Newsfilter as FPPs March 30, 2004 7:28 AM   Subscribe

Predictions: I just noticed the news, "White House to Let Rice Testify in Public" on AP. How long until this becomes an FPP. Doesn't it seem lately that every piece of news is getting posted? Where does one draw the line between news that should be an FPP and news that shouldn't
posted by Outlawyr to MetaFilter-Related at 7:28 AM (110 comments total)

Predictions: I just noticed the news, "White House to Let Rice Testify in Public" on AP. How long until this becomes an FPP. Doesn't it seem lately that every piece of news is getting posted? Where does one draw the line between news that should be an FPP and news that shouldn't? Where does one draw the line about starting a MetaTalk thread about it before it happens? Does that seem stupid to you guys?
posted by y2karl at 7:32 AM on March 30, 2004


Can't comment on the future as I'm living the past.
posted by thomcatspike at 7:35 AM on March 30, 2004


The Condi FPP is an imminent threat, therefore a preemptive Metatalk post is sanctioned under the new Metafilter Security Strategy.
posted by Dean King at 7:38 AM on March 30, 2004


Where does one draw the line about starting a MetaTalk thread about it before it happens? Does that seem stupid to you guys?

Heh.
posted by trharlan at 7:39 AM on March 30, 2004


better idea! let's launch a preemptive strike against a completely unrelated topic.

my good god, how many times are we gonna talk about people shitting on each other? is this the kinda crap (no pun intended) that qualifies nowadays as "the best of the web?"
posted by mcsweetie at 7:53 AM on March 30, 2004


Gosh, wouldn't it be great if EVERYONE on Metafilter could post a thread about warning everyone in advance what threads they wouldn't like to read? That's certainly much easier and beneficial than not reading the ones you don't like.

Is this the next move for the "I think saying NewsFilter is still clever" crowd? Pre-emptively declaring what FPPs they don't approve of to get a head start on shitting on the thread?

I mean, I know they own this website and all, but I still think that might be construed as a bit pretentious.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 7:53 AM on March 30, 2004


Wow

I guess I struck a nerve

Just who is $%&@ing on whom
posted by Outlawyr at 7:59 AM on March 30, 2004


How long until this becomes an FPP.
1hour 10minutes & ticking
posted by thomcatspike at 8:37 AM on March 30, 2004


We are now in Hour Two of Waiting For FPP Condi.... The room is silent. You can feel the electricity in the air. Especially if you scuff your feet on the carpet and then touch a doorknob.
posted by y2karl at 8:45 AM on March 30, 2004


OW!
posted by DrJohnEvans at 8:57 AM on March 30, 2004


Man, don't feed me suggestions like that.
posted by DrJohnEvans at 8:57 AM on March 30, 2004


Has the betting closed on this yet? Goddamn! I'm starting to get the shakes!
posted by eastlakestandard at 9:21 AM on March 30, 2004


When is that freaking Condi-Rice-testifying FPP going to appear! They said it was supposed to get here this morning and I can't even get any goddamn tracking information on it. I swear to you, this is the last time I rely on NewsFilter to deliver my news.
posted by rks404 at 9:28 AM on March 30, 2004


Hour Three: the Condoleeza Rice 9/11 Testimonial Death March continues.
posted by y2karl at 9:32 AM on March 30, 2004


Just wait until Slagman or Postroad or specialk420 gets some free time. Then all of you can be treated to some highly informative links to AP news about it.
posted by Seth at 9:33 AM on March 30, 2004


You severely undermine your position by making so personal, Seth.
posted by BlueTrain at 9:36 AM on March 30, 2004


Heck, I may go post it just so y2karl will stop his counting.
posted by pardonyou? at 9:37 AM on March 30, 2004


You severely undermine your position by making it so personal, Seth.
posted by BlueTrain at 9:38 AM on March 30, 2004


How am I making it personal?

It is fairly obvious to anyone who reads Metafilter that this kind of post is usually made by a handfull of people, and, more importantly, that those people I listed have a history of posting such threads.

Is that a personal attack? Or a pointing out of a trend?
posted by Seth at 9:39 AM on March 30, 2004


jesus... it's certainly worth discussing - a little preview on what the lying bitch has to say under oath?
posted by specialk420 at 9:46 AM on March 30, 2004


Instead of appealing to a sense of community standards through positive and affirming language, the very same that you preach with every one of your posts, you point fingers at people, telling us that they're to blame for our "problems", which makes them, and others, defensive, and unwilling to examine your point.

Honey and vinegar analogy and all.

BTW, I'm not suggesting that the direct approach is off the table, but you seem convinced that by mentioning specific people constantly, the entire community will somehow "see the light" and consider you credible, which, IMO, isn't working and is alienating you from potential allies.
posted by BlueTrain at 9:47 AM on March 30, 2004


BlueTrain.
You make a good point, and I'd be inclined to agree with you but for the fact that I have seen the response from an identifiable group of people. I think the vast majority would be willing to improve MeFi and ditch the crap---make a concerted effort to raise the level of discourse and quality of posts. But there is group of people who don't care. They take the attitude that MeFi is a place for them to post whatever they want to talk about over and over. They have made it clear that they don't care what anyone else thinks (including user number 1), and they will post their screeds come hell or high water. Not suprisingly, it is the other members of this identifiable group who usually comes to their defense. I am not sure any aspirational prodding could get them to want to raise the discourse. So maybe public scorn works?
posted by Seth at 9:54 AM on March 30, 2004


Glancing at Slagman's posting history, I can't figure out how you labelled him as the guy who posts AP stories.

AP articles make up a tiny fraction of what specialk420 has posted.

(I'm not going to bother with Postroad.)

Try again, Seth.
posted by turaho at 9:55 AM on March 30, 2004


Oops, make that specialk420.
posted by turaho at 9:58 AM on March 30, 2004


turaho,
I guess I should have been clearer. When I referenced the AP, I didn't mean to include only the AP. I was using that example as an exemplar. What I am referring to is the linking to a single source as an FPP so that the poster can make an editorial point. The single source is never anything that even approximates "best of the web" and is usually just blog churn. Do you reall believe that Slagman and specialk420 aren't among the subset of people that would post this "news" about Condi as if it was FPP worthy?
posted by Seth at 10:06 AM on March 30, 2004


When I hear this much mewling, I usually find a litter of newborn kittens. Better go check the laundry room.
posted by trondant at 10:10 AM on March 30, 2004


So maybe public scorn works?

Yes, but only in cases where a public exists. MetaFilter doesn't consistently create a cohesive group of people, mainly because, again IMO, there exists very little, if any, human contact, which I believe is necessary for cohesiveness.

Your "group of people who don't care" very well may exist, but the only person capable of decisive action is Matt, and to this day I've yet to see him acknowledge said "cabal".

My bigger point, though, was to point out tangible infractions when possible, and with moderation, if not scarcity, because only through consistent and noticeable exemplary behavior on your part, along with a great deal of patience, will you achieve any of your goals.
posted by BlueTrain at 10:11 AM on March 30, 2004


Well, I'm glad that an incredibly lame post about a theoretical bad FPP has devolved into a argument about... hell, I don't even know.

But, back to the issue at hand- what's your point, Outlawyr? You're preaching to the choir here. Everyone (pretty much) on MeTa agrees that a FPP about Condi's testimony would be a bad one. It's not going to alter the odds of it getting posted. Do you have any proposal regarding what to do about it, or is this all just navel gazing?

On preview- STFU about slagman, specialk, or postroad. Seriously. It's one thing to point fingers about what people actually did. It's reprehensible to bitch about what specific people might do.
posted by mkultra at 10:15 AM on March 30, 2004


My bigger point, though, was to point out tangible infractions when possible, and with moderation, if not scarcity, because only through consistent and noticeable exemplary behavior on your part, along with a great deal of patience, will you achieve any of your goals.
posted by BlueTrain at 10:11 AM PST on March 30


Point taken. Thanks.
posted by Seth at 10:17 AM on March 30, 2004


We are now in Hour Two of Waiting For FPP Condi.... The room is silent. You can feel the electricity in the air. ...
That electricity is lightning getting ready to strike her for lying under oath.

I hereby volunteer to make the post right after she testifies...that'll at least have some meat to it, or can serve as a factcheck on her.
posted by amberglow at 10:19 AM on March 30, 2004


Why wait? Let's start discussing now what she's going to have said. Personally, I thought it was shameful!
posted by soyjoy at 10:23 AM on March 30, 2004


Do you have any proposal regarding what to do about it, or is this all just navel gazing? posted by mkultra

"Doesn't it seem lately that every piece of news is getting posted? Where does one draw the line between news that should be an FPP and news that shouldn't"

Mkultra, I'm sorry I didn't phrase this in the form of a proposal. I didn't realize that was required. I foolishly thought we could discuss when, if ever, it is appropriate to post news (as opposed to cool stuff we found on the web). I would still be interested in having that discussion.
posted by Outlawyr at 10:29 AM on March 30, 2004


Sorry for the snarkiness, but this argument has been done to death. Every month or so, someone posts a news story to MeFi, which brings up the cadre of "Newsfilter!" callouts and inevitable Meta post. Seeing this drudged up again, without even the context of an actual FPP, just really got under my skin.

Matt's not going to ban news posts altogether. People will continue to post them. The best you can do, if you're that concerned about them, is not participate in them. Nothing else will have even the slightest effect.
posted by mkultra at 10:45 AM on March 30, 2004


I guess it's the broader issue I'm interested in, not a ruling or reaction to a specific post. More like, what do you think the rules of the game should be.

For example, 9/11. There's no way that's not going to be an FPP. The discussion that happens online for a major event like that often includes breaking news from individual posters who see something the media doesn't know about yet.

At the opposite end of the spectrum there are the Candidate X said this about Candidate Y posts, where it's not only "news" (although only just barely) but inevitable and boring and partisan news.

Then there's the "News of the Weird" style news post. This can range from the interesting ones to the Ananova (sp?) "Believe it or Not" stuff.

Does any of it really belong on MeFi, and if so, what are the parameters.
posted by Outlawyr at 11:08 AM on March 30, 2004


Every month or so, someone posts a news story to MeFi

Are you using that internet time I keep hearing about?
posted by timeistight at 11:10 AM on March 30, 2004


Why wait? Let's start discussing now what she's going to have said. Personally, I thought it was shameful!

I really enjoyed the part where she got up and did an interpretive dance to "Rock the Casbah." And how hilarious was it when they called her a "house slave," and she replied, "Well, I don' know nuthin' 'bout dat -- I'sa jus' do what massa Bush tell me"?
posted by pardonyou? at 11:17 AM on March 30, 2004


WTF is up with MeTa members these days? Pre-emptive MetaWhinges?

I'm sorely tempted to post a MetaWhinge about MetaWhinges that are about things that haven't happened on MetaFilter. Might as well take this idiocy to the next level!
posted by five fresh fish at 12:06 PM on March 30, 2004


I think the vast majority would be willing to improve MeFi and ditch the crap---make a concerted effort to raise the level of discourse and quality of posts. But there is group of people who don't care.

Then there's the small minority who won't shut the fuck up about it or post something of their own and continually bring down the level of discourse by attempting to suggest that their own view of MetaFilter is somehow more refined.

Somehow I'm sure I've suggested this once before, and yet it never seems to effect much of a change. Perhaps that's why I don't do it a dozen times in every thread about this.

posted by The God Complex at 12:06 PM on March 30, 2004


Metafilter: Does any of it really belong.
posted by strangeleftydoublethink at 12:07 PM on March 30, 2004


Does any of it really belong on MeFi, and if so, what are the parameters.

if you're not sure, run it by Seth first to make sure he won't have a fit. the last thing we need is for that dude to start another flame war.
posted by mcsweetie at 12:11 PM on March 30, 2004


I really enjoyed the part where she got up and did an interpretive dance to "Rock the Casbah."

Stop with the right-wing talking points. It was "Rudy Can't Fail."
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 12:13 PM on March 30, 2004


Are you using that internet time I keep hearing about?

By "month" I meant "microsecond" ;)
posted by mkultra at 12:17 PM on March 30, 2004


"Might as well take this idiocy to the next level!"

"MetaTalk is a discussion area for topics specific to MetaFilter itself, ranging from bug reports to feature requests to questions of content"

I was trying to discuss a question of content. I guess no one else is interested.

Later.
posted by Outlawyr at 12:26 PM on March 30, 2004


See ya.
posted by rocketman at 12:42 PM on March 30, 2004


Alligator.
posted by strangeleftydoublethink at 12:43 PM on March 30, 2004


I was trying to discuss a question of content. I guess no one else is interested.

Nope, no one at all.
posted by Dean King at 12:53 PM on March 30, 2004


I was trying to discuss a question of [possible] content [someone might post in the future]. I guess no one else is interested.

Nope. Not in most of the NewFilter posts, not at all in MetaFilter about the NewsFilter, and certainly not in FutureFilter about *possible* NewsFilter posts. I mean, come on.
posted by freebird at 12:55 PM on March 30, 2004


I really enjoyed the part where she got up and did an interpretive dance to "Rock the Casbah."

Was that before she knocked the table over, put her dukes up and screamed
Hey, motherfucker ! You want a piece of me !? at Bob Kerrey ?
posted by y2karl at 1:25 PM on March 30, 2004




I guess it's the broader issue I'm interested in, not a ruling or reaction to a specific post. More like, what do you think the rules of the game should be.

For example, 9/11. There's no way that's not going to be an FPP. The discussion that happens online for a major event like that often includes breaking news from individual posters who see something the media doesn't know about yet.

At the opposite end of the spectrum there are the Candidate X said this about Candidate Y posts, where it's not only "news" (although only just barely) but inevitable and boring and partisan news.

Then there's the "News of the Weird" style news post. This can range from the interesting ones to the Ananova (sp?) "Believe it or Not" stuff.

Does any of it really belong on MeFi, and if so, what are the parameters.


The archives exist for your perusal. I'm sure you'll find many such discussion that so far have not led much of anywhere. There's also a discussion of politics (included within are Mr. Haughey's comments) that's still on the front page of MetaTalk. These discussions you're attempting to kick off take place with great frequency and varying success (between little and none). Only a day or two after the last one about newsfilter and the like--which seems to be an ongoing point of contention for a few unnamed members--you're not going to find many people interested in rehashing the topic if you frame it the way you did.
posted by The God Complex at 1:33 PM on March 30, 2004


TGC,
Forgive me for not stopping my criticism because you percieve it to be ineffective. Furthermore, obviously you can't comprehend what my critique is about if you are foolish enough to criticize me for my lack of posting history. Let me make it clear: I don't think any of the subject areas I have addressed should be posted here. Why the hell would I post similarly inappropriate threads to cancel out the noise when in reality I would only be adding to it?
Metafilter exists to share those great things on the web that not everyone can find, and that is what makes it uniquely special. I lack the skills to go find those things, but I find them here thanks to the wonderful work of those that do find them. The things that I come across everyday don't belong here, so I am not going to post them. Can you not understand the critique? If so, then perhaps you should reconsider your argument that since I don't shit all over the front page, then I shouldn't criticize those who do.
posted by Seth at 1:53 PM on March 30, 2004


<Back on Topic>

Look, good links are like good anything else (good porn, good food, and good liquor) we know's it when we see's it. Some newsfilterish posts become good threads. This happens for one of two reasons. Reason the first is that the poster finds a link that's not a link to a newssource, but instead thinks about the issue, taps into the googlefu, and producing something interesting. Reason the second is that a poster frames the post in a useful or compelling way and thus, produces a thread with interesting discussion (and hopefully commenter-submitted outbound links).

We all know that there are good newsfilter posts and bad newsfilter posts. And we've even made some suggestions (like on teh cool MeFi Wiki) about how to go about writing good ones. The problem is that people who are fed up with NewsFilter posts don't enter the threads to save them from crashing and burning (Hint: IMO, one does this by posting cool links to interesting stuff, or even to dissect the posted link or links and use the quotes to some effect). Instead we shit on the posts with the "NewsFilter" moniker.

<And now, back to the petty rambing...>
posted by zpousman at 1:54 PM on March 30, 2004


[side]
TGC...awww!!! I'm blinded, your posting is fine. Looking at your comments in today's meta-talk threads, has your style been this way? Basically your comments today can be evenly divideded by its text. Is the reason for it: your comments have been previously said? They do have a pattern which may make a nice quilt;D

And now, back to the petty rambing...
Remember this being future talk, today we have the skills fixing the present:P
posted by thomcatspike at 2:05 PM on March 30, 2004


If you want to know your past life,
look into your present condition;
if you want to know your future,
look into your present action.

- Padmisambha
posted by homunculus at 2:38 PM on March 30, 2004


We all know that there are good newsfilter posts and bad newsfilter posts.

We don't all know that zpouseman. We've just given up trying to get rid of them.
posted by timeistight at 2:47 PM on March 30, 2004


I really enjoyed the part where she got up and did an interpretive dance to "Rock the Casbah."

My most favorite part was her "All Hail Satan!" right after taking the oath (and the way her eyes flashed red).
posted by amberglow at 3:38 PM on March 30, 2004


Hell...guess it had to happen in this age of preemptive wars...partisan attempts to preempt unpleasant front page posts before they're even made.

~chuckle~

Seth: I lack the skills to go find those things, but I find them here thanks to the wonderful work of those that do find them.

Oh. Gotcha. You don't know how to find good things for MetaFilter, but you don't mind telling others how to go about finding good things for MetaFilter.

Endlessly.

I imagine this uncomfortable dissonance is something like your selective, partisan tolerance for some single-source, political op-ed front page posts, yes?

And oh, Seth? Your personal criticisms above....of people who weren't even participants in this thread....behind their backs? Completely spineless.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 4:00 PM on March 30, 2004




re : both this thread and the potential Rice testimony.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:53 PM on March 30, 2004


Some news-related items can ALSO be among the 'best of the web,' Outlawyr; you suggest wrongly that the two categories are mutually exclusive.

If you're dissatisfied with the hundreds of others who have weighed in on this topic here in MetaTalk, and you're soliciting my opinion on when a news item rises to the level of 'best of the web,' I would say it varies by story and by reader.

Clearly you don't want to read any news-related items about Dr. Rice (as the pundits mysteriously have begun calling her). This begs the question to which many in this thread have alluded: who fucking cares what you don't want to read?
posted by squirrel at 5:27 PM on March 30, 2004


TGC...awww!!! I'm blinded, your posting is fine. Looking at your comments in today's meta-talk threads, has your style been this way? Basically your comments today can be evenly divideded by its text. Is the reason for it: your comments have been previously said? They do have a pattern which may make a nice quilt;D

I'm not sure what you mean when you say that my comments can be "evenly divided by" the text.

Some of these comments have been said before, yes, probably three or four times (in particular the one directed toward Seth).

Furthermore, obviously you can't comprehend what my critique is about if you are foolish enough to criticize me for my lack of posting history. Let me make it clear: I don't think any of the subject areas I have addressed should be posted here. Why the hell would I post similarly inappropriate threads to cancel out the noise when in reality I would only be adding to it?

That's either a strawman argument or your simply misunderstood what I was saying. I'll assume the latter out of charity and simply say that I never insinuated you should provide adequate links to refute these political posts you disagree with--then again, that would certainly be more interesting than simply complaining about it all the time after you argue as vociferously as the list of usual combatants that you trot out every time this gets brought up.

Look, if we were having an argument then it would essentially consist of you saying some variance of "the guidelines say 'best of the web' and this isn't best of the web" and then I'd suggest that many people, including myself, seem to be of the mind that some of the political posts are the best of the web. Then nobody would change their minds and we'd leave it at that, as we have done countless times. Unfortunately, it's gone well beyond arguing that point and has turned into you expounding your personal view of what MetaFilter should be, based simply on your own preferences; that makes it, for all intents and purposes, testimony and not argumentative, since all of the foundation for your argument is simply personal opinion (you've yet to prove that newsfilter is in any way factually detrimental to this site). Therefore, I have no qualms attacking your character as a poster and suggesting that as someone who has never posted anything your expertise is definitely questionable.

Metafilter exists to share those great things on the web that not everyone can find, and that is what makes it uniquely special. I lack the skills to go find those things, but I find them here thanks to the wonderful work of those that do find them. The things that I come across everyday don't belong here, so I am not going to post them. Can you not understand the critique? If so, then perhaps you should reconsider your argument that since I don't shit all over the front page, then I shouldn't criticize those who do.

It exists as a tool for the members of this community to filter the web--nothing more. There are various suggested guidelines that people should keep in mind when they decide how to go about filtering this web, but it's been shown time and time again that a large number of people here agree there are some absolutely fantastic links you can find at major news organizations (particularly something like the bbc or something smaller and regional). Also, given the fact that probably only one of every twenty or thirty news stories are posted from major outlets every day suggests that there is an overwhelming signal/noise ratio at these news outlets and members would be doing us a service by filtering out anything that's actual worthwhile.

Keep in mind I intensly dislike a lot of lazy, one-link posts because I don't think they're interesting if they just discuss the tiny minutuae of american political campaigning. Then again, I happen to like a lot of oddball news stories that come out of major outlets (see: the last two frog FPPs I put up--they were simple and uninvolved, but I love stuff like that). Because of my personal tastes, I tend not to criticize a lot of posts that get put up unless they're framed in an inflammatory or annoying way (see: "dear america" post from the other day) or are factually inaccurate (see: "dear anti-semetic members of metafilter" post from the other day). That certainly doesn't mean I don't criticize posts, especially unnecessary MetaTalk posts, but I don't do it endlessly and I try not to parrot myself everytime I do, to varying success.
posted by The God Complex at 5:39 PM on March 30, 2004


Let me take this occasion to preemptively complain about the upcoming posts about both the Democratic and Republican conventions. Come on, people. Won't we have hashed out all the relevant issues by then? Why will it have been necessary to be... I mean, to have... wait a minute...

*flips through Grammar for Time Travelers*
posted by languagehat at 6:15 PM on March 30, 2004


Just wait until Slagman or Postroad or specialk420 gets some free time. Then all of you can be treated to some highly informative links to AP news about it.
posted by Seth


What am I, chopped liver? Honestly. It's so hard to get liberal cred with you people.

Why wait? Let's start discussing now what she's going to have said. Personally, I thought it was shameful! - soyjoy

Darn it! Of all the days to turn my precognition off...I hate when that happens.

I hereby volunteer to make the post right after she testifies...that'll at least have some meat to it, or can serve as a factcheck on her. -- amberglow


Oh fine...be all rational about the place. Sheesh.


I really enjoyed the part where she got up and did an interpretive dance to "Rock the Casbah."

That was my fave too...although, I thought the pink legwarmers were over the top.
posted by dejah420 at 7:15 PM on March 30, 2004


I thought they clashed with her earrings.
posted by trondant at 8:05 PM on March 30, 2004


Well. It's 12:06...still no FPP, Outlawyr. Seems the only person who rushed to metafilter.com to share the news...was you. In the process, I believe you've brought vital new meaning to the name "MetaTalk"--and served a crucial role in the genesis of a truly inspired FPP about a valued and respected source of carbohydrates for the MeFi community. Congratulations.
posted by jbrjake at 9:08 PM on March 30, 2004


Wow, does Seth need a hug or what?

Well, this is a first, getting attacked for a post I did not make and would not make. And on a day I didn't even get on the Net because a) I was playing with my daughter in the morning and b) working the rest of the day. Good old fashioned American values there. How did you spend your day in the greatest nation on earth, Seth? Lying about a stranger on the Internet. That's totally peculiar, dude.

For the record, I don't post links on the front page to AP stories, Seth. Very few of my front page posts are single-source. And the ones that are have multiple sources within them. You would know this if you had bothered to check your facts.

Most of my posts are not even about politics. Of the 25 FPP's I've posted in four years, 6 are about politics: 1 anti-Bush essay from Slate, 1 anti-Kerry essay from Slate, 1 anti-Sharpton piece from the Village Voice, 1 multi-source anti-Scalia post, 1 about the congressional hacking inquiry, and 1 to a poll showing Bush losing ground.

Yeah, the poll post was clearly what people call newsfilter, and although I defended it at the time, I understand why people objected and I would not do that again.

The only other newsfilter post was in February 2002, an item about an FBI terror alert. A few months earlier, there was a terrorist attack that killed thousands of people near my home, so I was a little freaked out. I apologize to the community.

My other posts cover a wide range of subjects: A lot of stuff about books, mostly. Some science. Some sex.

But this Condi Rice thing -- please. It was all over TV and on all the news sites. Hardly the best of the Web. And even if I were the evil partisan Democrat you seem to think I am, why
would I post what is clearly Bush's effort to spin himself out of a jam?

So why are you lying about me, Seth? Why have you singled me out when you have never had the courage to address me directly with your complaints? Despite your provocations, I have never said an ill word against you, and I have even gone out of my way to compliment your statements. What ill will to you bear against me? Are you such a rabid partisan that it blinds you, that you cannot even address another human being with respect?

Seth, you have been arguing the same brief for weeks now, twisting facts and casting aspersions in defiance of all evidence, while contributing little yourself, apart from complaints.

It is a fair question, despite your protests, to ask what you have contributed. Not a single front page post. You say you don't want to add to the political noise. Fine, then post something non-political. One good link. Lead by example if you are dissatisfied with the site. I would read your link. I would discuss it with an open mind. Because that is one way I am not like you. I do have an open mind.

How easy it must be to sit on the sidelines and to tear others down. To impugn their motives. To question their honesty. How low. How vile.

I won't ask you for an apology. You are probably incapable of such a thing. I had given you the benefit of the doubt. I put myself in your shoes and considered your arguments. But you have made no effort to do the same. You have demonstrated what kind of man you are at this moment in your life. I hope that one day you will learn what it means to respect other people and to respect the truth.

My impression from reading your posts, Seth, is that you are a person who is suffering. You try to relieve this suffering by lashing out at others. You imagine they have caused you harm. No one here has harmed you, Seth. You could find friends here, even among people with completely different political views, if you simply tried.

So put down the sword, little buddy. Pick up the flower. Bow to your partner. And do-si-do.
posted by Slagman at 10:37 PM on March 30, 2004


Seth, quite frankly I'm tired of your incessant, bullshit mewling, so let's skin it down to the bone and be done with it.
  • this place exists because the guy who runs it isn't totally sick of it all yet, and for no other reason
  • No one has asked you to post fox/moonietimes crap to the blue as counterbalancing AFAIK
  • Other right-leaning posters have no problem finding interesting, nominally apolitical links to post
  • Others who decry the newsfilter nature of some FPPs regardless of their politics either take it to MeTa or ignore it, or note their objection in-thread once without disrupting the discussion
  • my own FPP history is rather slim and mediocre, but then again so is my 1040, so I don't expect too much from a community I don't give tons to
  • a critique which amounts to the notion that we aren't entertaining you to your satisfaction by finding the *right* kind of links is either pathetic or laughable, depending on how you feel about that
  • and the fact that to all appearances, you've never even tried to contribute.
  • which leads me to conclude that your behavior is indefensible. Go find some links for the rest of us to enjoy, or shut up for once and for all.
posted by trondant at 11:18 PM on March 30, 2004


Well said, Slagman and trondant.
posted by dg at 11:21 PM on March 30, 2004


Here here.
posted by Jimbob at 11:22 PM on March 30, 2004


yeah, besides seth, you suck.
posted by quonsar at 11:31 PM on March 30, 2004


Where where?
posted by namespan at 11:31 PM on March 30, 2004


I'm curious, Seth, why don't you post?
posted by scarabic at 1:19 AM on March 31, 2004


And what percentage of your comments are not complaints about posts
by other members?
posted by y2karl at 3:47 AM on March 31, 2004


yeah, besides seth, you suck.

See, it's exactly this sort of post that is ruining Metafilter these days.

</seth>
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 6:27 AM on March 31, 2004


[/elementary school scapegoating]

Seth is a self-important idiot, obviously, but the glee with which he's being bashed here is a little offputting, I've gotta say. Cut the guy some slack, for fuck's sake. At least he wants things to be better, by his own misaligned lights.

It's worthy of more respect than those who just pop into threads and squeeze out a self-regarding turd or two of comedy pyrite because their #mefi fans† are cheering them on to greater heights of wacky funsterology, I'd venture.



†conjecture only.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:51 AM on March 31, 2004


†conjecture only.

And a flatfooted dumb fuck wrong one it is, considering the Stephen King title most appropriate for #mefi is The Dead Zone.
posted by y2karl at 8:15 AM on March 31, 2004


And a flatfooted dumb fuck wrong one it is, considering the Stephen King title most appropriate for #mefi is The Dead Zone.

What difference does it make where the cheering section hangs out?

Some members shit in threads because they crave popularity; some do it because they crave unpopularity. Shit is still shit.
posted by timeistight at 8:53 AM on March 31, 2004


Stavros:

Just curious. What is the proper response, in your opinion, to someone who personally attacks and lies about you in a thread where you were not a participant?

You've played etiquette cop plenty of times, but this kind of behavior is acceptable to you? I'll remember this the next time you decide to lecture anybody on proper behavior.

S.
posted by Slagman at 9:00 AM on March 31, 2004


†conjecture only.

And a flatfooted dumb fuck wrong one it is, considering the Stephen King title most appropriate for #mefi is The Dead Zone.
posted by y2karl at 8:15 AM PST on March 31



* y2karl has joined #mefi
* y2karl has quit IRC (Client Quit)
posted by clavdivs at 9:05 AM on March 31, 2004


Wow. Dogpile. Where to start?

Slagman:
I really think you need to get a dictionary and look up what the word "lying" means. You frequently use the term inappropriately. You accuse me of lying about you by saying that you might post this. Yet, anyone who would post this pile of dogcrap would most certainly at least consider posting this Rice story. (Fittingly, you misuse the term lying there, too, in order to editorialize). That post is consistent with a tone in the majority of your posts which is make an editorial point by sharing links to grind your axe with. That, taken together with your recent outburst that led to your banning because of your protest about the right to post news stories without people criticizing them, creates the impression that you might post this. For me to suggest that, is not lying. You seem to think that anytime someone disagrees with you, that the other person is lying. That is incredibly juvenile and, quite frankly, a reprehensible attitude for someone trying to engage in rational discourse. So cut out the accusations of lying until you learn what the word means and how to apply it.

As for your complaint about being painted with my brush, I would suggest if you don't want to be accused of posting shitty posts, then don't post shitty posts. There are some decent posts that you have made, but that doesn't diminish the times when you crap on the front page.

As for your righteous indignation about how "low" and "vile" I am because I deign to criticize your infantile and inapprorpriate behavior, my advice is to save it. You aren't going to get anywhere with me by playing the poor martyr.

Finally, I find it amazing that you accuse me of "lying" and "impugning motives" because I made a speculation based on your previous behavior, then you go on to say that I am "suffering"... "a rabid partisan"... "not capable of an apology" ... "vile." If those things aren't true (and I will tell you that the melodramatic garbage is just that: garbage), then that makes you a "liar" too. Right? By your own definition? Are you not impugning motives upon me? Are you not questioning my honesty? Your whole damn hysterical melodramatic screed you just posted exists as the largest example of self-contradiction that I have seen in a while.


trondant:
I would begin by saying that you are incorrect to assume you know what is my political ethos. I have never said what I believe politically. You characterization of my political leanings is a faulty assumption. It might suprise you to know that I am a Christian Democrat, have volunteered to help several Dems get elected in my area, have donated large sums to the Democrats (my law firm is one of the top contributors in the state), or that I have been with the party on the assumption that I may run for a postion on the bench as a judge with a D next to my name. But that is irrelevant because it has NOTHING to do with my critique of the behavior here. I hope that you could at least understand that someone could agree with 90% of the garbage that I have criticized, and still criticize it as garbage. You take the same tact that so many do and suggest that I am trying to shut down what I disagree with, and that has never been the case. I criticize because I don't think blog churn belongs here. It isn't the best of the web when it is everywhere all over the web. My rule of thumb is that if I can find the link on CalPundit, Kos, Kaus, Atrios, Instapundit, Sullivan, etc., then it doesn't belong here.

I will say this one more time for those of you who don't seem to grasp it: it is not a rational critique of *my* position to say that I shouldn't complain because I don't post. My position is, and always has been, that this place is for the best of the web. That is, the really neat stuff that I don't find everywhere. To me, that excludes about 98% of news (how could a news story be the *best* if it is common and on every blog?). I don't have time to go out and search for the best of the web. I come here to find it. Anything that I could post would already be known to everyone in this community, so I don't post. It is this rigourous self-criticism that keeps me from taking a dump on the FP. And I hold others to that standard too. Because if everyone just uses MeFi as their personal blog to make their point about the daily news, then MeFi's signal to noise ratio gets dramatically out of balance and MeFi ceases to be useful as a filter of the best of the web. There are soooo many arguments why this crap shouldn't be here, and I have made the argument before. And it is percisely because that is my critique is why I haven't made a FPP. If I ever do find something FPP worthy, I will share it.


As for the rest of you, thanks for the insults, but don't bother assuming that they will make me not advance my critique. They won't.
posted by Seth at 9:09 AM on March 31, 2004


What is the proper response, in your opinion, to someone who personally attacks and lies about you in a thread where you were not a participant?

posted by Slagman at 9:00 AM PST on March 31


I missed this on my last post.

Slagman, you need to learn what a lie is. What "lie" did I say about you? What "personal attack" did I make? I said nothing about you personally. What I said is that based on your behavior, this is something that you are likely to post, as opposed to hama7 or mjj. That is not a personal attack. You throw these terms around as if you know what they mean, and you don't. A personal attack is "Slagman is stupid" or "Slagman has no moral center." I made neither. (Ironically, you made personal attacks against me by calling me a liar, vile etc.).

So quit playin the martyr and acting like my suggestion that could post this based on your past history is somehow a lie or a character slander.

Question: if you seemed proud this post, why would you be so offended by the suggestion that you might make this Rice story into a FPP?
posted by Seth at 9:20 AM on March 31, 2004


OK then, forget your political leanings. And let's pretend you have a modest, well-intentioned track record of FPPs, just to make sure that isn't the uppermost point of contention, either.

From bone to marrow: regardless of whether or not you've ever made FPPs, you are no longer advancing your critique - you're simply repeating it, over and over and over again. Your point is taken.

In any gathering of people larger than one person, you won't always get your way. Sometimes all you can do is make your point and move on to other things. And as I just said, you've made your point.
posted by trondant at 9:48 AM on March 31, 2004


* y2karl has joined #mefi
* y2karl has quit IRC (Client Quit)


Yes, that was today--after making a comment based upon several previous visits on several other days. And your point is? That you can cut-and-paste? Oh, wow.
posted by y2karl at 9:49 AM on March 31, 2004


Seth, I think you need to back up, and take a walk around the block.

Slagman and Trondant are right on the money.
posted by bshort at 9:54 AM on March 31, 2004


What "personal attack" did I make? I said nothing about you personally.
Just wait until Slagman or Postroad or specialk420 gets some free time. Then all of you can be treated to some highly informative links to AP news about it.
posted by Seth at 9:33 AM PST on March 30
What I said is that based on your behavior, this is something that you are likely to post, as opposed to hama7 or mjj. That is not a personal attack.

That's the rhetorical equivalent of Clinton's "that depends on what your definition of 'is' is". Ease off the gas pedal, Seth. You're just getting all evasive and defensive, which is not helping your already weak stance.
posted by mkultra at 9:58 AM on March 31, 2004


All comments by Seth (first 10):

I thought Bush liked to give off to the public that he was serious about WMD.
Guess I was wrong.

America. Get rid of him, for all your own sakes (and I include conservatives in this. He has to go. This European isn't asking; he's begging.
jump to the comment in this thread
jump to the comment in this thread

Stumbling around today I found this nice convergence of art + font + music. (This is the main site)
Dylan
Nirvana
Lennon

It's very reminiscent of this software from Synthetik

A still from Studio Artist
Studio Artist sample movies from Invisible Mountains
jump to the comment in this thread


Bush lies about taxes
jump to the comment in this thread
jump to the comment in this thread
jump to the comment in this thread
jump to the comment in this thread
jump to the comment in this thread
jump to the comment in this thread
jump to the comment in this thread


Another voucher for Clarke [...]And like Josh Marshall, Kevin Drum, and myself, Mr. Kaplan thinks the allegations are true because the White House has focused its counter-battery fire on Mr. Clarke's credibility -- not the substance of his assertions[...]
jump to the comment in this thread
jump to the comment in this thread
jump to the comment in this thread
jump to the comment in this thread
jump to the comment in this thread
jump to the comment in this thread


Hamas said, "... Sharon has opened the gates of hell and nothing will stop us from cutting off his head.''
a. is assassination of political/spiritual leaders justified?
b. how much of setback to peace in israel/palestine, is this move?
c. did the whitehouse pre-approve this arguably major expansion in israel's war against palestinian "militants"?
ny times link
jump to the comment in this thread
jump to the comment in this thread
jump to the comment in this thread
jump to the comment in this thread
jump to the comment in this thread
jump to the comment in this thread


Originally, Greenspan was in favor of cutting future Social Security benefits to help ease the current budget deficit. Now, he suggests: that household balance sheets are "in good shape," and perhaps stronger than ever, because the value of people's homes and stock portfolios have risen faster than their debts.
jump to the comment in this thread
jump to the comment in this thread
jump to the comment in this thread


Bush's campaign commercials feature footage from 9/11, but anger firefighters and families of victims. Is it disingenuous to defend the ads when you claimed just nineteen weeks after the tragedy that you would not use the disaster for politcal gain? If anyone should be able to use the event for political purposes, it would be Giuliani, who defends Bush's actions.
jump to the comment in this thread
jump to the comment in this thread
jump to the comment in this thread
jump to the comment in this thread
jump to the comment in this thread


Sorry, you've flunked. This gave me the best laugh I've had all week. I love the way you can tell the teacher marking the paper is getting more and more pissed off by the increasing ferocity of the red pen strokes. Heheheh. Give the kid an A.
jump to the comment in this thread
jump to the comment in this thread


God loves Republicans...
Governor Huckabee of Arkansas, while speaking to the Republican Governors Association meeting pretended to get a phone call from God, who seemed really friendly to the Republicans.
Isn't this blasphemous? And why can't I find any other reporting of this amazing display of religious fanaticism in any other outlet of the "liberal media?" [more inside]
jump to the comment in this thread
jump to the comment in this thread
jump to the comment in this thread
jump to the comment in this thread
jump to the comment in this thread
jump to the comment in this thread
jump to the comment in this thread
jump to the comment in this thread
jump to the comment in this thread


Bush calls for same-sex marriage-ban amendment Pres. Bush called for a constitutional amendment against gay marriage today, blaming "activist judges", the Massachusettes Supreme Court, and the mayor of San Francisco, among others, for attempting "to change the most fundamental institution of civilization."

How this call for an amendment plays out remains to be seen, but Bush is taking a strong stance on this issue, in what some see as another 'big headline' proposal during the election season. What will this mean for the civil rights of homosexuals in this country? And how will voters react in November?
jump to the comment in this thread
jump to the comment in this thread
jump to the comment in this thread
jump to the comment in this thread
jump to the comment in this thread
jump to the comment in this thread
jump to the comment in this thread
jump to the comment in this thread
jump to the comment in this thread
jump to the comment in this thread
jump to the comment in this thread
jump to the comment in this thread
jump to the comment in this thread
jump to the comment in this thread
jump to the comment in this thread
jump to the comment in this thread
jump to the comment in this thread
jump to the comment in this thread
jump to the comment in this thread
jump to the comment in this thread


You pay so much time and attention on the worthy non-news posts...
posted by y2karl at 9:58 AM on March 31, 2004


Can't comment on the future as I'm living the past.
Outlawyr, the only good reason I can give that this thread would be worthy. In the US everyday comedy humor is based on these current political sightings. Without these threads when would one know to laugh at hearing Homer Simpson saying: "Weapons of Mass Destruction."

Seth, any post that becomes a thread with a well rounded informative discussion. How would you answer to it being: "best of the web". Yes or No? No matter how many times the subject was posted on the web.
posted by thomcatspike at 10:06 AM on March 31, 2004


mkultra -
I wasn't being defensive. I was questioning how what I wrote could be construed as a personal attack. If you think it can, please explain.

y2karl - What exactly is your point? How is my posting history relevant to my reading and enjoyment history. I read and enjoy so many of the great things here, and I occasionaly post a [this is good] when it strikes me to do so. But though I don't post that, it doesn't mean I don't enjoy it. So how is my posting history relevant AT ALL to what my overall critique is? I know you prefer to cut and paste as opposed to addressing things directly, but please humor me.
posted by Seth at 10:06 AM on March 31, 2004


y2karl, in UK parlance, leave it out mate. C'mon....

Your own recent posting history shows you are going through a "nasty streak" phase - say summink nice about someone for a change! Watch the sun come out, and feel the love!
posted by SpaceCadet at 10:10 AM on March 31, 2004


my point?
you an idiot COWARD sir.
posted by clavdivs at 10:12 AM on March 31, 2004


Seth with your words and few from me:
I know you prefer to cut and paste as opposed to addressing things directly, but please humor me.
Humor, more like attack. Why?

So how is my posting history relevant AT ALL to what my overall critique is?
what I wrote could be construed as a personal attack
posted by thomcatspike at 10:16 AM on March 31, 2004


after making a comment based upon several previous visits on several other days.

Uhhhh-huh.
YEAH!
posted by clavdivs at 10:21 AM on March 31, 2004


Bam!
posted by monju_bosatsu at 10:28 AM on March 31, 2004


Karl: even you have to appreciate the irony of accusing clav of doing a silly cut-paste to make a point, then immediately pasting a ginormous screen-consuming block of Seth's posts.
posted by dhoyt at 10:37 AM on March 31, 2004




dhoyt: Seth cares to comment more upon news threads than anything else. Which has been amply demonstrated. Now common sense would suggest that which upon one cares to comment is what one cares most about.

As for long-time familiarity with #mefi--from last year's skallas-insomnyuk #mefi flamefest, immortalized by one or the other of the two:

[01:58] ‹y2karl› this is to hippie dancing as styracosaurus is to triceratops
[01:59] ‹y2karl› nay, protoceratops


Been there, done that, like to chat now and then, not into chest thumping flame fests with crackpot Von Clausewitzes.
posted by y2karl at 11:05 AM on March 31, 2004


Guess you didn't appreciate the irony ;)
posted by dhoyt at 11:10 AM on March 31, 2004


how little of you karl.
posted by clavdivs at 11:43 AM on March 31, 2004


Seth is a self-important idiot, obviously, but the glee with which he's being bashed here is a little offputting, I've gotta say. Cut the guy some slack, for fuck's sake. At least he wants things to be better, by his own misaligned lights.

Hey, I simply stated my case, which apparently didn't warrant a response by Seth. I made perfectly clear why I think his posting history is a valid criticism and also why I have a problem with his continued harping on the same topic he willingly participates in every time one of these threads he "hates" appears in the blue (see: Karl's reproduction of his commenting history). If Seth really disliked these threads and not simply the outcome of the discussion one has to wonder why he doesn't withdraw his participation and at least keep the MetaLefter rhetoric out of the blue, where it's even more intolerable than it is here--at least it's on topic here, however tiring it gets to hear the same message over and over.
posted by The God Complex at 12:09 PM on March 31, 2004


I can only say, after browsing all the chest-beating in this thread......

PantoFilter.
posted by SpaceCadet at 12:29 PM on March 31, 2004


so , wheres this thread ?
posted by sgt.serenity at 12:35 PM on March 31, 2004


TGC,
which apparently didn't warrant a response by Seth.

???
I responded right after your post.

he willingly participates in every time one of these threads he "hates" appears in the blue (see: Karl's reproduction of his commenting history). If Seth really disliked these threads and not simply the outcome of the discussion one has to wonder why he doesn't withdraw his participation

I don't know what you are talking about here. I do not participate in every one of the threads that I disagree with it. That is either hyperbole or facially wrong. The threads I disagree with are numerous and my posting history is very limited and usually is only in critical aspects (either complementing or criticizing the post or the resulting behavior of the posters). The only couple of threads that I "participated" in were done right after MeTa threads when people said I was wrong about the ability to discuss things on respectful level. If you notice the couple of threads that I participated in, I took a very measured and on-topic approach, and in those threads, I always encountered personal insults and attacks and very rarely a respectful counter-point. Read the threads and see for yourself.

It is incorrect for you to suggest that my complaint is based on losing an argument. I find that to be a very petty suggestion and perhaps a tad bit of a defense mechanism (I don't want to admit that he has a point, so I will just write him off). This is especially wrong because you have no idea what I think. As I have said before, I am actually of a similar mindset on most issues I disagree with. I guess you can't comprehend that someone might agree with them and not want them posted here.

You can disagree with my critique, but try to do so in such a way where you at least afford me the respect you wish to have yourself. You have to admit that I at least stay on point, and I don't use the blue to grind my political axe.
posted by Seth at 1:06 PM on March 31, 2004


Addendum:
TGC, I have said this before, but I will mention it again. I am not opposed to all newsfilter posts. It is the one sthat exist to grind people axe's by merely spewing a few links that are blog churn on the FP that I think we all know aren't worthy of MeFi. I have no problem with someone presenting a new and interesting take on a current event that is balanced and leaves it to the reader to formulate its response. If the posts would do that, then there could be more reasonable discussion. I know I would try to contribute to such discussions on the two areas I know about: law and economics. But the topics tend to always skew so heavily in their original post that the poster is compelled to make a reaction to the title of the post and face a preconception before the article is read. So in those extremely slanted topics, try to find a good balanced discussion where both parties respect each other's opinions.

I say that because you seem to suggest that I am somehow motivated by the result of the discussion to be critical. That is silly. I don't mind at all what other people think. As long as they are respectful of their opponent (and I will admit here to a strong dislike for the anti-theist insults since I am a Christian), then the result of the discussion is of no interest to me. But as for the political topics, since they can't be measured and you can't discuss things with people by demonizing them, they are lost. For instance, I am voting for this guy even if he isn't running, but I surely not going to sit here and tell everyone that they are evil and liars because they aren't voting for him, too.
posted by Seth at 1:22 PM on March 31, 2004


Is there anything that can resolve this for you, short of you getting exactly what you want?

Is there a mechanism or process by which, if it were decided that your "critique" were one that MeFi as a whole or in general did not want to adopt whole-hog, you would be satisfied and accept that your views here heard, if not completely implemented?
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 1:52 PM on March 31, 2004


Well, there was a bald eagle just now slowly circling over the west side of Queen Anne hill here. A flock of seagulls were mobbing it and it was their screeching that was the tip off.

What an enormous wing span--one gull could fit under one wing. Talk about a natural high--seeing that bird was most definitely one....

On topic:: I-I-I-I-I blah blah blah I-I-I-I speaking for the community I-I-I-I-I Bible length comment I-I-I-I-I yada yada yada

Yeah, sure, whatever....

And now back out because the gulls are going nuts again! God, it's a beautiful day!
posted by y2karl at 2:37 PM on March 31, 2004


???
I responded right after your post.


To the first one, not the second one where I outlined exactly why I feel your posting history is worth calling into question. After that one you responded to slagman and trondant, which is fine; I was just pointing out that you didn't respond.

I don't know what you are talking about here. I do not participate in every one of the threads that I disagree with it. That is either hyperbole or facially wrong. The threads I disagree with are numerous and my posting history is very limited and usually is only in critical aspects (either complementing or criticizing the post or the resulting behavior of the posters). The only couple of threads that I "participated" in were done right after MeTa threads when people said I was wrong about the ability to discuss things on respectful level. If you notice the couple of threads that I participated in, I took a very measured and on-topic approach, and in those threads, I always encountered personal insults and attacks and very rarely a respectful counter-point. Read the threads and see for yourself.

My point was for someone who doesn't want these types of links on MetaFilter all your discussion tends towards them and very seldomly do you appear in any other thread.

It is incorrect for you to suggest that my complaint is based on losing an argument. I find that to be a very petty suggestion and perhaps a tad bit of a defense mechanism (I don't want to admit that he has a point, so I will just write him off). This is especially wrong because you have no idea what I think. As I have said before, I am actually of a similar mindset on most issues I disagree with. I guess you can't comprehend that someone might agree with them and not want them posted here.

Strawman. I never said it had anything to do with you losing an argument, only that it had something to do with your dislike of what the majority of respondants felt, which seems to be at odds with your reaction. It's fairly clear that nobody really changes his/her mind very often here, and there's no official judgements, so winning and losing is inconsequential (which is why I never mentioned it).

TGC, I have said this before, but I will mention it again. I am not opposed to all newsfilter posts. It is the one sthat exist to grind people axe's by merely spewing a few links that are blog churn on the FP that I think we all know aren't worthy of MeFi. I have no problem with someone presenting a new and interesting take on a current event that is balanced and leaves it to the reader to formulate its response. If the posts would do that, then there could be more reasonable discussion. I know I would try to contribute to such discussions on the two areas I know about: law and economics. But the topics tend to always skew so heavily in their original post that the poster is compelled to make a reaction to the title of the post and face a preconception before the article is read. So in those extremely slanted topics, try to find a good balanced discussion where both parties respect each other's opinions.

I guess that depends on your idea of "balanced," doesn't it? I could post something that is a uniquely left-thinking point of view, and it could be an intellectually stimulating piece that isn't "balanced" in your view because it doesn't take a moderate view from the center. In my mind, that's a perfectly reasonable item to post if it's interesting and the merits of anything argument held within could reasonably be debated within the thread. Objectivity is the bastion of self delusion, since you'll find it's essentially impossible to find a news outlet that treats news objectively, from the placement of stories to the subtext of the story. At least if an item is provided in the proper context of its "slant" or subjective viewpoint it isn't intellectually dishonest.

Anyway, my views are perfectly clear and I think yours are, as well. My only real complaint is that you seem to bring it up in a number of threads that aren't specifically about newsfilter (or are simply about one single incident), which I find tiresome but will attempt to ignore as best I can in the future (possible bones of contention aside, of course).
posted by The God Complex at 3:00 PM on March 31, 2004


zzzz......*SNORT*

Eh? Still here? Fer chrissakes, go home! G'wan, get oudda here!

*grumble*

Damn kids and their "bastions of self-delusion" I tellya. We used to play stickball, nona this "blog churn on the FP " crap.
posted by freebird at 4:19 PM on March 31, 2004


My point was for someone who doesn't want these types of links on MetaFilter all your discussion tends towards them and very seldomly do you appear in any other thread.

I think the word phrase people keeep searching for is self-fulfilling prophecy.

Seth goes in, shits on a thread he doesn't think is worthy of his...err....the site. Then once he has successfully derailed the thread into a discusion about what an asshat he is, he blames everyone else for the state of the thread.

It is actually a brilliant strategy.
posted by terrapin at 5:23 PM on March 31, 2004


I think probably I say it best when I say:

S.T.F.U.

Not that that's directed at any one person in particular. Just a general shout-out.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:58 PM on March 31, 2004


Can you get mad cow from whipped dead horse jello?
posted by y2karl at 10:12 PM on March 31, 2004


Note to others: Sorry about this. I have to respond to Seth, since he did have the courtesty to respond to my comments after I predicted he would not. After this, I'm not only done with this thread, but this subject. He or anyone else can have the last word.

Seth, in answer to your questions:

1. Lying: You said that I post links to AP news items. This was
false. When the misstatement was pointed out, you
persisted. Willful misstatement of the facts is a lie. In your most recent response, you defended yourself by again mischaracterizing my posting record. Lies upon lies. Yes, I know what the word means.

2. Personal attacks: You cited me by name and predicted that I would violate the norms of the community. If I said, "look, there's a booger on the ground, when Seth sees it, he'll surely eat it, for he has eaten boogers in the past" surely you would consider that a personal attack and would point out I have no evidence of your booger-eating ways. This is directly analagous to your prediction about me. It's just a matter of degree. You could have made your point without mentioning any names. You chose to be uncivil and posed a hypothetical that painted me in a false light.

3. You then suggest that I personally attacked you.
Not really. You lied about me. I pointed out the lie. That's self-defense, not an attack. And I did not say you were vile. I said that the behavior, lying, was vile. You know: Love the sinner, hate the sin.

4. Your motives. Yes, I did speculate that you are suffering. Do you deny it? Everyone suffers. We all get old and sick and die. Everyone we love will die. We will never be as rich as we want or as happy as we want. We all sometimes yearn for what we cannot have, and when we get what we yearn for, we are often disappointed. In suffering, we sometimes lash out at others, forcing our suffering upon them. This is especially true when we find, to our irritation, that people do not behave in ways that we would like them to behave. I submit that when you see a newsfilter post, you are irritated. You suffer. And you make your case to the community, and people snipe at you, and that is also annoying. Can't they see that you have a legitimate complaint? Can't they see that you have the community's best interests at heart? (And I believe you do. Does that surprise you?) So you suffer even more. You whip yourself into a lather. This is human nature. It does not make you particularly worse than any of the rest of us. I do think this is a rather generous view of your behavior that is probably not shared by others here. Some people have said some nasty things about you in this thread, far nastier than anything I said. I do not think those comments were helpful to the discussion.

In conclusion:

You are free to ignore my advice, of course, but I humbly
suggest that you pay attention to how others react to you. They have told you how your behavior here at MetaFilter and MetaTalk affects them, that it disturbs them, that it annoys, but you persist in this campaign.

That brushing aside of all criticism, without yielding even on a single point, without a single nod to those who disagree, is an indication that you value your own grievances greater than the grievances of others. You place yourself above others.
Yet, ironically, that is the core of your own complaint about certain other posters, including me.

Specifically, you seem to think that your irritation -- your suffering -- at the hands of bad posters is more important than the irritation of those who object to your method of confronting this issue.

You are right that I was briefly banned for making the same mistake. I had a point to make, and I didn't care that my method irritated other people. What I did was wrong, a mistake, and I apologized. I learned my lesson. You might consider learning from my mistake.

I'll let you have the last word, if you want it. I bear you no ill will. I am not your enemy, and I have nothing against you.
Have a good day. This is my last word on the subject.
posted by Slagman at 11:05 PM on March 31, 2004


Here we are folks - the last stop on the tour - the enchanted reflection pool beneath the vaults of MetaFilter; toss two cents in, and whether you wish for it or not, a local angel will instantly lose her wings, demythologize, and fall to earth, transforming on her way down into a Usenet-enhanced, lap-dancing emoticon. Change is available from the attendant; please wait your turn, and destroy as many angels as you wish.

©2004 Collective Zit Tours
posted by Opus Dark at 1:15 AM on April 1, 2004


can you break a 50$
posted by clavdivs at 11:53 AM on April 1, 2004


« Older Double links are actually forbidden?   |   Does anyone else hate reading long blocks of... Newer »

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