why was my post deleted? February 6, 2004 8:47 PM Subscribe
Wondering why my FPP link, to a Kuro5hin.org essay about the insular world of blogs, the effect on google and the debate in comments about that was deleted. It was a good discussion, I thought, and work a look. Matt, I've been lurking here for several years, and I thought it was in keeping with the site.
If things are going to tighten up, that's fine, but I'm interested in knowing the parameters and how they applied in this specific case.
If things are going to tighten up, that's fine, but I'm interested in knowing the parameters and how they applied in this specific case.
In no universe would that 500+ word troll you linked "have fostered a good conversation." It certainly isn't in the k5 thread.
posted by eyeballkid at 9:31 PM on February 6, 2004
posted by eyeballkid at 9:31 PM on February 6, 2004
Dude, dude, dude.
Point the first. Yes, you are correct: I obliquely criticized the k5 post because I thought it was so worthless it didn't even bear naming, and its author so filled with rage I didn't want to validate his hatred by encouraging click-through traffic by linking to it.
Point the second. Matt most probably deleted the post because it was a fraggin' link to Kuro5hin, fer chrissake. For what it's worth, I certainly didn't encourage him to do so; I suspect he had ample reason of his own.
Point the third. While I, like most of us, often enough do react to things emotionally, that's not a bad thing. Disgust and dismay are emotions, and they arose in this case because of the k5 poster's bilious, childish, feces-flinging, altogether disgraceful comments - not to mention his scarily obsessive, ad hominem attacks directed at every commentor on the original post who disagreed with him.
Point the fourth. "Wrote an academic paper"? I'm assuming you're referring to the article you linked to, a transcription not of a paper but of a talk I gave wrapping up the First International Moblogging Conference last year in Tokyo. I'm not an academic, and it's not at all a rigorous paper.
I'm sorry you think "moblogging" is a silly word. It's certainly not the most euphonious word ever to come spilling from my lips, but I wasn't thinking about euphony, I was trying to capture a practice I saw emerging around me. Again, for what it's worth, the substance of my strong dismay in reaction to the k5 piece has little to do with the attack-by-implication on my work. I'm a big boy, I think that there's at least a little value in what I do, and the sour-grapes whining of a bitter malcontent is not gonna change that one whit. Indeed, if he had at least bothered to articulate an argument of substance I might not have protested so much at the linking of it. It was the rage and hatred in what he wrote that bothered me, not the dislike he expressed for mo/blog/ging/ers.
So, can we, like, leave me out of this? I reacted as I did to the k5 piece just like any other private citizen might, not as "the moblogging guy."
posted by adamgreenfield at 9:51 PM on February 6, 2004
Point the first. Yes, you are correct: I obliquely criticized the k5 post because I thought it was so worthless it didn't even bear naming, and its author so filled with rage I didn't want to validate his hatred by encouraging click-through traffic by linking to it.
Point the second. Matt most probably deleted the post because it was a fraggin' link to Kuro5hin, fer chrissake. For what it's worth, I certainly didn't encourage him to do so; I suspect he had ample reason of his own.
Point the third. While I, like most of us, often enough do react to things emotionally, that's not a bad thing. Disgust and dismay are emotions, and they arose in this case because of the k5 poster's bilious, childish, feces-flinging, altogether disgraceful comments - not to mention his scarily obsessive, ad hominem attacks directed at every commentor on the original post who disagreed with him.
Point the fourth. "Wrote an academic paper"? I'm assuming you're referring to the article you linked to, a transcription not of a paper but of a talk I gave wrapping up the First International Moblogging Conference last year in Tokyo. I'm not an academic, and it's not at all a rigorous paper.
I'm sorry you think "moblogging" is a silly word. It's certainly not the most euphonious word ever to come spilling from my lips, but I wasn't thinking about euphony, I was trying to capture a practice I saw emerging around me. Again, for what it's worth, the substance of my strong dismay in reaction to the k5 piece has little to do with the attack-by-implication on my work. I'm a big boy, I think that there's at least a little value in what I do, and the sour-grapes whining of a bitter malcontent is not gonna change that one whit. Indeed, if he had at least bothered to articulate an argument of substance I might not have protested so much at the linking of it. It was the rage and hatred in what he wrote that bothered me, not the dislike he expressed for mo/blog/ging/ers.
So, can we, like, leave me out of this? I reacted as I did to the k5 piece just like any other private citizen might, not as "the moblogging guy."
posted by adamgreenfield at 9:51 PM on February 6, 2004
The essay was everywhere on Monday of this week. You claimed to be tired of seeing the same thing everywhere, but posted it to metafilter anyway. It's one giant troll of an essay I don't feel like watching another flamefest for the thousandth time this week and I deleted it for much of the same reason I delete the occasional loaded post about politics.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 9:52 PM on February 6, 2004
posted by mathowie (staff) at 9:52 PM on February 6, 2004
Matt most probably deleted the post because it was a fraggin' link to Kuro5hin
Doubt that's it. Kuro5hin does produce some linkworthy stuff now and again.
posted by weston at 10:36 PM on February 6, 2004
Doubt that's it. Kuro5hin does produce some linkworthy stuff now and again.
posted by weston at 10:36 PM on February 6, 2004
Matt most probably deleted the post because it was a fraggin' link to Kuro5hin
rusty's gonna show up and kick your ass, man.
Slagman, that kur05hin piece was layered with so much of the Stupid, the really good stinky stupidcheese that you have to dig out of the darkest, sweatiest corners, that it made our recent 'two headed baby rapes gay marriage-bound WMD truckdriver with floppy popstar titties' stuff around here look positively erudite, and may possibly have besmirched kur05hin's reputation forever.
It was less an essay than a badly-aimed turd, and was notable only for how undeliberately funny it was. Poorly written, tired, lame, and without even the saving grace of some creativity with its sophomoric profanity. Some of what the guy had to say about weblogging was pretty accurate, sure, but it's been said before, and better, and in the end most of the piece was wanktacular crap. Like Matt said, it was just a gigantic troll, and not a subtle one by any stretch. Not that I've never written any of those, but at least mine had a dim spark of intelligence constellating away in the background somewhere.
If you've really 'been lurking here for several years' Slagman, and this oversaturated piece of Daypop flotsam is the best you can do, perhaps you'd best go back to the drawing board.
the essay criticized the "irritating jargon" of the blog world like "blogosphere" and "blogstream" and "moblogging." I happen to agree with that.
Golly, that's fresh! If you'd really been lurking here for years, you'd know that there are literally hundreds of threads in the MeFi and MeTa archives where the same thing has been said, again and again and again and a-weaselraping-gain. You want to talk about it some more, there's a handy-dandy thread already in progress at kuro5hin!
he encouraged the deletion of my FPP, that smacks of censorship.
You're embarrassing yourself, now. Quit yer moanin' and find something decent to link, already.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 12:26 AM on February 7, 2004
rusty's gonna show up and kick your ass, man.
Slagman, that kur05hin piece was layered with so much of the Stupid, the really good stinky stupidcheese that you have to dig out of the darkest, sweatiest corners, that it made our recent 'two headed baby rapes gay marriage-bound WMD truckdriver with floppy popstar titties' stuff around here look positively erudite, and may possibly have besmirched kur05hin's reputation forever.
It was less an essay than a badly-aimed turd, and was notable only for how undeliberately funny it was. Poorly written, tired, lame, and without even the saving grace of some creativity with its sophomoric profanity. Some of what the guy had to say about weblogging was pretty accurate, sure, but it's been said before, and better, and in the end most of the piece was wanktacular crap. Like Matt said, it was just a gigantic troll, and not a subtle one by any stretch. Not that I've never written any of those, but at least mine had a dim spark of intelligence constellating away in the background somewhere.
If you've really 'been lurking here for several years' Slagman, and this oversaturated piece of Daypop flotsam is the best you can do, perhaps you'd best go back to the drawing board.
the essay criticized the "irritating jargon" of the blog world like "blogosphere" and "blogstream" and "moblogging." I happen to agree with that.
Golly, that's fresh! If you'd really been lurking here for years, you'd know that there are literally hundreds of threads in the MeFi and MeTa archives where the same thing has been said, again and again and again and a-weaselraping-gain. You want to talk about it some more, there's a handy-dandy thread already in progress at kuro5hin!
he encouraged the deletion of my FPP, that smacks of censorship.
You're embarrassing yourself, now. Quit yer moanin' and find something decent to link, already.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 12:26 AM on February 7, 2004
+if on the 'he encouraged...', to be fair.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 12:28 AM on February 7, 2004
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 12:28 AM on February 7, 2004
Not that I've never written any of those, but at least mine had a dim spark of intelligence constellating away in the background somewhere.
i felt this way about the U.S.S. Maine.
posted by clavdivs at 7:33 AM on February 7, 2004
i felt this way about the U.S.S. Maine.
posted by clavdivs at 7:33 AM on February 7, 2004
Damn, that essay must have touched a few raw nerves.
The truth has that power.
Too bad I haven't read it.
Yet. ;-P
posted by mischief at 8:06 AM on February 7, 2004
The truth has that power.
Too bad I haven't read it.
Yet. ;-P
posted by mischief at 8:06 AM on February 7, 2004
so , does anyone have anything bad to say about this link ? /ducks
posted by sgt.serenity at 8:13 AM on February 7, 2004
posted by sgt.serenity at 8:13 AM on February 7, 2004
Thanks to Matt for the explanation, also to Adam for
his civil reply. My apologies for any misunderstanding or offense.
Stavros, your links are always good, but if you're so concerned about "the stupid," and civility, why is the tone of your post here as rage-filled and as insulting as the Kuro5hin post you are objecting to? The beam in your own eye and all that.
Now.. back to reality. I know that people have a certain ideal in their heads about what is a good MeFi post, but if you look back over the weeks, months and years, the reality is often quite different, especially lately. A lot of crap has been allowed to stand. So pardon me for thinking the actual practice is a lot fuzzier than the imaginary lines in your heads.
As Matt notes, my thread was prefaced by a weariness with the same stuff being linked over and over everywhere. He felt this Kuro5hin post fell in that category, and I can hardly object to him raising the bar. I am glad that is the reason he deleted it.
I would also humbly submit that the same standard should apply to silent iTunes tracks which was on every Mac blog/news site and even CNN before it was posted here.
Then there are the "newsfilter" posts like Scalia's hunting trip(a Yahoo news link no less), which has been in the newspapers for days and days already, not to mention John Kerry's band a link from the Washington Post.
I mean, c'mon. Millions of people read the WashPost and the NYTimes and the LATimes on line and off. By the time they do a big heave on anything, it's often already been reported elsewhere. Why link it here? It's 10-1 all the smart folks here have already read it, two or three times.
Now, I'm not saying don't ever post news. But it has to be news, ie new. I think it's worthwhile if Metafilter can be first or near first in pointing something out, like a poll that showed surprising weakness for Bush . When I posted that, it had not yet been mentioned everywhere, though it was in the days that followed. That put MeFi ahead of the curve. Though of course Stavros and others jumped on me for it.
Yet other stuff was fairly old news by the time it was posted here: The link about Bush's national guard service, the "babyraper" thread, the evolution in the classroom flap and so on.
I suggest, if you can see it on the TV news or that morning's major daily papers, it's probably old news to the thousands of lurkers and dozens of posters on Metafilter (I consider myself a lurker, mostly). Here's a tip. If it's in a mass publication and it's been on the Web longer than 30 minutes, I'm guessing most of us have already seen the original or a link to it. For example, I actually have much the same taste in news articles as adamgreenfield, but like him I read the nytimes fairly closely, and many of his links are from the Times. Dude,
everybody's read it already.
And I love the Simpsons but Entertainment Weekly? Come on, eyeballkid. It's on every newsstand. (You can't even get into that time warner page if you're not a subscriber.)
And don't get me started on tired joke lists of what it means to be a Republican/Democrat, which have been bouncing around the net for years, or the latested online elegy for the Dean campaign.
Not to mention Janet Jackson's breast. Please. I might as well watch Fox.
I'm sure a lot of people agree that some or all of these were not ideal MeFi links. Yet many of the threads go on for 50 or more posts. So, uh, yeah, sorry I got confused about the standards.
(Oh, so as not to be too negative, I thought this, this, this and this were really cool links.)
Well, anyone who wants can have the last word. I'm done with this subject. I'll try to be a better poster in future. I wish others would try, too.
posted by Slagman at 8:55 AM on February 7, 2004
his civil reply. My apologies for any misunderstanding or offense.
Stavros, your links are always good, but if you're so concerned about "the stupid," and civility, why is the tone of your post here as rage-filled and as insulting as the Kuro5hin post you are objecting to? The beam in your own eye and all that.
Now.. back to reality. I know that people have a certain ideal in their heads about what is a good MeFi post, but if you look back over the weeks, months and years, the reality is often quite different, especially lately. A lot of crap has been allowed to stand. So pardon me for thinking the actual practice is a lot fuzzier than the imaginary lines in your heads.
As Matt notes, my thread was prefaced by a weariness with the same stuff being linked over and over everywhere. He felt this Kuro5hin post fell in that category, and I can hardly object to him raising the bar. I am glad that is the reason he deleted it.
I would also humbly submit that the same standard should apply to silent iTunes tracks which was on every Mac blog/news site and even CNN before it was posted here.
Then there are the "newsfilter" posts like Scalia's hunting trip(a Yahoo news link no less), which has been in the newspapers for days and days already, not to mention John Kerry's band a link from the Washington Post.
I mean, c'mon. Millions of people read the WashPost and the NYTimes and the LATimes on line and off. By the time they do a big heave on anything, it's often already been reported elsewhere. Why link it here? It's 10-1 all the smart folks here have already read it, two or three times.
Now, I'm not saying don't ever post news. But it has to be news, ie new. I think it's worthwhile if Metafilter can be first or near first in pointing something out, like a poll that showed surprising weakness for Bush . When I posted that, it had not yet been mentioned everywhere, though it was in the days that followed. That put MeFi ahead of the curve. Though of course Stavros and others jumped on me for it.
Yet other stuff was fairly old news by the time it was posted here: The link about Bush's national guard service, the "babyraper" thread, the evolution in the classroom flap and so on.
I suggest, if you can see it on the TV news or that morning's major daily papers, it's probably old news to the thousands of lurkers and dozens of posters on Metafilter (I consider myself a lurker, mostly). Here's a tip. If it's in a mass publication and it's been on the Web longer than 30 minutes, I'm guessing most of us have already seen the original or a link to it. For example, I actually have much the same taste in news articles as adamgreenfield, but like him I read the nytimes fairly closely, and many of his links are from the Times. Dude,
everybody's read it already.
And I love the Simpsons but Entertainment Weekly? Come on, eyeballkid. It's on every newsstand. (You can't even get into that time warner page if you're not a subscriber.)
And don't get me started on tired joke lists of what it means to be a Republican/Democrat, which have been bouncing around the net for years, or the latested online elegy for the Dean campaign.
Not to mention Janet Jackson's breast. Please. I might as well watch Fox.
I'm sure a lot of people agree that some or all of these were not ideal MeFi links. Yet many of the threads go on for 50 or more posts. So, uh, yeah, sorry I got confused about the standards.
(Oh, so as not to be too negative, I thought this, this, this and this were really cool links.)
Well, anyone who wants can have the last word. I'm done with this subject. I'll try to be a better poster in future. I wish others would try, too.
posted by Slagman at 8:55 AM on February 7, 2004
Err, so, your excuse for posting a crap link is that other people post crap links, too?
[whiny mother voice]
If everyone else jumped off a bridge would you?
[/whiny mother voice]
posted by jacquilynne at 9:15 AM on February 7, 2004
[whiny mother voice]
If everyone else jumped off a bridge would you?
[/whiny mother voice]
posted by jacquilynne at 9:15 AM on February 7, 2004
If everyone else jumped off a bridge would you?
You know, when I was a kid, I always thought that was so dumb until one day I realized nearly all my friends were cliff/bridge jumpers.
posted by weston at 9:28 AM on February 7, 2004
You know, when I was a kid, I always thought that was so dumb until one day I realized nearly all my friends were cliff/bridge jumpers.
posted by weston at 9:28 AM on February 7, 2004
Slagman is right. This is bias and hypocrisy.
Note however that I don't object to the deletion per se; there are basically no editorial guidelines here, just Matt's discretion, and we all know that, and that's fine. Instead, I object to the tone that's been taken by some of the posters here, and to the assertion that this was obviously not up to par compared to the normal MeFi post. I don't see much of a difference.
You all object to the link on three basic grounds: A) you disagree with the opinion expressed (it was "layered with so much Stupid"), B) you don't like the tone of expression (an opinion which you express in a tone that's very similar to the tone you're objecting to) and/or C) many of us have heard this argument many times before. The trouble is, 90% of MeFi comments and about half of all posts - especially the political posts - fit that exact description. It's inconsistent.
posted by gd779 at 10:27 AM on February 7, 2004
Note however that I don't object to the deletion per se; there are basically no editorial guidelines here, just Matt's discretion, and we all know that, and that's fine. Instead, I object to the tone that's been taken by some of the posters here, and to the assertion that this was obviously not up to par compared to the normal MeFi post. I don't see much of a difference.
You all object to the link on three basic grounds: A) you disagree with the opinion expressed (it was "layered with so much Stupid"), B) you don't like the tone of expression (an opinion which you express in a tone that's very similar to the tone you're objecting to) and/or C) many of us have heard this argument many times before. The trouble is, 90% of MeFi comments and about half of all posts - especially the political posts - fit that exact description. It's inconsistent.
posted by gd779 at 10:27 AM on February 7, 2004
Point me at the hypocrisy, gd779? Please?
That's a powerful word. You wanna be careful with it.
posted by adamgreenfield at 10:29 AM on February 7, 2004
That's a powerful word. You wanna be careful with it.
posted by adamgreenfield at 10:29 AM on February 7, 2004
the assertion that this was obviously not up to par compared to the normal MeFi post
I never said it wasn't good enough, I said it was a flamefest I didn't want to see unleashed on the site and I had already seen it cause a stir in other places, but less important than it being everywhere already (slagman is wrong in thinking this is why I deleted it) was that everywhere it did show up, it was a giant pointless yelling fest between people that hate blogs and those that defend them.
Kind of like how Israel and Palestine relations get discussed online, e.g., not very well at all.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 10:37 AM on February 7, 2004
I never said it wasn't good enough, I said it was a flamefest I didn't want to see unleashed on the site and I had already seen it cause a stir in other places, but less important than it being everywhere already (slagman is wrong in thinking this is why I deleted it) was that everywhere it did show up, it was a giant pointless yelling fest between people that hate blogs and those that defend them.
Kind of like how Israel and Palestine relations get discussed online, e.g., not very well at all.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 10:37 AM on February 7, 2004
I never said it wasn't good enough, I said it was a flamefest
I agree, Matt. Your reason for deletion was fine, and I didn't have you in mind when I wrote those lines. In fact, since I may not have been clear let me point out that the "bias and hypocrisy" I believe is here is emphatically not yours. You do a fantastic job of guiding this site, given that it's not your full time job, and I don't know what you could possibly be doing better. My comments were directed at others.
posted by gd779 at 10:55 AM on February 7, 2004
I agree, Matt. Your reason for deletion was fine, and I didn't have you in mind when I wrote those lines. In fact, since I may not have been clear let me point out that the "bias and hypocrisy" I believe is here is emphatically not yours. You do a fantastic job of guiding this site, given that it's not your full time job, and I don't know what you could possibly be doing better. My comments were directed at others.
posted by gd779 at 10:55 AM on February 7, 2004
Do be specific, then.
posted by adamgreenfield at 11:00 AM on February 7, 2004
posted by adamgreenfield at 11:00 AM on February 7, 2004
Some of what the guy had to say about weblogging was pretty accurate, sure, but it's been said before, and better, and in the end most of the piece was wanktacular crap. Like Matt said, it was just a gigantic troll
This paragraph sums up the article to me. I was going to even say that I didn't think it was a troll -- it had more the air of a rant that just, um, came right out when the author sat down. But if you look at one of the author's comments in that thread you could pretty easily conclude that he knew he would be stiring the pot and this was his goal. His response isn't a big improvement.
But back to another point:
it's been said before, and better,
My question is: where? Not so much the before as the better. This is probably the most trollish, but nearly all the criticisms I've seen have in fact been in rant format.
Maybe I'll try rewriting these in non-troll format and see where it gets me.
posted by weston at 11:29 AM on February 7, 2004
This paragraph sums up the article to me. I was going to even say that I didn't think it was a troll -- it had more the air of a rant that just, um, came right out when the author sat down. But if you look at one of the author's comments in that thread you could pretty easily conclude that he knew he would be stiring the pot and this was his goal. His response isn't a big improvement.
But back to another point:
it's been said before, and better,
My question is: where? Not so much the before as the better. This is probably the most trollish, but nearly all the criticisms I've seen have in fact been in rant format.
Maybe I'll try rewriting these in non-troll format and see where it gets me.
posted by weston at 11:29 AM on February 7, 2004
i'd also like to see a better version, if one exists. and i'm glad this was posted to meta because i hadn't seen it.
posted by andrew cooke at 2:28 PM on February 7, 2004
posted by andrew cooke at 2:28 PM on February 7, 2004
gd779,
When someone makes a really weak argument laced with curses it's best to not pay attention to it. Their are a lot of terrible things written down that don't need debunking or further discussion.
Mathowie already stated that he deletes the occasional loaded political post. No one encourages flame-bait posts. They get called out in here all the time. The essay was designed to enrage others and that does not describe 90% of comments or 50% of the posts here.
We are bias towards stupid and hateful things. I don't understand how those things are not an obvious part of that essay. Those things spring up in "normal" Metafilter posts, but I have never seen a case where they were given a free pass.
posted by john at 2:42 PM on February 7, 2004
When someone makes a really weak argument laced with curses it's best to not pay attention to it. Their are a lot of terrible things written down that don't need debunking or further discussion.
Mathowie already stated that he deletes the occasional loaded political post. No one encourages flame-bait posts. They get called out in here all the time. The essay was designed to enrage others and that does not describe 90% of comments or 50% of the posts here.
We are bias towards stupid and hateful things. I don't understand how those things are not an obvious part of that essay. Those things spring up in "normal" Metafilter posts, but I have never seen a case where they were given a free pass.
posted by john at 2:42 PM on February 7, 2004
But, more to the point, who really cares? It amazes me that people have enough excess venom in them, after dealing with all the upsets and time sinks that constitute contemporary life, to spew all over something as innocuous as blogging. (Andrew Orlowski, this means you.)
Look. I don't much care for the following heterogeneous things:
Teen sex comedies
Cigars
BMWs
Hentai anime
Puff Diddy Combs
The News Corporation
The fact that the sf section of most bookstores consists of "Star Trek" and "Star Wars" pap
Objectivists
Wal-Mart
Dogs
Joe Lieberman
...I could go on. But the point is, they don't actually bother me that much. They share my planet with me, they take up resources which could doubtless be turned to better ends, but at the end of the day they really don't keep me from living my life pretty much the way I see fit.
Now. Have blogs, or bloggers, or online journalers, ever oppressed anyone? Ever prevented someone from fulfilling their dreams? Ever seriously posed much of an impediment to same? They (we?) are harmless, self-regarding nuisances at worst, responsible citizens at best. Not something worth hating, not by a long, long shot.
Scale, scale, scale, scale, scale, scale, scale. And proportion.
posted by adamgreenfield at 2:43 PM on February 7, 2004
Look. I don't much care for the following heterogeneous things:
Teen sex comedies
Cigars
BMWs
Hentai anime
Puff Diddy Combs
The News Corporation
The fact that the sf section of most bookstores consists of "Star Trek" and "Star Wars" pap
Objectivists
Wal-Mart
Dogs
Joe Lieberman
...I could go on. But the point is, they don't actually bother me that much. They share my planet with me, they take up resources which could doubtless be turned to better ends, but at the end of the day they really don't keep me from living my life pretty much the way I see fit.
Now. Have blogs, or bloggers, or online journalers, ever oppressed anyone? Ever prevented someone from fulfilling their dreams? Ever seriously posed much of an impediment to same? They (we?) are harmless, self-regarding nuisances at worst, responsible citizens at best. Not something worth hating, not by a long, long shot.
Scale, scale, scale, scale, scale, scale, scale. And proportion.
posted by adamgreenfield at 2:43 PM on February 7, 2004
you're making my head spin.
calling for scale and proportion at the same time as you classify that article as "hate". saying that these things don't matter yet preaching on...
posted by andrew cooke at 3:00 PM on February 7, 2004
calling for scale and proportion at the same time as you classify that article as "hate". saying that these things don't matter yet preaching on...
posted by andrew cooke at 3:00 PM on February 7, 2004
Scale, scale, scale, scale, scale, scale, scale. And proportion.
and gondola.
posted by quonsar at 5:04 PM on February 7, 2004
and gondola.
posted by quonsar at 5:04 PM on February 7, 2004
...and The Call of the Stupid.
why is the tone of your post here as rage-filled and as insulting as the Kuro5hin post you are objecting to?
'cause that makes it funny, see†? Damn, do I gotta school you 'bout everyt'ing?
†or a reasonable facsimile thereof.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:30 PM on February 7, 2004
why is the tone of your post here as rage-filled and as insulting as the Kuro5hin post you are objecting to?
'cause that makes it funny, see†? Damn, do I gotta school you 'bout everyt'ing?
†or a reasonable facsimile thereof.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:30 PM on February 7, 2004
Fair enough.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:02 PM on February 7, 2004
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:02 PM on February 7, 2004
andrew_cooke:
You don't think garbage like Congratulations, you dumb bint is hate?
What exactly is your agenda here, anyway, hoss? Seems like you've been making a point out of quibbling with more than a few of my posts lately. It's creepy.
posted by adamgreenfield at 7:22 PM on February 7, 2004
You don't think garbage like Congratulations, you dumb bint is hate?
What exactly is your agenda here, anyway, hoss? Seems like you've been making a point out of quibbling with more than a few of my posts lately. It's creepy.
posted by adamgreenfield at 7:22 PM on February 7, 2004
adam, I think andrew is jealous of you, showing up even higher in alphabetical order and all...
posted by wendell at 7:50 PM on February 7, 2004
posted by wendell at 7:50 PM on February 7, 2004
gd779 made my point better than I did.
I thank Matt for the further clarification.
Just for the record: I like blogs and bloggers.
What's a bint?
posted by Slagman at 12:16 AM on February 8, 2004
Why would someone call someone else an 'arab woman'?
posted by mischief at 2:47 PM on February 8, 2004
posted by mischief at 2:47 PM on February 8, 2004
It's not an ethnic slur so much as an expression of misogyny.
posted by adamgreenfield at 5:30 PM on February 8, 2004
posted by adamgreenfield at 5:30 PM on February 8, 2004
OH. *finally gets that one line from Holy Grail*
Thanks. See, something good came of this.
posted by soyjoy at 7:54 PM on February 8, 2004
Thanks. See, something good came of this.
posted by soyjoy at 7:54 PM on February 8, 2004
??
posted by adamgreenfield at 8:12 PM on February 8, 2004
posted by adamgreenfield at 8:12 PM on February 8, 2004
DENNIS: Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
ARTHUR: Be quiet!
DENNIS: Well, but you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!
ARTHUR: Shut up!
DENNIS: I mean, if I went 'round saying I was an emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!
ARTHUR: Shut up, will you? Shut up!
DENNIS: Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system.
ARTHUR: Shut up!
DENNIS: Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help! Help! I'm being repressed!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 9:10 PM on February 8, 2004
ARTHUR: Be quiet!
DENNIS: Well, but you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!
ARTHUR: Shut up!
DENNIS: I mean, if I went 'round saying I was an emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!
ARTHUR: Shut up, will you? Shut up!
DENNIS: Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system.
ARTHUR: Shut up!
DENNIS: Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help! Help! I'm being repressed!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 9:10 PM on February 8, 2004
Please, Stavros, that kind of hateful talk has no place here.
posted by Slagman at 9:31 PM on February 8, 2004
posted by Slagman at 9:31 PM on February 8, 2004
Note that recently bint has also become slang for girlfriend, though this context kind of precludes that explanation.
Also: I don't think modern usage of bint is really misogynistic any more than wanker or prick are misandrist.
posted by fvw at 9:52 PM on February 8, 2004
Also: I don't think modern usage of bint is really misogynistic any more than wanker or prick are misandrist.
posted by fvw at 9:52 PM on February 8, 2004
I'm gonna go throw rocks at girls and call them bints now.
posted by Space Coyote at 3:34 AM on February 9, 2004
posted by Space Coyote at 3:34 AM on February 9, 2004
I think more to the point, the k5 article would have been a bad link because it contains numerous factual errors. That's no way to start a useful conversation.
posted by anildash at 3:03 PM on February 9, 2004
posted by anildash at 3:03 PM on February 9, 2004
And yet, the thread probably would have looked much like this one. And we'd be over it by now.
posted by Slagman at 4:18 PM on February 9, 2004
posted by Slagman at 4:18 PM on February 9, 2004
Bint doesn't work particularly well on it's own. It needs a supporting adjective, and doesn't really carry any offensive weight.
posted by inpHilltr8r at 5:55 PM on February 9, 2004
posted by inpHilltr8r at 5:55 PM on February 9, 2004
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
The discussion as a whole is the best of the web on this particular day of nothingness. And it could have fostered a good conversation, as the little motto up in the left corner of the FPP suggests.
posted by Slagman at 9:01 PM on February 6, 2004