Edits bother me July 19, 2005 5:36 PM   Subscribe

Jessamyn's edit is really bothering me. There were a few remarks (mine among them) below this, calling attention to it, but Matt closed the thread without addressing this issue. Can we see no more editing for content please? Let posts/comments stand or be deleted, but this middle ground is too slippery a slope.
posted by caitlinb to Etiquette/Policy at 5:36 PM (126 comments total)

I have been long amazed that someone who self-identifies as both a librarian and an anarchist would think it's okay to change someone else's words without attributing that change.

I can't think of anything that is in worse form for the moderator of a discussion board, save selling/revealing personal information.
posted by Jairus at 5:38 PM on July 19, 2005


agreed.
posted by puke & cry at 5:48 PM on July 19, 2005


I agree. It wasn't simply to fix an error (typo, bad link, etc.) but was actually editorial in nature. As others said, either delete PP's post entirely, or let it stand in its full trollish glory, but don't go fixing it up to A) pretend it was actually a legitimate meetup request and B) to whitewash how PP shits on this site, time and fucking time again.
posted by scody at 5:51 PM on July 19, 2005


ditto.
posted by amberglow at 5:56 PM on July 19, 2005


Changing PP's post in this way distorts what he was originally saying.


Okay. We just went through a similar issue with an AskMe question where a question asker's editorializing in the question rankled a bunch of people. I didn't want to edit or delete the post & the question was getting on-topic responses. I got a few emails saying maybe that's what should have happened, so it's fresh in my mind. There were a few flags on this post, so this seemed like an okay compromise and PP could have his meetup and not be unable to post for however many days. I tried to IM/email him to ask ahead of time w/ no luck. I'll do it differently next time. Cool?


What more do you want?
posted by rdr at 6:01 PM on July 19, 2005


Matt may want to have something to say about this, but as I said in the last thread, that's okay. We've seen threads where, but for a few inflammatory words, people would interact with them normally. As they're written, people flip out. If they're deleted, people also flip out.

I don't think people would have been any less pissed if the PP thread had been deleted, but I agree that it's a better solution than attempting an awkward compromise. We've been trying to let the flagging drive the editorial decisions, but as everyone knows choices still have to be made. I said I'd do things differently, I'm not sure what else you want from me.
posted by jessamyn at 6:03 PM on July 19, 2005


Messing with people's words is a messy business. It's a tough spot, as Jessamyn says, if PP wasn't such an ass in his initial post, it wouldn't have been such a flame fest, but then changing his words isn't something I'd ever do, as I usually like to give people enough rope to hang themselves on.

We talked about it over IM and as she's said here, she would have done it differently, so I'm confident this won't happen again and isn't some sort of trend that will continue.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 6:09 PM on July 19, 2005


I think a little editing is reasonable. Just because you want to see the '68 Chicago convention doesn't mean that we all do. That thread was shit enough as it was. It would have been worse if 25% of the comments were people actually defending Air America.

Like it or not, the place needs a little moderation occasionally. And jessamyn's pretty judicious about it. You'd think she was Stalin or something.
posted by Mayor Curley at 6:10 PM on July 19, 2005


We talked about it over IM and as she's said here, she would have done it differently, so I'm confident this won't happen again and isn't some sort of trend that will continue.

Isn't this pretty much exactly what was said many months ago, when people were upset with jessamyn's editing?
posted by Jairus at 6:12 PM on July 19, 2005


What more do you want?

I want a mid-century modern house in the Hollywood Hills, but I understand that it's not up to Jess.
posted by scody at 6:14 PM on July 19, 2005


Sometimes, though, jessamyn's edits/deletions just seem to benefit the original poster, who should have to live with whatever stupid comment they made in their posting history.

"So-and-so was acting like an idiot," especially where so-and-so is a regular poster / personality, seems to me not a good reason to delete or edit. Let the community norms hash themselves out.
posted by Mid at 6:17 PM on July 19, 2005


Isn't this pretty much exactly what was said many months ago, when people were upset with jessamyn's editing?

That was about overzealous comment removal, which has lessened greatly. So I do think that issue was covered as well. This is a separate issue. I've had six years to learn how to handle the community, jessamyn is working on her first, so sometimes mistakes are made. No big deal, as the sites are much better thanks to her help and I can understand the occasional hiccup.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 6:17 PM on July 19, 2005


This post is closed to new comments.
posted by yerfatma at 6:19 PM on July 19, 2005


This came so close on the heels of this that I felt compelled to ask about it in the thread. I don't see the point of the deletion of what was obviously a joke double-post at all, and, like Jairus, I found myself reminded of things a while back when Jessamyn was taken to task over her editing.



(Caveat - I didn't see the thread before Jessamyn had commented and it's possible that there never was a dupe by InfidelZombie and that Jessamyn's comment was the gag, but my personal conviction that perhaps Jessamyn is a little too trigger-happy when moderating leads me to assume the worst...)
posted by benzo8 at 6:26 PM on July 19, 2005


On a different note, can we get a new flag: not "derail," which refers to comments, but 'train wreck," which could refer to the thread as a whole?
posted by Tuwa at 6:28 PM on July 19, 2005


Isn't this pretty much exactly what was said many months ago

That was also before the flagging feature was implemented. Hot topic comments/threads [sex, guns, religion, ParisParamus] get a lot of flags and then a decision needs to be made about what, if anything, to do about them.

benzo8: agregoli had posted twice by accident, she had flagged it, I deleted her double comment, and suddenly IZs post making fun of her double-post didn't make sense.
posted by jessamyn at 6:34 PM on July 19, 2005


800%, people, 800%!
posted by five fresh fish at 6:34 PM on July 19, 2005


That was also before the flagging feature was implemented.

I'm not sure I understand how the implementation of a flagging feature affects editing policy, or lack thereof.
posted by Jairus at 6:40 PM on July 19, 2005


what the Mayor said. let's not pretend jessamyn is that guy from the Texas Chainsaw Massacre, she's doing a good job and is pretty laissez faire.
also, PeePee's output is hopeless anyway, no matter how much she or matt try to sanitize it -- the stench just remains there, for the whole community to appreciate
posted by matteo at 6:43 PM on July 19, 2005


What more do you want?

Change it back?
posted by 23skidoo at 6:44 PM on July 19, 2005


I analyzed it further, and it was more like 873%. So he was close, but still off.
posted by gramschmidt at 6:46 PM on July 19, 2005


Some of you guys are/were harsher on jessamyn than on PP. Misplaced ire?
posted by dness2 at 7:05 PM on July 19, 2005


jessamyn writes ""benzo8: agregoli had posted twice by accident, she had flagged it, I deleted her double comment, and suddenly IZs post making fun of her double-post didn't make sense."

Cool - my bad then. As you were...
posted by benzo8 at 7:08 PM on July 19, 2005


I propose either a threshold system for posting FPPs, like kuro5hin's, or another alternative: to temporarily suspend an FPP, let the author know that it is too problematic as is, and offer them a chance to edit it.
posted by ori at 7:09 PM on July 19, 2005


"I agree that it's a better solution than attempting an awkward compromise..."

The edit was an awkward compromise. Delete or leave, but don't edit.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 7:13 PM on July 19, 2005


I propose the lot of you pull the diamonds from your tightly clenched asses and relax.

It. Is. No. Big. Deal.

She. Has. Got. The. Message.

The show's over, people. You can all go home now.
posted by five fresh fish at 7:14 PM on July 19, 2005


Thanks for your opinion, fff. Now you can go home and let everyone else who hasn't already opined have their say.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 7:19 PM on July 19, 2005


i bitched first and loudest!

*puffs out chest*
posted by quonsar at 7:25 PM on July 19, 2005


You pick up a lot of scar tissue being a moderator on Metafilter.
posted by mlis at 7:33 PM on July 19, 2005


jessamyn raped my kitten!

and then she ate it. =(
posted by weretable and the undead chairs at 7:35 PM on July 19, 2005


That was also before the flagging feature was implemented. Hot topic comments/threads [sex, guns, religion, ParisParamus] get a lot of flags and then a decision needs to be made about what, if anything, to do about them.

I have noticed that if I post anything concerning the war, now my title tags get edited, on the grounds that they are freezing some browsers. How many browsers get frozen and how many people complain is something I do not know. I have shortened the tags very much since but it still happens now and then.

I complained the first time it happened because it came unannounced. Since I put text in the tags to convey information, the shortened versions were not what I intended and pretty much meaningless. I got pissed and accused Jessamyn of editing content but, as it turned out, someone had complained. If editing it was, she was doing it n response to a complaint and I assume the edit was second hand for some one who would have liked to kill the whole post if it were possible.

I write much shorter tags but it still happens even with much shorter tags. Yet, if I post on any other topic, the issue never comes up and my tags are not edited, no matter how enormously long they are. Well, up to this point, that is... I assume that, human nature being what it is, a certain amount of animus is involved. To even mention it may no doubt bring complaints from the same people who complained. Whatever.

What ParisParamus wrote was incredibly innocuous to my mind but some one complained, more or less for the same reason. People don't like him and flagged his post and it got changed. At any rate, it really wasn't much of a flame fest, compared to most, and I doubt it would have been any more so had the language remained.

Poignant was one word that came to my mind when I read the post itself on the start page. Or something like that--it was like watching Jerry Lewis in The Bell Boy. It was funny but painful because you could recognize good intentions in the guy and think, oh man, is he out of his mind or what ? It seemed like people were comparatively gentle with the guy, so I assume I was not alone in having a little sympathy for the guy in the mix with the schadenfreude. It was a real Oh, the humanity! classic.
posted by y2karl at 7:38 PM on July 19, 2005


I seem to remember a time, not so long ago, when many, many members here volunteered to help Matt moderate this place. With one of our own (probably one of the most lucid here) as a moderator being ripped to shreds on a semi-monthly basis, I wonder how many of those original volunteers are still willing to offer their time.

I know that people can be petty, vindictive, and unneccesarily harsh, just because they can, but here at MeFi we seem to take those characteristics way too seriously. Come on...this is jessamyn for god's sake. Take a brief look through her contributions; she doesn't deserve this witch hunt. Everyone makes mistakes; no need to make this so personal (gee, she's a librarian so this type of behavior is shocking I tell you). Give me a break. Better yet...give HER a break.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 7:40 PM on July 19, 2005


Wow, and I mean that in a bad way.
posted by snsranch at 7:43 PM on July 19, 2005


What I find most curious about the event was including the original text in the thread. I would not have edited the post, but I don't understand why it's effective to just shift the words down a few inches. You might as well just use strike on the original text itself. Why bother physically moving the text further down?
posted by odinsdream at 7:48 PM on July 19, 2005


The edit was wrong because the removed clause was not gratuitous to the rest of the post. PP, who is rendered nauseous by Air America, announced his appearance at said network's live broadcast down the street. The deletion didn't delete the meaning of what I wrote, but it certainly deleted one clause of the fun. Please, get a grip and be more tolerant of those who disagree with you--like me!
posted by ParisParamus at 7:55 PM on July 19, 2005


(or, the whole post should have been deleted; deemed inappropriate)
posted by ParisParamus at 8:00 PM on July 19, 2005


"...the whole post should have been deleted; deemed inappropriate..."

At long last, we agree, PP.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 8:16 PM on July 19, 2005


Well, in that case—rendered nauseous—jessamyn will surely be subjected to the horrendous pressures of the nauseous/nauseated kerfuffle. You can't win.
posted by RJ Reynolds at 8:28 PM on July 19, 2005


Just fucking stop it.

It was a mistake. It's been acknowledged as such. Matt and Jessamyn have both had the courtesy to explain, not that they have an obligation to explain, the reasoning behind the editing.

Can we move on now?

If we can't move on, can we at least burn her? C'mon, Dad, just a wee little fire, she isn't much of a witch anyway and gas ain't getting no cheaper.
posted by cedar at 8:37 PM on July 19, 2005


Thanks, RJR -- my teeth hurt whenever I see that one.
posted by Vidiot at 8:39 PM on July 19, 2005


Small minds think alike.
posted by _sirmissalot_ at 8:41 PM on July 19, 2005


hey, paris ... i dare you to go to the sidewalk they show on the today show with your little green footballs t-shirt ... now that would be cool
posted by pyramid termite at 8:47 PM on July 19, 2005


I think there are a lot of comments on this because it is better than it was, and no one wants to go back to the way it was the last time people (myself included) howled over deletions and/or edits.

Whether the flagging system is turning into or has turned into a vaguely de facto voting system is probably a discussion best pursued in another thread.

No kittens were raped in the production of this comment.
posted by trondant at 8:54 PM on July 19, 2005


hey, for the record, is this the first meta MeTa thread?
posted by mwhybark at 8:57 PM on July 19, 2005


What more do I want than an ambiguous "I'll do it differently next time"? A clear policy of never editing text, that's what. Delete the comment, delete the thread; just don't ever change someone's words.

I'm not trying to come down on jess; this isn't about her, it's about clear policy that gives the admins the control they need while respecting the expressions of the users. A policy of not editing users' text should be very clear cut, if not coded into the editing function: delete a whole comment, or leave it alone.
posted by squirrel at 9:08 PM on July 19, 2005


"hey, paris ... i dare you to go to the sidewalk they show on the today show with your little green footballs t-shirt ... now that would be cool"

That would so NOT be worthy of anything. For perspective: I haven't owned a television in two years. Ick.
posted by ParisParamus at 9:13 PM on July 19, 2005


"For perspective: I haven't owned a television in two years..."

Paris, just so's you know, Kelly Clarkson won American Idol.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 9:37 PM on July 19, 2005


Damn it, mr_crash_davis! Now you have spoiled it for everyone else!
posted by dg at 9:44 PM on July 19, 2005


I saw a sparrow devour logic.
posted by trondant at 9:45 PM on July 19, 2005


derail: "Kelly Clarkson won American Idol"

So I learned after I bought her CD for a friend. It actually had 3 good songs, and all but one of the rest were listenable.

] Now that should be offensive to quite a few around here. tsk tsk [
posted by mischief at 9:52 PM on July 19, 2005


hey, for the record, is this the first meta MeTa thread?

Not even close. For instance, here's a recent one.
posted by gramschmidt at 10:15 PM on July 19, 2005


Personally, to comment on ParisParamus and not the editing controversy, I don't know why anybody would have to be upset with his post as he wrote it: he explained where he was going and why, and provided a way to recognize him if you want to join him -- or oppose him. (Or just point at him and giggle, or ignore him till the event is over and then buy him a beer, or...)

What's so sacred about Air America anyway?

For all I care ParisParamus can picket my birthday party; if he does it entertainingly I might even applaud. PP might even be fun to watch or hang with, if you're not overly sensitive, and he might even have a real real-life friend or two. It's not like he ever actually threatened to HUNT DOWN AND KILL anybody around Mefi, has he?
posted by davy at 10:17 PM on July 19, 2005


I usually like to give people enough rope to hang themselves on

Things usually work out this way. Except for things like obvious double posts and other glaring errors where people are almost begging for a mercy edit, censoring the content of a post just seems wrong. However, the continued harping seems a bit much. I take Jess at her word that she is not likely to go here again. Would you, if you were her, after all this?

Jess, you are performing sort of a thankless task, but here are some thanks for all the good stuff. I may be one of the bigger complainers, but I am also one who appreciates the overall good you provide. Thanks for everything.
posted by caddis at 10:28 PM on July 19, 2005


For perspective: I haven't owned a television in two years. Ick.

i stopped watching tv regularly in 1970 ... so there! ... in fact it took me 5 years before i figured out why there were so many mary kate and ashley books in the kids' section in barnes and noble ...

there are some awfully thin-skinned people around here ... you're wearing a T-SHIRT ... OMG!! ... at an AIR AMERICA show!! ... (giggles)
posted by pyramid termite at 10:30 PM on July 19, 2005


You people really have no lives, do you?
posted by crunchland at 10:41 PM on July 19, 2005


we've got the internet ... we don't need no steekin' lives!
posted by pyramid termite at 10:52 PM on July 19, 2005


I find it hard to be impressed by boasts of not having a TV.

It's a bit like meeting a straightedge -- if there's something more boring than people who can't talk about anything but doing drugs, it's people who can't talk about anything but *not* doing drugs. Evidently they think it makes them interesting, but I differ.
posted by clevershark at 10:53 PM on July 19, 2005


We've been trying to let the flagging drive the editorial decisions

I find this interesting and I'd love it if you guys could say more about it. I've heard similar reports on edits/deletions in the past, along the lines of "there were lots of flags on it, so I deleted it."

I argued for the flagging system before there was one, so I definitely think it's valuable, but mainly as a notification tool, not an editorial compass. Before flagging, we had to rely on Matt combing the site himself, or responding to emails about trouble spots. Flagging is faster and cleaner at identifying *potential* trouble, but there's definitely going to be noise in the flags.

Simply responding to the presence of flags has many intrinsic dangers:

1) there's no cost to flagging something so the average flagging may have little or no thought put into it.

2) there's no accountability or visibility in flagging anything, so malicious thought might have gone into it (eg: paris-hating)

3) people have different standards, preferences, and opinions and it's possible that practically anything might get flagged by *someone*

4) there's no counterpart to flagging. If 5 people find something objectionable but 500 find it valuable and interesting... we don't know about those 500.

So how's it all working out on the admin end?
posted by scarabic at 12:06 AM on July 20, 2005


there's no counterpart to flagging

You can flag something as a "fantastic post" which many do, and I feature the cream of the crop on the sidebar blog.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 12:19 AM on July 20, 2005


Ah, forgotten about that. Have you ever gotten "fantastic" and "offensive" flags for the same post? Or do the two occur separately, marking the extremes of good and bad? If it's the latter, then they can be of little guidance with the fence cases. I'll have to remember to flag positively more often.

How about the rest of it?
posted by scarabic at 12:35 AM on July 20, 2005


PP might even be fun to watch or hang with, if you're not overly sensitive, and he might even have a real real-life friend or two. It's not like he ever actually threatened to HUNT DOWN AND KILL anybody around Mefi, has he?

No he hasn't, but others have made sketchy comments regarding PP, so I don't know how much 'fun' a meetup might be.

If I ever meet Paris (which won't happen because he's afraid to come to a meetup), he'll seriously regret it.
posted by amberglow

posted by justgary at 12:46 AM on July 20, 2005


I guess I understand some of the angst about the change, but ultimately I didn't find it to be that big a deal, certainly not something that warranted continued loud criticisms of Jessamyn after she apologized and said she would do things differently. Luckily, we know that when she says this she means it and that things will indeed be different.

I'm pretty impressed by the extent to which Matt and Jessamyn are able to stand the criticisms heaped on thier head for each perceived minor infraction of community norms they have the biggest share in setting and enforcing.
posted by OmieWise at 4:19 AM on July 20, 2005


If all posts are copyright their original authors, isn't editing them a violation of the stated copyright?
posted by page404 at 4:40 AM on July 20, 2005


Okay, been discussed already, once again the answer: Copyright means you control the rights over reproducing- you know- COPYING- your work. It doesn't mean the OWNER of the site you've written it on doesn't have the right to edit it. You've submitted your work for publication here; if the editor dislikes it, tough shit.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 5:04 AM on July 20, 2005


scarabic's points are good: the flag option brings posts or comments that inspire strong feelings to the attention of Matt and Jess, which is useful for a number of reasons.

Maybe it's a completely crappy, useless post or comment that really should be deleted, or maybe it alerts them to a thread that's likely to turn into a trainwreck, and they can keep an eye on it. Or maybe somebody is drunk, and gives out too much information about themselves (address, phone, whatever) or somebody else. So for all these reasons, tags are a good thing.

But, as scarabic indicates, the very fact of there being X number of tags shouldn't dictate what gets deleted or edited, because, really, X10 might think it should be left alone, but those opinions don't show up in any kind of poll. Only the perturbed are registering their votes.
posted by taz at 5:47 AM on July 20, 2005


I, for one, support our kind-hearted, even-tempered editorial board overlords.
posted by terrapin at 6:37 AM on July 20, 2005


there's no cost to flagging something so the average flagging may have little or no thought put into it.

Now there's a thought: you could give everyone x amount of flags per x period of time and then charge, oh, maybe, $5 for all following complaints. It'd be a a kind of tax on cranky.
posted by y2karl at 6:37 AM on July 20, 2005


A "delete it completely or let it stand" policy would prevent certain acceptable edits, like the original author asking for a change because of a mistake. While that example is very different from the one being discussed in this thread, it shows that there are problems with implementing an absolute policy on editing. While many people, myself included, do not like the idea of editing without guidelines, it allows for consideration on a case by case basis.

In the end, there are two choices: First, things are dealt with according to a clear policy even if that policy doesn't make sense in a particular case; second, things remain flexible and decisions are sometimes made that don't make sense. It seems to me that neither is ideal and that they both come out about even. It all depends what kind of problems you prefer.
posted by spaghetti at 7:26 AM on July 20, 2005


It'd be a a kind of tax on cranky.

That's the most brilliant thing I've ever heard.
posted by bshort at 7:40 AM on July 20, 2005


Uh, uh, aw, aw shucks
posted by y2karl at 8:25 AM on July 20, 2005


It's not like he ever actually threatened to HUNT DOWN AND KILL anybody around Mefi, has he?

well, first there are very few Muslims here, if any.
second, he always lets others do the fighting for him, it's a 101st Fighting Keyboarders rule -- you know, as the poet said: loud as a motorbike, but couldn't bust a grape in a fruit fight
posted by matteo at 8:36 AM on July 20, 2005


"A 'delete it completely or let it stand' policy would prevent certain acceptable edits, like the original author asking for a change because of a mistake."

Your example won't hold water, because it would be the author, not the editor, who is responsible for the edit, and it's very unlikely the author would complain. I myself have asked that an accidental double post, differing in I think one word, be deleted, because I caught the error after I hit Post and posted the corrected version before I saw the bad one up here; if I was going to complain about that it'd've been that it was NOT deleted. (My request was granted speedily and I'm tres grateful.) No, what we're talking about here is editing done WITHOUT the consent of the author.

As for ParisParamus, I'd rather nobody threaten or hurt him either. "What's good for the goose is good for the gander." Amberglow, this means even you. Metafilter is a community of peace!

And hell, if a Muslim militant were to do violence unto PP that would be a point for PP's side. In his case the best way to prove that "Islam is a religion of peace!" is to write him off as a loudmouthed kaffir and ignore him, right? (And matteo, there are Muslims here; look up user "mossy" for one.)
posted by davy at 10:06 AM on July 20, 2005


Oh, in case that last parenthetical remark about wasn't clear enough, mossy strikes me as one of the most peaceful-sounding Muslims I've ever argued with online.
posted by davy at 10:12 AM on July 20, 2005


And hell, if a Muslim militant were to do violence unto PP that would be a point for PP's side.

Not really. Generally speaking, some people, I submit, objectively deserve a punch to the face. It doesn't necessarily valdiate their world-view when it happens. Talk about 800%...
posted by fleacircus at 11:27 AM on July 20, 2005


Metafilter is a community of peace!

newsfilter, best o'teh web, discussion site, yeah, but i have NEVER heard it defined as a community of peace before. +10 for originality.
posted by quonsar at 11:29 AM on July 20, 2005


I'm pretty sure that Amberglow wasn't threatening physical violence at any meetup. Perhaps some members would end up regretting going to a meetup because some, perhaps many, people would give them as much shit in person as they have (courageously) given to MetaFilter from the safety of their keyboard for a couple of years now. I mean, what goes around generally, you know, comes around.

Back on track: I will add my vote against editing posts and comments to make them palatable. I mean if you have to change a post because it will offend people you should probably just delete it. In the case of posts, like the one in question, that are just flat out trolls written by egomaniacs desperately in need of (bizarrely) negative attention, perhaps you should leave them be, as a monument of sorts, and then give the poor guy or girl a time out to get their heads straight.
posted by sic at 12:02 PM on July 20, 2005


fleacircus, your submitted link doesn't work.

quonsar, it's kinda implied, eh? Ask matthowie.

sic, PP just needs a great big {{{HUG}}}! (You first?)
posted by davy at 12:04 PM on July 20, 2005


Oi, a paste-o:... (i submit)
posted by fleacircus at 1:03 PM on July 20, 2005


I'm pretty sure that Amberglow wasn't threatening physical violence at any meetup.

That's because it was amberglow, friend to all ('cept southerners, catholics, conservatives...basically, anyone with differing views). If it had been paris with that comment I doubt you'd be so sure.

Of course, I may be wrong.

I do think most metafilter members would be open minded enough to deal with anyone at a meetup, and probably realize that there's a lot you don't know about a person until you meet them. Again, I could be wrong.
posted by justgary at 1:32 PM on July 20, 2005


That's because it was amberglow, friend to all ('cept southerners, catholics, conservatives...basically, anyone with differing views).

Amber is a very nice person in Real Life and I doubt he'd treat you less than cordially.
posted by bshort at 2:06 PM on July 20, 2005


Amber is a very nice person in Real Life and I doubt he'd treat you less than cordially.

Seconded.
posted by clever sheep at 2:13 PM on July 20, 2005


hmm. seems like my comment disappeared into jrun.

i criticised jessamyn at the time, but in retrospect she was right, i think. i didn't realise how heated everyone would get. you people never fail to depress me.

so anyway, i say jessamyn did fine, apologise for my previous cricisism, and suggest that if you insist on behaving like a bunch of kids, it's rather silly to object when someone treats you as such.
posted by andrew cooke at 2:21 PM on July 20, 2005


If I ever meet Paris (which won't happen because he's afraid to come to a meetup), he'll seriously regret it.
posted by amberglow


That's absolutely psychotic. What the hell is wrong with you people?
posted by kjh at 2:42 PM on July 20, 2005


I find the complete partitioning of one's online behavior and one's real-life self to be completely psychotic, but that's just me I guess...
posted by hototogisu at 3:03 PM on July 20, 2005


I personally never get enough of members chiding everyone else like they're the authority on morality and everything good in the world. And it happens so much. Good times.
posted by puke & cry at 3:25 PM on July 20, 2005


I've seen that quote from amberglow get trotted out in about 5 differenet MeTa posts so far...I really want him to explain the intent behind it (if he didn't already and I just missed it) because I find it extremely hard to believe he was actually threatening someone.
posted by tristeza at 3:31 PM on July 20, 2005


That's because it was amberglow, friend to all ('cept southerners, catholics, conservatives...basically, anyone with differing views).

He's shared many a beer with this Catholic boy whose veiws differ wildly from his own, and has never been anything but a gentleman.
posted by jonmc at 3:53 PM on July 20, 2005


If ever a thread needed to be closed. What are we even talking about now?
posted by absalom at 4:31 PM on July 20, 2005


If I ever meet Paris (which won't happen because he's afraid to come to a meetup), he'll seriously regret it.

Wasn't there a subsequent post by amberglow clarifying his statement? Something along the lines that his engagement with PP would be one based on argument and verbal sparring, and not intended to indicate any physical confrontation?
posted by ericb at 4:36 PM on July 20, 2005


I would be happy to bestow free coffees on people at the Tea Lounge (to the extent my wallet can afford it). On the other hand, their coffee isn't really my cup of tea....
posted by ParisParamus at 4:49 PM on July 20, 2005


Anyone can be quoted out of context and made to look like a monster. I would have a hard time believing that Amberglow really intended to cause physical harm to PP if they happened to meet.

Some other members, maybe not so hard a time believing it. And no, I'm not looking at anyone in particular.
posted by fenriq at 4:53 PM on July 20, 2005


That's because it was amberglow, friend to all ('cept southerners, catholics, conservatives...basically, anyone with differing views). If it had been paris with that comment I doubt you'd be so sure.

In my opinion justgary, anybody who is absolutely, positively convinced that amberglow was physically threatening peepee is projecting their own violent tendencies. I mean c'mon, amberglow is going to beat up peepee? Ha!
posted by sic at 4:56 PM on July 20, 2005


As someone who's met both PP and amberglow, I can honestly say the idea of those two in a brawl is not just laughable, but surreal.
posted by jonmc at 5:16 PM on July 20, 2005


Now I can see jonmc drinking one shot of whisky too many and trying to kick somebody's ass, but amber?

by the way I also see jonmc's kick missing said person's ass by a mile and him ending up giggling on the alcohol-splotched floor of the bar until his friends carry him home
posted by sic at 5:29 PM on July 20, 2005


sic, I'm a lover not a fighter. Aside from a few near misses, I havent been in a fight since high school. I've seen a few knock-down drag-outs in my time, and they were certainly entertaining, I'm usually able to avoid committing violence I'm glad to say.
posted by jonmc at 5:33 PM on July 20, 2005


In my opinion justgary, anybody who is absolutely, positively convinced that amberglow was physically threatening peepee is projecting their own violent tendencies.

I never said I was convinced it was physical violence. And please, stop with the pop psychology. My own violent tendencies? I just repeated what he said, and not out of context as fenriq suggested.

How would paris "seriously regret it"? I have no idea, I didn't say it.
posted by justgary at 5:35 PM on July 20, 2005


justgary, usually you have some valid points, but your bluster and defensiveness obscures them. I'm just saying.
posted by jonmc at 5:36 PM on July 20, 2005


amberglow doesn't strike me as a big bar-brawler... he certainly didn't start a fight at the last Montreal meetup. He was buying people drinks and giving smokes even :-)

PP strikes me as the kind of guy who'd go out of his way to annoy the sh*t out of you, but when you'd come around to point it out he'd act all offended. Then agan again I've never met him so that's entirely based on what I see on MeFi/MeTa.
posted by clevershark at 5:39 PM on July 20, 2005


I never said I was convinced it was physical violence. And please, stop with the pop psychology. My own violent tendencies? I just repeated what he said, and not out of context as fenriq suggested.

You seem defensive. Does it bother you that almost everyone else interpreted this statement in a different way as you? Do you feel persecuted for your beliefs? What was your childhood like?
posted by sic at 5:45 PM on July 20, 2005


Jon, someone tells me I'm projecting my own violent tendencies. If saying that's nonsense is defensive, than I guess I am.

Not sure what your point is.

I'm sure amberglow is a 'swell' guy. Party on people. All I'm saying is that was a very strange comment that went unnoticed. If paris makes that statement, it doesn't.

Just my opinion, no bluster or defensiveness needed.
posted by justgary at 5:46 PM on July 20, 2005


, friend to all ('cept southerners, catholics, conservatives...basically, anyone with differing views)

it's bullshit, and what's even worse, you probably know it is.
posted by matteo at 5:52 PM on July 20, 2005


I'm sure amberglow is a 'swell' guy. Party on people. All I'm saying is that was a very strange comment that went unnoticed. If paris makes that statement, it doesn't.

justgary, both these men have extensive posting histories here. Amerglow is very opinionated (and sometimes his statements have me clutching my head in disbelief and I'm sure I have the same effect on him), but he almost never gets personal with other users. Paris does. It's not entirely about his political stances. There's conservatives here (MidasMulligan, davidmsc, unclefes and yourself) who manage to make their points without being as deliberately confrontational as Paris. And as I've said before, I've met Paris and he was a very personabe guy. nicwolff and joemaller, the other mefites present, can vouch for this. And beligerrent leftists have had their asses handed to them in MeTa as well. It's not always the politics.
posted by jonmc at 5:52 PM on July 20, 2005


it's bullshit, and what's even worse, you probably know it is.

No it's not, and I know it's a foolish idea to disagree with one of amberglow's friends, but you're in denial.

I'm not going through amberglows ten thousand posts, but amberglow has constantly lost any 'liberal' leanings when its come to threads on those groups of people.

Not to mention threads where he's bunched myself, dios, and paris into the same group. Don't agree with amberglow, go stand over there...

Again, and this will be the last time I'll say it, amberglow's comments were strange. No, I don't picture amberglow beating anyone up. I don't know what he meant, only he does. And although I seem to be surrounded by many posters now attacking me (oh no, I'm being defensive again...) no one's tried to figure out what amberglow actually meant. Why? Because the comment sounded bad, and since amberglow isn't a 'bad' guy, it's a tricky question.
posted by justgary at 6:04 PM on July 20, 2005


"...that was a very strange comment that went unnoticed..."

I think it's safe to say it didn't go unnoticed, as it's been commented on over and over in multiple threads.

Strange, though, definitely.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 6:05 PM on July 20, 2005


Don't agree with amberglow, go stand over there...

Then how come I'm not in the corrall with you and dios? And I've exchanged some very enjoyable emails and irc with dios, despite our differences. It's all in the approach, my man. I wouldn't bother telling you this if I didn't think you had something worthwhile to offer.
posted by jonmc at 6:07 PM on July 20, 2005


Jon, someone tells me I'm projecting my own violent tendencies. If saying that's nonsense is defensive, than I guess I am.


I said anybody who is absolutely, positively convinced that amber had physical violence on his mind was projecting their own violent personalities.

But you said: I never said I was convinced it was physical violence. Which would mean that you shouldn't feel included in my blanket statement.

Yet you feel singled out. Perhaps you are paranoid? Delusional? OMG, SCHIZOPHRENIC? Just remember, we are all friends here, take it slow and easy. Metafilter can help.
posted by sic at 6:09 PM on July 20, 2005


Then how come I'm not in the corrall with you and dios?

Jon, I think our lines are crossed. I simply meant that amberglow lumped us into a group in a previous thread when in fact our political leanings are quite different. I meant from his perspective, not anyone elses.

I think it's safe to say it didn't go unnoticed, as it's been commented on over and over in multiple threads.

posted by mr_crash_davis


Point taken. I had never seen it commented on before.

Enough said (from my part anyway).
posted by justgary at 6:13 PM on July 20, 2005


I meant from his perspective, not anyone elses.

Yes, I know. And my (and several other mefites who amber is cordial, if not convivial with) veiws diverge with his from his perspective. Yet we're not in the pen with dios. Why?
posted by jonmc at 6:15 PM on July 20, 2005


I forgot to add MattD to the list of conservatives who don't arouse avalanches of ire here. Watch him and take notes.
posted by jonmc at 6:17 PM on July 20, 2005


Yet we're not in the pen with dios. Why?

Jon, you may have differing view than amberglow, but I suspect you're in the same ballpark.

My political beliefs, as hard as it may be to believe, are probably not far from amberglows. (even from your comments I know you think I'm conservative, and I'm far from it) But I've disagree with him many, many times, especially when it comes to southerners, a group of people amberglow paints with broad strokes, which always surprised me since it would seem amberglow would realize that fault in that line of reasoning.

But truth be told, I have no idea. But metafilter has always been a bunch of links to me. The community I can take or leave. I'm not trying to be caustic, but I'm not going to tone down any perceived anger to fit in.
posted by justgary at 6:29 PM on July 20, 2005


I'm sure amberglow is a 'swell' guy. Party on people. All I'm saying is that was a very strange comment that went unnoticed. If paris makes that statement, it doesn't.

Before you commented on it in the original thread, languagehat, SeizeTheDay, Ryvar and mosch already had. Perhaps you missed those comments in your rush to point out how biased the MeFi community is for the thousandth time?
posted by Armitage Shanks at 6:41 PM on July 20, 2005


It's not a matter of fitting in. It's a matter of making your valid points heard. I've said this to plenty of people here, burying valid points under bluster and accusations does the points a disservice.
posted by jonmc at 6:41 PM on July 20, 2005


Perhaps you missed those comments in your rush to point out how biased the MeFi community is for the thousandth time?

A thousand? A hundred maybe. But a thousand? Seems unlikely.
posted by justgary at 6:44 PM on July 20, 2005


BTW, justgary, you really would enjoy Jim Goad's The Redneck Manifesto. No author on earth combines, humor, righteous anger, iconoclasm, and intellectual rigor better. He's been a huge influence (along with Hunter S. Thompson, Richard Price, and Tom Perrotta) on my writing.
posted by jonmc at 6:48 PM on July 20, 2005


And by the way armitage shanks, I will continue to point out any bigoted or biased statements which I know are untrue, no matter from amberglow, or, well, nofundy, or anyone else. And I would hope anyone would do the same to me. I'm really lost at what your problem is with that.

Jon, I actually did read that book at one sitting at a local barnes and noble a couple of years ago. Fantastic book. I've either quoted from it on mefi or someone else has. Been so long I forget.
posted by justgary at 6:51 PM on July 20, 2005


Then you should read his ANSWER ME! collection, too. He's one of the few authors who refuses to let any reader be comfortable or complacent abou their own opinions.
posted by jonmc at 6:55 PM on July 20, 2005


Thanks Jon. I was curious if he had written anything else. I'll definitely look into those.
posted by justgary at 6:58 PM on July 20, 2005


cool. Let me know what you think. You might dig the other authors I mentioned (although I'm fairly sure you've probably read HST).
posted by jonmc at 7:00 PM on July 20, 2005


Will do.
posted by justgary at 7:06 PM on July 20, 2005


worth telling you, some of the leftiest lefties on MeFi have copped to being Jim Goad fans, so remember that. Also, for Price start with his earlier stuff and work chronologically, details here. For Perotta, start with Bad Haircut (the opening story is one of the best I've ever read, he captures prosaic lower middle suburbia better tha any author I've ever read (although directors Kevin Smith and Richard Linklater and comic book artist Peter Bagge come close)). These guys helped give me the courage to start articulating my ideas.
posted by jonmc at 7:12 PM on July 20, 2005


For Perotta, start with Bad Haircut

"Suck my moosecock, Santa, I wouldn't guide your sleigh tonight for a million bucks."
posted by Armitage Shanks at 7:18 PM on July 20, 2005


Armitage, I knew there was a reason I liked you. ;)
posted by jonmc at 7:22 PM on July 20, 2005


"If ever a thread needed to be closed. "

Most should never start. There's little point to most of of Metafilter, and even less to Metatalk.

"What are we even talking about now?"

BUNNIES!!!
posted by davy at 7:53 PM on July 20, 2005


There's always a point. There may not be a spoon, however.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:03 PM on July 20, 2005


LOOK BEHIND THE BORKED FOONLET
posted by quonsar at 8:07 PM on July 20, 2005


In my opinion justgary, anybody who is absolutely, positively convinced that amberglow was physically threatening peepee is projecting their own violent tendencies. I mean c'mon, amberglow is going to beat up peepee? Ha!
posted by sic at 4:56 PM PST on July 20


Who cares? Its arrogance of ideology taken to its repugnant extreme. As if two people with different views--absolutely opposite views!--can't be perfectly civil to each other in a social setting. Ridiculous. Insane. Only in the dumbed-down, intellectual-insulting, humanity-degrading, slimy, pathetic rhetoric of political arugments on the internet. Ugh.
posted by kjh at 12:27 AM on July 21, 2005


« Older The MefiSwap deadlines have changed once again   |   Proposal: MetaSoapbox. Newer »

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