If you have to update, please do it in one comment February 18, 2005 8:53 AM   Subscribe


Itchy mouse finger?
posted by DrJohnEvans at 8:55 AM on February 18, 2005


i really wish crunchland would take his chill pill every morning, instead of dribbling them out over several!
posted by quonsar at 9:00 AM on February 18, 2005


well, that sure was clever.
posted by crunchland at 9:02 AM on February 18, 2005


crunchland, in that case, it's better to post new information and results as soon as they come in instead of one large post. It lets us readers follow along and get information as it happens. This is Standard Operation Procedure for the MeFi detective squad as far as I know.
posted by nixerman at 9:12 AM on February 18, 2005


”it's better to post new information and results as soon as they come in instead of one large post. It lets us readers follow along and get information as it happens."
posted by Bugbread at 9:15 AM on February 18, 2005


we're just updating as we hear of new developments--is it really a problem? i think we make a good tagteam, and it's cool to read thru the whole thing and see how and when things are being disseminated. It's not like we're posting new FPPs each time.

(and i'm not so sure anyone except us is following along anyway.)
posted by amberglow at 9:16 AM on February 18, 2005


Is this call out for real?
posted by AlexReynolds at 9:22 AM on February 18, 2005


He's obviously padding his posting stats so he can win the "MetaFilter Major Award."

'Cuz that's what I would do if I had a quicker mouse finger.

(I'm following, amberglow. Schadenfreude makes me all tingly.)
posted by Floydd at 9:25 AM on February 18, 2005


Is this call out for real?

Man, is any of this real?
*Deeeeep inhale. Holds for a few seconds. Exhales slowly, lets out small cough*
posted by Quartermass at 9:30 AM on February 18, 2005


Man, is any of this real?

Nothing is real.

And nothing to get hung about.
posted by jonmc at 9:34 AM on February 18, 2005


(I'm following, amberglow. Schadenfreude makes me all tingly.)

I know an ex-gym teacher, ex-reporter, ex-marine... with at least 2 names, who can take care of that for you, if Rove isn't keeping him too busy, Floydd. ; >
posted by amberglow at 9:36 AM on February 18, 2005


I'm following.
posted by taz at 9:40 AM on February 18, 2005


Yeah, there's plenty of us following, keep it up.

crunchland, your point would be valid if there was some argument about something non-breaking, and one person was five-and-diming all their links. But when a story is breaking, you don't have the links that you haven't found yet until you get to them (or until they actually appear). Then you add 'em. Pretty simple.
posted by soyjoy at 9:44 AM on February 18, 2005


I am one who is following the thread (I really don't have time to check out all these various sites, but find the whole case bizarre and interesting) and I don't mind the several posts vs. one post. In some ways it makes it easier to read.
posted by chaz at 9:49 AM on February 18, 2005


Please keep in mind that every time you post a pointless MeTa call out, you're knocking another pointless callout a potentially worthwhile thread off the front page. It's rare for something to be around for even two full days now.
posted by anapestic at 9:55 AM on February 18, 2005


look ... if I'm the only one bugged by it, I'll accept it. In the case of this guy pretending to be a reporter, I have no qualms about the new information being posted -- in fact, I look forward to it, but I don't see why it's being posted as separate messages, one minute apart.
posted by crunchland at 10:16 AM on February 18, 2005


Wait, what are you complaining about, exactly? Someone posting too many comments in a single message?

If you're going to split hairs, you could maybe apply the GYOB principle, but jeez...

- It's a big story, and ericb and amberglow have done an excellent job of assembling relevant links as they appeared.

- It doesn't affect any other FPP's.

- Priorities, man, priorities.
posted by mkultra at 10:17 AM on February 18, 2005


It's such a big story, it's pulling other scandals into its orbit (besides Plame)--that Dan Rather thing's involved now too.
posted by amberglow at 10:27 AM on February 18, 2005


I don't see why it's being posted as separate messages, one minute apart.

I thought I explained that. What part didn't you understand?
posted by soyjoy at 10:35 AM on February 18, 2005


The part that explains why you have to be such an asshole about it.
posted by crunchland at 10:47 AM on February 18, 2005


Um, "the part that explains why you have to be such an asshole about it" is not a part of "why it's being posted as separate messages, one minute apart."

That's like saying
A: "How do you turn on the TV?"
B: "Push the on button, asshole"
A: "I still don't understand how to turn it on."
B: "What part don't you understand?"
A: "The part where you have to be an asshole about it"

Being an asshole is not part of turning on the TV. Person B may or may not be an asshole, but it makes absolutely no sense for person A to say "I still don't understand how to turn it on" if they now do know how to turn it on.

So, simple question: Do you or do you not now understand why the messages are being posted the way they are? Not how people are responding, not who likes you or who doesn't, not who you like or who you don't, and not what you had for breakfast; the reason the messages are being posted the way they are.
posted by Bugbread at 10:55 AM on February 18, 2005


BWAHAHAHA! WHO CALLED IT OUT?!?!?!?!
posted by quonsar at 10:55 AM on February 18, 2005


TAKE THE PILL, CRUNCH!
posted by quonsar at 10:56 AM on February 18, 2005


I've noticed that when people start a weak MeTa post, and a number of people point out just how weak it is, the poster reacts in one of three ways:

1. Apologizing and shutting up.
2. Shutting up without bothering to apologize.
3. The wounded ferret approach; i.e., biting, kicking, and screaming because someone has dared to point out that the post is worthless.

Of course, it's best if people just avoid weak posts, but what's done is done, and either response 1. or 2. works to end the insanity as quickly as possible. Approach 3. seems to be more common, alas.
posted by anapestic at 11:08 AM on February 18, 2005


I'm following the thread too. Thanks for the research, guys, and for keeping it in the still-open thread, even though it must be tempting to post a fourth (?) Gannon FPP sometimes. This story just keeps getting weirder by the hour.
posted by obloquy at 11:31 AM on February 18, 2005


Look. If ericb is finding all these links within seconds of each other, and is also managing to make a new post for metafilter, all within seconds of each other, which is the explaination that soyjoy suggested, then I guess I can't really complain. I don't think that's the case, though.

Apparently no one else is annoyed when the thread pops up with 5 new replies, and they click on it and see that they are five one-link messages from ericb.

As for the rest, go fuck yourselves.
posted by crunchland at 11:52 AM on February 18, 2005


rushmc was notorious for this type of posting. Annoyed the hell out of me, but not enough to call him out on it. Save up your comments and make one good comment. 5 one-liners in a thread (as a general, non-specific example) gets annoying pretty quick.
posted by BlueTrain at 11:56 AM on February 18, 2005 [1 favorite]


To clarify my example, I oppose one-liners that don't have links. I'm pretty apathetic towards one-line links because this place really is about the links, IMHO.
posted by BlueTrain at 12:08 PM on February 18, 2005


I posts thems as I finds thems.
posted by ericb at 12:16 PM on February 18, 2005


The part that explains why you have to be such an asshole about it.

Ah. Sorry for leaving that out. That was necessary in order to convey to you what an idiot you are for posting yet another pointless MeTa callout where your grievance is that on a 200+-comment thread stretching over three days of bombshell information brought to us through dozens of new links right as information emerged, ericb posted a handful of comments within 60 seconds of each other.

See? That's kind of convoluted, so I went for the other option. Chacun a son gout, I guess.
posted by soyjoy at 12:18 PM on February 18, 2005


The reason for my adding the convention [Source | Date] at the end of most of my posts is to helps me - and, hopefully, others follow the chornology of events.

Oops. Should I have posted this in my post above? Sorry.
posted by ericb at 12:21 PM on February 18, 2005


*is to help*

Damn ... that should have been in my previous post.
posted by ericb at 12:22 PM on February 18, 2005


Hey, ericb, you don't have to be an asshole about it.

I got that covered!

posted by soyjoy at 12:25 PM on February 18, 2005


I don't see why it's being posted as separate messages, one minute apart.

Ah, that was because I had captured new developments while MetaFilter was down. When I finally could access the site again ... I posted them sequentially. Point taken ... I could have made one meta-post, but I felt that keeping distinct comments separate would make it easier to read.
posted by ericb at 12:28 PM on February 18, 2005


Hey, ericb, you don't have to be an asshole about it.

Not meant to be an asshole, but my attempt at humor obviously failed.
posted by ericb at 12:33 PM on February 18, 2005


So did mine. Let's go grab a beer.
posted by soyjoy at 12:39 PM on February 18, 2005


I felt that keeping distinct comments separate would make it easier to read.

It does. Thanks.
posted by Bugbread at 12:47 PM on February 18, 2005


I can't believe this thread exists.
posted by ZippityBuddha at 12:50 PM on February 18, 2005


I really can't.
posted by ZippityBuddha at 12:50 PM on February 18, 2005


I could understand it if it was about poeple correcting their spelling.
posted by ZippityBuddha at 12:51 PM on February 18, 2005


People, I mean.
posted by ZippityBuddha at 12:51 PM on February 18, 2005


But it isn't.
posted by ZippityBuddha at 12:52 PM on February 18, 2005


Bloody hell.
posted by ZippityBuddha at 12:52 PM on February 18, 2005


What a waste of resources.
posted by ZippityBuddha at 12:52 PM on February 18, 2005


I, too, would like to know why everyone can't just collect their thoughts throughout the day on each post, and submit their findings as an essay (pdf would also be acceptable) to a P.O. box where they'll be scanned in and attached neatly to the thread a week later. I think this is perfectly reasonable.

Oh, and everyone should also be omniscient, so they can know what new information they ought include in their text before it happens.
posted by odinsdream at 1:14 PM on February 18, 2005


Crunchland had a question and an opinion, and brought it here, which is supposed to be the place to discuss this sort of thing; when it became clear that most disagreed with his opinion, he said look ... if I'm the only one bugged by it, I'll accept it.

That all seems reasonable to me. I'm afraid I don't really get the whole animosity thing.
posted by taz at 1:56 PM on February 18, 2005


I'm afraid I don't really get the whole animosity thing.

I think the "go fuck yourselves" part might explain some of it.
posted by AlexReynolds at 2:05 PM on February 18, 2005


Also, the bit where he said, "Why are folks posting this way", and people answered "Because of X, Y, and Z", and he responded, "I still don't understand why people are posting this way".
posted by Bugbread at 2:25 PM on February 18, 2005


I think the "go fuck yourselves" part might explain some of it.

Yes, not so good β€” but it came after continued jabbing. It seems to me that a lot of people post questions on MeTa and become automatic targets for random aggression, and that this is one element of what is turning the site into a bizarro-world of deletions and thread-closings.

At the heart of all that is wrong at mefi these days is an odd, rampaging, MadMax meanness that has precipitated a kind of site-wide "martial law", and I can't even wholeheartedly argue against the heavy hand when there are so many examples of gratuitous attacks.
posted by taz at 2:28 PM on February 18, 2005


This just in: crunchland (of crunchland) upset about multiple posts. More to follow...
posted by graventy at 2:30 PM on February 18, 2005


An update: most folks don't give a damn.
(source MeTa)
posted by graventy at 2:30 PM on February 18, 2005


Shit. Sorry. Should've put those as just one post. My bad.
posted by graventy at 2:30 PM on February 18, 2005


I don't have any animosity towards crunchland. I like the guy. I was just being a fool. And drunk.
posted by ZippityBuddha at 2:33 PM on February 18, 2005


That all seems reasonable to me. I'm afraid I don't really get the whole animosity thing.

The animosity started after his asshole comment. Before that, people were expressing their belief that the thread was pointless. If you're not willing to be told that your thread is worthless, you shouldn't be complaining about someone else's behavior.

Take a look at the front page of MetaTalk. Now scroll down to the posts that are three days old. You can't, without going to the archives, because they've been pushed off. MeTa space is a scarce resource, and when you post drivel on it, more worthwhile posts are lost. There have been many, many posts of, let's be generous, marginal worth lately. We should have fewer of them.
posted by anapestic at 2:37 PM on February 18, 2005


MeTa space is a scarce resource, and when you post drivel on it, more worthwhile posts are lost. There have been many, many posts of, let's be generous, marginal worth lately. We should have fewer of them.

I just wanted to see that in bold italics.
posted by languagehat at 2:42 PM on February 18, 2005


Because it's so fucking true.
posted by languagehat at 2:43 PM on February 18, 2005


Shit. Sorry. Should've put those as just one post. My bad.
posted by languagehat at 2:43 PM on February 18, 2005


I think crunchland probably gets it by now. Not sure why the piling on is required.
posted by justgary at 3:16 PM on February 18, 2005


Maybe it's a response to the "go fuck yourselves."
posted by anapestic at 3:30 PM on February 18, 2005


Yes, not so good β€” but it came after continued jabbing.

Not really. I metasummarized the posts up to the asshole call (and I'm not trying to pile up on crunchland or anything, so I tried to be fair, and err on crunchland's side if anywhere):

Initial post
posted by crunchland to bugs at 8:53 AM PST

Joke
posted by DrJohnEvans at 8:55 AM PST on February 18

Snark
posted by quonsar at 9:00 AM PST on February 18

Level response to snark
posted by crunchland at 9:02 AM PST on February 18

Answer
posted by nixerman at 9:12 AM PST on February 18

Agreement with answer
posted by bugbread at 9:15 AM PST on February 18

Answer
posted by amberglow at 9:16 AM PST on February 18

Possible snark
posted by AlexReynolds at 9:22 AM PST on February 18

Joke
posted by Floydd at 9:25 AM PST on February 18

Joke
posted by Quartermass at 9:30 AM PST on February 18

Joke
posted by jonmc at 9:34 AM PST on February 18

Joke, I think
posted by amberglow at 9:36 AM PST on February 18

Support for posting style
posted by taz at 9:40 AM PST on February 18

Answer
posted by soyjoy at 9:44 AM PST on February 18

Support for posting style
posted by chaz at 9:49 AM PST on February 18

First callout of this callout as being a bad callout
posted by anapestic at 9:55 AM PST on February 18

Response that he still doesn't know why it's being done
posted by crunchland at 10:16 AM PST on February 18

Answer, but with less patience
posted by mkultra at 10:17 AM PST on February 18

Answer
posted by amberglow at 10:27 AM PST on February 18

Possibly snarky response to Crunchland saying he still doesn't understand.
posted by soyjoy at 10:35 AM PST on February 18

Says soyjoy is being an asshole
posted by crunchland at 10:47 AM PST on February 18
posted by Bugbread at 3:31 PM on February 18, 2005


Possible snark
posted by AlexReynolds at 9:22 AM PST on February 18


More like a "bad callout" callout. Thanks.
posted by AlexReynolds at 3:34 PM on February 18, 2005


But if your possible snark was really a " 'bad callout' callout," then it must follow (as the night the day) that my "first callout" was, indeed, a second callout, and I insist upon being first in all things.
posted by anapestic at 3:38 PM on February 18, 2005


In that case, I yield the floor to Senator Anapestic. Make mine a snark.
posted by AlexReynolds at 3:43 PM on February 18, 2005


How about making it a "calling out of the post", in which case you get first calling out and anapestic gets first callout?

I wouldn't want to accuse you of snarking if you weren't snarking (and vice versa), and I'm a very "reality oriented" kinda guy.
posted by Bugbread at 3:46 PM on February 18, 2005


Are you analyzing the anazlying of a metatalk thread? A Metatalk thread?! Sheer Metageekery.
posted by graventy at 3:55 PM on February 18, 2005


somebody said:"It seems to me that a lot of people post questions on MeTa and become automatic targets for random aggression..."

Uh, there's kind of an obvious solution for this.

Not that I don't agree with you, but you gotta admit they bring it on themselves and it's some damn good fun watching their organs melt and shit. I heard a guy cut his arm off once... well, maybe it was only a hand and snopes has nothing... but it couldda happened.
posted by cedar at 4:15 PM on February 18, 2005


I think the tree works like this:

Real world something
   |_ Website about said thing
           |_Metafilter discussion about website
                  |_ Metatalk discussion about metafilter discussion
                          |_ Metametatalk discussion about metatalk discussion

So we're about 4 levels removed from anything remotely real.
posted by Bugbread at 4:17 PM on February 18, 2005


And i wasn't joking with my first response--i didn't know people were really all still following it. : >
posted by amberglow at 4:18 PM on February 18, 2005


I take that back. We started talking about this metatalk discussion, and then I started talking about this discussion about the metatalk discussion, so it becomes:

Real world something
   |_ Website about said thing
           |_Metafilter discussion about website
                   |_ Metatalk discussion about metafilter discussion
                           |_ Metametatalk discussion about metatalk discussion
                                   |_ Metametametatalk discussion about metametatalk discussion

I'm rapidly approaching another plane of existence.
posted by Bugbread at 4:31 PM on February 18, 2005


Possible snark.

That's my favourite new phrase.
posted by dhruva at 7:14 PM on February 18, 2005


I'm rapidly approaching another plane of existence.

That's when you've entered the Hasselhoff Recursion, where space and time cease to have any meaning.
posted by AlexReynolds at 8:12 PM on February 18, 2005


Wait, there ISN'T a "MetaFilter Major Award??"
posted by Floydd at 9:35 PM on February 18, 2005


I have actually been wanting to say the opposite. ericb and amberglow have done a great job keeping a thread alive. Some of us (read me, gesamtkunstwerk) have just been using it as a place to vent. But ericb and amberglow are consistently adding new information. They are finding more than my Google alerts.

I would have a serious problem if they kept making FPP on the same topic with tiny variations. Instead they are adding information as the thread gets stale. If you don't like the thread, fine. Skim or ignore. IMHO they are doing a great job.
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 1:28 PM on February 19, 2005


« Older Poetic FFP screening.   |   Someone links me in their profile as an... Newer »

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