Doublepost harakiri

October 2, 2003 12:37 AM

I knew there was a reason I didn't attempt any of those fancy, new-fangled front page posts for the first year (give or take) I was here. Delete at your leisure, but let my shame live on in infamy!
posted by The God Complex to Etiquette/Policy at 12:37 AM (23 comments total)

It wasn't even an obscure double link, sadly. Or, you know, even, say, nine or ten inches down the screen. I blame the liberal cabal.
posted by The God Complex at 12:37 AM on October 2, 2003

You gotta admit the Pig Roast post was not the most informative FPP. In fact, it sucked.

C'mon people, at least stick one significant keyword in there. A mention of Rush or football would have helped.
posted by mischief at 12:48 AM on October 2, 2003

This is an interesting story. I read the post by The God Complex but not the one by BentPenguin.

These days I only briefly scan the front-page. I dont have time to compulsively click on every link on every post. Offhand, I have no interest in pig roasts and would have otherwise missed this.
posted by vacapinta at 12:58 AM on October 2, 2003

I have to agree. Sometimes I really love the artfully conceived and presented post, but not when it's just linking to a couple of news items.

Really, TGC, it seems you're hardly to blame for this one. But somehow, I still feel you deserve some pain... so I suggest we flog you with the newsfilter whip, instead. Or maybe make you put on the latex bunny suit.
posted by taz at 1:01 AM on October 2, 2003

How about both? Rawr!
posted by The God Complex at 1:13 AM on October 2, 2003

I'm voting to acquit TGC for this offense. It actually provides a "textbook lesson" for future FPP'ers who have to decide whether a News-oriented item should be done "Creative" or "Informative". The two posts took different extremes, and the second would have never happened if the first hadn't been so extreme.

And TGC, be careful with the latex bunny suit; I've got it reserved for the weekend...
posted by wendell at 1:19 AM on October 2, 2003

*squats under a bush, wriggling nose*
posted by quonsar at 1:23 AM on October 2, 2003

Shhh... Be vewy vewy quiet... I'm hunting quonsars...
posted by wendell at 2:59 AM on October 2, 2003

I'm voting "not guilty" here. The "pig roast" post was about as uninformative a description as could be imagined. Clever, though.
posted by Mars Saxman at 7:55 AM on October 2, 2003

<puzzled> That's not your nose Quonsar.
posted by Blue Stone at 8:50 AM on October 2, 2003

Good Lord, would you look at that? That bush just crawled away on it's own!
posted by JollyWanker at 8:59 AM on October 2, 2003

Have you emailed mathowie and asked him to delete your double?
posted by timeistight at 9:01 AM on October 2, 2003

...."break on through to the other side...."
posted by clavdivs at 9:17 AM on October 2, 2003

I also vote to acquit. I hate double posts, and I favor concision and creativity, but BentPenquin gave no indication whatsoever that this was non-pig-roast-related. I saw passed the post by two or three times because I have no interest even in "old-fashioned pig roasts" that are "different." Maybe a judicious use of the y2karl special or a little small text would have tipped the scales. But in this case, TGC, there were certainly aggravating circumstances. Go, and sin no more.
posted by soyjoy at 9:30 AM on October 2, 2003

I also vote to acquit.

C'mon you guys – you're going to let him off scot free? No fine, no suspended sentence, no community service?

No wonder crime runs rampant around these parts.
posted by timeistight at 10:50 AM on October 2, 2003

The pig roast link, well put it this way: my trailer hitch doesn't have a speck of chrome left on it.

Especially for including a link to drudgereport, before drudgereport had even mentioned the issue. And even more especially for including a pre-emptive don't bitch about my drudgereport link in the first comment. Here's a hint: if you feel the need to include a pre-emptive disclaimer about something, maybe you don't need to do it in the first place.
posted by ook at 11:01 AM on October 2, 2003

I vote to acquit too. Particularly since I had an in-thread faux pas today. But TGC should get the next round of beers.
posted by madamjujujive at 12:18 PM on October 2, 2003

madamjujujive, how come beers for TGC but not for me? And here I thought you loved me.
(check your faux-pas thread.)
posted by soyjoy at 12:38 PM on October 2, 2003

The "pig roast" post was about as uninformative a description as could be imagined.

Especially since the second link is just the front page of drudge, which was talking about a completely different story when I clicked it.
posted by inpHilltr8r at 12:54 PM on October 2, 2003

soyjoy, when I said TGC should "get" the next round of beers, I meant that in the sense of "cough up the dough for" rather than "get" in the sense of being given. But I'll buy you one too!
posted by madamjujujive at 1:03 PM on October 2, 2003

All riiiiiight!!!

I realized the correct meaning right after (always right after) I posted that, but thought if I didn't say anything I could somehow finesse it into a free beer. I was right!
posted by soyjoy at 1:20 PM on October 2, 2003

Only if you drink Sleeman's or Rickard's =)
posted by The God Complex at 5:44 PM on October 2, 2003

Sign me up for a Rickard's TGC, you can sleep on my couch again.
posted by sinical at 8:58 PM on October 2, 2003