OK, I'm going to call troll on this.

January 9, 2003 6:11 AM

OK, I'm going to call troll on this. It's a continuation from another thread, so it's unnecessary. It's trollish because the poster is using the post not to point out something interesting or debate-worthy on the Web, but to further an agenda.
posted by hama7 to Bugs at 6:11 AM (70 comments total)

It's a perfectly good post. It's an event in history about which I knew nothing and now do know something, with good and interesting links to back it up. It's your assumption that it's only being used to further an agenda, but no matter what its intent, it is informative and interesting. Some of us don't care about your feud, so don't ruin it for us.
posted by The Michael The at 6:20 AM on January 9, 2003

As someone who normally defends 'newsfilter' posts, I do not see the significance of this woman's death meeting the criteria Matt has established for such posts.

Then again, he did eulogize a rabbit on the sideblog, so I guess that makes anything fair game.
posted by mischief at 6:40 AM on January 9, 2003

Screw the agenda--what's with taking up all that blue real estate?! Even if it's "interesting stuff on the web" instead of "newsfilter" it shouldn't need 3 paragraphs before the "more inside"!
posted by macadamiaranch at 7:14 AM on January 9, 2003

I'm with macadamiaranch here. The post, though entertaining, was way too long. I much prefer an FPP that tells me in one or two sentences exactly what I'm going to get when I click on that link. Anything beyond that just makes my head ache.
posted by vraxoin at 7:54 AM on January 9, 2003

Exactly what "agenda" is Y2K trying further? I see a post about a significant event in American history with half a dozen links to interesting net content and a future PBS documentary I wasn't aware of. Now that I know of it, I'll probably watch it. The write-up was civil and informative. That's good enough for me and a hell of a lot more interesting than boob posts.
posted by octobersurprise at 8:02 AM on January 9, 2003

Hama7:

"I had a thread deleted for doing exactly what you're doing now, y2karl"

and

"I think what you've started here is underhanded, petty, and disappointing, y2karl, and I am embarrased for you."

What's that sound? Is that axes grinding? Could someone please make that stop?

Well.... It looks to the casual observer that the post was about an issue y2karl felt was of interest. And it seems to have generated lots of civilized discussion. But now we can see it was all a thinly veiled attack against hama7. Outrageous!!! The mind reels at the audacity of y2karl who clearly spent several hours building this long post and lengthy [more inside] when it's clear to see the whole thing is just a bitch slap at hama7.

Or...... Perhaps hama7 is mildly insane.
posted by y6y6y6 at 8:02 AM on January 9, 2003

hama7, where is the original thread this is a continuation of?
posted by mathowie (staff) at 8:21 AM on January 9, 2003

Or...... Perhaps hama7 is mildly insane.

hama7 only has to explain his reasoning. and since it's been over 2 hours since hama7's post to metatalk was made, maybe that's asking for too much.
posted by moz at 8:25 AM on January 9, 2003

a) hama7 is more than mildly insane; when personality conflicts dominate the content here, the site as a whole suffers.

b) octobersurprise, Y2Karl is CLEARLY promoting an anti-lynching agenda. It's almost shameful, how biased against lynching this post is.
posted by jonson at 8:26 AM on January 9, 2003

I, for one, am sick of all the AntiLynchingFilter FPPs.
posted by subgenius at 8:30 AM on January 9, 2003

hell of a lot more interesting than boob posts

Second that! I think my next post will somehow combine boobs (the kind that express milk), SUVS, and Apple computers. That'll get 'em.

I think the post in question here is very worthy, and informative to boot. I had no idea there was alleged agenda-furthering going on until you yourself pointed it out, hama7. And I have no problem with agenda-furthering in any case - as long as the post itelf is a good one, I don't care what the reason behind it may be.

Matt: see this.
posted by iconomy at 8:33 AM on January 9, 2003

Basing an Emmett Till post on the death of his mother is at least as valid as basing an Elvis Meets Nixon post on their birthdays; no one complained about that.

I think the "NewsFilter" charge is only valid if something actually is all over the news media.
posted by timeistight at 8:58 AM on January 9, 2003

Regardless of its origins, I found it to be an interesting and well put-together post.
posted by rks404 at 9:00 AM on January 9, 2003

Then again, he did eulogize a rabbit on the sideblog, so I guess that makes anything fair game.

mischief, for making fun of my feelings here, and calling a victim's family of a lynching "the flavor of the month" you've shown yourself to be a real asshole. I've seen you take jabs at me and others before, time and time again in metatalk, but I'm tired of it.

Seriously, if mocking others in this way brings you some little thrill or something, perhaps it's time to reassess the way you handle people.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 9:04 AM on January 9, 2003

You tell'em, Matt. And hama7 - it's really not all. about. you.
posted by widdershins at 9:08 AM on January 9, 2003

matt - it's a continuation of the arguments near here
posted by andrew cooke at 9:16 AM on January 9, 2003

What's that sound? Is that axes grinding?

That is my impression. The claim that y2karl's post was made to further y2karl's "agenda" is coming from HAMA, whose own "agenda" or usual political stance seems to run contrary to the post.

I'd feel more comfortable with a MeTa post like this if it came from someone else. As it is, file it under Partisan Bickering and move on to Next Petty MeTa Topic.

*sigh* Ho hum. More petty BS. 5 more minutes down the tube.
posted by Shane at 9:28 AM on January 9, 2003

I do not see the significance of this woman's death meeting the criteria Matt has established for such posts

Actually, it does. It's something most of us probably hadn't seen elsewhere, and it's timely (the mother's recent death, the upcoming TV documentary). From my understanding of what makes a good post, this qualifies. Continuation or not, it stands on its own pretty well.
posted by boomchicka at 9:32 AM on January 9, 2003

Hama7's a little bitter.
posted by Summer at 9:34 AM on January 9, 2003

Just to add -

Hama7, expecting anyone other than you or me to remember the wording of my previous post shows an extraordinary amount of self-absorption.
posted by Summer at 9:37 AM on January 9, 2003

Summer: WOW! That's entertainment.

Wow. Amaaaazing.
posted by Shane at 9:37 AM on January 9, 2003

But Summer, you posted yours to etiquette/policy, while hama7 posted his to Bugs to be different.

Okay, I'll jump off the pile-on now. Shane Shame on me.
posted by Shane at 9:41 AM on January 9, 2003

when personality conflicts dominate the content here, the site as a whole suffers.

I second that emotion.
posted by cell divide at 9:43 AM on January 9, 2003

Summer: phenomenal catch! Crap of him not to site you in this one.

Y2karl's post does stand well on its own. It's the last bit where he quotes Hama7 from the previous thread that causes a minor problem for me, though not of a "this post must be deleted" magnitude. Just a bad, somewhat baiting (of Hama7 by Y2karl) choice I think.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 9:47 AM on January 9, 2003

Maybe the lesson here is that too much obvious axe-grinding will erode your credibility. Whether you think axe-grinding behavior is okay or not, the fact is that it comes back to bite you on the axe.
posted by Shane at 9:51 AM on January 9, 2003

It's the last bit where he quotes Hama7 from the previous thread that causes a minor problem for me

Yeah, but if you hadn't read the previous thread (which I hadn't), you wouldn't even realize that was baiting. I figured it was a quote from the linked site that I just hadn't seen yet.

But - am I the only one who thought Hama7 was a girl? Must be because of her his user page.
posted by boomchicka at 9:55 AM on January 9, 2003

Then again, he did eulogize a rabbit on the sideblog, so I guess that makes anything fair game.

mischief, for making fun of my feelings here

Oh, come on now. While mischief may not always spend much time worrying about how his comments will impact others on the site, so far as I can recall he generally limits himself to calling things as he sees them, as opposed to going out of his way to antagonize and insult others (as a number of frequent users do habitually). The thing with the rabbit DOES border on the absurd. Not that there's anything wrong with that, I suppose, but for you to go all defensive when someone points that out is...bizarre. I fail to see how questioning the decision to post pointless treacle in the (supposedly) hallowed real estate of the sidebar in any way impugns your "feelings." It's your call to make, but our right to question your purpose/reasoning/sanity in making it (and your prerogative to ignore or shrug off our questions, of course). Trying to impart negative motives to a user's seemingly legitimate response, it seems to me, shows an uncharacteristic bias on your part.
posted by rushmc at 10:09 AM on January 9, 2003

Also, I agree that quoting another user in a post is neither appropriate nor sporting. I have no problem with the rest of the post, though.
posted by rushmc at 10:12 AM on January 9, 2003

Trying to impart negative motives to a user's seemingly legitimate response, it seems to me, shows an uncharacteristic bias on your part.

rushmc, I probably read negative motives into mischief's post because his standard metatalk posts are the equivalent of either "I told you so" or "you're all wrong except me."

How about that "flavor of the month" thing? Am I reading that wrong too? Is there an upside to that one that I've missed?
posted by mathowie (staff) at 10:19 AM on January 9, 2003

Yeah, but then again, rushmc, you are kind of a asshole too....
posted by jonson at 10:20 AM on January 9, 2003

(I laughed at mischief's comment about the rabbit, I thought he was being light with you Matt, not trying to "hurt your feelings".)
posted by dhoyt at 10:25 AM on January 9, 2003

Yeah, but if you hadn't read the previous thread (which I hadn't), you wouldn't even realize that was baiting.

True, but Y2karl certainly knew that Hama7 would pick up on it. It just seems needlessly personal to me.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 10:26 AM on January 9, 2003

I thought mathowie's description of mischief's commenting style was spot on.
posted by timeistight at 10:30 AM on January 9, 2003

How about that "flavor of the month" thing? Am I reading that wrong too?

Where is this? I'm not finding it...
posted by rushmc at 10:33 AM on January 9, 2003

Yeah, but then again, rushmc, you are kind of a asshole too

You are welcome to your opinion.
posted by rushmc at 10:34 AM on January 9, 2003

jonson, that comment was shockingly forward and direct, utterly without subtlety or guile or humorous sugar-coating or the semblance of a polite treading-on-eggshells and well-reasoned argument, and more than just a little crass in its call-it-like-it-is sensibility.

You rule.

: )
posted by Shane at 10:34 AM on January 9, 2003

rush:

I fail to see how questioning the decision to post pointless treacle in the (supposedly) hallowed real estate of the sidebar in any way impugns your "feelings."

mischief didn't criticize matt's post to the sidebar -- he criticized his intentions. mischief wrote that matt "did eulogize": and does a eulogy not often involve sentiment? (consider matt's words in the sidebar post: "It's surprising how touching and sad the last photos are.") i don't know how you saw it, rush, but it seemed clear to me that mischief mentioned the rabbit's sidebar post in contrast to another death-related post: that of the woman's whose post this thread regards. it seems clear that mischief was, therefore, blaming matt's sentiment for the continued existence of the threads. hopefully, that will help you see why matt reacted the way he did.
posted by moz at 10:37 AM on January 9, 2003

That wasn't just any rabbit. That was the unofficial (or perhaps official for all I know) mascot for this site.

Some people are just heartless. Not to mention it takes a certain amount of pointless legalism not to see why this particular post was of some note.
posted by konolia at 10:39 AM on January 9, 2003

the flavour of the month comment was in the mefi thread, not here. also: matt is a little defensive at times; mischief said something stupid; y2karl was baiting hama7; hama7 fell for it. so, another shitty day in paradise.
posted by andrew cooke at 10:39 AM on January 9, 2003

What andrew said.

Maybe we all need a timeout.

Okay everyone, turn the computer off, put your head on your desk, and take a nap. No talking. No passing notes. Since we can't play nice, it's nappy time.
posted by y6y6y6 at 10:44 AM on January 9, 2003

Andrew is pretty much 100% right.
posted by jonson at 10:47 AM on January 9, 2003

But Summer, you posted yours to etiquette/policy, while hama7 posted his to Bugs to be different.

I think Bugs is the default in posting Meta-Talk, which just may match the topic.

Thing do go in themes on this site, which I have posted before.

Andrew...so, another shitty day in paradise. Is this another way of saying, The End.
posted by thomcatspike at 11:09 AM on January 9, 2003

Feeling a connection with strange animals (meaning animals who you don't know) is a little bit like religion insofar as it means a whole lot to some people and others of us just don't get it. But, like religion, when you don't get it, it's best to just keep it to yourself because someday there's going to be something that affects you deeply and that no one else will get, and you won't want them being as much of a jerk to you as you were to them.

Also, as someone who drives a lot with two kids in the car, I can tell you that the reactions of someone in authority are not always directly proportional to a specific event. If one of your kids is constantly kicking the back of your seat (or obnoxiously putting her stuff on her sister's side), you want to let it go for as long as you can, but she'll keep on doing it and doing it until you react, and then you're a bit mad because she's been obnoxious for so long. And she'll think you're overreacting to the specific event, and maybe you are, but you're not overreacting to the entire history of obnoxiousness. And sometimes it's a good thing, because if you just tell her patiently not to kick the back of the seat or not to snipe at her sister, she'll stop but then do it again a few minutes later, whereas if you react more forcefully (not violently), it makes an impression, and maybe she'll learn to be a more polite passenger.

It's probably too late for a lot of people here to learn to be polite passengers, but hope springs eternal. At the very least, you ought to be old enough to be glad that someone's letting you ride in the car, because if I were driving, I'd have left your butts on the side of the road back when we were just pulling out of the driveway.
posted by anapestic at 12:11 PM on January 9, 2003

hama7 calls y2karl a troll. funniest goddam thing to happen around here since dgaicin redefined 'troll' as 'having a distinct personality'. oh wait - that was yesterday. see why i love this place?

troll of trolls,
posted by quonsar at 1:27 PM on January 9, 2003

That's dgaicun, troll. And, if anyone, it was irontom who implied that- or at least people that use uncertified memes are.

trollishly yours,
posted by dgaicun at 2:21 PM on January 9, 2003

if the rest of the country had followed Mississippi's lead, we wouldn't have had all these anti-lynching posts over all these years, either
posted by matteo at 2:22 PM on January 9, 2003

Trollercoaster Tycoon!
posted by inpHilltr8r at 2:28 PM on January 9, 2003

Thanks for the clarifying comment, moz. I'm not sure I entirely agree with your interpretation, but I can see how one (you, or Matt) could see things in that light, whereas I had no idea where it was coming from before.

I think andrew cooke has it pegged pretty well.

___________ is a little bit like religion insofar as it means a whole lot to some people and others of us just don't get it.

You could equally fill in that blank with just about anything, anapestic. I appreciate your generosity, but think this is a too-simplistic way of describing the issue. As for your authority analogy, I would argue that such a technique is counterproductive, as it obscures the cause-and-effect linkage between error and correction that makes correction both appropriate and effective. It also tends to segue into serious abuse far too often. I think it's better to address each seat-kicking as it arises than to let it build till you "snap," because you are more in control of your response in an unsnapped state.
posted by rushmc at 2:43 PM on January 9, 2003

That wasn't just any rabbit. That was the unofficial (or perhaps official for all I know) mascot for this site.

Funny, I've been around here a while and I certainly would not make such a claim for the rabbit. (A friendly tip: one should not make general accusations of "heartlessness" unless one is equally willing to accept accusations of "brainlessness.")
posted by rushmc at 2:55 PM on January 9, 2003

What I don't love is hypocrisy. If this is truly a discussion forum (you may think I am new but I have been with you for years), presenting a different opinion should not come as a shock worthy hand-wringing and deliberation.... Sometimes, there's a good reason for debate, and usually it beats calling somebody a "troll".
posted by hama7 at 7:09 AM PST on August 22

OK, I'm going to call troll on this. It's a continuation from another thread, so it's unnecessary. It's trollish because the poster is using the post not to point out something interesting or debate-worthy on the Web, but to further an agenda.
posted by hama7 to bugs at 6:11 AM PST

~chuckle~
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 2:59 PM on January 9, 2003

Woo!
posted by Pretty_Generic at 3:03 PM on January 9, 2003

fold_and_mutilate shoots, scores - nothin' but net.

rushmc - you obviously do not have children.
posted by dg at 3:09 PM on January 9, 2003

RushMc has a link to a page devoted to his Everquest character from his member page, dg. Need you ask if he has children?

Also F_and_M, touche.
posted by jonson at 3:23 PM on January 9, 2003

let me get get this right, bunnies are being lynched by trolls?
posted by sgt.serenity at 3:24 PM on January 9, 2003

Only the vibrting ones. *hats off to foldy for the curious juxtaposition*
posted by adampsyche at 3:43 PM on January 9, 2003

let me get get this right, bunnies are being lynched by trolls?

for eating vegan haggis.
posted by y2karl at 3:46 PM on January 9, 2003

As for the animal haggis, remember that by perverse coincidence, the sound the haggis is most sensitive to is that of plaid rubbing on underpants
posted by y2karl at 3:59 PM on January 9, 2003

and where exactly does the time cube fit into all this ?

haggis...yum.
evanizer is also sensitive to this sound...
posted by sgt.serenity at 4:04 PM on January 9, 2003

hama7, where is the original thread this is a continuation of?

I linked to it in the thread, It's this one.

~chuckle~

~wink~
posted by hama7 at 4:25 PM on January 9, 2003

and what has this to do with haggis lynching rabbits hama7?
posted by sgt.serenity at 4:38 PM on January 9, 2003

It's been a good day, and I feel somehow better about MeFi. I hope I get a chance to buy a round for some of you some day. Maybe Sam Smith Organic Ale, where necessary ; ) Thanks.
posted by Shane at 5:05 PM on January 9, 2003

RushMc has a link to a page devoted to his Everquest character from his member page, dg. Need you ask if he has children?

Rather shabby logic there, jonson, since most of the people I knew who played EQ when I did DID have children. But don't let me intrude upon your cherished stereotypes...reality can be SO complicated and hard to keep up with.
posted by rushmc at 5:55 PM on January 9, 2003

rushmc....sometimes i wonder if you're really spock (or ash, or even hal) incognito.

HAL: Let me put it this way, Mr. Amer. The 9000 series is the most reliable computer ever made. No 9000 computer has ever made a mistake or distorted information. We are all, by any practical definition of the words, foolproof and incapable of error.

please varify ;)
posted by poopy at 6:33 PM on January 9, 2003

jonson, that's the second time in as many days I've seen you attack rushmc based on content from his personal website. Although I don't think there's any "official" policy on the matter, that just seems plain tacky to me. Unless a member's website is the subject of a front page post, I would think that one's posting history provides enough fodder for personal attacks (if you so desire) without having to delve into off-MetaFilter projects -- particularly since you've declined to offer a website address so we may scrutinize your hobbies for our snarky pleasure.
posted by jess at 8:42 PM on January 9, 2003

I don't have a website, jess... but you're very right, point taken. I'm just in love with the quote "click here to see my Everquest character". But again, I'll consider it (and other material) off limits, my apologies. And I don't want to seem like I'm doggedly pursuing rushmc (or mischief, or hama7)...

Michael, if you're reading this, my genuine apologies, it will not happen again.
posted by jonson at 11:27 PM on January 9, 2003

...reality can be SO complicated and hard to keep up with.

Hence the Everquest?
posted by inpHilltr8r at 12:58 AM on January 10, 2003

Michael, if you're reading this, my genuine apologies, it will not happen again.

No worries. This was actually discussed at length on Meta once before (can't find link), and the consensus seemed to be that it was not something one should do, but I was in mild disagreement at the time and am not hypocritical enough to flip-flop now just because it was done to me. I personally think offsite public data about a member is not so much inappropriate as it is irrelevant. But I'm not stupid enough to post anything publicly that I'm ashamed of, and that includes the fact that I sometimes play computer games.

I would not want to be "doggedly pursued" on Metafilter, but it can be a fine line between legitimate response and perception of persecution. I've been falsely accused of "doggedly pursuing" a person or two over the years, so it will take an extreme series of offense before I complain myself.

In other words, my skin is not paper-thin, so feel free to respond to me as you are motivated to (within the parameters of the site standards of politeness and decency, of course). :)
posted by rushmc at 5:12 PM on January 10, 2003

...reality can be SO complicated and hard to keep up with.

Hence the Everquest?

LOL More, hence the Metafilter, actually.
posted by rushmc at 5:13 PM on January 10, 2003

rushmc....sometimes i wonder if you're really spock (or ash, or even hal) incognito.

Sorry to disappoint, poopster, but I don't aspire to being Mr. Spock, whom I see as rather deeply flawed. Emotion, like logic and a number of other things (but not sloppy sentimentality), is a valid and important tool in a human being's toolbox and should not be ignored or cast aside. All I object to is the attempted use of a screwdriver for a job to which a hammer is better suited. The nature of this medium constrains expression of certain traits, and at times one must sacrifice feeling for clarity, but I suggest that anyone who interprets my comments here as all-logic, no-heart needs to read a little deeper.
posted by rushmc at 5:19 PM on January 10, 2003

...so feel free to respond to me as you are motivated to (within the parameters of the site standards of politeness and decency, of course)

OUCH!

Shite, I bit my tongue a little TOO hard.
posted by Shane at 5:31 PM on January 10, 2003