When good posts go bad....

December 27, 2002 11:49 AM

When good posts go bad . . . what's the correct course of action when you realize that the cute site you linked to about monkeys is really an argument for intelligent design and you are forced to admit that you didn't read the entire article? Since it wasn't the main link, I didn't get annihilated, but is there a workable way to prune the one bad apple from a multi-link post?
posted by vraxoin to Etiquette/Policy at 11:49 AM (6 comments total)

not to worry?
posted by dabitch at 1:04 PM on December 27, 2002

I wouldn't worry about it; it's probably safe to take the underwhelming response here as a group "no big deal", which I also tried to get across in the thread itself. I pointed it out, you came right back to clarify that it wasn't your intent to use it for that purpose, and the thread went on.

No big deal.
posted by yhbc at 1:07 PM on December 27, 2002

*puts away torches and pitchforks, tells angry villagers to go home*

Yeah, what yhbc said.
posted by eyeballkid at 1:44 PM on December 27, 2002

Intelligent design? Yikes. Like garlic to vampires.
posted by hama7 at 5:20 PM on December 27, 2002

When you have monkeys, why do you need to do/say anything else to defend a post?

kidding, kidding
posted by adampsyche at 6:48 PM on December 27, 2002

I thought the Shakespeare link was good. I can't see why this is even being brought up. What's wrong with presenting two sides of a story in one thread? Some people clearly have too much time on their hands to complain about this ;-)
posted by wackybrit at 5:29 AM on December 28, 2002