.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 9:31 AM on December 12, 2002


a crackpot filed a case against bush and it was proven worthless. The original post was worded with partisan garbage (with all the usual shrub references) that I didn't feel like keeping around.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 9:39 AM on December 12, 2002


...and I thank you from the bottom of my heart.
posted by timeistight at 9:40 AM on December 12, 2002


Thank you for clearing it up.
posted by puddsharp at 9:43 AM on December 12, 2002


Personally I liked the post. But I'm happy to see it not passing muster.

It was certainly interesting. I must have read the thing four times and it looked like several other people did as well. While it was certainly BS it was also a fascinating look into someone's insanity. Maybe she'll get some medical help out of the publicity.

It was also fun to see both sides of the political battle jump on the silly thing and try to make something out of it. People are silly.

And I enjoyed the spirited discussion of how the president's detractors are using the nickname "Shrub". Great fun.

But I also realize that sort of ideological wank-fest isn't what the site is, or should be, about. And I wouldn't mind one bit if such wank-like threads got pulled much much more often. As in *much* more often. I'd go on to suggest that members who participated in such political bickering have their accounts pulled, but since I'd probably get banned the first day such a rule were implemented, let's not do that.
posted by y6y6y6 at 10:08 AM on December 12, 2002


a crackpot indeed. but the "foldy vs Steve" part of the thread was kinda fun
posted by matteo at 10:12 AM on December 12, 2002


When Matt Haughey finally takes ol' MetaFilter out to the woodshed and shoots it, he should resurrect that thread and show it to anyone who asks "why?".
posted by timeistight at 10:51 AM on December 12, 2002


Where does one go to find the deleted posts? I've seen them linked before several times.
posted by four panels at 11:10 AM on December 12, 2002


But I also realize that sort of ideological wank-fest isn't what the site is, or should be, about. And I wouldn't mind one bit if such wank-like threads got pulled much much more often. As in *much* more often.

i could second that.

deleted posts (all posts, really) can be found in lofi.mefi, four panels.
posted by fishfucker at 11:13 AM on December 12, 2002


But I also realize that sort of ideological wank-fest isn't what the site is, or should be, about. And I wouldn't mind one bit if such wank-like threads got pulled much much more often. As in *much* more often.

Like this one?
posted by crunchland at 11:37 AM on December 12, 2002


The original post was worded with partisan garbage (with all the usual shrub references) that I didn't feel like keeping around.

Amen, regarding the oh-so politically insurgent "Shrub" references. They immediately make me change the channel. Maybe some users can learn from this thread deletion?
posted by dhoyt at 11:50 AM on December 12, 2002


"Like this one?"

Well, no. Leaving up silly things in MetaTalk serves a purpose. Every MetaTalk thread bumps some other discussion off the page. People know that their topic needs to be important enough to short cut something else. I see value in that and it seems to be working. In most cases.

My point is that pruning can have an effect on behavior. There is much less piling on in double posts, much less piling on with "This post sucks", much less piling on period. We've gotten the message that peeing all over a thread is a good way to have it pulled.

We've learned that it's a waste of time. Why post something that will just make work for Matt and get deleted anyway?

But the political bickering remains. My point is that people might bicker less if they knew it was going to get the thread deleted.
posted by y6y6y6 at 12:01 PM on December 12, 2002


Case in point - Both dhoyt and myself agree with the thread being deleted, and we think the bickering should lead to more threads being deleted, but we both participated in the bickering. Hmmmm.....

I would lobby that if we'd known that just by engaging in the political bickering we'd cause the thread to be deleted, we wouldn't have bothered.

On the flip side, I know this just makes more wack-a-mole work for Matt, so it's probably a non-starter. Just a thought.
posted by y6y6y6 at 12:13 PM on December 12, 2002


but we both participated in the bickering. Hmmmm.....

Tru dat. It started on such a bad note, it was only a matter of time before we all succumbed. (succame?)
posted by dhoyt at 12:16 PM on December 12, 2002


Somehow, this also proves Metafilter is leftist. To somebody.
posted by Hildago at 12:26 PM on December 12, 2002


this also proves Metafilter is leftist

I've been deleting comments that are over the top partisan, left or right, the total egregious ones because people do tend to say that MetaFilter leans left and sometimes point out double standards. For the past few months though, fold and mutilate's posts are just as likely to be deleted as at steve at linwood's.

To somebody.

I haven't mentioned it before, but a site that doesn't care for metafilter tried to point out that I deleted something once, and they found the deleted_comments page pointing to it. They said "quick, read it before he takes that away too!" After a few hours, they realized I make this stuff transparent for people that want to find out, that exposing everything I do on the site keeps things fair for everyone involved, and somehow they turned the argument into how I censor people, but leaving remanants up is worse, and that I should really take them down. So it was unfair to remove, then unfair to keep up.

You just can't please some folks.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 12:32 PM on December 12, 2002


You please many thousands of folks Matt. The fuckwits are just jealous. Both fold_and_mutilate and steve_at_linwood love the site. That says a lot about what you've managed to build.
posted by y6y6y6 at 12:38 PM on December 12, 2002


Also, I don't mean to use either person as an example of bad behavior, because they haven't done anything wrong lately to warrant it. I just wanted to illustrate that a post with "$hrubya" in it is as likely to be deleted as one with "Slick Willie" in it.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 12:48 PM on December 12, 2002


Shrub Willie.
posted by adampsyche at 12:59 PM on December 12, 2002


Someone actually wrote "Bu$h's Amerika" the other month in a thread, but I think it was (mercifully) deleted.

"Shrub Willie" is gold.
posted by dhoyt at 1:03 PM on December 12, 2002


(Please note, I am no fan of Bush, but also no fan of ridiculously partisan, unclever, uninteresting pet names for either Repubs or Dems)
posted by dhoyt at 1:09 PM on December 12, 2002


Someone actually wrote "Bu$h's Amerika"

wasn't it "Bu$h's AmeriKKKa"? Or was it a gangsta rap song?

also, what about "junta"? is it allowed?
posted by matteo at 1:35 PM on December 12, 2002


I would lobby that if we'd known that just by engaging in the political bickering we'd cause the thread to be deleted, we wouldn't have bothered.

Or we could learn that if we start bickering, we can get a post that we don't like deleted. Hmmm...

wasn't it "Bu$h's AmeriKKKa"? Or was it a gangsta rap song?

I don't know about the quoting in the thread, matteo, but one of Ice Cube's early solo records was titled "AmeriKKKa's Most Wanted". Just, you know, FYI, yo.
posted by Ufez Jones at 1:50 PM on December 12, 2002


Matt don't worry about that other website. I read the post you're referring to and you sometimes have to ignore idiots. Let those chicken littles believe what they want, they're gonna dog pile on anything even the tiniest bit away from what they believe.
posted by mkelley at 2:08 PM on December 12, 2002


So, if I understand it, the reason lofi exists is to provide transparency as to what is being yanked? I've always wondered why have lofi, although I'm certainly glad it exists.
posted by jonson at 4:28 PM on December 12, 2002


Just to clarify, here, would those who dislike the monicker 'Shrub' be happier if instead I used 'Worthless Bag Of Vomit' or 'Personification of Evil' or 'Corporate Fluff-boy' when referring to the learning-disabled meat byproduct in the White House?

'cause, you know, sometimes I just can't help referring to him, despite a self-imposed moratorium on bashing the nasty little bastard, and I'd like be sure that I'm not bothering anyone's appelatory sensitivities or anything.

My point in going over the top is this : I don't mind at all seeing that pointless thread nuked from space (it's the only way to be sure, after all), but I do take offense at a) those who would tell me what language I can and cannot use, when it is neither obscene nor inviting violence b) having my (admittedly extreme) thoughts about the current American administration, those who make it up, or anything political for that matter, pigeonholed as mere 'partisanship'. Both the parties of note in America are riddled with cancer, I reckon, and while your Shrub is a nasty piece of work, your Slick Willie wasn't much better. One can loathe the Republicans without being a Democrat, or an American for that matter.

I realize that Matt's intention in nuking the thread was neither a) nor b), and my participation in the thread was merely to defend the nickname 'Shrub' as perfectly valid(thanks to a point made my troutfishing several months ago), and in fact he probably doesn't give a flying f**k at a rolling donut either way about what I think about it. But still.

You just can't please some folks.

Heh. You got that right.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:02 PM on December 12, 2002


Mr. wonderchicken: In my opinion, name-calling is beneath someone as capable of intelligent, well-reasoned argument as your own good self. It diminishes your argument to resort to the techniques of those who are too immature, ineloquent, or unintelligent to argue in any way but the "neener neener" ad hominem. The fact that so many people scroll right on by as soon as they see "shrub" or some equally low-rent variation thereof should tell you something. It's not that they don't want to read a well-reasoned anti-Bush argument (in every case, anyway), but that the name-calling sends a stronger message about the commenter and the probable quality of the comment than it does about the subject of the comment.
posted by biscotti at 5:26 PM on December 12, 2002


"my participation in the thread was merely to defend the nickname 'Shrub' as perfectly valid"

Yes. It was fun. But now it's over. Let it go. Time to let the healing begin.

"but that the name-calling sends a stronger message about the commenter and the probable quality of the comment than it does about the subject of the comment."

What a load of crap.
posted by y6y6y6 at 5:29 PM on December 12, 2002


Actually, it is that I don't want to read a "well-reasoned anti-Bush argument," or a well-reasoned anti-Chretien argument or any of the rest of the high-school political club shit that is increasingly choking one of my favorite websites to death.

Isn't there somewhere else you can take all that boring crap? I hate all of it and I say a pox on all your houses.
posted by timeistight at 5:35 PM on December 12, 2002


You're a poxi then, timeistight. A goosestepping poxi! Poxi!
posted by mathowie (staff) at 6:09 PM on December 12, 2002


I hate all of it and I say a pox on all your houses.

Already discussed here, here, here, and here.
posted by eddydamascene at 6:16 PM on December 12, 2002


thats MISTER wonderchicken to you , sucka !
posted by sgt.serenity at 6:45 PM on December 12, 2002


oh sorry , no joking in threads please , move along now.
posted by sgt.serenity at 6:46 PM on December 12, 2002


a) those who would tell me what language I can and cannot use, when it is neither obscene nor inviting violence.

i don't recall anyone saying you or anyone else couldn't use these terms.

b) having my (admittedly extreme) thoughts about the current American administration, those who make it up, or anything political for that matter, pigeonholed as mere 'partisanship'.

i don't think of it as partisanship as much as it is ideology: people get worked up over an issue (whatever it may be) and the usual inane shit gets flung all over the place, stinking up an otherwise reasoned discussion.

*hangs head knowing full well that i participated in and flung some shit around in said thread....

the thread is dead baby. the thread is dead.

posted by poopy at 6:46 PM on December 12, 2002


the name-calling sends a stronger message about the commenter and the probable quality of the comment than it does about the subject of the comment.

Absolutely. How you use language is the meta-message. My assumption is that most people here are clever enough to realize that without being told, and those who would waggle an admonishing finger at others for their choice of words are missing that point, or ignoring it.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 9:47 PM on December 12, 2002


*waggles an admonishing finger at the wonderchicken*

That's Mr. Worthle$$ Bag of Über-vomit to you, sir.
posted by hama7 at 11:15 PM on December 12, 2002


You're a poxi then, timeistight. A goosestepping poxi! Poxi!

Hey! I resemble that remark!
posted by goosestepping poxi! at 1:34 AM on December 13, 2002


theres a point ?
hey everybody ! quick ! somebody found a point !
posted by sgt.serenity at 2:14 AM on December 13, 2002


« Older New comment counter nice idea, not accurate   |   metafiler.com Newer »

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