Not enough to be the best of the web March 14, 2004 10:28 AM   Subscribe

Are two book seller links and a book review/article enough to foster a discussion? This concerns thread #31772.
posted by clavdivs to Etiquette/Policy at 10:28 AM (24 comments total)

.
posted by mischief at 10:33 AM on March 14, 2004


whats with the no href using today?
posted by dabitch at 11:01 AM on March 14, 2004


Okay, mischief. We get it. Single period. It's still clever. Honest. Here's hoping you do it in a fifth thread.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 11:23 AM on March 14, 2004


Here is a link
posted by sebas at 11:33 AM on March 14, 2004



posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 1:00 PM on March 14, 2004


.
posted by Slagman at 1:33 PM on March 14, 2004


Ah! My eyes!
posted by Stauf at 1:49 PM on March 14, 2004


If you actually read the FPP links, you will find they contain the text of the book. The first contains the first chapter, the second contains the entire book. That is why they are linked to, not because they are book sellers. This was allready dicussed in the thread.
posted by stbalbach at 1:56 PM on March 14, 2004


now, moving on, taking into account his posting history from the past couple days, has clavdivs smoked a crack rock?
posted by mcsweetie at 2:17 PM on March 14, 2004


mcsweetie, I don't agree with you. clav's an interesting member of this community, and he has been for the last couple of days too. and this very thread's topic is important too -- whate are the limits of MeFi's BookFilter etiquette? (me, if the book is interesting enough, I'm ready to forgive almost anything)
posted by matteo at 3:09 PM on March 14, 2004


why wouldn't people post about books, especially if the full text is available online?
posted by rhyax at 4:10 PM on March 14, 2004


Steve, is that supposed to be the MattSignal?
posted by weston at 5:27 PM on March 14, 2004


S@L, you cheater. I made my snowball out of pure HTML.
posted by namespan at 5:29 PM on March 14, 2004


You are lucky! Full moon tonight!

/nethack
posted by weston at 5:39 PM on March 14, 2004


Sorry, matteo, but this is another raising of a pointless MetaTalk question not worth the asking--something which has been all too common of late.

And look what scintillating commentary it provoked--you get yet another "." and another crap Hey, guys, look at my dull witted photoshop skills gif. B-o-ring.
posted by y2karl at 5:40 PM on March 14, 2004


But there's still the secondary "." to come, y2karl! Aren't you anxious for that inevitable moment of sarcastic cleverness? We won't see it coming either! It's just too outrageous!
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 5:45 PM on March 14, 2004


Enjoy this sarcastic, yet cleverly scintillatting inevitability.

.


It's outrageous. No, really.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:02 PM on March 14, 2004


Hey, guys, look at my dull witted photoshop skills gif. B-o-ring.

Personally I enjoyed the big dot.
posted by boredomjockey at 8:27 PM on March 14, 2004


You have a well earned cognomen then.
posted by y2karl at 8:44 PM on March 14, 2004


scintillatting

Looks like Starbucks has introduced yet another thrilling new coffee!
posted by orange swan at 8:22 AM on March 15, 2004


stbalbach, wow, one chapter, and i do not see the second contains the entire book, I assume it is the Amazon link? I may have overlooked it but it seems all one gets is the table of contents which is not the whole book which means you either lie or i do not see the complete text for link 2.

so the idiot squad can ring in here and toss me a link to this second text.

besides, it was a question, a valid one at that.
McSweetie, you got a problem, because if you do, i don't Care. If you want, mIRC thunderdome baby, name the time and I will WIPE you up sweetiecakes.



but this is another raising of a pointless MetaTalk question not worth the asking--something which has been all too common of late.
well, tell you what. You dont post ,I wont post say....6 months, you have the courage for that, you have the will to do that. Of course not, you need to push your anger-riddled agenda, so of course you would not.

again, where is the text in this 2nd link.
posted by clavdivs at 8:58 AM on March 15, 2004


McSweetie, you got a problem, because if you do, i don't Care. If you want, mIRC thunderdome baby, name the time and I will WIPE you up sweetiecakes.

Thanks for once again elevating the level of discourse, Mr. Personal Invective Hurling Man. Talk about an anger management problem....
posted by y2karl at 9:35 AM on March 15, 2004


again, where is the text in this 2nd link.

stalbach perhaps meant this--the Search inside this book feature which Amazon has adopted. It's not exactly linking the whole text of the book, let it be noted.

mcsweetie most likely was referring to your namecalling and insult hurling spree that started here, I believe.
posted by y2karl at 9:49 AM on March 15, 2004


If you want, mIRC thunderdome baby, name the time and I will WIPE you up sweetiecakes.

Yay, incomprehensible geek threats! That's outstanding. You guys have no idea how much fun it is trying to explain shit like this to people who don't spend their lives chained to computers.
posted by Skot at 11:22 AM on March 15, 2004


« Older Can we make jokes in AskMe?   |   Where are you from? Where do you live? Newer »

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