the I-word May 15, 2003 9:02 AM   Subscribe

is "I" word off limits from this point forward?
posted by specialk420 to Etiquette/Policy at 9:02 AM (44 comments total)

More importantly, is this a sign of budding romance? "Cute and funny" indeed. I think someone has a crush!
posted by rusty at 9:04 AM on May 15, 2003

"I"= iconomy, igloos, illicit ignoramuses, ignoble iguanas?
posted by MrBaliHai at 9:15 AM on May 15, 2003

Moford ain't no troll. There's a lot of us who think he's dead on target. That doesn't mean his articles make good posts, but it's the T word I object to.
posted by muckster at 9:17 AM on May 15, 2003

warfilter might become a great place if people took to posting there. I'm not sick of warthreads or op-pieces, but I can understand that people here are. there are other places to bitch about bush. (full disclaimer - site hosted on my server. not my site tho.)
posted by dabitch at 9:21 AM on May 15, 2003

argh. mucked warfilter link.
posted by dabitch at 9:22 AM on May 15, 2003

Thanks for bringing that link back timeistight.

Moford's a troll, deal with it. It was a doomed post to begin with. Op-eds on both sides usually die a horrible death on MeFi. Post that stuff to your own blog or to warfilter.
posted by mkelley at 9:39 AM on May 15, 2003

I love moford's stuff, it's funny and his morning mail where he basically blogs the SF Chronicle is a hoot, but his columns are over the top screeds meant to poke a stick into the belly of the opposition. They are a dictionary definition of trolling, to write columns that aim to agitate everyone that disagrees with him.

I probably agree with most of his politics, but his delivery is too much. The Daily Show does much of the same material, but handles it with grace. While I find his writing humorous, take a look at the last 3 or 4 columns he's written that have been discussed here, they're flaming train wrecks.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 10:02 AM on May 15, 2003

Morford. Morford. No need to let Matt's error infect the rest of us. :-)
posted by rusty at 10:05 AM on May 15, 2003

this has nothing to do with trolling op-eds. mathowie is a secret republikan with ties to halliburton and castro, and once shared a can of motor oil with prescott bush himself. you all thought he was a youngster but that's just part of the deception. and now that i've told you, i'm going to have to kill you all. now drop your weapons of mass destruction and line up single file.
posted by quonsar at 10:07 AM on May 15, 2003

ummmm.... actually.

i was wondering if all "I"raq threads run a high risk of being wacked from today (or yesterday) forward? and if so, does john ashcroft have anything to do with the policy?
posted by specialk420 at 10:09 AM on May 15, 2003

specialk420, tell me what the point of yesterday's thread was? Or do you think great discussions spur from photos of dead and dismembered children? The flash site you were so up in arms about was one person's tribute site, and I think it was perfectly fine as a tribute.

And yes, I'm now hitler/on haliburton's payroll/work for homeland security/love john ashcroft because I deleted a trolling anti-war post from yesterday and an op-ed screed today.

Just in case that wasn't abundantly clear.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 10:33 AM on May 15, 2003

mathowie, you're our hitler/haliburton's hack/secret policeman/john ashcroft lover, and we love you.
posted by timeistight at 10:56 AM on May 15, 2003

Could you tell Ashcroft that there are some boobs on a statue in front of the library here that he might want to cover up?
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 11:22 AM on May 15, 2003

I, for one, welcome our new longtime hitler/haliburton/secret policeman/john ashcroft loving overlord.
posted by rusty at 12:17 PM on May 15, 2003

No specialk420, only the bad threads get wacked. Or didn't you get the memo?
posted by mkelley at 12:39 PM on May 15, 2003

I, for one, welcome our new longtime hitler/haliburton/secret policeman/john ashcroft loving overlord.

Not so fast, rusty. Don't forget he also killed Carlos's cute little Jack Russell terrier puppy. ;)
posted by MiguelCardoso at 12:46 PM on May 15, 2003

ok ok ... i was hoping there would be a little clarification on the iraq issue.

it seems like many iraq posts have gotten axed despite seeming to having merit (and sometimes as was the case in my post yesterday a hint of trollishness for some) in my opinion ... the question was asked in earnest and in no way meant to cause bunching of panties ... the ashcroft comment was added in only in jest (that photo is such a gem).

specialk420, tell me what the point of yesterday's thread was?

the problem with the site linked yesterday (perhaps the link to fisk's photos was a bad choice) was that it is an advertisment for the marines (and perhaps ONVOY and Periscope) masquerading as tribute to those men who lost thier lives. to have bundled the slick videos (each equally offensive) with a tribute to those men is as bad as handing out recruiting brochures at the gates of arlington cemetery... in my opinion, the designer and periscope (the ad agency behind the site (not in fact "one man"))overstepped their bounds on this tribute and have crossed into a grey area of tasteless promotion of armed service and vis a vis war (just or otherwise).

im not saying that it didnt deserve the subsequent deletion ... i just thought it merited discussion for the aformentioned reasons.

that said, to our hitler/haliburton's hack/secret policeman/john ashcroft lover founder. many thanks for the entertainment/information and other good things like miguelcardoso that happen here a MeFi
posted by specialk420 at 12:50 PM on May 15, 2003

How long has this:

If you're going to make a post related to Iraq and the impending war, please reconsider, as the topic has been discussed previously many times

been up on the post screen? 6 months? Longer? I don't think people (particularly Matt) being tired of I-bomb posts is anything even remotely a new phenomenon.

You may not have heard this, but a few people around here are not very fond of our President and sometimes, every once and a while, they post something about how bad he is.
posted by Pollomacho at 12:53 PM on May 15, 2003

pollo - thanks for the nice little snark. very helpful.

for you - i'll ask the question again in all earnestness:

is the sensitivity to Iraq related posts still Red? Orange? Yellow? - beige?
posted by specialk420 at 1:19 PM on May 15, 2003

specialk420, I wish you'd draft front page posts that explained links better. You linked to flash piece that you called propaganda, then linked to photos of dead people on fisk's site. That's like being in a crowd, pointing at a bystander, shouting "racist!", dousing the crowd with gasoline, and throwing a match. Not exactly the best way to explore the subtle nuances of interesting arguments.

Your paragraph explanation above should have been the text of the post. Still though, the material is more along the lines of something I'd find on a personal blog, don't know how much discussion there could be around it.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 2:01 PM on May 15, 2003

pollo - thanks for the nice little snark. very helpful.

Sorry, I'm not trying to be rude, I just don't get why this is a hot button issue and that it has just now come to your attention? Matt put that line on the post page a LONG while ago and still hasn't removed it, leading me to believe that he still is inclined to delete OP-ED pieces about Iraq. I just don't get why you regard this as a sudden policy change? That said, I think everyone, Matt included, if I may be so bold, are inclined to agree that anything new and enlightening, even if dealing with Bush or Iraq or Pancakes or for that matter, any other subject that has been driven, pounded and ass fucked into the ground is all right while OP-ED pages from a mainstream news source like the SF Gate or CNN or the Washington Post are non-grata around here. Is that shocking or unreasonable to you? As far as I know that's pretty much been the policy since day one, non?
posted by Pollomacho at 2:10 PM on May 15, 2003

yikes (full moon or something!) -

im neither shocked... nor was i saying any post deletions etc were unreasonable ... i was just asking what the current sensitivity level was/is on iraq related posts ...?? obviously its still an important issue for many of us, and i for one appreciate many of the iraq related posts here at metafilter and the opinions and links that are provided in the ensuing discussions.

the reason for my post here was to (without getting into a fiery exchange about the posts themselves, iraq, the beady eyed, vapid little man running the whitehouse etc...) to find out the current sensitivity level (since the war is over, no WMDs were found, life is returning to normal in Baghdad, mordors gaze has turned to iran - syria - etc. etc.) on Iraq related posts?

red? (for opinions and war pictures?) ? yellow (posts that may include the words "George Bush" or "Chalabi")? green (for stories about marsh arabs)?
posted by specialk420 at 2:58 PM on May 15, 2003

How about "Code Dinner Table": no politics or religion.
posted by timeistight at 3:33 PM on May 15, 2003

I'm now hitler/on haliburton's payroll/work for homeland security/love john ashcroft because I deleted a trolling anti-war post from yesterday and an op-ed screed today.

also a bit thin-skinned. surely you didn't take my post seriously?
posted by quonsar at 3:41 PM on May 15, 2003

surely you didn't take my post seriously?

Not at all, I was yucking it up for code plaid's post.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 3:58 PM on May 15, 2003

since the war is over, no WMDs were found, life is returning to normal in Baghdad, mordors gaze has turned to iran - syria - etc. etc.

How can Bush say victory, then if Saddam lives, kill him? He can't, until he is confirmed dead. Not back to normal as our troops are still there, August is a maybe date for my LiL Bro's return. Posts of war may have gone else where but the country is in kaos and should not be swept under it's rugs & forgotten.
posted by thomcatspike at 4:08 PM on May 15, 2003

should not be swept under it's rugs & forgotten

amen. brother.
posted by specialk420 at 5:15 PM on May 15, 2003

Fwiw, specialk, I think good columns and articles of opinion written by independent writers or freelancers, wantonly known as "op-eds" here on MetaFilter, make great posts and entirely satisfy the guidelines.

Being "sick of Iraq", as thomcatspike wisely implies, sounds far too much like compassion fatigue for my liking. Whether we like it not, it's central to world affairs right now. It's a great pity, imho, that so many here act like bored teenagers.

Although we're diametrically opposed politically, let me say that your passionate defense of your ideals and values - and concern - are, as far as I'm concerned, an example to all. Thank you, speciak k, for standing your corner and contributing so sincerely to keeping MetaFilter real. I also think (I might as well finish this act of praise) the way you engage with political adversaries (such as Thom, myself and many others you disagree with) reminds me of bygone standards of civility and fairness.

Oh yes, I do like you, feisty specialk420. :)
posted by MiguelCardoso at 5:31 PM on May 15, 2003

That was an Iraq post? Hell, I thought it was a 'let's have a revolution and string those bastards up.' I do agree that nothing good was going to come of it though, even if that was an ass-kicker of a rant. Too bad the discussion hadn't headed into 'the value/damage of ranting' instead (yes, I know that would be too much to hope for).

One less opportunity to repeat how much we all (well, not all) loathe Bush and his goons is a shame, but you know, fuckwits or not, we can all get our own weblogs if we really really need to.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:36 PM on May 15, 2003

So...there are now not enough Iraq posts?

FWIW, I agree that the sneering, self-satisfied tone this columnist uses (in all 3 of his pieces I have read) detracts from his credibility and interest. He's capering for a lefty audience who already agrees with him, which can lead only to some type of 'Asscroft' type circle jerk, degressing into rhetorical trench warfare with MM or hama7. And we're all tired of that, right?

Degress is a perfectly cromulent word, in case you were wondering.
posted by crunchburger at 6:55 PM on May 15, 2003

should not be swept under it's rugs & forgotten

myself, i shan't be satisfied until i see duhbya's head on a post in bagdhad.


oops, there goes another one! they're everywhere!
posted by quonsar at 7:40 PM on May 15, 2003

Degress is a perfectly cromulent word

Digressing and degrading simultaneously, right? At least that's what it sounds like. Excellent portmanteau.

unless you just meant it as a fancy way of saying 'descend,' in which case *yawn*
posted by soyjoy at 7:48 PM on May 15, 2003

...or was it a reference to the time P.T. Barnum tricked people into leaving a thread by posting "TO THE DEGRESS"...?
posted by soyjoy at 7:49 PM on May 15, 2003

Well, it is a found name. A friend lived in a flat on a street named Degress....and that is just what we did there.
posted by crunchburger at 9:05 PM on May 15, 2003

I always thought of it as = (regress * digress)
posted by crunchburger at 9:06 PM on May 15, 2003

Miguel - thanks for the nice words. as evidenced by my sometimes regrettable trail of posts and comments my tapping fingers frequently get ahead of my brain - on the other hand in the words of woody allen:

"If you don't fail now and again, it's a sign you're playing it safe."

did we ever decide where the line in the metasand is on posting comments related to the country formerly known as enemy #1 is?
posted by specialk420 at 9:23 PM on May 15, 2003

did we ever decide where the line in the metasand is

I'm not sure, but this was pretty compelling.
posted by hama7 at 11:35 PM on May 15, 2003

For what it might be worth, specialk, the way to win someone over to something closer to your way of seeing things is NOT to say "heha, bush is, like, such a goddamned liar, and you people are sooo godamned wrong!" That may be similar to the level that Bush himself operates on, but it really isn't good debate style at all. A better tack might be to find common ground with your opponent, and then undermine their position from that common ground. But this kind of self-serving op-ed does absolutely nothing to further the debate. This sort of piece is there for people who have decided that the anti-war movement is the One Truth to wank off on. While there might be a place for such things, metafilter is most likely not it. Because such rants are a) inflammatory to the opposition, b) uninteresting to those of us looking for more critical material on the issues, and c) not good for any discussion among the remaining users beyond 'huhuh, yeah, bush is dumb.' I think that reading over the comments in the deleted thread illustrates this with crystal clarity.
posted by kaibutsu at 6:57 AM on May 16, 2003

MiguelCardoso called me a "bored teenager"! I should be either insulted or flattered, but I'm only amused.

I seem to be in a vanishingly small minority here: people who think that MetaFilter should be about interesting things found on the Web. I had hoped that mathowie's pleas on the posting page and inclusion of IraqFilter on the sidebar would reduce the political pollution of MetaFilter and MetaTalk, but I guess it's time to give up that fight.
posted by timeistight at 6:59 AM on May 16, 2003

i had hoped to spark a discussion about the fine line between Iraq FPPs that could conceivably be of merit and those that should be avoided ... or simply ask the question: if all Iraq related posts in general should be avoided?

no opinions. no snark. just a simple question.

yes. ive seen the iraq sidebar - i've also seen threads that i felt were above the threshold of the sidebar get whacked... thus the question.

the answer to which has been for the most part avoided by the man behind the curtain in this thread (i can't say i blame him at all... what a morass.)

sgt. pollo and corporal hama - im afraid weren't of much help either.
posted by specialk420 at 7:44 AM on May 16, 2003

but I guess it's time to give up that fight.

I'll believe it when I see it.
posted by Ufez Jones at 7:53 AM on May 16, 2003

So you see the pleas not to post Iraq threads and you go ahead and post it anyway? You are more about pushing an agenda than helping a community...even if it's on the web. Your past few posts are like graffiti instead of building a discussion or finding something unique.

I take my shots at both sides, ok. I vote my mind and think about what I should support, but these Iraq and Bushbashing threads are just too much. It's like that annoying neighbor upstairs who plays their awful music and it just drones on and on and on making my fillings rattle....these threads are just droning on, and it's making my molars hurt.
posted by mkelley at 7:56 AM on May 16, 2003

I would like to put in a vote for no op-ed pieces at all unless they are part of a post with other links. There are just too many FPPs that consist of a link to a short, opinionated (lacking in facts, citations, or data) article with a few sentences about whether the poster agrees or disagrees with the author's sentiments and maybe a, "What do you think?" at the end. These posts suck. They are not interesting, are merely reprints of dead tree writing in newspapers, and the author and poster usually have some big axe to grind. While Miguel seems to be saying that these posts are okay if the op-ed piece, and that is the common name for these kinds of articles, is "good," his posts don't look like that.
posted by monkeyman at 9:24 AM on May 16, 2003

« Older Miguel Cardoso   |   Am I the biggest loser on MetaFilter? Newer »

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