No Iraq amputee trolling please. July 26, 2003 9:12 PM   Subscribe

Come on do we need this type of trolling here? (more inside)
posted by SuzySmith to Etiquette/Policy at 9:12 PM (32 comments total)

Not only is it a picture, that seems to be posted on the wrong thread, but it's one I do not wish to see when I'm here on MeFi.

I abhor what the USA did, I am not pleased with the war in Iraq, but I skip many posts on it as I do not need those images in my head. If I want to see them, I'll search them out.
posted by SuzySmith at 9:15 PM on July 26, 2003


Why is that kid making out with a potato? I agree, if I wanted to see more Mr. Potato Head fetishism, certainly I would make use of my fantastic collection of hardcore spudism on my hard drive before asking Metafilter to satisfy my craving.

That's right, kiss the potato. Now tickle it. Mm...
posted by Stan Chin at 9:22 PM on July 26, 2003


It's not posted in the wrong thread, since the Bush photo references tax cuts. That said, it IS inappropriate...
posted by jonson at 9:26 PM on July 26, 2003


meta catfight! yee haaw! and i think one of em is that woman what done drownded her kids in the lake!
posted by quonsar at 9:31 PM on July 26, 2003


That's lame, I removed it.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 9:32 PM on July 26, 2003


Fantastic, now when people wake up tomorrow they'll really think it was potato porn.
posted by Stan Chin at 9:34 PM on July 26, 2003


/me adjusts his pants.
posted by quonsar at 9:35 PM on July 26, 2003


That's lame, I removed it.

Removed what?

The post is reasonable; it should have included the links provided in the thread, those about the official rules about the treatment of the flag, but it's still a viable topic, considering the many, many times the Republicans have tried to make "flag-desecration" a federal offense.

Abbie Hoffman got in a shitload of trouble with the HUAC by wearing an American flag shirt. Now hicks everywhere wear them. The rules about the treatment of the flag are pretty rigid, and the Pretendident is clearly violating one of them here. What's wrong with the post?
posted by interrobang at 10:39 PM on July 26, 2003


There was an inline picture of a little Iraqi war amputee boy, posted by the_fire_you_left_me.
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 10:47 PM on July 26, 2003


>Removed what?

If the browser can't find the anchor tag it just throws you the page, so it looks like SuzySmith is criticizing the FPP. Maybe some editing of this metatalk post is in order to clear up the confusion.
posted by skallas at 11:06 PM on July 26, 2003


Still, aside from the single-linkedness of the post, what's wrong?
posted by interrobang at 11:30 PM on July 26, 2003


Gold star? What gold star?
posted by timeistight at 11:37 PM on July 26, 2003


Interro: There was a picture of an Iraqi child who was a multiple amputee in the thread.

Matt: Thank you.

Quansar: Nope, didn't even have Smith as a last name when that happened, I wasn't married then and my first name isn't Susan.
posted by SuzySmith at 11:53 PM on July 26, 2003


thats cool. none of my names is Quansar.
posted by quonsar at 1:00 AM on July 27, 2003


I'm proud to say that my username requires very little shortening, too.
posted by interrobang at 1:11 AM on July 27, 2003

a picture of an Iraqi child who was a multiple amputee
That's all?! Oy!
posted by mischief at 1:25 AM on July 27, 2003


That's lame, I removed it.

Possibly the most awkward phrasing imaginable, given its context.
posted by Opus Dark at 1:36 AM on July 27, 2003


Opus Dark is funny!
posted by angry modem at 7:43 AM on July 27, 2003


thats cool. none of my names is Quansar.

WHAT?!?! [Sigh]. Yet another of my most cherished beliefs, crushed beneath the Wheel of Reality that is MetaFilter... Oh, the humanity...
posted by JollyWanker at 8:44 AM on July 27, 2003


it's misspelled. it's capitalized. it's plain wrong.
posted by quonsar at 11:43 AM on July 27, 2003


Opus Dark is funny!

A cutting sense of humor, indeed.
posted by trondant at 12:00 PM on July 27, 2003


A cutting sense of humor, indeed.

genuinely disarming.
posted by quonsar at 12:03 PM on July 27, 2003


genuinely disarming.

We'll need inspectors to make sure that's the case. He could have hidden them.
posted by trondant at 12:14 PM on July 27, 2003


interrobang: I'm proud to say that my username requires very little shortening, too.

?!
posted by beth at 12:31 PM on July 27, 2003


You mean ?!.
posted by languagehat at 12:42 PM on July 27, 2003


Opus Dark, that comment was uncalled-for, uncaring and in complete and utter bad taste.

*adds Opus Dark to list of cool users*
posted by dg at 3:45 PM on July 27, 2003


The post is reasonable; it should have included the links provided in the thread, those about the official rules about the treatment of the flag, but it's still a viable topic,...

Oh please. Can I make an FPP pointing to a picture of an 86 year-old woman's anus in hopes of a decent thread regarding the "ups and downs of chronic hemorrhoids" is the result?

The fact that a debatably decent thread came out of it doesn't erase the fact that the FPP itself was poor at best. I don't argue against the topic. But you're right, in that the poster should have included some of the links found throughout the thread... that's the point. Maybe if the poster's intention was to have a fun little discussion about flag desecration, we wouldn't be here (tasteless picture posting by the fire guy aside). But we all know that wasn't the case.

The guildlines should include "cheap ass excuse to bash Bush" as a point of proper posting etiquette. Wouldn't that make everyone happy?
posted by Witty at 3:16 AM on July 28, 2003


Can I make an FPP pointing to a picture of an 86 year-old woman's anus

please. do.
posted by quonsar at 11:47 PM on July 28, 2003


good one
posted by Witty at 2:09 AM on July 29, 2003


The fact that a debatably decent thread came out of it doesn't erase the fact that the FPP itself was poor at best. I don't argue against the topic. But you're right, in that the poster should have included some of the links found throughout the thread... that's the point. Maybe if the poster's intention was to have a fun little discussion about flag desecration, we wouldn't be here (tasteless picture posting by the fire guy aside). But we all know that wasn't the case.

Umm... actually, that was my intention Witty. And you appear now to be bitching that a mostly level-headed conversation actually came out of the thread, which both confuses and amuses me. Since you can't whine that I started a partisan troll-fest, now you're attacking me for "knowing the case" was that I wanted such? Nice.

In addition, since more than one person has since asked, my FPP had a "via" link to the blog that originally posted it, which itself linked to all the "additional links" that others in the thread even mentioned (eg the flag code). Apologies to everyone who didn't want to (groan) click both links in the FPP.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 7:05 AM on July 29, 2003


I'm far from bitching... being quite used to these kinds of shananigans. The key word in my last comment was "debatebly". I would argue that the resulting thread wasn't "good enough" to justify your post. You may feel differently (I'm sure you do). But I don't care if it was the greatest thread ever, it's not my point. The FPP was cheap and easy. You can't sit there and deny that the only reason a post like that gets by around here is because it serves the majority of this community... and nothing more.

Using the "via" link as your way of including all of the other necessary information is plain lazy and a misuse of it's intended purpose. No one should have to filter through another thread on another blog to find the links that you should have included for OUR thread on OUR blog in the first place.

A snarky, sarcastic comment with a link to a picture, followed by a link to another community's conversation about said picture = subpar FPP. You've done much better in the past.

But that's just my bitchy conservative opinion.
posted by Witty at 5:11 PM on July 29, 2003


It certainly is. Not... really... sure.. what else to say there, as you covered everything else too. Sorry that my shenanigans, although serving the majority of the community, were done subpar and too lazily for you, who are not in any way bitching.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 7:08 PM on July 29, 2003


« Older Vancouver Meetup Photos   |   Is this a self-link? Newer »

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