Can we continue posts about to be archived? March 1, 2005 10:16 AM Subscribe
The post regarding Gannongate, started on February 14th, now has close to 600 comments. I appreciate how it has been kept current by faithful posters, but I'm afraid it's going to fall off the edge of Metafilter into the Archive. What's the proper thing to do with a thread that continues to attract posts two weeks after its initial appearance?
As mentioned before, the Philadelphia Inquirer piece is perhaps a good FPP, as it marks a transition from previous op/ed coverage to the main news section.
I'd advise doing this quickly, before the Inky page goes into its paid archives.
posted by AlexReynolds at 10:29 AM on March 1, 2005
I'd advise doing this quickly, before the Inky page goes into its paid archives.
posted by AlexReynolds at 10:29 AM on March 1, 2005
What's the proper thing to do with a thread that continues to attract posts two weeks after its initial appearance?
Move it to a blog site with a comments section so the remaining 0.5% of MeFites still obsessing over Gannongate can post all they want. Everyone wins.
posted by dhoyt at 11:11 AM on March 1, 2005
Move it to a blog site with a comments section so the remaining 0.5% of MeFites still obsessing over Gannongate can post all they want. Everyone wins.
posted by dhoyt at 11:11 AM on March 1, 2005
Why... start a new thread, of course!
This should have been posted by Witty
posted by shawnj at 11:35 AM on March 1, 2005
This should have been posted by Witty
posted by shawnj at 11:35 AM on March 1, 2005
i love it how people who don't want to hear criticism of this administration think it should die or be moved offsite. too typical, and it shows how much of a big deal this Gannon/Guckert/GOP Whore thing really is.
posted by amberglow at 11:42 AM on March 1, 2005
posted by amberglow at 11:42 AM on March 1, 2005
It should be moved offsite because it's been discussed ad nauseum and because MeFi doesn't exist as a platform for every pet news story you favor just because you and ten other people favor it. Stop creating neocon boogeymen out of anyone who disagrees with you. Desiring for it to GIOFB (Get It's Own Fucking Blog) instead of cluttering the homepage "shows how much of a big deal this Gannon/Guckert/GOP Whore thing really is"? That's delusional, amberglow.
posted by dhoyt at 11:50 AM on March 1, 2005
posted by dhoyt at 11:50 AM on March 1, 2005
i love it how amberglow thinks he's sticking it to the man.
posted by andrew cooke at 11:54 AM on March 1, 2005
posted by andrew cooke at 11:54 AM on March 1, 2005
nah, it's news, a scandal, illegal activity, a telling indictment of the state of the government, the media, and you guys--all at once.
People don't call for the removal of stuff elsewhere unless there's a reason--your reason is that it's my pet story, right? bullshit.
posted by amberglow at 12:05 PM on March 1, 2005
People don't call for the removal of stuff elsewhere unless there's a reason--your reason is that it's my pet story, right? bullshit.
posted by amberglow at 12:05 PM on March 1, 2005
I think it already has its own blog.
And, although I don't personally have any interest in this NewsFilter or see why it deserves yet another FPP, I'm sure it's possible to scroll right past one if it gets posted. I appreciate that we aren't getting a new post every day on the subject, though.
posted by casu marzu at 12:06 PM on March 1, 2005
And, although I don't personally have any interest in this NewsFilter or see why it deserves yet another FPP, I'm sure it's possible to scroll right past one if it gets posted. I appreciate that we aren't getting a new post every day on the subject, though.
posted by casu marzu at 12:06 PM on March 1, 2005
I don't know about anyone else, but I've been relying on that thread for info re: the scandal.
We've had threads go on longer than this, and yet... the earth has not split asunder!
posted by sonofsamiam at 12:18 PM on March 1, 2005
We've had threads go on longer than this, and yet... the earth has not split asunder!
posted by sonofsamiam at 12:18 PM on March 1, 2005
People don't call for the removal of stuff elsewhere unless there's a reason
No one "called for its removal." Can the drama.
Trii asked "what's the proper" thing to do with a thread like that, and I made a practical suggestion: create a separate blog for it so Matt's bandwidth doesn't suffer—and the frontpage quality doesn't suffer—from the obsessions of a few. Stop assigning insidious intent to every idea that conflicts with your own, and suck it up: MeFi isn't your personal blog.
posted by dhoyt at 12:24 PM on March 1, 2005
No one "called for its removal." Can the drama.
Trii asked "what's the proper" thing to do with a thread like that, and I made a practical suggestion: create a separate blog for it so Matt's bandwidth doesn't suffer—and the frontpage quality doesn't suffer—from the obsessions of a few. Stop assigning insidious intent to every idea that conflicts with your own, and suck it up: MeFi isn't your personal blog.
posted by dhoyt at 12:24 PM on March 1, 2005
When it comes to dhoyt's hatred of any subject left of right of center, Don't Feed The Troll.
posted by AlexReynolds at 12:25 PM on March 1, 2005
posted by AlexReynolds at 12:25 PM on March 1, 2005
It should be moved offsite...- dhoyt.
Really? When it gets to 30 days, it is archived (aka automatically closed). That is what will, and should, happen.
Why do you want to uniquely push a post still receiving comments from memebers of this site.. somewhere else?
Weird.
/shrugs
posted by dash_slot- at 2:06 PM on March 1, 2005
Really? When it gets to 30 days, it is archived (aka automatically closed). That is what will, and should, happen.
Why do you want to uniquely push a post still receiving comments from memebers of this site.. somewhere else?
Weird.
/shrugs
posted by dash_slot- at 2:06 PM on March 1, 2005
Nothing should be done. It was a link like any other link. Once it passes a certain time limit, it's archived like any other link. Why should this one be any different?
I generally don't believe in mefi's golden age, but there was a time when metafilter was accepted for what it was, and no attempts were made to twist it's purpose into something larger.
The ones who are still there can email each other, or phone each other, or create a site dedicated to the topic. Lot's of options. Keeping it past any other link is not.
posted by justgary at 2:12 PM on March 1, 2005
I generally don't believe in mefi's golden age, but there was a time when metafilter was accepted for what it was, and no attempts were made to twist it's purpose into something larger.
The ones who are still there can email each other, or phone each other, or create a site dedicated to the topic. Lot's of options. Keeping it past any other link is not.
posted by justgary at 2:12 PM on March 1, 2005
I think dhoyt meant that if the thread needs special treatment, it should get it offsite. And while I disagree with virtually everything he says politically, he is exactly right in this case.
On preview, what justgary said. Without the apostrophe in lots.
posted by mzurer at 2:20 PM on March 1, 2005
On preview, what justgary said. Without the apostrophe in lots.
posted by mzurer at 2:20 PM on March 1, 2005
Why do you want to uniquely push a post still receiving comments from memebers of this site.. somewhere else?
Some of you are intentionally making this difficult.
My suggestion was that if the page is getting looooong, and the reloads are driving up bandwidth, and since no one but 10 people knows/cares where the thread is anyway--why not create a NEW area for NEW discussion elsewhere if it means that much.
My guess is that some of you know it's a perfectly practical idea but would prefer to strike an I'm-So-Persecuted pose. If counter-opinions weren't wanted, the poster would've just emailed Matt rather than starting this thread.
If anyone has been around long enough to remember the Kaycee Nicole post, you'll also remember that it was moved to a Yahoo forum for the reasons stated above—not because teh evil neoconz were trying to suppress it.
posted by dhoyt at 2:20 PM on March 1, 2005
Some of you are intentionally making this difficult.
My suggestion was that if the page is getting looooong, and the reloads are driving up bandwidth, and since no one but 10 people knows/cares where the thread is anyway--why not create a NEW area for NEW discussion elsewhere if it means that much.
My guess is that some of you know it's a perfectly practical idea but would prefer to strike an I'm-So-Persecuted pose. If counter-opinions weren't wanted, the poster would've just emailed Matt rather than starting this thread.
If anyone has been around long enough to remember the Kaycee Nicole post, you'll also remember that it was moved to a Yahoo forum for the reasons stated above—not because teh evil neoconz were trying to suppress it.
posted by dhoyt at 2:20 PM on March 1, 2005
dhoyt's delusional to think that only the people adding links on that thread are checking it, as other Meta threads have made clear. And yeah, the Polman piece might have made a nice FPP with a couple other recent developments (e.g. Jeff's blog) thrown in. But as it is, keep it going until archived. If there's still interesting stuff coming out at that point, a new FPP should and will be posted.
posted by soyjoy at 2:21 PM on March 1, 2005
posted by soyjoy at 2:21 PM on March 1, 2005
Trii asked "what's the proper" thing to do with a thread like that, and I made a practical suggestion: create a separate blog for it so Matt's bandwidth doesn't suffer—and the frontpage quality doesn't suffer—from the obsessions of a few.
dhoyt's idea is terrible, but there is a very reasonable means by which to reduce bandwidth consumption - pages of 50 comments, with little links using a single number for text so that you can jump to any page. Just about every other message board out there has this feature for exactly this reason.
posted by Ryvar at 2:26 PM on March 1, 2005
dhoyt's idea is terrible, but there is a very reasonable means by which to reduce bandwidth consumption - pages of 50 comments, with little links using a single number for text so that you can jump to any page. Just about every other message board out there has this feature for exactly this reason.
posted by Ryvar at 2:26 PM on March 1, 2005
BTW....................... Here's a Link to the Post in Question.
(Don't mind me, I'm just sick of having to go find that crunchland MeTa thread to jump from every day.)
posted by soyjoy at 2:27 PM on March 1, 2005
(Don't mind me, I'm just sick of having to go find that crunchland MeTa thread to jump from every day.)
posted by soyjoy at 2:27 PM on March 1, 2005
My suggestion was that if the page is getting looooong, and the reloads are driving up bandwidth, and since no one but 10 people knows/cares where the thread is anyway--why not create a NEW area for NEW discussion elsewhere if it means that much.
According to you, everyone was discussing it ad nauseum. Make up your mind.
...not because teh evil neoconz were trying to suppress it.
You sound like someone striking an I'm-So-Persecuted pose; the irony is juicy. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.
posted by AlexReynolds at 2:34 PM on March 1, 2005
According to you, everyone was discussing it ad nauseum. Make up your mind.
...not because teh evil neoconz were trying to suppress it.
You sound like someone striking an I'm-So-Persecuted pose; the irony is juicy. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.
posted by AlexReynolds at 2:34 PM on March 1, 2005
create a separate blog for it so Matt's bandwidth doesn't suffer
you're so considerate.
too bad Gannon didn't work for the UN right?
posted by matteo at 2:51 PM on March 1, 2005
you're so considerate.
too bad Gannon didn't work for the UN right?
posted by matteo at 2:51 PM on March 1, 2005
> too bad Gannon didn't work for the UN right?
Oh matteo, you are on my side after all. Look, let's go sign up for our blue helmets together, shall we? I hear Burundi's especially... hot... this time of year.
posted by jfuller at 4:27 PM on March 1, 2005
Oh matteo, you are on my side after all. Look, let's go sign up for our blue helmets together, shall we? I hear Burundi's especially... hot... this time of year.
posted by jfuller at 4:27 PM on March 1, 2005
I understand what you're saying dhoyt, fwiw.
Why... start a new thread, of course!
This should have been posted by Witty
posted by shawnj at 11:35 AM PST on March 1 [!]
Ok... I've tried several times to "get it". But I just don't.
posted by Witty at 5:48 PM on March 1, 2005
Why... start a new thread, of course!
This should have been posted by Witty
posted by shawnj at 11:35 AM PST on March 1 [!]
Ok... I've tried several times to "get it". But I just don't.
posted by Witty at 5:48 PM on March 1, 2005
How much bandwidth does the gannon thread really use, compared to one that has, say, a couple pix in it?
Anyway, why not just start a new thread on gannon on the FP?
Or, with that many posts, why not a new gannon thread on the FP on a daily, nay, hourly basis?
posted by telstar at 6:00 PM on March 1, 2005
Anyway, why not just start a new thread on gannon on the FP?
Or, with that many posts, why not a new gannon thread on the FP on a daily, nay, hourly basis?
posted by telstar at 6:00 PM on March 1, 2005
What's Gannongate? New Zelda game or something? Is it as important as that N64 one? Should I look into this?
posted by Kleptophoria! at 6:17 PM on March 1, 2005
posted by Kleptophoria! at 6:17 PM on March 1, 2005
How much bandwidth does the gannon thread really use, compared to one that has, say, a couple pix in it?
Heh. dhoyt, you've done yourself up in knots nicely here. Can't wait to see what you do next to justify your desire to shut down an ongoing discussion well within the bounds of MeFi's guidelines.
posted by mediareport at 6:54 PM on March 1, 2005
Heh. dhoyt, you've done yourself up in knots nicely here. Can't wait to see what you do next to justify your desire to shut down an ongoing discussion well within the bounds of MeFi's guidelines.
posted by mediareport at 6:54 PM on March 1, 2005
Isn't dhoyt suggesting that when the post closes after 30 days (or whatever it is) that the continuing conversation could be "moved" elsewhere for those that would still like to participate (rather than posting a new FPP for the sole purpose of extending the archived coversation)?
posted by Witty at 7:07 PM on March 1, 2005
posted by Witty at 7:07 PM on March 1, 2005
Isn't dhoyt suggesting that when the post closes after 30 days (or whatever it is) that the continuing conversation could be "moved" elsewhere for those that would still like to participate (rather than posting a new FPP for the sole purpose of extending the archived coversation)?
No, he's suggesting that we shouldn't discuss Gannon on MeFi because it doesn't agree with his politics.
posted by AlexReynolds at 7:16 PM on March 1, 2005
No, he's suggesting that we shouldn't discuss Gannon on MeFi because it doesn't agree with his politics.
posted by AlexReynolds at 7:16 PM on March 1, 2005
I'll remember next time, thanks.
posted by AlexReynolds at 7:26 PM on March 1, 2005
posted by AlexReynolds at 7:26 PM on March 1, 2005
Isn't dhoyt suggesting that when the post closes after 30 days (or whatever it is) that the continuing conversation could be "moved" elsewhere for those that would still like to participate
Right. What he was saying isn't a terrible idea—if the page hits 30 days, just move the discussion to a blog site. You could even copy the old source code there to keep it all in one place. I don't see evidence that he's calling for the thread's deletion or desiring to "shut down an ongoing discussion well within the bounds of MeFi's guidelines."
As much as I continue seeking information on the Indonesian tsunami, for instance—a topic incrementally more important than the Gannon affair—I realize that Metafilter's frontpage is not the proper venue to repeatedly post on that same topic.
posted by jenleigh at 7:59 PM on March 1, 2005
Right. What he was saying isn't a terrible idea—if the page hits 30 days, just move the discussion to a blog site. You could even copy the old source code there to keep it all in one place. I don't see evidence that he's calling for the thread's deletion or desiring to "shut down an ongoing discussion well within the bounds of MeFi's guidelines."
As much as I continue seeking information on the Indonesian tsunami, for instance—a topic incrementally more important than the Gannon affair—I realize that Metafilter's frontpage is not the proper venue to repeatedly post on that same topic.
posted by jenleigh at 7:59 PM on March 1, 2005
No, he's suggesting that we shouldn't discuss Gannon on MeFi because it doesn't agree with his politics.
I'm reluctant to revisit it, but your comments are giving me flashbacks from The Thread Which Shall Not be Named. The scenario goes like this:
dhoyt: You're taking something I said, placing your own definition on it, and deliberately twisting it around to make my comments look sinister. Then you're placing your hands over your ears and humming.
AlexReynolds: No, I'm not! I have telepathy, I know what you meant!
*hums*
In a very short time, you've converted prissy obstinance into an art form.
posted by dhoyt at 8:25 PM on March 1, 2005
I'm reluctant to revisit it, but your comments are giving me flashbacks from The Thread Which Shall Not be Named. The scenario goes like this:
dhoyt: You're taking something I said, placing your own definition on it, and deliberately twisting it around to make my comments look sinister. Then you're placing your hands over your ears and humming.
AlexReynolds: No, I'm not! I have telepathy, I know what you meant!
*hums*
In a very short time, you've converted prissy obstinance into an art form.
posted by dhoyt at 8:25 PM on March 1, 2005
this MeTa thread shows that it's not just a few people. and when the original thread is expired--(which the one in question isn't, actuallly), then i'll post a new one.
Why should something be moved offsite? Give us a rational reason. Does it affect how the site loads? no. Is it cluttering up the front page? no. Is it in any way affecting how people (members or not) view the site? no.
posted by amberglow at 8:35 PM on March 1, 2005
Why should something be moved offsite? Give us a rational reason. Does it affect how the site loads? no. Is it cluttering up the front page? no. Is it in any way affecting how people (members or not) view the site? no.
posted by amberglow at 8:35 PM on March 1, 2005
and dhoyt, don't attack Alex for something i said earlier. prove that it's not worthy of being here. We're waiting...
posted by amberglow at 8:45 PM on March 1, 2005
posted by amberglow at 8:45 PM on March 1, 2005
What's Gannongate? New Zelda game or something?
Klepto, you just made my evening.
posted by LairBob at 8:53 PM on March 1, 2005
Klepto, you just made my evening.
posted by LairBob at 8:53 PM on March 1, 2005
Why should something be moved offsite? Give us a rational reason.
So the information is more sensibly broken up, for starters, rather than having to reload a singular, gigantic, ugly, slow-loading unwieldy page. Blog format provides a much better visual timeline than a MeFi page, too, and comments can be broken up accordingly.
Also it'd be nice if people had a central location from which to find all the links, rather than having to reference an old MeFi url on which they must scrooolllll ddoowwwnnn forever.
And finally, so that it might convince naysayers that you actually intend on soberly investigating Facts—not gossip or rumors—in a dedicated venue rather than using MeFi as your personal political blog because you've found something you consider The Most Important News Topic of Our Lifetime.
prove it is worth taking offsite.
Prove my suggestions are irrational.
posted by dhoyt at 8:58 PM on March 1, 2005
So the information is more sensibly broken up, for starters, rather than having to reload a singular, gigantic, ugly, slow-loading unwieldy page. Blog format provides a much better visual timeline than a MeFi page, too, and comments can be broken up accordingly.
Also it'd be nice if people had a central location from which to find all the links, rather than having to reference an old MeFi url on which they must scrooolllll ddoowwwnnn forever.
And finally, so that it might convince naysayers that you actually intend on soberly investigating Facts—not gossip or rumors—in a dedicated venue rather than using MeFi as your personal political blog because you've found something you consider The Most Important News Topic of Our Lifetime.
prove it is worth taking offsite.
Prove my suggestions are irrational.
posted by dhoyt at 8:58 PM on March 1, 2005
We're not investigating--that's not what MeFi is for. We're posting links about an important story. Rumors and gossip are part of that story, given the silence from the White House about the prostitute who got in daily for 2 years and pretended to be a journalist..
It's too bad you can't imagine what would happen with this guy and the story if Clinton were still President. Stop trying to wipe this shit away--it just smears when you try.
posted by amberglow at 9:03 PM on March 1, 2005
It's too bad you can't imagine what would happen with this guy and the story if Clinton were still President. Stop trying to wipe this shit away--it just smears when you try.
posted by amberglow at 9:03 PM on March 1, 2005
In a very short time, you've converted prissy obstinance into an art form.
I see.
So this is me being "prissy", and this is you being "rational".
I see.
Don't be a drama queen, dhoyt, you're no good at it. Just trust me on this one.
posted by AlexReynolds at 9:13 PM on March 1, 2005
I see.
So this is me being "prissy", and this is you being "rational".
I see.
Don't be a drama queen, dhoyt, you're no good at it. Just trust me on this one.
posted by AlexReynolds at 9:13 PM on March 1, 2005
Rumors and gossip are part of that story,
But noxious contributions like this one (Capitol Hill Blue: Is Dubya in the closet??) are not. They turn a sober discussion of the issue into a dumpster dive behind The National Enquirer headquarters.
Nice dodge on all the suggestions I bothered to suggest, btw. None of them being irrational or political.
Again, I favor David Corn's thorough, fair treatment of the issue. Notice the bratty stamping of feet in the comments section from readers worried he's losing his liberal cred. Pitiful.
But as you know, these days he's GOP mole, so anything goes.
posted by dhoyt at 9:16 PM on March 1, 2005
But noxious contributions like this one (Capitol Hill Blue: Is Dubya in the closet??) are not. They turn a sober discussion of the issue into a dumpster dive behind The National Enquirer headquarters.
Nice dodge on all the suggestions I bothered to suggest, btw. None of them being irrational or political.
Again, I favor David Corn's thorough, fair treatment of the issue. Notice the bratty stamping of feet in the comments section from readers worried he's losing his liberal cred. Pitiful.
But as you know, these days he's GOP mole, so anything goes.
posted by dhoyt at 9:16 PM on March 1, 2005
Dhoyt, stop being a drama queen. If you don't like the thread, no one is asking you to take a shit in it, or any other thread, for that matter.
posted by AlexReynolds at 9:24 PM on March 1, 2005
posted by AlexReynolds at 9:24 PM on March 1, 2005
Dhoyt, stop being a drama queen.
OK, so you've got some real distance on that whole thing, and that's great. (I really mean it--I'm very impressed with how you've integrated yourself as a pretty reasonable part of the whole community after that.) Nevertheless--to risk punching the tar-baby--I think this thread just needs to _end_.
Let me be clear...I really don't like Bush, and I think the whole "Gannon"-gate thing is a stereotypical example of the current fucked-up travesty that makes believe it's a White House press room.
That being said, I also think dhoyt's made some very obvious, reasonable points, and whether or not you and amberglow agreed with them, you could have responded much more constructively and maturely. By asserting that the only reason dhoyt might object is because he's some kind of right-wing ideologue, you're clearly implying that that's basically the only grounds he has to do so, and that I couldn't object to your position without being one, too.
That's just simplistic, unfair and insulting to many people who might agree with your basic points, but don't agree with how you've made them. I think you should stop.
posted by LairBob at 10:08 PM on March 1, 2005
OK, so you've got some real distance on that whole thing, and that's great. (I really mean it--I'm very impressed with how you've integrated yourself as a pretty reasonable part of the whole community after that.) Nevertheless--to risk punching the tar-baby--I think this thread just needs to _end_.
Let me be clear...I really don't like Bush, and I think the whole "Gannon"-gate thing is a stereotypical example of the current fucked-up travesty that makes believe it's a White House press room.
That being said, I also think dhoyt's made some very obvious, reasonable points, and whether or not you and amberglow agreed with them, you could have responded much more constructively and maturely. By asserting that the only reason dhoyt might object is because he's some kind of right-wing ideologue, you're clearly implying that that's basically the only grounds he has to do so, and that I couldn't object to your position without being one, too.
That's just simplistic, unfair and insulting to many people who might agree with your basic points, but don't agree with how you've made them. I think you should stop.
posted by LairBob at 10:08 PM on March 1, 2005
hmmm...when there were rumors about Vince Foster's death, did people not spread them? No. were people afraid to talk about that? No. or rumors about Monica before anything was proven? no.
get over yourself, dhoyt.
and LairBob, think back to the Clinton years--nothing was shoved offsite, nor should anything be.
posted by amberglow at 10:13 PM on March 1, 2005
get over yourself, dhoyt.
and LairBob, think back to the Clinton years--nothing was shoved offsite, nor should anything be.
posted by amberglow at 10:13 PM on March 1, 2005
I also think dhoyt's made some very obvious, reasonable points
In between contradicting himself, you mean?
posted by mediareport at 10:23 PM on March 1, 2005
In between contradicting himself, you mean?
posted by mediareport at 10:23 PM on March 1, 2005
Ok... so don't take it off-site then. Bad idea. Keep posting to the 600+ thread and love it. When 30 days are up, it will be archived and you can just look at it in all it's beauty. Now that mediareport has posted a new thread about the whole debacle, you can cum all over that one for another month... and so on and so on. Problem solved.
posted by Witty at 10:33 PM on March 1, 2005
posted by Witty at 10:33 PM on March 1, 2005
think back to the Clinton years--nothing was shoved offsite, nor should anything be.
We're not talking about some kind of editorial decision from Matt about closing a thread prematurely...we're talking about a thread being treated the same as any other thread. If there's a legitimate web event to post a follow-up FPP, then it's self-evident--that follow-up should live or die on its own merits.
In this case, we wouldn't even be having this thread if recent events rose to the level of a legit FPP. If they did, Alex or amberglow or trii would _post_ that follow-up FPP, and take their lumps on all the "double post!!!" and "NewsFilter!!" comments. (On preview, mediareport's already done that, so let's see how that goes. Honestly.)
In any case, that's definitely _not_ my point. _My_ point is that whether or not a follow-up FPP survives scrutiny, you've been using unfair, illogical, and ad hominem attacks to object to dhoyt's points.
I don't find them convincing. I don't think they're doing your larger political points--which I share--any favors. I think you're unfairly tarring anyone who disagrees with your tactics as someone who disagrees with your politics. I think that's wrong.
posted by LairBob at 10:41 PM on March 1, 2005
We're not talking about some kind of editorial decision from Matt about closing a thread prematurely...we're talking about a thread being treated the same as any other thread. If there's a legitimate web event to post a follow-up FPP, then it's self-evident--that follow-up should live or die on its own merits.
In this case, we wouldn't even be having this thread if recent events rose to the level of a legit FPP. If they did, Alex or amberglow or trii would _post_ that follow-up FPP, and take their lumps on all the "double post!!!" and "NewsFilter!!" comments. (On preview, mediareport's already done that, so let's see how that goes. Honestly.)
In any case, that's definitely _not_ my point. _My_ point is that whether or not a follow-up FPP survives scrutiny, you've been using unfair, illogical, and ad hominem attacks to object to dhoyt's points.
I don't find them convincing. I don't think they're doing your larger political points--which I share--any favors. I think you're unfairly tarring anyone who disagrees with your tactics as someone who disagrees with your politics. I think that's wrong.
posted by LairBob at 10:41 PM on March 1, 2005
Problem solved.
I think the new developments - which I hadn't heard of until this MeTa thread - are worthy. It's not my best post by a long shot, I know, but it's passable, especially given the level of local interest in the subject.
you can cum all over that one for another month
You know, Witty (you adorable fuckhead you), I know being a rebel pottymouth is great fun and all, but calling the level of interest and quality of discussion in that thread "cumming all over it" is obviously just an excuse to deliberately insult fellow community members with little or no cause.
How much more of that kind of crap are you going to pull before you get bored with it? I ask purely for informational purposes, so the rest of us can adjust our filters accordingly.
posted by mediareport at 10:46 PM on March 1, 2005
I think the new developments - which I hadn't heard of until this MeTa thread - are worthy. It's not my best post by a long shot, I know, but it's passable, especially given the level of local interest in the subject.
you can cum all over that one for another month
You know, Witty (you adorable fuckhead you), I know being a rebel pottymouth is great fun and all, but calling the level of interest and quality of discussion in that thread "cumming all over it" is obviously just an excuse to deliberately insult fellow community members with little or no cause.
How much more of that kind of crap are you going to pull before you get bored with it? I ask purely for informational purposes, so the rest of us can adjust our filters accordingly.
posted by mediareport at 10:46 PM on March 1, 2005
Hey Witty,
Your fly's undone.
*waiting for some sign that Witty's looking at his fly so I may proceed to knock his baseball cap off*
* and then kick it when he tries to pick it up*
posted by underer at 10:47 PM on March 1, 2005
Your fly's undone.
*waiting for some sign that Witty's looking at his fly so I may proceed to knock his baseball cap off*
* and then kick it when he tries to pick it up*
posted by underer at 10:47 PM on March 1, 2005
mediareport - I'm not complaining about your recent FPP on the subject (if that's what you thought). I couldn't care less about it's worthiness or quality, etc. As for my choice of words, if you see it as an insult, that's on you. It wasn't necessarily intended to be, rather a way of describing my opinion of the obsessive participation by the people in that thread. I don't know how you can be so offended by my "bad words" and call me a fuckhead all in the same breath. But whatever...
posted by Witty at 10:59 PM on March 1, 2005
posted by Witty at 10:59 PM on March 1, 2005
We're not investigating--that's not what MeFi is for.
Nor is posting of additional links because you think the story is important, or creating another post simply because the other is 30 days old and you're not done with it.
I mean, do what you want. The front page looks like a personal blog lately anyway. "I think clint deserved the oscar, how 'bout you guys?" The standards are falling fast and no one seems to really care any longer.
But let's not pretend what fans of that thread are planning on doing when it's archived is "what mefi is for", because it's not. Make it your own playground, just don't pretend that you're not.
posted by justgary at 11:06 PM on March 1, 2005
Nor is posting of additional links because you think the story is important, or creating another post simply because the other is 30 days old and you're not done with it.
I mean, do what you want. The front page looks like a personal blog lately anyway. "I think clint deserved the oscar, how 'bout you guys?" The standards are falling fast and no one seems to really care any longer.
But let's not pretend what fans of that thread are planning on doing when it's archived is "what mefi is for", because it's not. Make it your own playground, just don't pretend that you're not.
posted by justgary at 11:06 PM on March 1, 2005
*adorable* fuckhead.
It's all in the tone, sweetie. You should try working on that.
posted by mediareport at 11:06 PM on March 1, 2005
It's all in the tone, sweetie. You should try working on that.
posted by mediareport at 11:06 PM on March 1, 2005
justgary, legee admitted s/he'd screwed up in that Clint Eastwood thread, apologized, thanked everyone for their help, and promised to post again with more thought. It was one of the more gracious learning moments I've seen here. Perhaps your "death of MeFi/no one seems to really care" stuff is a bit overblown?
posted by mediareport at 11:19 PM on March 1, 2005
posted by mediareport at 11:19 PM on March 1, 2005
The standards are falling fast and no one seems to really care any longer.
You care.
I think mediareport's fpp isn't anything to get upset about. Though I'd be interested to see Metafilter: A Week Without Politics, I don't think mediareport's fpp falls below the standard for news stories posted in the blue.
posted by underer at 11:20 PM on March 1, 2005
You care.
I think mediareport's fpp isn't anything to get upset about. Though I'd be interested to see Metafilter: A Week Without Politics, I don't think mediareport's fpp falls below the standard for news stories posted in the blue.
posted by underer at 11:20 PM on March 1, 2005
*adorable* fuckhead.
It's all in the tone, sweetie. You should try working on that.
Ahh... I see. My bad. How about, "...you can jack rocket sauce all over that one for another month..."?
How about you worry about your tone and I'll worry about mine. K?
posted by Witty at 11:21 PM on March 1, 2005
It's all in the tone, sweetie. You should try working on that.
Ahh... I see. My bad. How about, "...you can jack rocket sauce all over that one for another month..."?
How about you worry about your tone and I'll worry about mine. K?
posted by Witty at 11:21 PM on March 1, 2005
That being said, I also think dhoyt's made some very obvious, reasonable points, and whether or not you and amberglow agreed with them, you could have responded much more constructively and maturely. By asserting that the only reason dhoyt might object is because he's some kind of right-wing ideologue, you're clearly implying that that's basically the only grounds he has to do so, and that I couldn't object to your position without being one, too.
This is one of dhoyt's "reasonable" points, and here's another.
He has a political axe to grind and demonstrated here and elsewhere that he is not interested in any links or discussion that might offend his ideological leanings, preferring instead that:
• the discussion be removed from the site; and,
• that the discussion be carried on "a fucking blog"
This last point is even more problematic because dhoyt is conveniently ignoring the fact that the Guckert scandal is slowly making its way to main coverage, away from blogs and op/ed coverage.
So, instead, he'll resort to ad hominem attacks and will shit in unrelated threads, all because of his childish need to defend his Great Leader.
I don't call this "reasoned" behavior by any stretch of imagination.
posted by AlexReynolds at 11:23 PM on March 1, 2005
This is one of dhoyt's "reasonable" points, and here's another.
He has a political axe to grind and demonstrated here and elsewhere that he is not interested in any links or discussion that might offend his ideological leanings, preferring instead that:
• the discussion be removed from the site; and,
• that the discussion be carried on "a fucking blog"
This last point is even more problematic because dhoyt is conveniently ignoring the fact that the Guckert scandal is slowly making its way to main coverage, away from blogs and op/ed coverage.
So, instead, he'll resort to ad hominem attacks and will shit in unrelated threads, all because of his childish need to defend his Great Leader.
I don't call this "reasoned" behavior by any stretch of imagination.
posted by AlexReynolds at 11:23 PM on March 1, 2005
How about you worry about your tone and I'll worry about mine. K?
But you're not. At all. You're on this faux-quonsar kick that's just getting more and more embarrassing.
Hey, I'm just trying to help.
posted by mediareport at 11:28 PM on March 1, 2005
But you're not. At all. You're on this faux-quonsar kick that's just getting more and more embarrassing.
Hey, I'm just trying to help.
posted by mediareport at 11:28 PM on March 1, 2005
But you're not.
Right. Because, unlike you, I don't think I need to. My tone is my tone. You don't have to agree with it or like it... and I don't care what you think. Get over it. If cum is too icky for you, sorry.
You're on this faux-quonsar kick...
Ha! Good one. No. I'm not. Never have. Wouldn't even occur to me. I'd rather you call me an adorable fuckhead... geez.
posted by Witty at 11:42 PM on March 1, 2005
Right. Because, unlike you, I don't think I need to. My tone is my tone. You don't have to agree with it or like it... and I don't care what you think. Get over it. If cum is too icky for you, sorry.
You're on this faux-quonsar kick...
Ha! Good one. No. I'm not. Never have. Wouldn't even occur to me. I'd rather you call me an adorable fuckhead... geez.
posted by Witty at 11:42 PM on March 1, 2005
Alex, I didn't say dhoyt was somehow "above reproach"--I'm just saying two things:
1) The points you linked back to in this thread were not intrinsically "wrong" or "invalid"--you just disagreed with them. That's fine. I definitely do not feel that that simple fact merited the vitriol you and amberglow have summoned up. In the context of this specific discussion, I think your response was completely out of proportion, for all the wrong reasons, and I don't think you advanced any credible reasons for taking it out of that context.
2) Linking to jerky things you think he may have said in _other_ threads is equally unconvincing...I mean, come on. I may disagree with them as much as you do, but that doesn't make them any more convincing in this specific context. He's not arguing that Bush is or isn't right--he's making a very legitimate point about how you want to act within MeFi, and you should respond on _that_ point.
It's pretty simple--we're either going to agree to focus on the logic of the current argument, or we're going to insist on the right of "infinite refutation". ("I disagree with you in this other thread, so you're automatically wrong here.") It's up to you whether you want to advance that as a legitimate tactic, but I'd recommend against it, in all cases.
posted by LairBob at 11:45 PM on March 1, 2005
1) The points you linked back to in this thread were not intrinsically "wrong" or "invalid"--you just disagreed with them. That's fine. I definitely do not feel that that simple fact merited the vitriol you and amberglow have summoned up. In the context of this specific discussion, I think your response was completely out of proportion, for all the wrong reasons, and I don't think you advanced any credible reasons for taking it out of that context.
2) Linking to jerky things you think he may have said in _other_ threads is equally unconvincing...I mean, come on. I may disagree with them as much as you do, but that doesn't make them any more convincing in this specific context. He's not arguing that Bush is or isn't right--he's making a very legitimate point about how you want to act within MeFi, and you should respond on _that_ point.
It's pretty simple--we're either going to agree to focus on the logic of the current argument, or we're going to insist on the right of "infinite refutation". ("I disagree with you in this other thread, so you're automatically wrong here.") It's up to you whether you want to advance that as a legitimate tactic, but I'd recommend against it, in all cases.
posted by LairBob at 11:45 PM on March 1, 2005
I think your response was completely out of proportion, for all the wrong reasons, and I don't think you advanced any credible reasons for taking it out of that context.
Dhoyt's "get your own fucking blog, libruls" is his "reasoned" point of view. The other thread is just more evidence that he's just grinding his axe. /shrug
posted by AlexReynolds at 12:03 AM on March 2, 2005
Dhoyt's "get your own fucking blog, libruls" is his "reasoned" point of view. The other thread is just more evidence that he's just grinding his axe. /shrug
posted by AlexReynolds at 12:03 AM on March 2, 2005
Witty: it's all about you, baby. Let's talk about you some more, it's fun. tell me more about your tone, your non-quonsar pose, which jokes you do and don't get... awesome.
posted by Meatbomb at 12:17 AM on March 2, 2005
posted by Meatbomb at 12:17 AM on March 2, 2005
Meatbomb - Blow me. Just do what you do and leave me out of it.
AlexReynolds - Let's say the thread in question was about puppies instead of Gannon. What would you suggest as a possible solution to trii's concern?
posted by Witty at 12:30 AM on March 2, 2005
AlexReynolds - Let's say the thread in question was about puppies instead of Gannon. What would you suggest as a possible solution to trii's concern?
posted by Witty at 12:30 AM on March 2, 2005
Move it to a blog site with a comments section so the remaining 0.5% of MeFites still obsessing over Gannongate can post all they want. Everyone wins.
I'm sorry--the only point there is about taking it away from mefi, no? (and i linked to the other meTa thread showing many people are following the story)
It should be moved offsite because it's been discussed ad nauseum and because MeFi doesn't exist as a platform for every pet news story you favor just because you and ten other people favor it. Stop creating neocon boogeymen out of anyone who disagrees with you. Desiring for it to GIOFB (Get It's Own Fucking Blog) instead of cluttering the homepage "shows how much of a big deal this Gannon/Guckert/GOP Whore thing really is"? That's delusional, amberglow.
It's one post, not many. It's not all over the front page (like the election or iraq or most stories). There's no clutter at all. ad nauseum??? No point there being made except to move it offsite, and the insults don't make a point either, except about dhoyt's real point in making these comments. There's your point.
No one "called for its removal." Can the drama.
bullshit! you just did. and insults again--hmmm.
Trii asked "what's the proper" thing to do with a thread like that, and I made a practical suggestion: create a separate blog for it so Matt's bandwidth doesn't suffer—and the frontpage quality doesn't suffer—from the obsessions of a few. Stop assigning insidious intent to every idea that conflicts with your own, and suck it up: MeFi isn't your personal blog.
Again dhoyt calls for it to be taken away from mefi. funny how in the previous sentence he just said the opposite. Contributing to one ongoing post is not at all treating mefi like a personal blog. No point there except for insults and a repeated call to take it off mefi.
I see a pattern here, lairbob--do you? shall i go on? What are we missing that you see when you look at dhoyt's comments?
posted by amberglow at 7:21 AM on March 2, 2005
I'm sorry--the only point there is about taking it away from mefi, no? (and i linked to the other meTa thread showing many people are following the story)
It should be moved offsite because it's been discussed ad nauseum and because MeFi doesn't exist as a platform for every pet news story you favor just because you and ten other people favor it. Stop creating neocon boogeymen out of anyone who disagrees with you. Desiring for it to GIOFB (Get It's Own Fucking Blog) instead of cluttering the homepage "shows how much of a big deal this Gannon/Guckert/GOP Whore thing really is"? That's delusional, amberglow.
It's one post, not many. It's not all over the front page (like the election or iraq or most stories). There's no clutter at all. ad nauseum??? No point there being made except to move it offsite, and the insults don't make a point either, except about dhoyt's real point in making these comments. There's your point.
No one "called for its removal." Can the drama.
bullshit! you just did. and insults again--hmmm.
Trii asked "what's the proper" thing to do with a thread like that, and I made a practical suggestion: create a separate blog for it so Matt's bandwidth doesn't suffer—and the frontpage quality doesn't suffer—from the obsessions of a few. Stop assigning insidious intent to every idea that conflicts with your own, and suck it up: MeFi isn't your personal blog.
Again dhoyt calls for it to be taken away from mefi. funny how in the previous sentence he just said the opposite. Contributing to one ongoing post is not at all treating mefi like a personal blog. No point there except for insults and a repeated call to take it off mefi.
I see a pattern here, lairbob--do you? shall i go on? What are we missing that you see when you look at dhoyt's comments?
posted by amberglow at 7:21 AM on March 2, 2005
Still no practical response to my comments on why the Gannon info would be better served on a blog? You asked for them, and said, "We're waiting..." with ellipses and everything. And I answered with substance. So again: prove my suggestions were irrational.
And fwiw: I'm not mathowie. I'm not the police. I'm not The Man, and I'm not a conservative or Republican. I'm one person who made a suggestion on why moving this particular Outrage du Jour might better serve MeFi. You disagree? Post away. But stop pretending you're being oppressed.
posted by dhoyt at 7:45 AM on March 2, 2005
And fwiw: I'm not mathowie. I'm not the police. I'm not The Man, and I'm not a conservative or Republican. I'm one person who made a suggestion on why moving this particular Outrage du Jour might better serve MeFi. You disagree? Post away. But stop pretending you're being oppressed.
posted by dhoyt at 7:45 AM on March 2, 2005
Now that mediareport has posted a new thread about the whole debacle, you can cum all over that one for another month...
I liked the original version of the predictable Witty comment better than the revision.
posted by soyjoy at 7:49 AM on March 2, 2005
I liked the original version of the predictable Witty comment better than the revision.
posted by soyjoy at 7:49 AM on March 2, 2005
c'mon people, give it a rest.
i see a really annoying trend beginning to show within the "net community". lighten up. it's just not that big of a deal.
between message boards arguing amongst themselves over self-important issues - and peer to peer users getting "ban happy" if you don't meet their "rules for sharing", good grief. online communities that were once refreshing, full of graciousness and comradery. now are turning into self-important, ungracious, play-by-my-rules, erudite shitfests.
the internet is turning into just one more place to argue about shit.
let's raise the bar.
posted by Grauzy at 7:51 AM on March 2, 2005
i see a really annoying trend beginning to show within the "net community". lighten up. it's just not that big of a deal.
between message boards arguing amongst themselves over self-important issues - and peer to peer users getting "ban happy" if you don't meet their "rules for sharing", good grief. online communities that were once refreshing, full of graciousness and comradery. now are turning into self-important, ungracious, play-by-my-rules, erudite shitfests.
the internet is turning into just one more place to argue about shit.
let's raise the bar.
posted by Grauzy at 7:51 AM on March 2, 2005
I find it highly amusing that there have been about 20 comments in this thread since the new Gannon thread was posted (thereby rendering the original topic of this thread academic). The Gannon thread itself only has 9 comments.
I guess you folks like talking about talking about Gannon more than you actually like talking about Gannon. How very Meta.
posted by casu marzu at 8:00 AM on March 2, 2005
I guess you folks like talking about talking about Gannon more than you actually like talking about Gannon. How very Meta.
posted by casu marzu at 8:00 AM on March 2, 2005
So again: prove my suggestions were irrational.
Don't Feed The Troll.
posted by AlexReynolds at 8:42 AM on March 2, 2005
Don't Feed The Troll.
posted by AlexReynolds at 8:42 AM on March 2, 2005
Sounds an awful lot like you'e trying to shut down a discussion you disagree with, AlexR.
posted by Cyrano at 9:01 AM on March 2, 2005
posted by Cyrano at 9:01 AM on March 2, 2005
His "suggestions" here and elsewhere, if you can call them that, are just axe-grinding. He doesn't want a discussion: "Move it to a blog site... It should be moved offsite... Get [your] own fucking blog."
He just wants to bully people who do not agree with his political ideology, but feed the troll, if you want.
posted by AlexReynolds at 9:08 AM on March 2, 2005
He just wants to bully people who do not agree with his political ideology, but feed the troll, if you want.
posted by AlexReynolds at 9:08 AM on March 2, 2005
It doesn't matter now that a new Gannon thread started, but I think that starting a blog for the group that kept up the discussion in the other Gannon thread was a great idea. Perhaps the people that persistently found information could create a some camaraderie and a community together while discussing the Gannon issue.
Creating websites and small communities out of posts on MeFi is nothing new and I think this was a perfect opportunity to do so. I'm not trying to silence your speech, but I think that dhoyt's suggestion has some real merit.
And why can't AlexReynolds and Dhoyt just let it all rest? Troll this, axe to grind that, it's gone on through countless MeTa threads over the last 2 months. It's tired and we're all sick of reading it. Dhoyt pisses me off too and I've sparred with him at least once, ignored his posts that I've strongly disagreed with several times, but I always knew when to stop arguing.
posted by Arch Stanton at 9:16 AM on March 2, 2005
Creating websites and small communities out of posts on MeFi is nothing new and I think this was a perfect opportunity to do so. I'm not trying to silence your speech, but I think that dhoyt's suggestion has some real merit.
And why can't AlexReynolds and Dhoyt just let it all rest? Troll this, axe to grind that, it's gone on through countless MeTa threads over the last 2 months. It's tired and we're all sick of reading it. Dhoyt pisses me off too and I've sparred with him at least once, ignored his posts that I've strongly disagreed with several times, but I always knew when to stop arguing.
posted by Arch Stanton at 9:16 AM on March 2, 2005
Creating websites and small communities out of posts on MeFi is nothing new
Exactly.
but I think that dhoyt's suggestion has some real merit.
Thank you. And your objectivity is appreciated. It's what makes MeFi challenging rather than echo-chambery.
And why can't AlexReynolds and Dhoyt just let it all rest?
I would love to, yet every time I—or anyone, for that matter—have an unpopular opinion, Alex saunters in with the tiredest jibe in internet history: "Don't feed the troll". Not that this is news, but the word "troll" has been officially hijacked to mean, "any opinion that conflicts with one's own". It's a means to feel safe so that objectivity like that displayed by Arch must never have to be deployed. Everything outside the safety of a groupthink bubble is "trolling". Note that neither him nor amber responded with any kind of substance to the idea of a blog. Just more whinging.
posted by dhoyt at 9:53 AM on March 2, 2005
Exactly.
but I think that dhoyt's suggestion has some real merit.
Thank you. And your objectivity is appreciated. It's what makes MeFi challenging rather than echo-chambery.
And why can't AlexReynolds and Dhoyt just let it all rest?
I would love to, yet every time I—or anyone, for that matter—have an unpopular opinion, Alex saunters in with the tiredest jibe in internet history: "Don't feed the troll". Not that this is news, but the word "troll" has been officially hijacked to mean, "any opinion that conflicts with one's own". It's a means to feel safe so that objectivity like that displayed by Arch must never have to be deployed. Everything outside the safety of a groupthink bubble is "trolling". Note that neither him nor amber responded with any kind of substance to the idea of a blog. Just more whinging.
posted by dhoyt at 9:53 AM on March 2, 2005
Note that neither him nor amber responded with any kind of substance to the idea of a blog.
Incorrect. But don't let reality get in the way of your polemic bullshit.
posted by AlexReynolds at 9:57 AM on March 2, 2005
Incorrect. But don't let reality get in the way of your polemic bullshit.
posted by AlexReynolds at 9:57 AM on March 2, 2005
?
The comment you linked has nothing to do with my suggestion. In fact, you made it eleven hours before my suggestion. I was speaking of this.
posted by dhoyt at 10:06 AM on March 2, 2005
The comment you linked has nothing to do with my suggestion. In fact, you made it eleven hours before my suggestion. I was speaking of this.
posted by dhoyt at 10:06 AM on March 2, 2005
"And finally, so that it might convince naysayers that you actually intend on soberly investigating Facts—not gossip or rumors..."
So you conveniently ignored this comment, or you're lying.
posted by AlexReynolds at 10:18 AM on March 2, 2005
So you conveniently ignored this comment, or you're lying.
posted by AlexReynolds at 10:18 AM on March 2, 2005
"Metafilter? Oh, yeah, I love Metafilter. Online community, lots of nice people, generally good discussion. Only, whatever you do, avoid that "Metatalk" thing-- the people there are all assholes, and the train wrecks never stop."
posted by koeselitz at 10:19 AM on March 2, 2005
posted by koeselitz at 10:19 AM on March 2, 2005
*sigh* I tried.
posted by Arch Stanton at 10:29 AM on March 2, 2005
posted by Arch Stanton at 10:29 AM on March 2, 2005
The only thing you try is my patience, Stanton! See me after class.
posted by sonofsamiam at 11:11 AM on March 2, 2005
posted by sonofsamiam at 11:11 AM on March 2, 2005
...and so, faithful readers, in the end, practical alternatives were loudly derided in favor of another redundant Gannon thread.
A party was planned, a row of dirty crepe streamers were hung from the wall, a GannonGate door prize (some K-Y and a DVD copy of Tea Bagger Vance) sat by the punchbowl, waiting to be gleefully unwrapped.
But as predicted, the only ones in attendance were the same small, sulky group of party-throwers themselves. Irony of ironies, even one of them suggested an off-site Gannon forum. Awkward conversation came in fits & starts—"So..uh...hmm.........you read DailyKos lately?"—but petered out.
In short:
:(
Looking back, the decision to emboss "Circle Jerk!" in capital letters on the party invitations was probably a mistake.
posted by dhoyt at 2:37 PM on March 2, 2005
A party was planned, a row of dirty crepe streamers were hung from the wall, a GannonGate door prize (some K-Y and a DVD copy of Tea Bagger Vance) sat by the punchbowl, waiting to be gleefully unwrapped.
But as predicted, the only ones in attendance were the same small, sulky group of party-throwers themselves. Irony of ironies, even one of them suggested an off-site Gannon forum. Awkward conversation came in fits & starts—"So..uh...hmm.........you read DailyKos lately?"—but petered out.
In short:
:(
Looking back, the decision to emboss "Circle Jerk!" in capital letters on the party invitations was probably a mistake.
posted by dhoyt at 2:37 PM on March 2, 2005
You feel better now?
posted by sonofsamiam at 2:45 PM on March 2, 2005
posted by sonofsamiam at 2:45 PM on March 2, 2005
To recap:
High-and-mighty dhoyt's first "practical alternative":
"Get [your] own fucking blog."
Another "practical", "rational" observation on an entirely unrelated topic:
"You know Gannon's wrapped up in this."
Fails to acknowledge mainstream coverage, continues on his snarky political harangue.
Follows with melodrama funny only to him and six other Freepers, all of whom shared a mutually depressing orgasm of loneliness at Dhoyt's rapier wit.
posted by AlexReynolds at 3:02 PM on March 2, 2005
High-and-mighty dhoyt's first "practical alternative":
"Get [your] own fucking blog."
Another "practical", "rational" observation on an entirely unrelated topic:
"You know Gannon's wrapped up in this."
Fails to acknowledge mainstream coverage, continues on his snarky political harangue.
Follows with melodrama funny only to him and six other Freepers, all of whom shared a mutually depressing orgasm of loneliness at Dhoyt's rapier wit.
posted by AlexReynolds at 3:02 PM on March 2, 2005
the only ones in attendance were the same small, sulky group of party-throwers themselves
What a stupid, if not outright vile, piece of spin that is. You don't have a freaking clue, dhoyt, how many folks clicked through to read that thread, how many folks went to read the articles themselves, or how many folks noted the content of the post - which I bent over backwards to make fair - and appreciated its update without going further.
dhoyt is acting like a worm here.
posted by mediareport at 4:24 PM on March 2, 2005
What a stupid, if not outright vile, piece of spin that is. You don't have a freaking clue, dhoyt, how many folks clicked through to read that thread, how many folks went to read the articles themselves, or how many folks noted the content of the post - which I bent over backwards to make fair - and appreciated its update without going further.
dhoyt is acting like a worm here.
posted by mediareport at 4:24 PM on March 2, 2005
And the rest of you are acting like fucking tools.
Sorry, make that seven.
posted by AlexReynolds at 5:57 PM on March 2, 2005
Sorry, make that seven.
posted by AlexReynolds at 5:57 PM on March 2, 2005
You know, AlexReynolds, for someone who tried to get mileage by harping on "snarky political harangue" repeatedly in this thread, you didn't seem to have much problem using it yourself here.
posted by Cyrano at 6:38 PM on March 2, 2005
posted by Cyrano at 6:38 PM on March 2, 2005
And the rest of you are acting like fucking tools.
Learn to discriminate, faux.
posted by mediareport at 6:47 PM on March 2, 2005
Learn to discriminate, faux.
posted by mediareport at 6:47 PM on March 2, 2005
You know, AlexReynolds, for someone who tried to get mileage by harping on "snarky political harangue" repeatedly in this thread, you didn't seem to have much problem using it yourself here.
Sarcasm to make a point.
posted by AlexReynolds at 6:51 PM on March 2, 2005
Sarcasm to make a point.
posted by AlexReynolds at 6:51 PM on March 2, 2005
Toughls!
posted by sonofsamiam at 6:45 AM on March 3, 2005
posted by sonofsamiam at 6:45 AM on March 3, 2005
Just like to note for the record that the thread now has 49 comments, including fascinating links that update the story. dhoyt was clearly wrong in his rather jerkish assessment.
Anyway, I'm glad I posted an update to the front page after hearing the new info in this thread.
posted by mediareport at 6:05 PM on March 5, 2005
Anyway, I'm glad I posted an update to the front page after hearing the new info in this thread.
posted by mediareport at 6:05 PM on March 5, 2005
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by mzurer at 10:28 AM on March 1, 2005