The post is bad the discussion isnt any better April 11, 2004 10:43 PM Subscribe
There's the agendafilter post.
And there's the giant pissfest in the thread.
Neither of which are totally cool, I don't think.
And there's the giant pissfest in the thread.
Neither of which are totally cool, I don't think.
This post was deleted for the following reason: Poster's Request -- frimble
Thank god there's no relation between me and you, SpecialK420 ... But in re: what you said, Isn't that kind of what MeTa's for? I mean, you know, last time I checked and all that...
Re: trharlan's post: You'd think all the parties involved would know better. I would expect that kindof post and that kind of scatflinging by new members, but not by established pillars of the community.
posted by SpecialK at 10:49 PM on April 11, 2004
Re: trharlan's post: You'd think all the parties involved would know better. I would expect that kindof post and that kind of scatflinging by new members, but not by established pillars of the community.
posted by SpecialK at 10:49 PM on April 11, 2004
Since when does "i think you'd be interested in this" become 1) having an agenda and 2) therefore bad?
posted by Space Coyote at 11:05 PM on April 11, 2004
posted by Space Coyote at 11:05 PM on April 11, 2004
Apologies for the length.
I learn things, occasionally, from the political threads. I learn more about what people are like here than anything new about politics, though -- there are an abundance of excellent political weblogs out there, all across the spectrum of beliefs, and those are the places I go for commentary and links.
This is the only community on the web that I spend a significant amount of time, though, and I do enjoy disputation and the interplay of ideas -- up to and often including a good shitfight, if the participants can maintain some degree of civility and self-possession -- so I frequently enjoy political threads here, when they're not pooped on by those who hate them (or despise the points of view they tend to support, given the oft-cited political leanings of most of the members here (I cite the political compass. It is not something worth arguing again that the MeFi tenor is left/libertarian, with many exceptions, of course)).
That said, I do agree with the concerns of some of the naysayers, if not frequent their strident, hectoring, insulting complaints. I worry too that Metafilter could become nothing but one NYT/CNN/Whatever link after another, and one shouting match after another, and if that were to happen more than it has already, well, that'd suck.
But I don't think it's going to happen, not completely. Staying the course, suggesting that someone might have chosen a better link (or a better set of them), keeping a bit of a lid on the more egregiously newfiltery posts.... that's worked so far, and I think it will continue to do so.
I sense that the increased stridency of some who foment against posts about the situation in Iraq or the latest mendacity from members of the Bush administration may have something to do with a growing panic as the cracks begin to show in their already-tenuous positions, but that's neither here nor there, I suppose.
Too much of anything is a bad thing, but our methods of self-policing, with the occasional light touch by mathowie to clean up the worst of the bad stuff, is still working, I think.
I don't want anyone to shut up -- either the people (in this case y2karl) who post the political threads, or the people who don't like them -- but the way in which you register your outrage (either with the current political climate in America and elsewhere or with newfiltery posts) means a heck of a lot.
Ranting and whining in the blue of the kind that that the original poster in this thread highlights helps nothing, and makes you look like an ass. And all the rest of us, too, unfortunately.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 11:42 PM on April 11, 2004
I learn things, occasionally, from the political threads. I learn more about what people are like here than anything new about politics, though -- there are an abundance of excellent political weblogs out there, all across the spectrum of beliefs, and those are the places I go for commentary and links.
This is the only community on the web that I spend a significant amount of time, though, and I do enjoy disputation and the interplay of ideas -- up to and often including a good shitfight, if the participants can maintain some degree of civility and self-possession -- so I frequently enjoy political threads here, when they're not pooped on by those who hate them (or despise the points of view they tend to support, given the oft-cited political leanings of most of the members here (I cite the political compass. It is not something worth arguing again that the MeFi tenor is left/libertarian, with many exceptions, of course)).
That said, I do agree with the concerns of some of the naysayers, if not frequent their strident, hectoring, insulting complaints. I worry too that Metafilter could become nothing but one NYT/CNN/Whatever link after another, and one shouting match after another, and if that were to happen more than it has already, well, that'd suck.
But I don't think it's going to happen, not completely. Staying the course, suggesting that someone might have chosen a better link (or a better set of them), keeping a bit of a lid on the more egregiously newfiltery posts.... that's worked so far, and I think it will continue to do so.
I sense that the increased stridency of some who foment against posts about the situation in Iraq or the latest mendacity from members of the Bush administration may have something to do with a growing panic as the cracks begin to show in their already-tenuous positions, but that's neither here nor there, I suppose.
Too much of anything is a bad thing, but our methods of self-policing, with the occasional light touch by mathowie to clean up the worst of the bad stuff, is still working, I think.
I don't want anyone to shut up -- either the people (in this case y2karl) who post the political threads, or the people who don't like them -- but the way in which you register your outrage (either with the current political climate in America and elsewhere or with newfiltery posts) means a heck of a lot.
Ranting and whining in the blue of the kind that that the original poster in this thread highlights helps nothing, and makes you look like an ass. And all the rest of us, too, unfortunately.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 11:42 PM on April 11, 2004
Neither of which are totally cool, I don't think.
Probably not the best way to phrase your objection, I'm thinking. And I would like to point out that many of those who would agree with you have gone on record as having said something along the lines of "It's all about the links". That is what y2karl has offered, in continuing profusion. I'm having a hard time thinking that that's a bad thing ...
posted by Wulfgar! at 11:46 PM on April 11, 2004
Probably not the best way to phrase your objection, I'm thinking. And I would like to point out that many of those who would agree with you have gone on record as having said something along the lines of "It's all about the links". That is what y2karl has offered, in continuing profusion. I'm having a hard time thinking that that's a bad thing ...
posted by Wulfgar! at 11:46 PM on April 11, 2004
Man, you're all gonna be fucking pissed when Bush is reelected.
posted by Stan Chin at 11:47 PM on April 11, 2004
posted by Stan Chin at 11:47 PM on April 11, 2004
I second most of what Stavros said, only I would have used longer sentences with more clauses.
posted by The God Complex at 11:55 PM on April 11, 2004
posted by The God Complex at 11:55 PM on April 11, 2004
*sticks his tongue out at TCG*
I'm aware that I am... parenthetical. My achilles drumstick.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 11:59 PM on April 11, 2004
I'm aware that I am... parenthetical. My achilles drumstick.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 11:59 PM on April 11, 2004
Man, you're all gonna be fucking pissed when Bush is reelected.
Nah, I'll just do the most american thing I can think of -- sell my citizenship on ebay.
posted by namespan at 12:08 AM on April 12, 2004
Nah, I'll just do the most american thing I can think of -- sell my citizenship on ebay.
posted by namespan at 12:08 AM on April 12, 2004
Y'know, it's a common thing to say 'What xxx said' round here but I am so 1000% behind what stavros just wrote that I felt the need to type just a little more.
Oh & what i_cola said too.
posted by i_cola at 12:34 AM on April 12, 2004
Oh & what i_cola said too.
posted by i_cola at 12:34 AM on April 12, 2004
Bush won't be reelected. I fucking hate George W Bush. I fucking hate NewsFilter. Some of us read the newspapers, you know? Feel free to contact me if you need further clarification.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 12:36 AM on April 12, 2004
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 12:36 AM on April 12, 2004
Golly, thanks for sharing! Are you sure there's nothing else you'd like to tell us how much you fucking hate, while you're here?
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 1:17 AM on April 12, 2004
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 1:17 AM on April 12, 2004
What stavrosthewonderchicken said far better than I ever could (in both comments).
There was some discussion about this particular thread on #mefi a bit earlier and the consensus was "here comes another MeTa thread arguing about y2karl" While I do not for a moment presume to speak for y2karl, I am sure he is getting a bit sick of being the target for abuse because he chooses to post things that make other users challenge their own beliefs, rather than taking the easy path and choosing links that generate nothing more controversial than a row of [this is good] comments. I do know that I am not the only one who is sick of the childish behaviour of those who choose to attack anyone who dares to disagree with their cloistered view of world events.
I have to trot out that much-used-and-abused line that "if you don't like the stuff that x posts, don't read them, don't click on the links and don't make comments" In case that is too subtle for those who are making the attacks - Shut The Fuck Up. Seriously.
posted by dg at 2:19 AM on April 12, 2004
There was some discussion about this particular thread on #mefi a bit earlier and the consensus was "here comes another MeTa thread arguing about y2karl" While I do not for a moment presume to speak for y2karl, I am sure he is getting a bit sick of being the target for abuse because he chooses to post things that make other users challenge their own beliefs, rather than taking the easy path and choosing links that generate nothing more controversial than a row of [this is good] comments. I do know that I am not the only one who is sick of the childish behaviour of those who choose to attack anyone who dares to disagree with their cloistered view of world events.
I have to trot out that much-used-and-abused line that "if you don't like the stuff that x posts, don't read them, don't click on the links and don't make comments" In case that is too subtle for those who are making the attacks - Shut The Fuck Up. Seriously.
posted by dg at 2:19 AM on April 12, 2004
I hate cooked carrots. And jet lag. And biting insects.
But I like fucking.
posted by i_cola at 2:42 AM on April 12, 2004
But I like fucking.
posted by i_cola at 2:42 AM on April 12, 2004
I'm sure that y2karl knew some people were going to get a bit distraught at his post and if he didn't expect that to happen, he should have. He obviously feels strongly enough about these situations that he wants people to discuss them. [or perhaps he is trolling, pure supposition of course] It is unfortunate a lot of posts like the one being discussed end up being plagued by constant incontinence instead of good discussion.
Personally, I don't look at any Iraq or political posts because they don't interest me and I know that once they get old enough, and once they have been MeTaed into clichés they will stop. So the self-policing works well, like stavros said.
As for the constant incontinence: If you don't have shit to say, don't say shit.
posted by sciurus at 4:38 AM on April 12, 2004
Personally, I don't look at any Iraq or political posts because they don't interest me and I know that once they get old enough, and once they have been MeTaed into clichés they will stop. So the self-policing works well, like stavros said.
As for the constant incontinence: If you don't have shit to say, don't say shit.
posted by sciurus at 4:38 AM on April 12, 2004
Oh, hang out for awhile, sciurus, you'll see this is just karl's weekly dose of LookitMeMaFilter... He and the small but vocal minority that think his posts represent some kind of postmodern breakthrough in information and communication design will be along in a few minutes to shout down the rest of us, so in the long run this MetaTalk thread will matter no more than his persistent need to void his narcissistic intellectual bowels all over the front page...
posted by JollyWanker at 4:49 AM on April 12, 2004
posted by JollyWanker at 4:49 AM on April 12, 2004
Metafilter is populated by a hoard of immature spoilt brats. Doesn't mean this place is useless though.
posted by SpaceCadet at 4:56 AM on April 12, 2004
posted by SpaceCadet at 4:56 AM on April 12, 2004
Ranting and whining in the blue of the kind that that the original poster in this thread highlights helps nothing, and makes you look like an ass. And all the rest of us, too, unfortunately.
Agree.
posted by SpaceCadet at 4:57 AM on April 12, 2004
Agree.
posted by SpaceCadet at 4:57 AM on April 12, 2004
Thank you, traharlan, for taking this to MeTa, where it belongs.
I can't say I loved y2karl's post (it was kinda newsfiltery), but it generating an interesting discussion/linkfest. Too bad most people won't even see that because of those who had to defecate on it in mefo instead of bringing it up here.
posted by Ptrin at 5:25 AM on April 12, 2004
I can't say I loved y2karl's post (it was kinda newsfiltery), but it generating an interesting discussion/linkfest. Too bad most people won't even see that because of those who had to defecate on it in mefo instead of bringing it up here.
posted by Ptrin at 5:25 AM on April 12, 2004
You poo-flingers are like that dog and sheep that punch the clock in Looney Tunes.
posted by pieoverdone at 6:09 AM on April 12, 2004
posted by pieoverdone at 6:09 AM on April 12, 2004
This comment by techgnolligic puts things in perspective.
posted by hama7 at 6:16 AM on April 12, 2004
posted by hama7 at 6:16 AM on April 12, 2004
While I do not for a moment presume to speak for y2karl, I am sure he is getting a bit sick of being the target for abuse because he chooses to post things that make other users challenge their own beliefs, rather than taking the easy path and choosing links that generate nothing more controversial than a row of [this is good] comments. I do know that I am not the only one who is sick of the childish behaviour of those who choose to attack anyone who dares to disagree with their cloistered view of world events.
Because if we don't like idiotic rambling semi-coherent posts with links we've ALL FUCKING SEEN regarding topics about which we ALREADY FUCKING KNOW, it must be because we disagree with y2karl politically. It couldn't possibly have anything to do with the QUALITY OF THE FUCKING POSTS, or lack thereof.
posted by IshmaelGraves at 6:24 AM on April 12, 2004
Because if we don't like idiotic rambling semi-coherent posts with links we've ALL FUCKING SEEN regarding topics about which we ALREADY FUCKING KNOW, it must be because we disagree with y2karl politically. It couldn't possibly have anything to do with the QUALITY OF THE FUCKING POSTS, or lack thereof.
posted by IshmaelGraves at 6:24 AM on April 12, 2004
This comment by techgnolligic puts things in perspective.
boy - there is a broken record quality to these discussions - on the other hand the (daily) events posted by y2karl are real, new and may have profound effect on the world we and our children spend the rest of our lives in ... and vis a vis almost always merit discussion merit discussion.
posted by specialk420 at 6:46 AM on April 12, 2004
boy - there is a broken record quality to these discussions - on the other hand the (daily) events posted by y2karl are real, new and may have profound effect on the world we and our children spend the rest of our lives in ... and vis a vis almost always merit discussion merit discussion.
posted by specialk420 at 6:46 AM on April 12, 2004
may have profound effect on the world we and our children spend the rest of our lives in ...
and won't somebody please think of the children?
posted by jonmc at 6:55 AM on April 12, 2004
and won't somebody please think of the children?
posted by jonmc at 6:55 AM on April 12, 2004
arguing on the internet is like being in the special olympics. even if you win, you're still retarded.
posted by crunchland at 6:56 AM on April 12, 2004
posted by crunchland at 6:56 AM on April 12, 2004
You poo-flingers are like that dog and sheep that punch the clock in Looney Tunes.
*and another layer of encrusted diet pepsi & chocolate donut begins to harden on q's monitor*
posted by quonsar at 6:58 AM on April 12, 2004
*and another layer of encrusted diet pepsi & chocolate donut begins to harden on q's monitor*
posted by quonsar at 6:58 AM on April 12, 2004
arguing on the internet is like being in the special olympics. even if you win, you're still retarded.
oh, shit.
Here's the old argument on that line, to pre-empt a new one.
You poo-flingers are like that dog and sheep that punch the clock in Looney Tunes.
It was a dog and a coyote who punched the clock. The coyote was stealing sheep. Brush up on your 'toons, man.
posted by jonmc at 7:01 AM on April 12, 2004
oh, shit.
Here's the old argument on that line, to pre-empt a new one.
You poo-flingers are like that dog and sheep that punch the clock in Looney Tunes.
It was a dog and a coyote who punched the clock. The coyote was stealing sheep. Brush up on your 'toons, man.
posted by jonmc at 7:01 AM on April 12, 2004
I think I'd have less of a problem with most of these Iraq posts if they didn't link so often to mainstream media websites. In y2karl's post, five of the six links are to either the Guardian or the Washington Post -- and I'd wager that a fair number of people who are interested in the topic *have* seen them before.
But I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt to y2karl and other Iraq posters: at least he did it without having a biased description -- he just posted links. Admittedly, it would have been better had they not just been editorials -- editorials tend to make for poor discussion, IMO, because they aren't wholly facts. They're opinion. You either agree or disagree. And it's fairly obvious where most MeFi users stand when it comes to these topics, so we're not going to get especially useful discussion, I don't think. (Prove me wrong, though, please! I'd love to see a constructive discussion on this topic! They're just so rare!)
I resigned myself upon registering to simply accept various posts on current events that are probably not the "best of the web" or things that most of us haven't seen. It would be nice, though, if the few people who tend to post nothing but Iraq and Bush-related threads (good or bad) would take mathowie's admonition on the posting page regarding such topics to heart, and try to contribute more interesting, previously unseen, or otherwise *cool* links to this place. That's why I lurked for three years and was overjoyed when I could finally register.
There are lots and lots of cool sites out there. Fortunately, the majority of posts that make it to MeFi are those. It just sucks when most people focus on the few threads that are the same old topics with not much that is new and interesting to share.
Feel free to dismiss this as the ranting of a newbie with a high number, but I've been around this place for a while, so I like to think I know what I'm talking about, if only a bit. Whatever happens, though, I'll just keep up my pattern of posting links that I find interesting, reading the ones from others I think are interesting as well, and steering clear of threads that are probably not in my best interest to get involved with.
posted by armage at 7:09 AM on April 12, 2004
But I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt to y2karl and other Iraq posters: at least he did it without having a biased description -- he just posted links. Admittedly, it would have been better had they not just been editorials -- editorials tend to make for poor discussion, IMO, because they aren't wholly facts. They're opinion. You either agree or disagree. And it's fairly obvious where most MeFi users stand when it comes to these topics, so we're not going to get especially useful discussion, I don't think. (Prove me wrong, though, please! I'd love to see a constructive discussion on this topic! They're just so rare!)
I resigned myself upon registering to simply accept various posts on current events that are probably not the "best of the web" or things that most of us haven't seen. It would be nice, though, if the few people who tend to post nothing but Iraq and Bush-related threads (good or bad) would take mathowie's admonition on the posting page regarding such topics to heart, and try to contribute more interesting, previously unseen, or otherwise *cool* links to this place. That's why I lurked for three years and was overjoyed when I could finally register.
There are lots and lots of cool sites out there. Fortunately, the majority of posts that make it to MeFi are those. It just sucks when most people focus on the few threads that are the same old topics with not much that is new and interesting to share.
Feel free to dismiss this as the ranting of a newbie with a high number, but I've been around this place for a while, so I like to think I know what I'm talking about, if only a bit. Whatever happens, though, I'll just keep up my pattern of posting links that I find interesting, reading the ones from others I think are interesting as well, and steering clear of threads that are probably not in my best interest to get involved with.
posted by armage at 7:09 AM on April 12, 2004
Actually, political threads wouldn't bother me so much except for the fact that at this point most of the prominent posters political leanings are pretty well known which makes them kind of predictable and thus not too productive.
posted by jonmc at 7:14 AM on April 12, 2004
posted by jonmc at 7:14 AM on April 12, 2004
In a third series of cartoons, the character design of Wile E. Coyote was taken and renamed Ralph Wolf is a fictional character appearing in the Looney Tunes Ralph Wolf-Sam Sheepdog cartoons.
At the beginning of each day, Ralph and Sam go to the meadow where the sheep graze, exchange chit-chat and punch in to the same time clock. Once the work day begins, Ralph repeatedly tries to abduct the helpless sheep and invariably fails, either through his own ineptitude or the minimal efforts of Sam. At the end of the day, Sam and Ralph punch out their time cards, chat amiably and leave, only to come back the next day and do it all again.
In this series, Ralph continually attempted to steal sheep from a flock being guarded by the eternally vigilant Sam Sheepdog. As with the Road Runner series, Ralph Wolf used all sorts of wild inventions and schemes to steal the sheep, but he was continually foiled by the sheepdog. In a move seen by many as a satirical gag, Ralph Wolf continually tried to steal the sheep not because he was a fanatic (as Wile E. Coyote was), but because it was his job. At the end of every cartoon, he and the sheepdog would stop what they were doing, punch a timeclock, and go home for the day.
On preview: In the original post, the first link is reporting, the second link is reporting, the third is reporting again, the William Pfaff piece is an editorial, the fifth piece is reporting and the sixth and last is a weblog entry with a great deal of eyewitness account and the perspective of a person who wanted this mission to succeed. That's one editorial, armage. And one well worth reading.
posted by y2karl at 7:22 AM on April 12, 2004
At the beginning of each day, Ralph and Sam go to the meadow where the sheep graze, exchange chit-chat and punch in to the same time clock. Once the work day begins, Ralph repeatedly tries to abduct the helpless sheep and invariably fails, either through his own ineptitude or the minimal efforts of Sam. At the end of the day, Sam and Ralph punch out their time cards, chat amiably and leave, only to come back the next day and do it all again.
In this series, Ralph continually attempted to steal sheep from a flock being guarded by the eternally vigilant Sam Sheepdog. As with the Road Runner series, Ralph Wolf used all sorts of wild inventions and schemes to steal the sheep, but he was continually foiled by the sheepdog. In a move seen by many as a satirical gag, Ralph Wolf continually tried to steal the sheep not because he was a fanatic (as Wile E. Coyote was), but because it was his job. At the end of every cartoon, he and the sheepdog would stop what they were doing, punch a timeclock, and go home for the day.
On preview: In the original post, the first link is reporting, the second link is reporting, the third is reporting again, the William Pfaff piece is an editorial, the fifth piece is reporting and the sixth and last is a weblog entry with a great deal of eyewitness account and the perspective of a person who wanted this mission to succeed. That's one editorial, armage. And one well worth reading.
posted by y2karl at 7:22 AM on April 12, 2004
I think I'd have less of a problem with most of these Iraq posts if they didn't link so often to mainstream media websites. In y2karl's post, five of the six links are to either the Guardian or the Washington Post -- and I'd wager that a fair number of people who are interested in the topic *have* seen them before.
do you mean that the average MeFi reader reads every day all of the WP, NYT, Guardian, MSNBC, Time.com and the Christian Science Monitor and *adds a dozen more mainstream media websites*
I'm not being snarky, I'm asking.
because I don't think that's the case.
it's cool that people here filter the web for the best of everything, even for the best (yawn, personally) flash sites.
I think it should equally be acceptable if they filter the Web for the best Iraq info (I mean, Iraq and terrorism are probably as important as, let's say, Flash sites and GMail and... ahem.. Law&Order blogs)
just kidding -- I'm a L&O fan, too.
most of the prominent posters political leanings are pretty well known which makes them kind of predictable and thus not too productive.
I don't know, it's all about the quality of what you link. not about your opinions.
I'm anti-IraqAttaq but I see plenty of lame Iraq fpp's and plenty of lame BushSucks fpp's. these last few years I've seen many interesting threads that I didn't agree with.
"interesting" does not always equals "I agree with it", come on.
many of my favorite users here have very different ideas if you compare them to mine, but I find them very interesting anyway.
posted by matteo at 7:25 AM on April 12, 2004
do you mean that the average MeFi reader reads every day all of the WP, NYT, Guardian, MSNBC, Time.com and the Christian Science Monitor and *adds a dozen more mainstream media websites*
I'm not being snarky, I'm asking.
because I don't think that's the case.
it's cool that people here filter the web for the best of everything, even for the best (yawn, personally) flash sites.
I think it should equally be acceptable if they filter the Web for the best Iraq info (I mean, Iraq and terrorism are probably as important as, let's say, Flash sites and GMail and... ahem.. Law&Order blogs)
just kidding -- I'm a L&O fan, too.
most of the prominent posters political leanings are pretty well known which makes them kind of predictable and thus not too productive.
I don't know, it's all about the quality of what you link. not about your opinions.
I'm anti-IraqAttaq but I see plenty of lame Iraq fpp's and plenty of lame BushSucks fpp's. these last few years I've seen many interesting threads that I didn't agree with.
"interesting" does not always equals "I agree with it", come on.
many of my favorite users here have very different ideas if you compare them to mine, but I find them very interesting anyway.
posted by matteo at 7:25 AM on April 12, 2004
*shakes fist at Explorer*
here's the last part -- now readable -- of my unfortunate comment just above:
most of the prominent posters political leanings are pretty well known which makes them kind of predictable and thus not too productive.
I don't know: for me it's all about the quality of what you link. not about your opinions.
I'm anti-IraqAttaq but I see plenty of lame Iraq fpp's and plenty of lame BushSucks fpp's. these last few years I've seen scores of interesting threads that I didn't agree with.
"interesting" does not always equals "I agree with it", come on.
many of my favorite users here have very different ideas if you compare them to mine, but I find them very interesting anyway.
posted by matteo at 7:28 AM on April 12, 2004
here's the last part -- now readable -- of my unfortunate comment just above:
most of the prominent posters political leanings are pretty well known which makes them kind of predictable and thus not too productive.
I don't know: for me it's all about the quality of what you link. not about your opinions.
I'm anti-IraqAttaq but I see plenty of lame Iraq fpp's and plenty of lame BushSucks fpp's. these last few years I've seen scores of interesting threads that I didn't agree with.
"interesting" does not always equals "I agree with it", come on.
many of my favorite users here have very different ideas if you compare them to mine, but I find them very interesting anyway.
posted by matteo at 7:28 AM on April 12, 2004
That toon always stuck in my head because of this guy I knew in college. He was this chubby, kind of pretentious guy named Bob or something, but he kept asking people to call him different things, like Ichabod and for some strange reason, John.
He kept changing identities and at one point he went goth, with that whole combed-forward black hair bit. I'm sure he was trying very hard to be all scary and shit, but with his protruding gut, puffy cheeks, dopey expression, and that ridiculous haircut he looked kinda like sam the sheepdog with black nail-polish.
"interesting" does not always equals "I agree with it", come on.
No, it dosen't but it does get dull watching the same people (and I'll cop to being one of em) argue the same points.
posted by jonmc at 7:32 AM on April 12, 2004
He kept changing identities and at one point he went goth, with that whole combed-forward black hair bit. I'm sure he was trying very hard to be all scary and shit, but with his protruding gut, puffy cheeks, dopey expression, and that ridiculous haircut he looked kinda like sam the sheepdog with black nail-polish.
"interesting" does not always equals "I agree with it", come on.
No, it dosen't but it does get dull watching the same people (and I'll cop to being one of em) argue the same points.
posted by jonmc at 7:32 AM on April 12, 2004
jonmc - so, it would be best to just ignore Iraq and discuss happy posts about toothbrushes and web picture galleries on obscure and useless but strangely compelling knicknacks ? I'm partial to vicious squirrels, myself. Just saying.....
Karl - how's this ? :
I couldn't get the "Ruritania" font to work on a Mac. "Indian" was the next worst thing I came across. I think it's kind of cute and yet culturally also quite ugly, bigoted, or demeaning as well.
posted by troutfishing at 7:39 AM on April 12, 2004
Karl - how's this ? :
I couldn't get the "Ruritania" font to work on a Mac. "Indian" was the next worst thing I came across. I think it's kind of cute and yet culturally also quite ugly, bigoted, or demeaning as well.
posted by troutfishing at 7:39 AM on April 12, 2004
jonmc - so, it would be best to just ignore Iraq and discuss happy posts about toothbrushes and web picture galleries on obscure and useless but strangely compelling knicknacks ? I'm partial to vicious squirrels, myself. Just saying.....
No, but it's not like there's not tons of of places on the web to discuss Iraq/gay marraige/Bush etc. if that's what blows your hair back.
I'm not saying we should ignore them, but I don't want ALL IRAQ! ALL THE TIME! either.
posted by jonmc at 7:49 AM on April 12, 2004
No, but it's not like there's not tons of of places on the web to discuss Iraq/gay marraige/Bush etc. if that's what blows your hair back.
I'm not saying we should ignore them, but I don't want ALL IRAQ! ALL THE TIME! either.
posted by jonmc at 7:49 AM on April 12, 2004
You know, jon, I read a great article in Nature decades ago about how there are two sorts of sheep dogs. One sort--border collies and such--are wolves and relate to the sheep as prey to be stalked and controlled. The other sort are the dogs that relate to the sheep as littermates and tend to look like sheep--Bedlingtons and Old English Sheepdogs and such--and which retain puppy behaviors compared to the wolf like sheep dogs.
When the first sort meet real wolves, they fight the wolves to the death. The second sort, the sheep sheep dogs drive the wolves nutso because they don't act right from the wolves point of view. I'm sure biscotti has a more sophisticated take on all this but in looking like a sheep sheep dog but beating the crap out of Ralph the Wolf, Sam the Sheepdog is a combination that does not exist in nature. Well, he talks, too.... there is that as well.
posted by y2karl at 8:01 AM on April 12, 2004
When the first sort meet real wolves, they fight the wolves to the death. The second sort, the sheep sheep dogs drive the wolves nutso because they don't act right from the wolves point of view. I'm sure biscotti has a more sophisticated take on all this but in looking like a sheep sheep dog but beating the crap out of Ralph the Wolf, Sam the Sheepdog is a combination that does not exist in nature. Well, he talks, too.... there is that as well.
posted by y2karl at 8:01 AM on April 12, 2004
I'd be all for a front page post about cultural insensitivity in fonts.
posted by pieoverdone at 8:02 AM on April 12, 2004
posted by pieoverdone at 8:02 AM on April 12, 2004
This will be my last post here, since I have nothing else to say about the thread, but I did want to answer one thing...
On preview: In the original post, the first link is reporting, the second link is reporting, the third is reporting again, the William Pfaff piece is an editorial, the fifth piece is reporting and the sixth and last is a weblog entry with a great deal of eyewitness account and the perspective of a person who wanted this mission to succeed. That's one editorial, armage. And one well worth reading.
Maybe I just have a different view of what constitutes an editorial -- regardless, I apologize, since I didn't read some of those articles very carefully. However, I'll go through them and give my opinon of whether or not each link is editorial or reporting. "US Targeted Fiery Cleric In Risky Move" mentions "several American and Iraqi officials" but only quotes two, one anonymously. The headline also seems rather sensationalist and biased, IMO, which leads me to believe it is editorializing. The Patrick Graham piece is not hard news reporting, it's an eyewitness account, and he uses lots of words like "seems to", "appeared to be", etc. It is a good eyewitness account, and useful for that, but it is not strict news reporting, IMO. "The delusions of war" is an editorial analysis piece with some interviewing, *not* reporting. It's not reporting when you mention 1940's France being conquered by the Nazis. We agree that "New nationalism that unites Iraq" is an editorial, and it's obvious at the start of the article. "'Expect Snipers on All Minarets'" is reporting. My mistake. But "One year after Saddam" is also an editorial. It is from a man in Iraq who is witnessing events with his own eyes, but it is still an opinion ("I can't help but feel...", "I would think it...", etc.) piece. It is definitely a well-written post, and interesting to boot, but it's opinion.
Perhaps my view of what is editorial/opinion and what isn't is too strict, but that's what I see. I'll just keep my opinion on that difference to myself in the future ;-)
matteo: I agree with you there -- I'd love to see interesting links, *especially* if I don't agree with them. I like to think about things from a different perspective, because there's always something I didn't consider. I think my problem with this post -- and a lot of the Iraq posts in general -- is that they rarely have anything new to say from the post made yesterday or the day before. That's probably an effect of the war pervading media everywhere we look, but that's just the way it is, I guess.
And no, I don't expect people to have read all of those sites at all. But I think we all realize that the mainstream media tends to have a similar...collective opinion, you could say, on Iraq. One Iraq story or editorial from the Washington Post or the NYTimes tends to resemble the next, I've noticed, which makes it kind of repetitive, *even if* it's saying something different. I think it's time for me to take a break from my morning "Post and coffee" routine ;-)
On preview: My sentiment is the same as jonmc's, but I certainly don't think all of the posts are IraqFilter content. Heck, even some of the Iraq links are unique and interesting! Bring those on!
Anyway, I should know better than to talk about threads like this -- I know my opinions, and I've seen how those discussions can sometimes devolve into shouting matches in those threads. But I've been able to read those for ages.
Alls I want to do is post links. Maybe I can find a new one for this evening...
wow, my posts are way too long. sorry about that. I'll try better next time.
posted by armage at 8:03 AM on April 12, 2004
On preview: In the original post, the first link is reporting, the second link is reporting, the third is reporting again, the William Pfaff piece is an editorial, the fifth piece is reporting and the sixth and last is a weblog entry with a great deal of eyewitness account and the perspective of a person who wanted this mission to succeed. That's one editorial, armage. And one well worth reading.
Maybe I just have a different view of what constitutes an editorial -- regardless, I apologize, since I didn't read some of those articles very carefully. However, I'll go through them and give my opinon of whether or not each link is editorial or reporting. "US Targeted Fiery Cleric In Risky Move" mentions "several American and Iraqi officials" but only quotes two, one anonymously. The headline also seems rather sensationalist and biased, IMO, which leads me to believe it is editorializing. The Patrick Graham piece is not hard news reporting, it's an eyewitness account, and he uses lots of words like "seems to", "appeared to be", etc. It is a good eyewitness account, and useful for that, but it is not strict news reporting, IMO. "The delusions of war" is an editorial analysis piece with some interviewing, *not* reporting. It's not reporting when you mention 1940's France being conquered by the Nazis. We agree that "New nationalism that unites Iraq" is an editorial, and it's obvious at the start of the article. "'Expect Snipers on All Minarets'" is reporting. My mistake. But "One year after Saddam" is also an editorial. It is from a man in Iraq who is witnessing events with his own eyes, but it is still an opinion ("I can't help but feel...", "I would think it...", etc.) piece. It is definitely a well-written post, and interesting to boot, but it's opinion.
Perhaps my view of what is editorial/opinion and what isn't is too strict, but that's what I see. I'll just keep my opinion on that difference to myself in the future ;-)
matteo: I agree with you there -- I'd love to see interesting links, *especially* if I don't agree with them. I like to think about things from a different perspective, because there's always something I didn't consider. I think my problem with this post -- and a lot of the Iraq posts in general -- is that they rarely have anything new to say from the post made yesterday or the day before. That's probably an effect of the war pervading media everywhere we look, but that's just the way it is, I guess.
And no, I don't expect people to have read all of those sites at all. But I think we all realize that the mainstream media tends to have a similar...collective opinion, you could say, on Iraq. One Iraq story or editorial from the Washington Post or the NYTimes tends to resemble the next, I've noticed, which makes it kind of repetitive, *even if* it's saying something different. I think it's time for me to take a break from my morning "Post and coffee" routine ;-)
On preview: My sentiment is the same as jonmc's, but I certainly don't think all of the posts are IraqFilter content. Heck, even some of the Iraq links are unique and interesting! Bring those on!
Anyway, I should know better than to talk about threads like this -- I know my opinions, and I've seen how those discussions can sometimes devolve into shouting matches in those threads. But I've been able to read those for ages.
Alls I want to do is post links. Maybe I can find a new one for this evening...
wow, my posts are way too long. sorry about that. I'll try better next time.
posted by armage at 8:03 AM on April 12, 2004
ALL IRAQ! ALL THE TIME! either.
neither did we, the big WE including: a hell of a lot service members and their families, and the iraqis themselves ... someone in the whitehouse got convinced that the takeover of oil rich country in middle east without the support of the rest of the world for reasons later proven to be completely false was a good idea. and now here we are.
posted by specialk420 at 8:05 AM on April 12, 2004
neither did we, the big WE including: a hell of a lot service members and their families, and the iraqis themselves ... someone in the whitehouse got convinced that the takeover of oil rich country in middle east without the support of the rest of the world for reasons later proven to be completely false was a good idea. and now here we are.
posted by specialk420 at 8:05 AM on April 12, 2004
If you're going to make a post related to our country's rush to Armageddon and the end of civilization as we know it, please reconsider, as the topic has been discussed previously many times.
posted by soyjoy at 8:06 AM on April 12, 2004
posted by soyjoy at 8:06 AM on April 12, 2004
God, the bile and IraqFilter haranges have infiltrated MeTa too.....
posted by darren at 8:10 AM on April 12, 2004
posted by darren at 8:10 AM on April 12, 2004
warfilter is dead. y2karl has a knack for bringing links most people haven't seen to the table be it about Bobs new bra-pushing or that horrible war that makes some people do their best ostrich impression. Don't like the warposts? Then ignore them. Seriously. Don't post any comments in them. Easy. Just don't. stfu like dg said.
posted by dabitch at 9:19 AM on April 12, 2004
posted by dabitch at 9:19 AM on April 12, 2004
God, the bile and IraqFilter haranges have infiltrated MeTa too.....
Yeah, well, specialk420 seems to have this martyr/savior complex going on. Combine that with the 'any discussion about whether a post is bad is itself bad' meme, and you have a recipe for lots and lots of bile.
Predicted response: 'you work for the oil industry don't you'
posted by darukaru at 9:24 AM on April 12, 2004
Yeah, well, specialk420 seems to have this martyr/savior complex going on. Combine that with the 'any discussion about whether a post is bad is itself bad' meme, and you have a recipe for lots and lots of bile.
Predicted response: 'you work for the oil industry don't you'
posted by darukaru at 9:24 AM on April 12, 2004
last time y2karl made a post that wasn't about iraq it was pretty damn good, and i thought "ok, next time he posts a warfilter post, will remember this and consider it a price worth paying". so there.
posted by andrew cooke at 9:25 AM on April 12, 2004
posted by andrew cooke at 9:25 AM on April 12, 2004
I used to think of Metafilter as a cool place to find obscurities and curiousities that, in a musical context, you might find transmitted from a tiny college radio station late at night. The glut of NYT/CNN/WaPo links on topics with which nearly everyone is familiar is almost like the Clear Channelification of Metafilter. It's the same song nearly everyone has heard and can be found anywhere. Please don't turn this place into the Clear Channel of blogs.
I enjoy and respect your intellect, Karl, I really do. I've just never understood why you're notoriously so stubborn about skirting the purposes of this site. It seems to draw more attention to YOU and your posting style than the issue itself.
/prepares for predictable riposte about the time last year I posted about Baghdad's invasion
posted by dhoyt at 9:26 AM on April 12, 2004
I enjoy and respect your intellect, Karl, I really do. I've just never understood why you're notoriously so stubborn about skirting the purposes of this site. It seems to draw more attention to YOU and your posting style than the issue itself.
/prepares for predictable riposte about the time last year I posted about Baghdad's invasion
posted by dhoyt at 9:26 AM on April 12, 2004
the character design of Wile E. Coyote was taken and renamed Ralph Wolf
That's not entirely accurate. Wile E has a black nose, Ralph has a red nose, though I suppose it's really liver.
how there are two sorts of sheep dogs
I suspect you're thinking of the difference between a herding dog, which takes the dogs from one place to another (and there are several types of herding dogs -- some that round up a flock, some that drive a flock, etc), and guardian dogs, which stay with the flocks and protect them. Herding dogs are most of the sheepdogs and shepherd dogs you know and love. Guardian dogs include breeds like the kuvasz, anatolian shepherd, tibetan mastiff, and maybe the caucasian ovtcharka -- NOT dogs to fuck with lightly.
And the Bedlington is a terrier, not a sheepdog.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:51 AM on April 12, 2004
That's not entirely accurate. Wile E has a black nose, Ralph has a red nose, though I suppose it's really liver.
how there are two sorts of sheep dogs
I suspect you're thinking of the difference between a herding dog, which takes the dogs from one place to another (and there are several types of herding dogs -- some that round up a flock, some that drive a flock, etc), and guardian dogs, which stay with the flocks and protect them. Herding dogs are most of the sheepdogs and shepherd dogs you know and love. Guardian dogs include breeds like the kuvasz, anatolian shepherd, tibetan mastiff, and maybe the caucasian ovtcharka -- NOT dogs to fuck with lightly.
And the Bedlington is a terrier, not a sheepdog.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:51 AM on April 12, 2004
You think IraqFilter is bad, just wait until it becomes Iraq/Iran/SyriaFilter.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 9:52 AM on April 12, 2004
posted by monju_bosatsu at 9:52 AM on April 12, 2004
incidentally, what is the status of stfu?
i read it as "shut the fuck up" - ie agressive and abusive - but maybe people are using it something like "rtfm" (which is, i believe, commonly accepted to be much less agressive, if still not completely polite).
obviously, i'd like to know which, so i can decide whether to smack dabitch in the face, or just pat them on the back...
posted by andrew cooke at 9:57 AM on April 12, 2004
i read it as "shut the fuck up" - ie agressive and abusive - but maybe people are using it something like "rtfm" (which is, i believe, commonly accepted to be much less agressive, if still not completely polite).
obviously, i'd like to know which, so i can decide whether to smack dabitch in the face, or just pat them on the back...
posted by andrew cooke at 9:57 AM on April 12, 2004
IMO it was a weak post that could have benefitted from a more specific focus. A series of loosely-associated links like this seems to me just an attempt to circumvent the one-post-a-day limit, and I´d rather see one good link provided, with perhaps some interesting and relevant context.
That said, y2karl can only post once a day, so I think all the Chicken Little cries of the falling warfilter sky are silly and melodramatic. Even those who loathe every link that his fingers affix to the blue must, at worst, skip over a single post a day. That hardly seems onerous.
If you're going to make a post related to our country's rush to Armageddon and the end of civilization as we know it, please reconsider, as the topic has been discussed previously many times.
LOL soyjoy
posted by rushmc at 10:17 AM on April 12, 2004
That said, y2karl can only post once a day, so I think all the Chicken Little cries of the falling warfilter sky are silly and melodramatic. Even those who loathe every link that his fingers affix to the blue must, at worst, skip over a single post a day. That hardly seems onerous.
If you're going to make a post related to our country's rush to Armageddon and the end of civilization as we know it, please reconsider, as the topic has been discussed previously many times.
LOL soyjoy
posted by rushmc at 10:17 AM on April 12, 2004
I think it's more like rtfm - and was using dg's exact expression so you might want to hit dg first. I'll wait.
posted by dabitch at 10:21 AM on April 12, 2004
posted by dabitch at 10:21 AM on April 12, 2004
What a suprise, another shitty post. This one is worse than many of the other reprehensible posts, since it is essentially 5 shitty posts all put into the same FPP to circumvent the rules. Each one is unworthy, and the clumping of them together does not add value. And I think this goes to show the "defining deviancy down" theory. At one point, this post would have been axed right away for being so poorly crafted, so agenda-filled, and so much newsfilter. Unfortunately, we have accepted so much recently, that it becomes harder to draw lines and now such obviously shitty posts as this one are deemed acceptable.
The proponents of this shit, which, not suprisingly consist of the same few who post similar shit, justify it on the tautological grounds that it is important. Says who? Well, they do. They feel it is important that we hear the same argument X number of times, so they will post it at least that many times. They show an obvious disregard for the purpose of the site, the rules posted on the posting page, and the stated preferences of admin. How can self-policing work when there is no enforcement mechanism?
It's obvious that certain posters will not heed Matt's pleas to temper their posts or avoid the topic. If Matt continues to permit them to behave this way, then the devolution will continue. I certainly think such a blatant disregard for very lax guidelines certainly warrants some form of punishment until they get the message. If it does not recieve any, than expect worse in the future since some of the posters feel this is their own personal blog and they can post whatever they want to.
posted by Seth at 10:22 AM on April 12, 2004
The proponents of this shit, which, not suprisingly consist of the same few who post similar shit, justify it on the tautological grounds that it is important. Says who? Well, they do. They feel it is important that we hear the same argument X number of times, so they will post it at least that many times. They show an obvious disregard for the purpose of the site, the rules posted on the posting page, and the stated preferences of admin. How can self-policing work when there is no enforcement mechanism?
It's obvious that certain posters will not heed Matt's pleas to temper their posts or avoid the topic. If Matt continues to permit them to behave this way, then the devolution will continue. I certainly think such a blatant disregard for very lax guidelines certainly warrants some form of punishment until they get the message. If it does not recieve any, than expect worse in the future since some of the posters feel this is their own personal blog and they can post whatever they want to.
posted by Seth at 10:22 AM on April 12, 2004
Shia Uprising 2, 08/06/01 PDB, Dylan's Victoria's Secret Ad, Shia Uprising 1, Iraqi murders, Ahmed Chalabi, Life On Mars--hey, where's that darn announcement?--Jean Sheperd Radio Raconteur, Literary Figure Fan Sites and children of gays on gay marriages were my last ten posts. Four of ten were Iraq related. I am actually shooting for 2 of 10 but this has been a momentuous week. When posts are on Iraq, related links are posted into those threads rather posted separately.
Like I said in the thread--I followed Tet and Watergate as compulsively when they were in progress and these times are as interesting, important and rapidly changing as those.
posted by y2karl at 10:30 AM on April 12, 2004
Like I said in the thread--I followed Tet and Watergate as compulsively when they were in progress and these times are as interesting, important and rapidly changing as those.
posted by y2karl at 10:30 AM on April 12, 2004
If you're going to make a post related to our country's rush to Armageddon and the end of civilization as we know it, please reconsider, as the topic has been discussed previously many times.
...
posted by jonmc at 10:31 AM on April 12, 2004
...
posted by jonmc at 10:31 AM on April 12, 2004
>You poo-flingers are like that dog and sheep that punch the clock in Looney Tunes.
>It was a dog and a coyote who punched the clock. The coyote was stealing sheep. Brush up on your 'toons, man.
Newsfilter : "By the year 2010, file-sharers could be swapping news rather than music, eliminating censorship of any kind."
posted by thomcatspike at 10:39 AM on April 12, 2004
>It was a dog and a coyote who punched the clock. The coyote was stealing sheep. Brush up on your 'toons, man.
Newsfilter : "By the year 2010, file-sharers could be swapping news rather than music, eliminating censorship of any kind."
posted by thomcatspike at 10:39 AM on April 12, 2004
I used to think of Metafilter as a cool place to find obscurities and curiousities that, in a musical context, you might find transmitted from a tiny college radio station late at night.
I desperately wish it was still 2000, too.
posted by _sirmissalot_ at 10:40 AM on April 12, 2004
As for the multiple links in the last post, I was trying, as an experiment, to meet MidaMulligan's prescription:
Thing is ... as consumers of news, it is wrong to expect that any single source is going to tell "the true story". What is possible, I think, is to come to a fairly comprehensive understanding of situations ... but only with work. By delibrately seeking out perspectives from the mainstream media, as well as voices from everything from the far left to the far right. In other words, by gathering a wide variety of perspectives, and weighing them with an open mind (i.e., with the thought that each might contain at least a tiny element of truth).
I don't think it's wrong for news sources to be one-sided, or to report partial, biased viewpoints ... because I've never believed it possible for them not to. I do think it is wrong to:
1. Post single news items (or in some cases, even opinion pieces) and claim they are the "truth" (to the point of even denigrating all other news sources for not widely broadcasting the "truth"); and
2. To be a lazy consumer of news. People on the right or left that only look to find sources who's perspectives agree with their own biases are not educating themselves about the world - they are merely buying ammo for their debate guns.
To insist that any single news source provide a complete, objective view of a large situation is to abdicate responsibility - to expect that someone else do the work that it is really our own duty to do. No single source can ever deliver anything but a partial, biased view. What the internet, and other modern distribution channels give us is the ability to look at any situation from multiple angles of vision, through the eyes of many reporters, and from that, to extract something that probably can be considered a fair idea of the reality of a situation.
posted by y2karl at 10:41 AM on April 12, 2004
Thing is ... as consumers of news, it is wrong to expect that any single source is going to tell "the true story". What is possible, I think, is to come to a fairly comprehensive understanding of situations ... but only with work. By delibrately seeking out perspectives from the mainstream media, as well as voices from everything from the far left to the far right. In other words, by gathering a wide variety of perspectives, and weighing them with an open mind (i.e., with the thought that each might contain at least a tiny element of truth).
I don't think it's wrong for news sources to be one-sided, or to report partial, biased viewpoints ... because I've never believed it possible for them not to. I do think it is wrong to:
1. Post single news items (or in some cases, even opinion pieces) and claim they are the "truth" (to the point of even denigrating all other news sources for not widely broadcasting the "truth"); and
2. To be a lazy consumer of news. People on the right or left that only look to find sources who's perspectives agree with their own biases are not educating themselves about the world - they are merely buying ammo for their debate guns.
To insist that any single news source provide a complete, objective view of a large situation is to abdicate responsibility - to expect that someone else do the work that it is really our own duty to do. No single source can ever deliver anything but a partial, biased view. What the internet, and other modern distribution channels give us is the ability to look at any situation from multiple angles of vision, through the eyes of many reporters, and from that, to extract something that probably can be considered a fair idea of the reality of a situation.
posted by y2karl at 10:41 AM on April 12, 2004
[to y2karl, a request: please use block quote tags]
posted by monju_bosatsu at 10:45 AM on April 12, 2004
posted by monju_bosatsu at 10:45 AM on April 12, 2004
That's ironic, right? I should laugh?
posted by monju_bosatsu at 10:56 AM on April 12, 2004
posted by monju_bosatsu at 10:56 AM on April 12, 2004
Oh, good explanation karl, because for a minute there I was worried that somehow Meta* had become not about just what's best for you and I was worried that I'd missed a memo...
posted by JollyWanker at 10:58 AM on April 12, 2004
posted by JollyWanker at 10:58 AM on April 12, 2004
Seth, you are really, and this is by far, the most gratingly boring person I've read on Metafilter.
But you seem very much in your environment here on MetaTalk.
posted by sic at 10:58 AM on April 12, 2004
But you seem very much in your environment here on MetaTalk.
posted by sic at 10:58 AM on April 12, 2004
No--I'm just trying not to chew up the screen space when making an extended quote the best way I know how. On my screen, most blog text is far tinier than the small here. Blockquotes introduce a great deal of upper and lower margin which I was trying to avoid.
posted by y2karl at 11:02 AM on April 12, 2004
posted by y2karl at 11:02 AM on April 12, 2004
If you are concerned about readability on your screen, you can set the body and smaller text sizes on the MeFi customize page. If you are concerned about readability for others, I find that distinguishing between quotes and original material by using the blockquote is much more effective than preserving a small amount of margin.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 11:25 AM on April 12, 2004
posted by monju_bosatsu at 11:25 AM on April 12, 2004
y2karl, try using blockquotes without newlines. That is:
Prefatory text<blockquote>Quoted Text</blockquote>Following text.
Matt's code puts extra paragraph spacing wherever a newline appears, so this gets added to the spacing that the browser provides on a blockquote. Avoiding newlines around the blockquote tags helps to restore it to the way it should look.
posted by George_Spiggott at 11:33 AM on April 12, 2004
Prefatory text<blockquote>Quoted Text</blockquote>Following text.
Matt's code puts extra paragraph spacing wherever a newline appears, so this gets added to the spacing that the browser provides on a blockquote. Avoiding newlines around the blockquote tags helps to restore it to the way it should look.
posted by George_Spiggott at 11:33 AM on April 12, 2004
You think IraqFilter is bad, just wait until it becomes Iraq/Iran/SyriaFilter.
I predict a blogmire. Karl and Trout will set up heavily armored posts with large battalions of links to try and bring enlightenment while conservative guerillas snipe from the fringe and occasionally blow themselves up in order to sabotage the process. It could be years before we get out. To think this used to be called "the Paris of the blogosphere".
posted by liam at 11:38 AM on April 12, 2004
I predict a blogmire. Karl and Trout will set up heavily armored posts with large battalions of links to try and bring enlightenment while conservative guerillas snipe from the fringe and occasionally blow themselves up in order to sabotage the process. It could be years before we get out. To think this used to be called "the Paris of the blogosphere".
posted by liam at 11:38 AM on April 12, 2004
True, liam, but eventually, Oliver Stone will make a movie, Bruce Springsteen will write a song, Stallone will kill some people on screen, and everything will be all better.
posted by jonmc at 11:53 AM on April 12, 2004
posted by jonmc at 11:53 AM on April 12, 2004
Seth, you are really, and this is by far, the most gratingly boring person I've read on Metafilter.
sic, you're right, but I'd go a step further--Seth is one of the most gratingly boring people I've read across several venues. I plan to do a reverse-Lent kind of thing and give up reading him for the rest of the year.
posted by clever sheep at 11:55 AM on April 12, 2004
sic, you're right, but I'd go a step further--Seth is one of the most gratingly boring people I've read across several venues. I plan to do a reverse-Lent kind of thing and give up reading him for the rest of the year.
posted by clever sheep at 11:55 AM on April 12, 2004
simple solution=more work hard for Matt and or editorial decision which frankly none use have control over which is fine. it is truth and what is wrong with that. but I would humbly suggest a Mefi asst. editor as to free up matts time and this this the crux of the matter, time.
NEWSFILTER: The New Page.
this would eliminate most of the Blues bile as of date.
the question of a current event tying into what is new on the web would be refreshed in some ways.
because blue should be blue.
posted by clavdivs at 11:55 AM on April 12, 2004
NEWSFILTER: The New Page.
this would eliminate most of the Blues bile as of date.
the question of a current event tying into what is new on the web would be refreshed in some ways.
because blue should be blue.
posted by clavdivs at 11:55 AM on April 12, 2004
Some of y'all might want to go back in the archives & take a look at those mythical NewslessFilter times.
Three years ago includes single links to the Register, ABC News (by dhartung no less!) & Yahoo News.
Four years ago? Matt posts twice; to CNN & then to MSNBC.
Five years ago? Ah, well, there you go.
Seth: You're going to 'do a keswick' someday soon, right?
posted by i_cola at 12:01 PM on April 12, 2004
Three years ago includes single links to the Register, ABC News (by dhartung no less!) & Yahoo News.
Four years ago? Matt posts twice; to CNN & then to MSNBC.
Five years ago? Ah, well, there you go.
Seth: You're going to 'do a keswick' someday soon, right?
posted by i_cola at 12:01 PM on April 12, 2004
It is a good eyewitness account, and useful for that, but it is not strict news reporting, IMO.
Because strict news reporting are done by robots?
posted by mr.marx at 12:19 PM on April 12, 2004
Because strict news reporting are done by robots?
posted by mr.marx at 12:19 PM on April 12, 2004
Don't worry, wonderchicken, I was half serious, as a good string of clauses, whether required or not, always makes me happy.
As for the rest, well, we've done this before, many times. I agree with matteo's earlier comment about filtering the news and his personal dislike of flash sites. It's something I've mentioned before and continue to believe.
posted by The God Complex at 12:42 PM on April 12, 2004
As for the rest, well, we've done this before, many times. I agree with matteo's earlier comment about filtering the news and his personal dislike of flash sites. It's something I've mentioned before and continue to believe.
posted by The God Complex at 12:42 PM on April 12, 2004
I'm on y2karl's side, politically, but I agree that his crap needs to stop. He's flooding MeFi with long, pedantic posts in a sanctimonious style, attracting the dittoheads and alienating those inclined to disagree. They're not particularly illuminating articles, they're not presented with perspective, and they are a [bad] thing. He is being defended because a) he's a great poster when it comes to music and other general interest topics; b) he's pontificating from one of MeFi's most popular political positions.
As hama7 highlighted, techgnollogic'scomment is deafeningly to-the-point:
"You keep fucking pushing it, and you're going to have a ninja squad of highly-motivated Bushista commandos posting wave upon wave of their own flavor of retarded, partisan wankery you've been foisting upon us every goddamn day. See how totally useless this site becomes when a few more arrogant pricks see fit to flood the community with tiny, spammy garbage."
I remember ParisParamus's awful near-daily Israel-Palestine posts, and I'd rather not see such things return. Let's not have an FPP screaming match - let's raise the level of dialogue, and cease the demagoguery.
posted by Marquis at 12:57 PM on April 12, 2004
As hama7 highlighted, techgnollogic's
"You keep fucking pushing it, and you're going to have a ninja squad of highly-motivated Bushista commandos posting wave upon wave of their own flavor of retarded, partisan wankery you've been foisting upon us every goddamn day. See how totally useless this site becomes when a few more arrogant pricks see fit to flood the community with tiny, spammy garbage."
I remember ParisParamus's awful near-daily Israel-Palestine posts, and I'd rather not see such things return. Let's not have an FPP screaming match - let's raise the level of dialogue, and cease the demagoguery.
posted by Marquis at 12:57 PM on April 12, 2004
I would humbly suggest a Mefi asst. editor as to free up matts time and this this the crux of the matter, time.
Here's the problem clavdivs--here are todays posts to this point:
Rubberband Warfare
Mullah Omar is hunting us like pigs.
National High Five Day.
Emma Goldman, "Queen of the Anarchists."
the Pie-of-the-Month club,
Bin Ladin Determined to Strike In US - The Memo From A Design Perspective
Vitamin dosage is a much debated issue.
Where's the WE in itunes? Weedshare
Annotated Beastie Boys.
a collection of grave images from around the world.
A photo journal of a UNPA Nurse Practitioner's experiences in Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Nanochips
MillionForChrist.com? Gays versus God?
Some very moving Soviet war photography
Which of these is Newsfilter? There are gray areas. That looks like more time spent by more people than any time saved. I have another question--is 9/11 included in Iraqfilter? Is the Plame Case Iraqfilter? That is going to heat up real soon and will be on the Watergate level of rapidly shifting news and analysis and the amount of people paying attention. And if we have Newsfilter, should we have FlashFilter for the people who hate Flash and atheistfilter for people who hate athiests ? I'm not posting as much as I used to, I'm posting more links than comments in my posts, I am trying to accommodate myself to the other people here--but there are people who will be offended at the post and people who are offended by the poster.
You've complained about posts of mine which you didn't like and yet stuck up for me, on the other hand, when Seth went off me for posting on the alleged Sistani assassination attempt. You thought that was worthwhile information--even if it did turn out to be a flash in the pan, thank god--and you are hardly my greatest fan. You are a person who cares about this stuff and you were interested in finding out more about Sistani, am I not right? You like the Shiachat account of the bombing in Karbala, as I recall.
Unlike others, I don't pretend to speak for Matt when I am trying to enforce my petty personal vendettas. Admittedly, this is mostly due to a lack of desire to control other people's posting or comments as much as an interest in controlling how I feel about them and what they say and what I allow myself to say in return. It's easier to control one's feelings than to control other people.
When I wrote that This is not a great post, in the first Falluja ambush post, I was complaining about the supporting links, which had nothing to do with the post and was not hot to see a flame fest and wrote Matt. complaining about the post. He wrote back Why don't you post this as a comment instead of "this is not a great post" . So I did. Later, in that thread, Matt wrote I think this is an important story for americans to know about; we're supposed to hand over the reins of Iraq in just a couple months, and it's still chaos there.
I will submit that Matt is an intelligent and thoughtful person with an appreciation for the complexity of things. And who can pretend to speak for him? I will also submit that my post, the co-subject of this thread fits that description above as well, if not better than the post in question.
So, why not deal with the other half of tharlan's complaint and talk about the shouters, haters, name callers and character assassins?
posted by y2karl at 1:18 PM on April 12, 2004
Here's the problem clavdivs--here are todays posts to this point:
Rubberband Warfare
Mullah Omar is hunting us like pigs.
National High Five Day.
Emma Goldman, "Queen of the Anarchists."
the Pie-of-the-Month club,
Bin Ladin Determined to Strike In US - The Memo From A Design Perspective
Vitamin dosage is a much debated issue.
Where's the WE in itunes? Weedshare
Annotated Beastie Boys.
a collection of grave images from around the world.
A photo journal of a UNPA Nurse Practitioner's experiences in Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Nanochips
MillionForChrist.com? Gays versus God?
Some very moving Soviet war photography
Which of these is Newsfilter? There are gray areas. That looks like more time spent by more people than any time saved. I have another question--is 9/11 included in Iraqfilter? Is the Plame Case Iraqfilter? That is going to heat up real soon and will be on the Watergate level of rapidly shifting news and analysis and the amount of people paying attention. And if we have Newsfilter, should we have FlashFilter for the people who hate Flash and atheistfilter for people who hate athiests ? I'm not posting as much as I used to, I'm posting more links than comments in my posts, I am trying to accommodate myself to the other people here--but there are people who will be offended at the post and people who are offended by the poster.
You've complained about posts of mine which you didn't like and yet stuck up for me, on the other hand, when Seth went off me for posting on the alleged Sistani assassination attempt. You thought that was worthwhile information--even if it did turn out to be a flash in the pan, thank god--and you are hardly my greatest fan. You are a person who cares about this stuff and you were interested in finding out more about Sistani, am I not right? You like the Shiachat account of the bombing in Karbala, as I recall.
Unlike others, I don't pretend to speak for Matt when I am trying to enforce my petty personal vendettas. Admittedly, this is mostly due to a lack of desire to control other people's posting or comments as much as an interest in controlling how I feel about them and what they say and what I allow myself to say in return. It's easier to control one's feelings than to control other people.
When I wrote that This is not a great post, in the first Falluja ambush post, I was complaining about the supporting links, which had nothing to do with the post and was not hot to see a flame fest and wrote Matt. complaining about the post. He wrote back Why don't you post this as a comment instead of "this is not a great post" . So I did. Later, in that thread, Matt wrote I think this is an important story for americans to know about; we're supposed to hand over the reins of Iraq in just a couple months, and it's still chaos there.
I will submit that Matt is an intelligent and thoughtful person with an appreciation for the complexity of things. And who can pretend to speak for him? I will also submit that my post, the co-subject of this thread fits that description above as well, if not better than the post in question.
So, why not deal with the other half of tharlan's complaint and talk about the shouters, haters, name callers and character assassins?
posted by y2karl at 1:18 PM on April 12, 2004
Which of these is Newsfilter? There are gray areas.
Indeed.
Suppose somebody finds more scrolls, say, in Nag Hammadi, and other "gnostic" gospel texts emerge.
suppose there's a great story, say, in The Atlantic, and I want to make a fpp out of it. it's news, recently happened, but the scrolls are 1,900 years old. is that newsfilter or does it have to end up in the blue?
I'm not kidding. it's a paradox, but still.
also, I'm digging up random days in the past several months, and there clearly isn't a majority of "this just in" fpp's. the opposite is true.
I think most of the really weak fpp's get deleted anyway, but yes, we as a community should be more careful anyway when evaluating the quality of a thread we're about to post. and this criticism begins with myself, of course.
also, suppose that there's an interesting interview with Elaine Pagels -- she's discussing the gospels but also religion and oppression and politics, and there's mention of today's political issues (ie evangelical christians). where does that end up? newsfilter?
just asking.
I guess the solution is more self-control when posting to the fp, not dreaming up a new category
posted by matteo at 1:45 PM on April 12, 2004
Indeed.
Suppose somebody finds more scrolls, say, in Nag Hammadi, and other "gnostic" gospel texts emerge.
suppose there's a great story, say, in The Atlantic, and I want to make a fpp out of it. it's news, recently happened, but the scrolls are 1,900 years old. is that newsfilter or does it have to end up in the blue?
I'm not kidding. it's a paradox, but still.
also, I'm digging up random days in the past several months, and there clearly isn't a majority of "this just in" fpp's. the opposite is true.
I think most of the really weak fpp's get deleted anyway, but yes, we as a community should be more careful anyway when evaluating the quality of a thread we're about to post. and this criticism begins with myself, of course.
also, suppose that there's an interesting interview with Elaine Pagels -- she's discussing the gospels but also religion and oppression and politics, and there's mention of today's political issues (ie evangelical christians). where does that end up? newsfilter?
just asking.
I guess the solution is more self-control when posting to the fp, not dreaming up a new category
posted by matteo at 1:45 PM on April 12, 2004
(Isn't it still possible to disagree with someone without treating them like scum for viewing things differently?)
posted by Seth at 10:05 AM PST on April 12
Irony is yet undead.
posted by y2karl at 2:10 PM on April 12, 2004
posted by Seth at 10:05 AM PST on April 12
Irony is yet undead.
posted by y2karl at 2:10 PM on April 12, 2004
I got a lot of interesting links out of that post and thread.
Seth's comments are more incoherent than usual. It's not circumventing the rules to post more than one link, especially when they are all related to Iraq. Posts have more than one link all the time. His warnings about the decline of site content are as boring as they are untrue.
I find it interesting that most of those calling for a different perspective than that running through y2karl's links don't offer any links. Responses like techgnolligic's show that it's not something they want to talk about at all. They see a problem where none exists and cry when they could just skip. Y2karl is not ruining this site and despite your crying none of you will ruin it either.
posted by john at 2:15 PM on April 12, 2004
Seth's comments are more incoherent than usual. It's not circumventing the rules to post more than one link, especially when they are all related to Iraq. Posts have more than one link all the time. His warnings about the decline of site content are as boring as they are untrue.
I find it interesting that most of those calling for a different perspective than that running through y2karl's links don't offer any links. Responses like techgnolligic's show that it's not something they want to talk about at all. They see a problem where none exists and cry when they could just skip. Y2karl is not ruining this site and despite your crying none of you will ruin it either.
posted by john at 2:15 PM on April 12, 2004
"You keep fucking pushing it, and you're going to have a ninja squad of highly-motivated Bushista commandos posting wave upon wave of their own flavor of retarded, partisan wankery you've been foisting upon us every goddamn day. See how totally useless this site becomes when a few more arrogant pricks see fit to flood the community with tiny, spammy garbage."
To which I say, bring it on. 90% of the garbage that PP posted was half-assed claptrap, easily debunked by those who had links on their side ... like y2karl. I think its pretty obvious at this point that we want counter-balance to the lefty-groupthink from which MetaFilter direly suffers. With grudging respect, I believe that Steve@Linwood actually tried some counter-balance posts. I, for one, enjoyed that. More webby goodness for us all. So lets see it, come on, bring it on.
The thread in question was the most gigantic linkfest of current IraqAtaq info I've seen to date, all in one place, at one time. If the "Bushistas" had a response, it would have been posted there. It wasn't. So lets quit trying to silence one thread or one poster out of fear that it may lead to the death of MetaFilter as we know it. It hasn't and it won't.
posted by Wulfgar! at 2:55 PM on April 12, 2004
To which I say, bring it on. 90% of the garbage that PP posted was half-assed claptrap, easily debunked by those who had links on their side ... like y2karl. I think its pretty obvious at this point that we want counter-balance to the lefty-groupthink from which MetaFilter direly suffers. With grudging respect, I believe that Steve@Linwood actually tried some counter-balance posts. I, for one, enjoyed that. More webby goodness for us all. So lets see it, come on, bring it on.
The thread in question was the most gigantic linkfest of current IraqAtaq info I've seen to date, all in one place, at one time. If the "Bushistas" had a response, it would have been posted there. It wasn't. So lets quit trying to silence one thread or one poster out of fear that it may lead to the death of MetaFilter as we know it. It hasn't and it won't.
posted by Wulfgar! at 2:55 PM on April 12, 2004
When it all boils down, it still isn't "the best of the web". But hey, what do I know?
posted by Witty at 3:06 PM on April 12, 2004
posted by Witty at 3:06 PM on April 12, 2004
If only there were some way to separate the Sam and Ralph discussion from all this poo-flinging...
posted by me3dia at 3:09 PM on April 12, 2004
posted by me3dia at 3:09 PM on April 12, 2004
With regard to my STFU comment, I see the term as slightly stronger that RTFM and, rather than intended as a personal insult, more of an exasperated throwing up of the hands in the knowledge that nothing is going to change the behaviour of the person being told to STFU, but having to say it anyway. Please don't hit me, take dabitch instead, she is much stronger than me and I am sure you would not like to see a grown man cry.
posted by dg at 3:13 PM on April 12, 2004
posted by dg at 3:13 PM on April 12, 2004
Witty, there will never be a "best of the web". I'm sorry to tell you this ... I know it pains you ... but the best is what the user most finds delightful, and with 100s of millions of users, "the best of the web" just doesn't fly as a sarcastic definition for shit you don't want posted. I'm sorry ... there there now. It'll be okay, really. Have a tissue.
For what its worth, the web has taken amazing strides in bringing information services to anyone willing to look. That y2karl metas that into knowledge rich posts is precisely the filter that some desire, and that uses the web for its best possible application ... the sharing of knowledge for all.
I doubt that y2karl's motives are so high minded, nor are mine, but really, wouldn't you rather have one super-concentrated source of viewpoint with linkage galore over the point and click hell of perusing 18 sources for the same stuff? Seriously, the best of the web argument, used against one who is garnering the best of the web for one grand opus, is kinda specious, especially when you can skip right the fuck over it if it isn't your cup of tea.
posted by Wulfgar! at 3:30 PM on April 12, 2004
For what its worth, the web has taken amazing strides in bringing information services to anyone willing to look. That y2karl metas that into knowledge rich posts is precisely the filter that some desire, and that uses the web for its best possible application ... the sharing of knowledge for all.
I doubt that y2karl's motives are so high minded, nor are mine, but really, wouldn't you rather have one super-concentrated source of viewpoint with linkage galore over the point and click hell of perusing 18 sources for the same stuff? Seriously, the best of the web argument, used against one who is garnering the best of the web for one grand opus, is kinda specious, especially when you can skip right the fuck over it if it isn't your cup of tea.
posted by Wulfgar! at 3:30 PM on April 12, 2004
In that case, I'm gonna post a goatse picture to the front page, since if you don't like it, you can skip right over it.
posted by keswick at 3:32 PM on April 12, 2004
posted by keswick at 3:32 PM on April 12, 2004
That having been said, I do have to agree:
y2karl, get your own blog, fuckwit. That way, I can link you here often, and improve my contribution index. Seriously, karl, think of me and my needs, won't you?
posted by Wulfgar! at 3:35 PM on April 12, 2004
y2karl, get your own blog, fuckwit. That way, I can link you here often, and improve my contribution index. Seriously, karl, think of me and my needs, won't you?
posted by Wulfgar! at 3:35 PM on April 12, 2004
keswick, as long as you don't inline the image, and give appropriate warnings, what would be the problem with that? Oh, yeah, that whole double post buggaboo. Sorry, little camper, your bullshit retort fails.
(And didn't we all lament when Goatse.cx went bye-bye? I think that's been posted here already.)
posted by Wulfgar! at 3:38 PM on April 12, 2004
(And didn't we all lament when Goatse.cx went bye-bye? I think that's been posted here already.)
posted by Wulfgar! at 3:38 PM on April 12, 2004
Hey Wulfgar! Eat me. I don't give a shit what your definition of "best of the web" is, but I doubt that it's original defintion included someone slapping together 3 guardian links, 2 washingtonpost links, and a blogspot link and calling it MetaAnything. And don't get all mesmorized by the fancy title attributes (and karl's three additional content-inclusive comments) and mistake it for "knowledge rich" either.
And I do skip over them, because they're a pain in the ass to consume, given the time I've alotted myself for MetaFiltering. But thanks for the advice asshole.
posted by Witty at 3:47 PM on April 12, 2004
And I do skip over them, because they're a pain in the ass to consume, given the time I've alotted myself for MetaFiltering. But thanks for the advice asshole.
posted by Witty at 3:47 PM on April 12, 2004
I think the fact that it's a good post is what has the chimpkateers all riled up. If it was lame and stupid they'd be able to gloat about how much smarter and knowledgeable they are. But they don't have a proper response, so they shriek.
posted by Space Coyote at 4:04 PM on April 12, 2004
posted by Space Coyote at 4:04 PM on April 12, 2004
I don't give a shit what your definition of "best of the web" is,
That was kinda my point, Chuckles.
but I doubt that it's original defintion included someone slapping together 3 guardian links, 2 washingtonpost links, and a blogspot link and calling it MetaAnything.
Well then, pray tell, what is the "original definition" of "best of the web"? And while you're at it, just so that you can make an argument rather than a pissy rant, what is the definition of "meta", and what ... exactly ... does it take to be "knowledge rich" if not many viewpoints of the same object?
I'm sorry that you hate y2karl's posts because they're a pain in your ass, but kindly reign in your knee-jerk assumption that that makes them a pain in mine as well. You don't run this place, much as you wish you did. So kindly quit bitchen' about what you, admittedly, don't read.
posted by Wulfgar! at 4:12 PM on April 12, 2004
That was kinda my point, Chuckles.
but I doubt that it's original defintion included someone slapping together 3 guardian links, 2 washingtonpost links, and a blogspot link and calling it MetaAnything.
Well then, pray tell, what is the "original definition" of "best of the web"? And while you're at it, just so that you can make an argument rather than a pissy rant, what is the definition of "meta", and what ... exactly ... does it take to be "knowledge rich" if not many viewpoints of the same object?
I'm sorry that you hate y2karl's posts because they're a pain in your ass, but kindly reign in your knee-jerk assumption that that makes them a pain in mine as well. You don't run this place, much as you wish you did. So kindly quit bitchen' about what you, admittedly, don't read.
posted by Wulfgar! at 4:12 PM on April 12, 2004
Metafilter: 'Morning Ralph. 'Morning, Sam.
posted by pieoverdone at 4:16 PM on April 12, 2004
posted by pieoverdone at 4:16 PM on April 12, 2004
To even take a position such as is being taken by the anti-pre-reactionaries on an issue such as this is to promulgate a categorically false premise that there can be - that there can even *possibly* be - a symbolic context in which abstract concepts of 'justice' and 'freedom' are operationalized to a praxis as simple, as Euclidean, as a Cartesian system of positioning. A 'framework', if you will.
The faction which makes such claims, which promotes this agenda of rectilinear debate, is What's Killing MetaFilter.
posted by freebird at 4:20 PM on April 12, 2004
The faction which makes such claims, which promotes this agenda of rectilinear debate, is What's Killing MetaFilter.
posted by freebird at 4:20 PM on April 12, 2004
...freebird denounces "justice" and "freedom", but finds "what's killing metafilter" to be obvious. more at 11...
posted by andrew cooke at 4:34 PM on April 12, 2004
posted by andrew cooke at 4:34 PM on April 12, 2004
SAM: "What's new Normie?"
NORM: "Terrorists, Sam. They've taken over my stomach & they're demanding beer."
posted by john at 4:34 PM on April 12, 2004
NORM: "Terrorists, Sam. They've taken over my stomach & they're demanding beer."
posted by john at 4:34 PM on April 12, 2004
Surely it's supremely transparent: What's Killing Metafilter is the side exhibiting emergent behavior that escalates the rhetorical temperature to a point beyong the 'tipping point' as it were, of thermodynamical stability of 'discourse' - to the extent that such a nebulous construction as 'conversation' can exist at all. This massive conversion of intellectual energy to MetaTalk 'heat' drives forward the Boiling-Over, the Evental Victory of Entropy. While in the end we all must face the howling darkness that underlies 'reality', it is perhaps the sublime duty of sapient consciousness to support the glorious self-deception that Any Of This Matters.
This is what I blame for The Decline, for the Dissipation - for the Heat Death of the Universe . Clear?
posted by freebird at 4:47 PM on April 12, 2004
This is what I blame for The Decline, for the Dissipation - for the Heat Death of the Universe . Clear?
posted by freebird at 4:47 PM on April 12, 2004
y2karl, get your own blog, fuckwit
i'll host it for free, your own subdomain and all the perks. which is not to say your mefi fpp's bug me, quite the opposite.
post and let post, i say.
posted by t r a c y at 4:57 PM on April 12, 2004
i'll host it for free, your own subdomain and all the perks. which is not to say your mefi fpp's bug me, quite the opposite.
post and let post, i say.
posted by t r a c y at 4:57 PM on April 12, 2004
i'll host it for free, your own subdomain and all the perks. which is not to say your mefi fpp's bug me, quite the opposite.
Why, you two-timing...
!!
posted by The God Complex at 5:42 PM on April 12, 2004
Why, you two-timing...
!!
posted by The God Complex at 5:42 PM on April 12, 2004
"do you mean that the average MeFi reader reads every day all of the WP, NYT, Guardian, MSNBC, Time.com and the Christian Science Monitor and *adds a dozen more mainstream media websites*"
Not exactly, but his main links were to WaPo, NyTimes, and HealingIraq (an Iraqi blogger). I do read WaPo, Nytimes, and BBC daily as I think many do. Google news has lots of these items, too. This post was a y2karl IraqFilter of the day post. There've been several posts on the subject of the recent, continuing uprising in Iraq on Metafilter. It's all over the news. Everybody knows about it. Everyone knows where they can find information about it. It's hard not to.
I don't want filtered Iraq news from the major news sources on MetaFilter about a situation that's already been discussed in the past week. A much better filter was done on Jeff Jarvis' site which filtered Iraqi bloggers opinions about the situation. There were even some better links in the thread from y2karl. But links to common sources are lame. Might was well put "Iraq in Chaos. Here are the new articles from WaPo, nytimes, cnn for the extremely lazy. Discuss" How many of those links were even read by those replying? And the best of the web arguement. If people want an indivudal's filter on the day's Iraq news, cool. Like others said, get a weblog.
rant/And please, for the children, will everyone stop copy-n-paste 1/2 of an article instead of a link and a summation. You don't think I'll click on the link so you post it's whole, wordy text here? All it makes me do is skip the post. /rant
posted by superchris at 6:01 PM on April 12, 2004
Not exactly, but his main links were to WaPo, NyTimes, and HealingIraq (an Iraqi blogger). I do read WaPo, Nytimes, and BBC daily as I think many do. Google news has lots of these items, too. This post was a y2karl IraqFilter of the day post. There've been several posts on the subject of the recent, continuing uprising in Iraq on Metafilter. It's all over the news. Everybody knows about it. Everyone knows where they can find information about it. It's hard not to.
I don't want filtered Iraq news from the major news sources on MetaFilter about a situation that's already been discussed in the past week. A much better filter was done on Jeff Jarvis' site which filtered Iraqi bloggers opinions about the situation. There were even some better links in the thread from y2karl. But links to common sources are lame. Might was well put "Iraq in Chaos. Here are the new articles from WaPo, nytimes, cnn for the extremely lazy. Discuss" How many of those links were even read by those replying? And the best of the web arguement. If people want an indivudal's filter on the day's Iraq news, cool. Like others said, get a weblog.
rant/And please, for the children, will everyone stop copy-n-paste 1/2 of an article instead of a link and a summation. You don't think I'll click on the link so you post it's whole, wordy text here? All it makes me do is skip the post. /rant
posted by superchris at 6:01 PM on April 12, 2004
What he ranted.
posted by inpHilltr8r at 6:20 PM on April 12, 2004
posted by inpHilltr8r at 6:20 PM on April 12, 2004
Why, you two-timing...
but, but... i have this empty space, and it needs to be filled. and you said you were too busy with school... yet you expect me to just wait around, leaving my desire to host unfullfilled...? how. dare. you?!
/days of our lives filter
dude, there's still room for you too, offer still stands.
can this thread end now...?
posted by t r a c y at 6:24 PM on April 12, 2004
but, but... i have this empty space, and it needs to be filled. and you said you were too busy with school... yet you expect me to just wait around, leaving my desire to host unfullfilled...? how. dare. you?!
/days of our lives filter
dude, there's still room for you too, offer still stands.
can this thread end now...?
posted by t r a c y at 6:24 PM on April 12, 2004
*gets popcorn as the hourglass shows up on the screen*
drats, do I have to wait until tomorrow to find out what happens now?
posted by dabitch at 6:42 PM on April 12, 2004
drats, do I have to wait until tomorrow to find out what happens now?
posted by dabitch at 6:42 PM on April 12, 2004
I get the feeling that tomorrow will be very much like today. And forever...
posted by i_cola at 6:46 PM on April 12, 2004
posted by i_cola at 6:46 PM on April 12, 2004
drats, do I have to wait until tomorrow to find out what happens now?
samebatmeta-time, same batmeta-channel.
posted by amberglow at 6:48 PM on April 12, 2004
same
posted by amberglow at 6:48 PM on April 12, 2004
but, but... i have this empty space, and it needs to be filled. and you said you were too busy with school... yet you expect me to just wait around, leaving my desire to host unfullfilled...? how. dare. you?!
/days of our lives filter
dude, there's still room for you too, offer still stands.
Yeah, I know. I just like being shrill ;)
posted by The God Complex at 7:01 PM on April 12, 2004
/days of our lives filter
dude, there's still room for you too, offer still stands.
Yeah, I know. I just like being shrill ;)
posted by The God Complex at 7:01 PM on April 12, 2004
i'll host it for free, your own subdomain and all the perks.
I'd pay for a y2karl blog*!
*No, I wouldn't, but I'd sure as heck read it!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:02 PM on April 12, 2004
I'd pay for a y2karl blog*!
*No, I wouldn't, but I'd sure as heck read it!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:02 PM on April 12, 2004
If only there were some way to separate the Sam and Ralph discussion from all this poo-flinging...
Myself I'm still reeling from the revelation that Ralph Wolf is a fictional character. Say it ain't so, Karl!
posted by yhbc at 7:38 PM on April 12, 2004
Myself I'm still reeling from the revelation that Ralph Wolf is a fictional character. Say it ain't so, Karl!
posted by yhbc at 7:38 PM on April 12, 2004
A neighborhood cat brought me a robin once. It didn't have a head.
posted by bargle at 9:28 PM on April 12, 2004
posted by bargle at 9:28 PM on April 12, 2004
I stopped by the side of the road, once, to put a wounded animal out of it's misery.
posted by troutfishing at 9:46 PM on April 12, 2004
posted by troutfishing at 9:46 PM on April 12, 2004
...but kindly reign in your knee-jerk assumption that that makes them a pain in mine as well.
If you say so. Never said such a thing.
You don't run this place, much as you wish you did. So kindly quit bitchen'...
Hah. Ok... you fuckin' knucklehead. I had nothing to add to this particular bitching other than my agreement that y2karl's post was NOT "the best of the web". That's it. Your sarcastic name-calling pie hole has turned it into something else.
...about what you, admittedly, don't read.
I read 3 of the links in his FPP (and one of his comment offerings) before ever seeing them on Metafilter.
posted by Witty at 9:50 PM on April 12, 2004
If you say so. Never said such a thing.
You don't run this place, much as you wish you did. So kindly quit bitchen'...
Hah. Ok... you fuckin' knucklehead. I had nothing to add to this particular bitching other than my agreement that y2karl's post was NOT "the best of the web". That's it. Your sarcastic name-calling pie hole has turned it into something else.
...about what you, admittedly, don't read.
I read 3 of the links in his FPP (and one of his comment offerings) before ever seeing them on Metafilter.
posted by Witty at 9:50 PM on April 12, 2004
I completely support and enjoy y2karl's posts, including this latest. He often posts about the war in Iraq. He obviously is quite interested in the war there and about the ramifications for this country and the world, and there are many here who are interested and concerned as well. It is a monumental, crucial story, immensely worthy of discussion and debate. News and fresh insight into the war in Iraq often IS the very best of the web, given the state of the more traditional media.
As an additional example, I completely support and enjoy hama7's posts. He often posts about photography from the far east. He obviously is interested in the far east, feels it is important from either an esthetic or perhaps spiritual viewpoint, and there are many others here who appreciate his posts. His posts are often sublime, and are a welcome respite from more weighty subjects. They are often the best of the web, just like many Iraq posts.
Some don't care for y2karl's posts, and others don't give a damn about photos from Asia. They click right on by with nary a peep.
Then there are the same tired front page whiners who cannot merely refrain from clicking on those threads which do not interest them. They complain endlessly and pretty ineffectually about posts which offend their politics from good folks like Karl, while strangely ignoring similar single issue, single source posts from good folks like hama7. They hypocritically never mention front page posts quite similar to karl's that they deem politically correct. Many of these same have a curious inability to make good front page posts themselves. They apparently believe that any viewpoint foreign to their own limited experience is "agenda pushing". They seem to fear new ideas. As someone in Karl's thread noted, there seems to be an air of panic among them over recent geopolitical and national events. Many of these same folks lose their tempers when their ideas are challenged factually, and start with the tantrums and the lame "agendafilter" nonsense and the attempted derailments and the name-calling and the stalking and the "[this is shit]" and the "fuck yous". Many would fit right in with the freepers and the little green racistballs.
More of the former two. Fewer of the latter few.
More and more light. Thanks, Karl.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 11:52 PM on April 12, 2004
As an additional example, I completely support and enjoy hama7's posts. He often posts about photography from the far east. He obviously is interested in the far east, feels it is important from either an esthetic or perhaps spiritual viewpoint, and there are many others here who appreciate his posts. His posts are often sublime, and are a welcome respite from more weighty subjects. They are often the best of the web, just like many Iraq posts.
Some don't care for y2karl's posts, and others don't give a damn about photos from Asia. They click right on by with nary a peep.
Then there are the same tired front page whiners who cannot merely refrain from clicking on those threads which do not interest them. They complain endlessly and pretty ineffectually about posts which offend their politics from good folks like Karl, while strangely ignoring similar single issue, single source posts from good folks like hama7. They hypocritically never mention front page posts quite similar to karl's that they deem politically correct. Many of these same have a curious inability to make good front page posts themselves. They apparently believe that any viewpoint foreign to their own limited experience is "agenda pushing". They seem to fear new ideas. As someone in Karl's thread noted, there seems to be an air of panic among them over recent geopolitical and national events. Many of these same folks lose their tempers when their ideas are challenged factually, and start with the tantrums and the lame "agendafilter" nonsense and the attempted derailments and the name-calling and the stalking and the "[this is shit]" and the "fuck yous". Many would fit right in with the freepers and the little green racistballs.
More of the former two. Fewer of the latter few.
More and more light. Thanks, Karl.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 11:52 PM on April 12, 2004
How much effort does it take to scroll past an objectionable post ? - Next to none at all.
The vast number of people on Metafilter do just that - they scroll past. But a few don't and - drawn by some overwhelming compulsion - are pulled in by their obsession with fuming over the mention of all perspectives which are less than flattering to the current US administration or are critical of US foreign policy.
Why do they do it? Why does the chicken cross the road?
I have to conclude that many of those who complain about posts like y2karl's ( which tend to pack in more sheer information, insightful commentary and links to in-depth reporting, than I would get from a month's diet of mainstream media ) have little or no coherent argument or commentary to add to such discussions.
So their criticism of such posts as karl's - which are fantastically rich with good information that comes from many sources and is far from monolithic - amount to an assertion that political posts which disturb their sensibilities should be banned from Metafilter because they are "contentious", and they are in turn contentious exactly because these same critics piss on those threads, like dogs marking territory.
Breathtakingly tautological.
posted by troutfishing at 5:45 AM on April 13, 2004
The vast number of people on Metafilter do just that - they scroll past. But a few don't and - drawn by some overwhelming compulsion - are pulled in by their obsession with fuming over the mention of all perspectives which are less than flattering to the current US administration or are critical of US foreign policy.
Why do they do it? Why does the chicken cross the road?
I have to conclude that many of those who complain about posts like y2karl's ( which tend to pack in more sheer information, insightful commentary and links to in-depth reporting, than I would get from a month's diet of mainstream media ) have little or no coherent argument or commentary to add to such discussions.
So their criticism of such posts as karl's - which are fantastically rich with good information that comes from many sources and is far from monolithic - amount to an assertion that political posts which disturb their sensibilities should be banned from Metafilter because they are "contentious", and they are in turn contentious exactly because these same critics piss on those threads, like dogs marking territory.
Breathtakingly tautological.
posted by troutfishing at 5:45 AM on April 13, 2004
And that's, indeed, a classic bullying tactic ; throw a fit, create a ruckus, stir up the crowd, and then run to the authorities shouting "Look ! It's a riot ! Things are out of control !".
But y2karl demonstrated tremendous reserve in NOT responding to provocations on his thread. He just continued digging up and posting high quality relevant material and disregarded all the pissy canines urinating on the blue.
: in behavior management theory, that's called "planned ignoring".
posted by troutfishing at 5:54 AM on April 13, 2004
But y2karl demonstrated tremendous reserve in NOT responding to provocations on his thread. He just continued digging up and posting high quality relevant material and disregarded all the pissy canines urinating on the blue.
: in behavior management theory, that's called "planned ignoring".
posted by troutfishing at 5:54 AM on April 13, 2004
ah ! todays episode !
posted by sgt.serenity at 6:03 AM on April 13, 2004
posted by sgt.serenity at 6:03 AM on April 13, 2004
Where's the love interest, sgt ? - it went over my head!
But I know it's there. Dramas are nothing without sex.
posted by troutfishing at 6:23 AM on April 13, 2004
But I know it's there. Dramas are nothing without sex.
posted by troutfishing at 6:23 AM on April 13, 2004
Dramas are nothing without reified conflict experienced vicariously to provide a simulacra of catharthis. The wild rhetoric by the People On The Wrong Side of the NewsFilter debate amply demonstrates the seductive power of a set of semantic "ideals" or "rules" and a place to vigorously espouse them to create an illusion of participatory engagement.
Damn those People In The Wrong! Damn them and their entropic paradigm!
posted by freebird at 8:20 AM on April 13, 2004
Damn those People In The Wrong! Damn them and their entropic paradigm!
posted by freebird at 8:20 AM on April 13, 2004
Fact: Even hoovering snow at the rate of ten ounces a minute, 9 out of 10 polar bears are unable to come up with one decent comment to this thread.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 8:41 AM on April 13, 2004
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
AND THE GOVERNMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
ON THE CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT
OF THE ALASKA-CHUKOTKA POLAR BEAR POPULATION
posted by clavdivs at 9:43 AM on April 13, 2004
AND THE GOVERNMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
ON THE CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT
OF THE ALASKA-CHUKOTKA POLAR BEAR POPULATION
posted by clavdivs at 9:43 AM on April 13, 2004
Oh come on Miguel - don't I get any points for squeezing in the "heat death of the universe", the "glorious self-deception that Any Of This Matters", and a "simulacra of catharthis"? I think someone even thought I was concerned with the ridiculous "What's Killing Metafilter" issue.
But I've always been the asiyriy polar bear.
posted by freebird at 10:22 AM on April 13, 2004
But I've always been the asiyriy polar bear.
posted by freebird at 10:22 AM on April 13, 2004
So, what happened to Warfilter anyway? I'd be willing to host it if no one else wants to.
posted by moonbiter at 11:10 AM on April 13, 2004
posted by moonbiter at 11:10 AM on April 13, 2004
:: hands freebird one million bonus points for the use of "heat death", which besides being intrinsically excellent, carries great personal nostalgia value as well ::
Though the word "hoovering" is also wonderful.
posted by furiousthought at 12:24 PM on April 13, 2004
Though the word "hoovering" is also wonderful.
posted by furiousthought at 12:24 PM on April 13, 2004
Where's the love interest, sgt ? - it went over my head!
I'm pregnant with palegirls child , happy now ?
posted by sgt.serenity at 7:18 PM on April 13, 2004
I'm pregnant with palegirls child , happy now ?
posted by sgt.serenity at 7:18 PM on April 13, 2004
Well, you got yours now, don't you.....
while the rest of us wander in a wasteland, bereft.
( actually, yes - I am. smart, sensitive people must breed now. like rabbits! )
posted by troutfishing at 8:47 PM on April 15, 2004
while the rest of us wander in a wasteland, bereft.
( actually, yes - I am. smart, sensitive people must breed now. like rabbits! )
posted by troutfishing at 8:47 PM on April 15, 2004
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by specialk420 at 10:47 PM on April 11, 2004