Laurie Garrett on NPR Morning Edition April 30, 2003 6:47 AM   Subscribe

The voice of the Notorious Laurie G is to be heard on NPR's Morning edition today. Laurie Garrett's--whose breezy, chatty email about attending the World Economic Forum conference in Davos, Switzerland was exhaustively analyzed here in Could This Be True? --journalistic specialty is reporting on modern plagues like HIV and Ebola for Newsday. On Morning Edition, she reported on the spread of SARS from Beijing to the countryside in China, which is--and pardon my Freedom--pretty fucking scary, and the power struggle going on between the factions of Hu Jin Tao and Jiang Zemin (see previous Freedom phrase) in the midst of all this, which is paralyzing the struggle to contain it on all levels, according to Ms. Garrett. On the job, she is a very competent and highly professional reporter.
posted by y2karl to MetaFilter-Related at 6:47 AM (72 comments total)

Pardon my Freedom

Ha ha ha!
posted by MiguelCardoso at 6:50 AM on April 30, 2003


MetaFilter related?
posted by y6y6y6 at 6:59 AM on April 30, 2003


Couldn't be more MetaFilter-related, y6 - the Laurie Garrett Affair, which Karl linked to, was one of the high points of the Season here, with the participation of The Woman Herself.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 7:09 AM on April 30, 2003


Yes, quite so.

Upon replay, I can hear palpable fear in her voice. She is scared.
posted by y2karl at 7:20 AM on April 30, 2003


On the job, she is a very competent and highly professional reporter.

I personally never questioned this. Shame she resorts to the level of blanket insults in her unprofessional communications ...
posted by walrus at 8:19 AM on April 30, 2003


I've moved to
Texas
and I
have
executed
a dream

posted by matteo at 8:44 AM on April 30, 2003


Do you imagine for a moment that the participants in the WEF--whether they be the CEOs of Amoco an IBM of the leaders of Amnesty International and OXFAM--waste their time writing articles for Newsday? Do you actually believe, as you type your random thoughts for a newspaper article, that you are participating in Civilization? In Democracy? In changing your world?

I beg of all of you--the journalism addicts of the world--to throw out your typewriters and engage the world. Go have actual eye-to-eye conversations with your family, friends and neighbors. Read a great book. Argue politics over dinner with friends. Go to City Council meeting. Raise money for your local public library. Teach your 12-year-old algebra.

Climb a mountain.

Execute a dream.

Be a citizen of the real world.

Journalists, I have only one thing to say to you: Get a life!?

Please.
posted by hyperizer at 8:51 AM on April 30, 2003


hmm.. i missed the whole affair the first time round, but reading through her response... sheesh.. please patronise some more.

what a stupid woman.
posted by Frasermoo at 8:53 AM on April 30, 2003


Execute a dream? Two nights ago in my sleep I was boning an ex-girlfriend. I see that going down pretty good with the missus.
posted by Frasermoo at 8:55 AM on April 30, 2003


hyperizer: as the man said: rock on, dude!
I'll be organizing a garage sale for my local library now.

I beg of all of you to throw out your typewriters and engage the world. Go have actual eye-to-eye conversations with your family, friends and neighbors. Read a great book. Argue politics over dinner with friends. Go to City Council meeting. Raise money for your local public library. Teach your 12-year-old algebra.

Thinking over the woman's style: she *is* quite the little drama queen, huh? I can just about hear Helen Hunt say it in the halfwitted emodrama about the Laura Garrett e-mail.

Maybe we should start writing the rest of the speech for Helen? Dial-a-clich├ę?

Int. BIG AULA WITH WEEPY PEOPLE
LAURA GARRETT
cont'd

"I urge you: embrace reality. Have long walks on the beach with your girlfriend. Join your friends on a bench in the park to watch little children play with one another and shriek with pleasure. Visit your grandparents, tell them how much they mean to you. Write a thoughtful essay."
posted by NekulturnY at 9:18 AM on April 30, 2003


Not her first time on NPR.
posted by dgaicun at 9:35 AM on April 30, 2003


I personally never questioned this. Shame she resorts to the level of blanket insults in her unprofessional communications ...

Jesus Christ, she had an instantaneous response to what she saw, not inaccurately, as a bunch of twits dissecting her credentials vis-a-vis an email to a private mail list that was not meant for public view but had been disseminated to the larger world , a fact which she had just found out. She's a human being, she reacted. Under the circumstances, she can be forgiven her outburst.

For anyone to pettily beat up on her all over again reflects far worse on all those who do than her initial private email response--again not intended for public view--to a correspondent from here does on her. She, at least, reports on real world events for a national radio network, writes for a prestigious newspaper, has won the Pulitzer Prize and gets to hob nob with the owners at Davos. Her self-importance is far more well earned than anyone's self-importance here.

Once, some people here figured out Kaycee Nicole was a fake. Once I found a missing dog I recognized from a poster on a telephone pole and called its owners to come retrieve it. The two events are not that far removed in scale and importance as far as the greater world is concerned. Her report today was on tremendously important events that may affect our lives in enormous ways--and she gets sniped at, again, for losing it in an email. Sheesh--get a grip.
posted by y2karl at 9:42 AM on April 30, 2003


Sheesh--get a grip.

Dontcha' mean 'a life'? ;)
posted by dgaicun at 9:52 AM on April 30, 2003


y2karl, I was only joking around ;-)
posted by hyperizer at 10:03 AM on April 30, 2003


Her self-importance is far more well earned than anyone's self-importance here.

OK. Then every MeFi user must add his/her/its resume, plus net worth on the profile page.
you're rich? you're successful? then you're a good member of the community, and you're always right, no matter if you're childish or if your links suck or if you abuse the rules or add 100% noise to the discussion. you've earned it!

www.ArrogantFilter.com

I'll get a grip alright. but I fail to see how it can be MeFi's fault if ms Garrett sends her personal e-mails to unreliable friends who forward them all over the net. she should rip a new asshole her friends instead of blaming MetaFilter.

She won a Pulitzer and I didn't. But I'd never write "various insundry" and English isn't even my first language. And I don't have her embarrassing celebrity fetish either. So excuse me if I don't worship the earth beneath her feet -- I must be a loser
posted by matteo at 10:05 AM on April 30, 2003


What the ... ?

Is MeFi somehow now a groupie site? Should we doggedly follow the every hop and jig of any near-celebrity who happens just once to interact with the site somehow? Give me a break. It's not news that Laurie Garrett is a reporter; and if anyone cares how competent and professional she may be, they can very easily find out on their own. She's written award-winning books, for crying out loud.
posted by mattpfeff at 10:08 AM on April 30, 2003


So because we had a completely unrelated thread about this woman some time ago, this is somehow "Metafilter-related"? I really don't get it.
posted by Skot at 10:08 AM on April 30, 2003


I am not asking anyone to worship her, but to just realize the circumstances of her outburst. She's a twit, too, but it annoys me that people get so het up from reading candid remarks made to someone else in a private email. Admittedly he shared it but, just the same, it's unseemly to react in operatic indignation to her remarks, especially in that she made an outburst upon reading an often petty critique by a bunch of strangers. Who here would respond with instantaneous grace to such treatment?
posted by y2karl at 10:15 AM on April 30, 2003


Couldn't be more MetaFilter-related, y6 Skot - the Laurie Garrett Affair, which Karl linked to, was one of the high points of the Season here, with the participation of The Woman Herself.

People keep bringing up the Kaycee Nicole story like it was a Big Deal.
posted by y2karl at 10:19 AM on April 30, 2003


Why the fuck was this posted here?
posted by machaus at 10:21 AM on April 30, 2003


Who here would respond with instantaneous grace to such treatment?

Well, I know someone who usually does.
posted by timeistight at 10:45 AM on April 30, 2003


a very competent and highly professional reporter.

What is she, some sorta Walter Lippmann here? I mean what is this about: Ego versus Practicum and how the twine can function apart. Is this about politburo infighting that we will never really "see" on a media basis. Is this about SARS and blogging?

People keep bringing up the Kaycee Nicole story like it was a Big Deal

it is because it serves as an example of how people can now do research faster and have people working on said issue who are not in the same room, city, or even country.
posted by clavdivs at 10:57 AM on April 30, 2003


y2karl:

I appreciate your posts and comments and I don't care whether you're Michael Kinsley in disguise or you work at the local Starbucks. Same for clavdivs -- I don't care if he's Charles Simic or he pumps gas, the ideas and the links are everything here. this is not the Harvard Club's Grill Bar, for fuck's sake. the "fame" argument is moot here. money is moot, too. all you need is an Internet connection, a valid username and -- possibly -- a brain.
Garrett's been (and I understand her rage and frustration of course) condescending and very arrogant toward the community. many of us have been snarky, she fought back with cheap shots (and lame "execute a dream" New Age stuff).
and I'm with clav again, Kaycee was a big deal
posted by matteo at 11:13 AM on April 30, 2003


psht. garrett is a schmuck. most so-called journalists are these days. they know nothing, they write about all insundry.
posted by quonsar at 11:19 AM on April 30, 2003


the Notorious Laurie G

Is she any relation to the Notorious B I G?
posted by timeistight at 11:21 AM on April 30, 2003


I was not arguing fame or money, matteo--I was pointing out, in astonished reaction to a still held grudge on the part of some here, that today she was covering a story far more important than the uncovering of a weblog scam a few years back. I must note, too, clavdivs's dipshit cheap shot to the side, no one else has reported the story she has today--which anyone who bothers to listen to it realizes.

This is not to excuse her patronizing little taunt, but her quick reaction upon reading an incredibly lengthy and condescending group dissection of her writing and her character, given who she is, was understandable--not that her income, status or access to the ruling class make her intrinsic worth as a human being any greater than yours or mine. She looks at the world through the wrong end of her own telescope, you look at the world through yours.

Kay Cee Nicole may be a big deal to you guys, it's not to me.
...So, um, by the way, what else have you all uncovered?

As to why I posted this, I don't know why the fuck anymore myself.
posted by y2karl at 11:52 AM on April 30, 2003


I am Dan Rather.
posted by hackly_fracture at 12:13 PM on April 30, 2003


. . . for Godfuck's sake.
posted by hackly_fracture at 12:14 PM on April 30, 2003


...what hackly said.

Some people will find follow-up news of Garrett's latest gig interesting. Others will not.

No one will buy tickets to the ensuing arguments in this thread.
posted by Shane at 12:21 PM on April 30, 2003


Simic

(Ringraziare)
posted by clavdivs at 12:36 PM on April 30, 2003


My favorite Simic

/derailing thread willfully to save karl any more abuse; I actually didn't mind the Laurie G update
posted by dhoyt at 12:43 PM on April 30, 2003


Execute a Dream

I will not stand idly by when I hear this kind of rhetoric and I strongly encourage the rest of you to join me at the National Coalition to Abolish the Dream Penalty.

[/stupid]
posted by pfuller at 12:53 PM on April 30, 2003


Metatalk: I posted this, I don't know why the fuck anymore myself.
posted by thirteen at 12:54 PM on April 30, 2003


MetaTalk: Thirteen's urinal.
posted by y2karl at 2:33 PM on April 30, 2003


You'll have to excuse that last--I was mad about someone from here signing me up for something plus thirteen has been dogging me for weeks, just to be a jerk, I guess. He cares so much about this place he has to pee on everything I post. Usually I don't let it bother me.
posted by y2karl at 3:09 PM on April 30, 2003


Dogging you for weeks? You have me wrong. I was not even try to tweak you with that one, I just thought it was a funny line.

You are starting to remind me of someone I knew, which is funnier still. I wish you luck in all things. Besides, paying with you would just means I need to wash my hands after.

I more or less conceded Metavictory® to you the other day. You run the show boss, this place belongs to you and yours. I figured this thread was a victory lap for you.

Weeks he says!
posted by thirteen at 3:35 PM on April 30, 2003


Journalists go to City Council meetings so you won't have to.
posted by Vidiot at 9:36 PM on April 30, 2003


Jesus Christ, I had an instantaneous response to what I saw, not inaccurately, as a twit dissecting the credentials of a bunch of people I trust and like, vis-a-vis an email to a weblog that was meant for public view and had been disseminated to the larger world. I'm a human being, I reacted. Under the circumstances, I can be forgiven my outburst.

Someone needs to get a grip here y2karl, but at this point I'm not thinking it's me. Anyway do carry on: I can see that you enjoy your little diatribes.
posted by walrus at 2:53 AM on May 1, 2003


On second thought, that was a snotty reaction, and you probably had a point somewhere amidst the invective. Anyway, let's not fight today. I'm sorry.
posted by walrus at 3:15 AM on May 1, 2003


I didn't mean to dissect anyone's credentials, walrus, I'm sorry, too. It's just that I thought, in retrospect, that people's reactions were to Ms. Garrett's snap reaction to that first post were overblown. But then, so was my reaction here and yada yada...

Actually why I made the post was I thought people might be interested to hear her voice, you know, hear her as a person. But it seemed like everyone brought up the one response she wrote back when she first found out that her email had leaked out. Everyone took a whack at her then, even me, I think--it was surprising to see it happen all over. So I snapped, too.

As for Laurie Garrett, I'd hate to think I would judged for one crappy email, considering how easy it is to be at one's worst when writing them. Same's true for comments here, as well.

As for you, thirteen, the last few times I've posted, you've taken your obligatory 'another memepool post' shot. To be honest, I don't know what that means. I just caught the hostility and the 'it's people like you that have ruined this place' subtext and got annoyed.

Instead of slagging people, which has been the larger part of your latterday commentary, Mr. low-number-I-care-so-much-about-this-place--why don't you make a positive contribution? You haven't made a post for over a year, I notice. If all you want to do is sit on the MeFi retirement home porch and only come out now and then to attack someone you don't like, it's not helping the place--it's whining.

I'm posting too much, too long, with too many links, you think? Any one post by anyone here is a stick in the stream rushing over a waterfall--it's all gone in a blink. They're all gone in a heartbeat in the ongoing flood. The place has changed, there are way more people here, you don't like it and it seems like you're just looking for scapegoats.
posted by y2karl at 8:28 AM on May 1, 2003


Instead of slagging people, which has been the larger part of your latterday commentary, Mr. low-number-I-care-so-much-about-this-place--why don't you make a positive contribution? You haven't made a post for over a year, I notice.

What? He recently gave us 33 front page post ideas!

Also, kudos on the "instead of slagging people, why don't you . . . " comment followed by an immediate slag.
posted by Skot at 8:42 AM on May 1, 2003


I've posted, you've taken your obligatory 'another memepool post' shot. To be honest, I don't know what that means.
Memepool is a place where all the posts are like yours. It is pretty old so I figured you knew what it was. I bet you will like it.

You haven't made a post for over a year, I notice.
Last August is over a year ago? I have not posted because I have not found any appropriate links that would not be double posts lately. I have one coming up, do not worry. I wish I had fewer thread posts, some of my early ones embarrass me. This is not a race, tho it is becoming one. You may be existing within the letter of the law around here, if not the spirit, but Matt is allowing you to do so, so why do you care what I or anybody here has to say? Obviously you do not, since your habits have not changed. You are misrepresenting my commenting habits, I comment plenty in response to thread topics, probably at a better % than you do, since I have seen you chasing members around in many, many threads.

I'm posting too much, too long, with too many links, you think?
I am not the one starting all the MetaTalk threads about your behavior here. It has gotten to the point where your name pops to the top of the suspect list if I see someone goofing up here. You are also getting pretty good at playing the victim, whining indeed. MeTa is the place to talk about the site, and if the conversation starts about your actions, I will chime in. Alright with you?

You are the one looking at my user number, I do not care what yours is. You are stating your opinions about why I might feel the way I do, and you are completely wrong. Take what I say at face value. I do not know you, and I have not tried to figure out what makes you tick. Digging around on my member page is just sad.
posted by thirteen at 9:08 AM on May 1, 2003


MeFi retirement home porch

goddamn ! that's where I am !

nail / head / hit
posted by Frasermoo at 9:11 AM on May 1, 2003


So how how long do you have to be here before you qualify for the MeFi retirement home?
posted by timeistight at 12:54 PM on May 1, 2003


No offense (well, a little), but complaining about y2karl's posts is, to me, exactly the same as those thick rich kids, standing outside the school library, saying:

"Wahhh! This book is so long! And thick! And it has big words in it! I'll never be able to read it! And I really hate those who will! Why should they enjoy it if I can't? It's not fair! Wahhh! It's about something I'm not interested in! What a waste of paper! And the print is so small! And it's full of notes and references I'll never follow up! Wahhh! And, what is more, some people seem to enjoy reading it. The bastards! Why is this book offered for free in the library? It should be very expensive or closeted up in some "Only For Freaks" private collection. It's not fair to us poor contadini [peasants] that it should be so heavy and satisfying and fulsome and be so beyond our teeny weeny patience and ability and interests. Even when it's about comics! I don't understand! I don't want anyone else to! Mommy! Matt! Wahhh!"
posted by MiguelCardoso at 1:41 PM on May 1, 2003


Wahhh!

Your condescending attitude is uncalled for, Miguel.

This book is so long! And thick! And it has big words in it! I'll never be able to read it!

I am entirely capable of reading it. I choose not to knowing I won't get any content out of it at all.

And I really hate those who will! Why should they enjoy it if I can't? It's not fair!

It's entirely fair for them to enjoy this book. What isn't fair is for them to hate me for not enjoying it.

It's about something I'm not interested in! What a waste of paper! And the print is so small! And it's full of notes and references I'll never follow up!

It's constantly placed in the front of library in front of the books I'm interested in, and as such, is not a waste of paper, but a gross misuse of it. The references are standard to the literature.

And, what is more, some people seem to enjoy reading it. The bastards!

Some people refuse to understand how it could be bad. Again, they hate me for dissenting.

Why is this book offered for free in the library? It should be very expensive or closeted up in some "Only For Freaks" private collection.

Perhaps it should be placed in the proper section of the ENTIRE library. A section devoted to a particular author and his unique style.

It's not fair to us poor contadini [peasants] that it should be so heavy and satisfying and fulsome and be so beyond our teeny weeny patience and ability and interests.

Again, Miguel, your condescending attitude is unecessary, in poor taste, and muddles your argument.

Even when it's about comics!

Perhaps a more browsable format would be appropriate, again in a forum (library) devoted to the style of the author. I read, enjoy, and own many of George Herriman's works, and I certainly would have read this "book" if the exposition hadn't been unparseable.

Miguel, get a grip. This is not what Metafilter need.

Metatalk, maybe.
posted by j.edwards at 2:00 PM on May 1, 2003


No offense (well, a little), but complaining about y2karl's posts is, to me, exactly the same as those thick rich kids, standing outside the school library, saying:

Allow me to paint a different picture?

The two main posting styles that are the root of the argument as I see it are:

1) search for something interesting to post to MetaFilter
2) stumble across something interesting, post it to MetaFilter

Both sides get pretty childish at times, without question, but neither side is ignorant, stupid, or thick.

Both styles, I think, I have different properties and require a different scale by which to judge "quality". I think most of the proponents of style 2 accept that the current dominant style is 1.

The primary con as we see it with style 1 is that effort is put into the search, not into the discovery. This is certainly not always the case, but there's no reason it should ever be the case.

Our argument is that there's no rush to make a post, so there's no reason not to take the time to check the post, to find something deeper than what Google can provide.

To slip into your analogy: Certainly there's no real reason not to make a book available, but shelf space in this library has a cost associated with it. We don't have to pay it, but just because it's free doesn't mean we shouldn't treat it with care.
posted by cCranium at 2:07 PM on May 1, 2003


Rich kids stand outside of Portugal's libraries and cry?

Do not worry, I did not understand enough of that to be offended (hurray I am rich!)
posted by thirteen at 2:34 PM on May 1, 2003


I choose not to knowing I won't get any content out of it at all

I'm sorry, j.edwards - you know how much I like and admire you - but this sentence of yours is worse than any I could have dreamt up in my parody. There's a certain Little Miss Muffet promptness and arrogance in saying "I choose not to, knowing I won't get any content out of it at all."

You might choose not to read something but, in that case, you'll never know what you're missing. Not to read and yet to know there's "no content [...]at all" is LOTR magician stuff.

cCranium: I agree; you're right. I'd forgotten about that. It is a question of shelf space and a big post does occupy a lot more space than a big book. Ideally, we should all embrace More Insides in the future and just leave one or two sentences on the front page.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 2:41 PM on May 1, 2003


Ideally, we should all embrace More Insides in the future and just leave one or two sentences on the front page.

I'm not just talking about front page space, I'm talking about resources like bandwidth and disk space, Matt's time monitoring everything. More insides, while I definitely like them, take up just as much physical space.
posted by cCranium at 2:48 PM on May 1, 2003


So, thirteen, is this a memepool post? Or this How about this? Also, this? Are you going to start dogging them, too, and tell them to move to memepool in every thread?

Upon review:

Our argument is that there's no rush to make a post, so there's no reason not to take the time to check the post, to find something deeper than what Google can provide.

Which I do, thank you. Despite the Google hunt slurs, I read the sites I link and go outward from the links I find there. When I post, I may present this ambitiously at times but it's not like I'm holding a gun to anyone's head to click on anything. I post about what interests me and which I think other people will find interesting.

For which I get called a transcriber and a Google dumper by some one who spends half his comment picking every nit possible about my post and the other half indicating how much he knows about the topic. But that's not personal, no-o-o...

Nor is this--

The only ego in this discussion belongs to y2karl, who appears to gain a significant portion of his feelings of self-worth by garnering the approval of people who don't know any better than to hail him for linking a great deal of redundant material.

hey, if it gives y2karl joy, then what the hell, eh? if he needs the ego boost, to show off his hreffing skillz and the thrill of his google hunts, then who cares what the rest of us think?


Belittle, belittle, belittle---the rest of us, of course, are the telepaths here who know better than the common folk and can discern the petty, evil, selfish reasons behind my posts.

Which is one post among so very many on any day I post. I hardly think I'm smothering the place, given the flood that comes with every day.
posted by y2karl at 2:59 PM on May 1, 2003


I should add that I greatly enjoy and admire good Memepool posts. And, belying the false reputation for lots-of-links-and-long-posts anyone looking at Memepool's front page will see that those accusing y2karl of being Memepoolish are right, but, tellingly, not in the way they intended. To my mind, it's like accusing Samuel Johnson of being Shakespearian or Raymond Carver of being Chechkovian. It's, as far as I can see, a compliment.

Saying "Take it to Memepool" smells of "you don't belong here" xenophobia.

[Sorry, but it had to be said. If I followed that line of thought I too could ask: "So if y2karl did move to Memepool, what would the whiners and naysayers have left to justify their existence here?" But I don't, so I shan't. Still, to all you post experts: post a post that'll teach us what a good post is, already!]
posted by MiguelCardoso at 3:26 PM on May 1, 2003


Miguel, please. y2karl posts more frequently than most, and if people do find fault with his posts, it's perfectly fair to discuss it -- if anyone here is being exclusionary, it's you, trying to marginalize anyone who expresses a concern that someone else is acting poorly. There are no censors here, no consequences to this beyond the (more and more distant, it seems) possibility of shared understanding. Discussion is both process and result; mocking and degrading the discussion only hurts the outcome.

y2karl, I get that you feel like you've been attacked, but I don't think it's so. Rather, I think people did find honest fault in your post; and I think your responses were what made it personal. Your perception of snarkout's ego is neither here nor there; his (and other members') remarks about the post in question were for the most part valid and not unfair, as best I can tell.

And to be honest I find your "I'm but one of many posters" defense (twice now in this thread) infuriating -- we're all but one of many, but that excuses none of us from considering the views of other members, when discussing our behavior on this site.
posted by mattpfeff at 5:15 PM on May 1, 2003


Exhibit A: y6y6y6 finds my posts boring yet he puts this up at MF Distiiled, credited to *cough* The Web.

Exhibit B: hama7 wholeheartedly agrees with everything snarkout has to say yet cites this as his favorite post of mine. Tough crowd--one man.

Exhibit C : Another example of my terrible, terrible waste of disk space, yet managing not to bore y6y6y6 to ydeathydeathydeath.

Exhibit D, E, F and G: Oh, the horrid waste of disk space!
posted by y2karl at 5:19 PM on May 1, 2003


mattpfeff. I disagree. I'm sorry but I don't agree with the usual school this is a bad way to post MetaTalk posts and I don't join in those threads. I'm not listening to the people who know better because I stick up for myself? When I read comments like

y2karl who appears to gain a significant portion of his feelings of self-worth by garnering the approval of people who don't know any better than to hail him for linking a great deal of redundant material,

I'm sorry, but my reaction is that's a cheap shot. In the post in question, I linked commentary and images--the latter is the redundancy and I don't see it as a sin: I meant to give people a shortcut to something they might not find. And we're talking about one post, mind you. It's not like that's typical of my every post.

By the way, I find this people who don't know any better stuff incredibly condescending and elitist.

Sorry but I think I bring value to the common table.

By the way, I made 13 posts in April--oh the horror! Why that's almost every day! Not. And shall we count the total posts in April, hmm?
posted by y2karl at 5:42 PM on May 1, 2003


I am enjoying this immensely, although it makes me a little sad, in a Rodney King press conference kinda way.

why don't you make a positive contribution?

This is all that needs be said, I think, though I might phrase it differently and to everyone.

Both 'sides' of this argument include people with whom I've had the most contact outside of MeFi itself. In part because of this, I am inclined to see both sides of the argument to a degree, although (if we take Migs and Karl as one side in the recent posts) :

Do I think that y2karl (and Miguel, too), through the volume of their (in my opinion usually excellent) posts, both in size and in frequency, end up being amongst the dominant voices currently at Metafilter?

Probably, yes.

Is this a bad thing?

Possibly, but I feel considerably happier veering towards the urbane and intellectual than towards Buffy and vibrating toys, so I have mixed feelings about that.

Do I applaud those who would make attempts to keep MeFi on an even keel, and use Metatalk for the purpose for which it was intended?

Yes! Although a wee joke once in a while doesn't go astray.

Should the metatalking of those who make continuous and positive contributions to the community, in the coin of the realm, which is links and reasonably intelligent comments, be given more brain-share than those who do not actively participate in the community, or do so very little?

Yes, guardedly. In my perfect world at least, it would be the mandate of those who actively participate to guide the course of the community. Not that 'outside' opinions should ever be unwelcome, of course, but citizenship has duties as well as responsibilities, if you take my meaning.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:49 PM on May 1, 2003


...er, duties as well as benefits, I mean. D'oh.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:51 PM on May 1, 2003


Tough crowd--one man.

If I might have a word, I agreed with snarkout's comments on the krazy-kat 55 character image fest, which I felt were appropriate concerning that post.

Does MF distilled credit anyone by name, ever?

Why is this in the Laurie Garrett thread?

Since it is, here's my comment about this thread and Laurie Garrett:
I have an old running joke with a friend of mine where I spell birthday "birfday" in e-mail and other in-jokey nonsense accumulated over the years. I remembered that when I read "various insundry", and I thought the whole Garrett e-mail dissection thing was pretty thoroughly awful, and could have been just such a joke.

Any idiot knows it's "various asundry", for pete's sakes.
posted by hama7 at 6:03 PM on May 1, 2003


Does MF distilled credit anyone by name, ever?

Plep, for one, as best poster pro tem--a judgement call with which I, for one, have no problem. And you, for all your troglodytic political rants, are another of the best, in my opinion, even if our methods differ.

You said you agreed with everything he said, by the way, which everything went far beyond the Krazy Kat post.

Why is this in the Laurie Garrett thread?

It became this because I bitched about thirteen, which I shouldn't have. I do however share your various incendiary views re Ms Garrett's email vivisection.
posted by y2karl at 7:05 PM on May 1, 2003


Sorry but I think I bring value to the common table.

Is that what this is about? No one's said you don't -- but that doesn't mean you're somehow faultless. Setting aside the personal crap, on either side -- if you're genuinely trying to contribute to this site, don't you care what its members think of your contributions?

it would be the mandate of those who actively participate to guide the course of the community.

I'd submit that members who have reduced their posting tendencies but continue to read remain yet members, just the same. I suppose I'm willfully not going where you're leading, stav, but in a sense anyone who's still invested enough to comment here is invested enough to be heard, I think.

Any idiot knows it's "various asundry", for pete's sakes.

This is a joke, right?
posted by mattpfeff at 7:20 PM on May 1, 2003


anyone who's still invested enough to comment here is invested enough to be heard

Absolutely. That was just a veiled attempt to try and bring some silent (at least silent here) voices back to the table. Doomed, but good-hearted.

And you're all wrong - it's variance answer undy, an idomatic reference to mathematicians' underwear!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:38 PM on May 1, 2003


idiomatic
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:39 PM on May 1, 2003


I hardly think I'm smothering the place...

y2karl, I don't think you intend to smother, but you do have to realize that many of your posts are very time consuming to read as well as click through. In comparison to the majority of other posts, I spend far more time on yours than most; rightly or wrongly, this can very easily be construed as "smothering", don't you think?

I think you should take the griping about your posts as a positive -- it's obvious that people, even those who gripe, read through them all, I would think because you have a reputation for interesting and informative links. The thing of it is that when we, or at least I, come across these mega posts on a more frequent basis, and the posts aren't as interesting as your reputation would have it (it happens), we get let down and a little disappointed in the time that we spent going thru it all when we could have been doing something else (there's a jumbled metafilter tagline in there, somewhere, I'm sure).

There is another sense of smothering that I've been seeing lately. You can't seem to let anything go, you have an answer for everybody, about everything, each and every time somebody has something to say about you. In this thread alone you currently have twelve comments, of which three or four may be about Garrett. I believe that you are known for this, and that it's not a recent behaviour, since I have a distinct memory of you and Midas having a rumble when I first joined in 2001.

By no means am I suggesting that you shouldn't defend yourself, but if you toned down your defense a little bit and weren't so virulent and aggressive in your counter-attacks, perhaps you wouldn't be criticized as often as you have been lately.
posted by ashbury at 7:41 PM on May 1, 2003


Actually, it's very incendiary, isn't it?
posted by ashbury at 7:43 PM on May 1, 2003


Setting aside the personal crap, on either side -- if you're genuinely trying to contribute to this site, don't you care what its members think of your contributions?

But, of course--there are, however, may I point out, many thoughts on the topic. Of course, if they are favorable, it's due to cult of personality like I'm y2jong-il-karl--because if anyone likes my posts, it's obviously because of my personality, not my links.

Do negative opinions count more? We're all in this together but some are more in it than others? And am I not listening?--I was called out for posting inline images, for example, and told by one I should wait a month at least before I ever do so again. Have I posted any inline images since then?

And when I think the call outs are bogus, may I point this out? For example: I am cited for the length of past posts as abusing the disk space and available bandwidth. My question is this: does a post of mine with twelve comments suck up as much bandwidth as a one link post with fifty to a hundred comments? If not, shouldn't we be discouraging, then, single link high comment posts as well as my low comment multi-link ones?
posted by y2karl at 7:45 PM on May 1, 2003


I'm sorry for the derail--which I started--ashbury, but I got piled on yesterday and I guess I'm fighting yesterday's battle. I'm done tonight, however.
posted by y2karl at 7:52 PM on May 1, 2003


Actually why I made the post was I thought people might be interested to hear her voice, you know, hear her as a person. But it seemed like everyone brought up the one response she wrote back when she first found out that her email had leaked out. Everyone took a whack at her then, even me, I think--it was surprising to see it happen all over. So I snapped, too.

Yes and I had taken first whack, so then I snapped back, etc ad nauseum. I need to do some thinking about what I mean to prove by posting here, exactly. I think sometimes it's too easy to use these semi-anonymous fora as an outlet for bitterness.
posted by walrus at 2:29 AM on May 2, 2003


"y6y6y6 finds my posts boring yet he puts this up at MF Distiiled, credited to *cough* The Web."

Actually that wasn't me. One of the other editors posted that.
posted by y6y6y6 at 7:27 AM on May 2, 2003


"Another example of my terrible, terrible waste of disk space, yet managing not to bore y6y6y6 to ydeathydeathydeath."

Again. Not me. I did, in fact, find the post boring.

Look, the reason I have more than one editor at MF Distilled is that I know I'm out of step with what many MetaFilter users like. I don't tell the other editors what they can and can't post. I don't agree with some of the things they pick. And that's fine. I don't like y2karl's posts. Other people do. Big fucking deal.
posted by y6y6y6 at 7:31 AM on May 2, 2003


And pleps's? That was not by your hand either? I'm just curious. I always thought it was a one man show.
posted by y2karl at 7:50 AM on May 2, 2003


I think I've posted at least one of plep's. Not sure which ones though.

I really try to make it less about me and what I like, and more about what the best posts are. I end up posting most of the links. Probably about 75%.

And hell, I may link to a y2karl post someday. I really don't care much about who made the post. If I think it's really good I'll link it. I've linked Miguel and Madamjujujive (sp?) posts, and I generally don't like their post styles either.

Who cares? Seriously. Why are you so pissed off that I don't like your posts? Because I come out and say it? I thought that was the idea here. We speak our mind about what we don't like? I don't like you posts, you don't like my opinion. So what?
posted by y6y6y6 at 8:21 AM on May 2, 2003


I'm not pissed at all--I merely mentioned it, out of pique, perhaps, but sans any onus. Nor do I have any particular dislike for your opinions, which, although I do not share many of them, seem well reasoned.
posted by y2karl at 9:05 AM on May 2, 2003


« Older What did you first see on Metafilter that is now a...   |   Is this a pony we can do without? Newer »

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