censorship on Metafilter July 18, 2007 5:42 PM Subscribe
My post titled "The Most Dangerous Video on the Internets" was pulled after appearing for a mere 10 minutes or so. In addition to that, jessamyn's posted "reason" was a cheap resort to name-calling. The video to which I was linking is 2 hours long. How can you possibly have decided that it was worth censoring after a mere 10 minutes? Are Metafilter readers really unable to decide for themselves whether or not they should view the video? I've received an email reply from jessamyn which I appreciate, but believe her reasons to be without merit. I like Metafilter a lot (it's my homepage), but really don't like censorship which is exactly what this smells like. I'd like to know more about this decision.
How can you possibly have decided that it was worth censoring after a mere 10 minutes?
Because the truth must not get out.
posted by cillit bang at 5:46 PM on July 18, 2007 [6 favorites]
Because the truth must not get out.
posted by cillit bang at 5:46 PM on July 18, 2007 [6 favorites]
Dude, threaten to chop off your hand. That'll really grease the wheels of moderation around here. And use all caps.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 5:46 PM on July 18, 2007
posted by SeizeTheDay at 5:46 PM on July 18, 2007
Dude, there's street corners all over every town in America. There has to be one that would be a suitable home for your pulpit.
posted by jonmc at 5:47 PM on July 18, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by jonmc at 5:47 PM on July 18, 2007 [1 favorite]
Dude.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 5:48 PM on July 18, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by SeizeTheDay at 5:48 PM on July 18, 2007 [1 favorite]
'OCKHAM'S RAZOR MOTHERFUCKER, DO YOU UNDERSTAND IT?'
posted by Aloysius Bear at 5:48 PM on July 18, 2007 [4 favorites]
posted by Aloysius Bear at 5:48 PM on July 18, 2007 [4 favorites]
This is not censorship, msquare, it's moderation according the pretty-darned-well-established guidelines of the site you decided to contribute to. One of the points jessamyn made in her response to you is pretty key here: you joined the site to discuss a very closely related thread, almost all of your involvement on the site is in that thread, and your first post is to a two hour lecture on the topic.
It's not a great post. It's not a new topic to the site. It's not even a new topic to you or your participation on the site. And you're really, really close to it which seems to be getting between you and any objective analysis of your own post.
Insisting that everyone spend two hours watching the lecture before they can develop an opinion on the subject is pushing way past reasonableness.
posted by cortex (staff) at 5:49 PM on July 18, 2007 [2 favorites]
It's not a great post. It's not a new topic to the site. It's not even a new topic to you or your participation on the site. And you're really, really close to it which seems to be getting between you and any objective analysis of your own post.
Insisting that everyone spend two hours watching the lecture before they can develop an opinion on the subject is pushing way past reasonableness.
posted by cortex (staff) at 5:49 PM on July 18, 2007 [2 favorites]
JESUS CHRIST DON'T POST HERE, THEY CAN SEE ALL.
posted by Krrrlson at 5:49 PM on July 18, 2007 [3 favorites]
posted by Krrrlson at 5:49 PM on July 18, 2007 [3 favorites]
Does anyone, after all the evidence that's been amassed, really believe that the oncoming flameout in this thread is hot enough to melt steel?
posted by dmd at 5:50 PM on July 18, 2007 [14 favorites]
posted by dmd at 5:50 PM on July 18, 2007 [14 favorites]
How often does it need to be pointed out that "censorship" is a function of a state, and has nothing to do with the site's policies or actions? msquare, if the moderators here thought your link was too weak to stand, or if they thought for whatever reason that it wasn't appropriate for MetaFilter, it's coming down. You coming here to complain about is a time-honored tradition, and it's also a useless, whingeing waste of everybody's time. Your post was editorializing in a pretty pure form, except for its opacity. It wasn't good. It was deleted. Make other posts later.
On Preview, yeah, what they said.
posted by cgc373 at 5:52 PM on July 18, 2007 [2 favorites]
On Preview, yeah, what they said.
posted by cgc373 at 5:52 PM on July 18, 2007 [2 favorites]
Most of my involvement in Metafilter is as a reader in fact. I rarely post. That's just my style. I think I've answered each argument given in my response and would be happy to post with jessamyn's permission.
posted by msquare at 5:53 PM on July 18, 2007
posted by msquare at 5:53 PM on July 18, 2007
And, Dude.
posted by cgc373 at 5:53 PM on July 18, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by cgc373 at 5:53 PM on July 18, 2007 [1 favorite]
How can you possibly have decided that it was worth censoring after a mere 10 minutes?
I submit that someone could put together a two hour documentary on the aether or humoralism, and I would know, without having to watch the full documentary, that I was going to find most of the information to be factually incorrect.
Sometimes these things don't seem fair, but you got 10 comments. Not one of them was good. Think of it this way, jess did you a favor by not allowing a thread to stick around that would have turned into a shitfest.
posted by quin at 5:53 PM on July 18, 2007
I submit that someone could put together a two hour documentary on the aether or humoralism, and I would know, without having to watch the full documentary, that I was going to find most of the information to be factually incorrect.
Sometimes these things don't seem fair, but you got 10 comments. Not one of them was good. Think of it this way, jess did you a favor by not allowing a thread to stick around that would have turned into a shitfest.
posted by quin at 5:53 PM on July 18, 2007
Maybe jessamyn is part of a global conspiracy to censor the truth of what happened on 9/11. When she's not sending posts and comments down the memory hole that could otherwise let the world know of this heinous crime, she's going through the libraries of America, hiding books that could be used to research and support this theory, and deleting the appropriate classes from the Dewey Decimal System.
Either that or your post sucked.
I think it's time for another application of Ockham's Razor!
posted by grouse at 5:55 PM on July 18, 2007 [1 favorite]
Either that or your post sucked.
I think it's time for another application of Ockham's Razor!
posted by grouse at 5:55 PM on July 18, 2007 [1 favorite]
The video is 2 hours long. Comments started pouring in for the 10 minutes after it was posted then censored. Does seem to be dangerous, doesn't it? And unfair...
posted by msquare at 5:55 PM on July 18, 2007
posted by msquare at 5:55 PM on July 18, 2007
i blame the zionists.
and penguins.
shifty eyed little bastards.
posted by Stynxno at 5:56 PM on July 18, 2007 [2 favorites]
and penguins.
shifty eyed little bastards.
posted by Stynxno at 5:56 PM on July 18, 2007 [2 favorites]
I don't believe jessamyn is "part of a global conspiracy" but I do think she made a knee-jerk decision without merit to censor my post.
posted by msquare at 5:56 PM on July 18, 2007
posted by msquare at 5:56 PM on July 18, 2007
This thread shows some promise, but it is as yet insufficiently entertaining. Maybe loquax can repost the deleted link.
posted by dersins at 5:56 PM on July 18, 2007
posted by dersins at 5:56 PM on July 18, 2007
cgc373. If you read the reasons I was given, I think you'd find it hard to believe that it was fair. I'm getting ready for the "Life isn't fair" post...
posted by msquare at 5:58 PM on July 18, 2007
posted by msquare at 5:58 PM on July 18, 2007
WHY IS METAFILTER RUN BY TOPLESS FURRIES IN BOY SCOUT UNIFORMS?
posted by Krrrlson at 5:59 PM on July 18, 2007 [4 favorites]
posted by Krrrlson at 5:59 PM on July 18, 2007 [4 favorites]
I think I've answered each argument given in my response and would be happy to post with jessamyn's permission.
You've answered in the sense that you've said "no." In the more important sense of providing a compelling counter-argument to the really, really basic objections to the post (some of which I reiterated above), you haven't answered at all. If you're saying you'd be happy to repost the same thing again tomorrow, I'm going to go out on a limb and speak on jessamyn's behalf and say no. Heck no. No on a stick.
The video is 2 hours long. Comments started pouring in for the 10 minutes after it was posted then censored. Does seem to be dangerous, doesn't it? And unfair...
Oh, give up on the 'dangerous' angle. If you really read Metafilter regularly, you'll have seen how across-the-board the content here can be. Demanding two hours of silent observation and introspection from the community is rank arrogance.
posted by cortex (staff) at 5:59 PM on July 18, 2007
You've answered in the sense that you've said "no." In the more important sense of providing a compelling counter-argument to the really, really basic objections to the post (some of which I reiterated above), you haven't answered at all. If you're saying you'd be happy to repost the same thing again tomorrow, I'm going to go out on a limb and speak on jessamyn's behalf and say no. Heck no. No on a stick.
The video is 2 hours long. Comments started pouring in for the 10 minutes after it was posted then censored. Does seem to be dangerous, doesn't it? And unfair...
Oh, give up on the 'dangerous' angle. If you really read Metafilter regularly, you'll have seen how across-the-board the content here can be. Demanding two hours of silent observation and introspection from the community is rank arrogance.
posted by cortex (staff) at 5:59 PM on July 18, 2007
Please stop the misuse of the word "censorship", the society of hyperbolic statements thanks you.
posted by geoff. at 6:03 PM on July 18, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by geoff. at 6:03 PM on July 18, 2007 [1 favorite]
I'd like to post my discussion with jessamyn, but will not do so without her permission as I think it will make my position clearer. I did far more than just say "no" without specific arguments to back up my perspective. I never "demand(ed) two hours of silent observation and introspection from the community" and never would do so. It would be up to them whether or not they wanted to view the video and/or comment. We all have a brain I think...
posted by msquare at 6:05 PM on July 18, 2007
posted by msquare at 6:05 PM on July 18, 2007
What fresh hell is this?
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 6:05 PM on July 18, 2007 [2 favorites]
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 6:05 PM on July 18, 2007 [2 favorites]
Please stop the misuse of the word "internets", the society of self-deprecating dork humor thanks you.
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 6:07 PM on July 18, 2007
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 6:07 PM on July 18, 2007
Just to accurate, the first comment, which I made, came just 2 minutes after your post was made. But that was only because I first took the time to flag it.
(But maybe that's just me. I watched it unfold, in person, from my apartment roof, four blocks away. The second plane went right over my head into the building. Trust me, I am being VERY patient here.)
posted by RMD at 6:09 PM on July 18, 2007 [3 favorites]
(But maybe that's just me. I watched it unfold, in person, from my apartment roof, four blocks away. The second plane went right over my head into the building. Trust me, I am being VERY patient here.)
posted by RMD at 6:09 PM on July 18, 2007 [3 favorites]
Oh, the email? Yeah, that's fine, I'll post it for you.
[msquare]
> Hi, jessamyn. I would like a fair explanation as to why you decided to
> delete my post today titled "The Most Dangerous Video on the Internets"
> regarding architect Richard Gage's 07/17 presentation at the University of
> Manitoba. Is it really so dangerous that the good readers of Metafilter
> cannot be allowed to consider it?
>
> While it is in fact possible that you had already viewed the video before
> posting the tin-foil hat invective (which would be fair enough if that was
> your conclusion), my guess is that you have not. And even if you had viewed
> it, what good is censoring the post going to do? This is a reasonable,
> experienced man presenting his perspective on an important albeit
> controversial issue.
>
> Readers may agree with Mr. Gage or disagree (I think Metafilter readers are
> clever enough to make up their own minds), but it's certainly not in the
> interest to send it down the memory hole. I assure you this issue is not
> going away.
>
> At the very least, I would appreciate an apology for the name-calling. My
> impression of Metafilter is that it's a community of mostly reasonable
> people discussing any number of issues. There will be disagreements no
> doubt, but that's the nature of us all having individual minds with which to
> view the world. I urge you to open your mind a bit and reconsider your
> decision.
>
> Regards,
[jessamyn]
Hi Mark -- it has nothing to do with the supposed danger of the post.
It has to do with the fact that there have been plenty of "9/11 was a
planned demolition" posts on MeFi, they don't go well, people resent
the hell out of them, they turn into train wrecks and they are bad
posts for metafilter. Unless this lecture actually had somethign to
say, in a different way, then the other posts on ths topic then I'd
have to go with my original decision.
I didn't mean to be calling you names over this and I am sorry about
that, just that we've seen the same thing over and over and people
have the same responses. So, in summary
- no matter what the topic is a two hour video lecture is rarely the
best of the web, people won't watch it but they'll dive into arguing
about it anyhow.
- your post had more flags than it had comments and all the comments
when I pulled it (I think? I may be mistaken about this...) were
variants of "this sucks"
- the topic has been done to death on MeFi
- the whole "most dangerous video on the web" is predisposing the post
to seem like it's a conspiracy-type post
- you don't have any other track record on MeFi that would make your
post not seem that way. Almost all of your comments are in this
thread. out of 114 comments, 14 are yours. This implies a hobby horse
level of inteerst in this topic (i.e. pushing an agenda, not just "hey
this is something neat I found that I think people on metafilter will
like")
http://www.metafilter.com/60812/Its-hard-to-believethats-theres-nobody-out-there
You are more than welcome to bring this up in MetaTalk if you do not
like my decision.
[end]
posted by cortex (staff) at 6:10 PM on July 18, 2007 [3 favorites]
[msquare]
> Hi, jessamyn. I would like a fair explanation as to why you decided to
> delete my post today titled "The Most Dangerous Video on the Internets"
> regarding architect Richard Gage's 07/17 presentation at the University of
> Manitoba. Is it really so dangerous that the good readers of Metafilter
> cannot be allowed to consider it?
>
> While it is in fact possible that you had already viewed the video before
> posting the tin-foil hat invective (which would be fair enough if that was
> your conclusion), my guess is that you have not. And even if you had viewed
> it, what good is censoring the post going to do? This is a reasonable,
> experienced man presenting his perspective on an important albeit
> controversial issue.
>
> Readers may agree with Mr. Gage or disagree (I think Metafilter readers are
> clever enough to make up their own minds), but it's certainly not in the
> interest to send it down the memory hole. I assure you this issue is not
> going away.
>
> At the very least, I would appreciate an apology for the name-calling. My
> impression of Metafilter is that it's a community of mostly reasonable
> people discussing any number of issues. There will be disagreements no
> doubt, but that's the nature of us all having individual minds with which to
> view the world. I urge you to open your mind a bit and reconsider your
> decision.
>
> Regards,
[jessamyn]
Hi Mark -- it has nothing to do with the supposed danger of the post.
It has to do with the fact that there have been plenty of "9/11 was a
planned demolition" posts on MeFi, they don't go well, people resent
the hell out of them, they turn into train wrecks and they are bad
posts for metafilter. Unless this lecture actually had somethign to
say, in a different way, then the other posts on ths topic then I'd
have to go with my original decision.
I didn't mean to be calling you names over this and I am sorry about
that, just that we've seen the same thing over and over and people
have the same responses. So, in summary
- no matter what the topic is a two hour video lecture is rarely the
best of the web, people won't watch it but they'll dive into arguing
about it anyhow.
- your post had more flags than it had comments and all the comments
when I pulled it (I think? I may be mistaken about this...) were
variants of "this sucks"
- the topic has been done to death on MeFi
- the whole "most dangerous video on the web" is predisposing the post
to seem like it's a conspiracy-type post
- you don't have any other track record on MeFi that would make your
post not seem that way. Almost all of your comments are in this
thread. out of 114 comments, 14 are yours. This implies a hobby horse
level of inteerst in this topic (i.e. pushing an agenda, not just "hey
this is something neat I found that I think people on metafilter will
like")
http://www.metafilter.com/60812/Its-hard-to-believethats-theres-nobody-out-there
You are more than welcome to bring this up in MetaTalk if you do not
like my decision.
[end]
posted by cortex (staff) at 6:10 PM on July 18, 2007 [3 favorites]
jessamyn's explanation of why the post was deleted sounds very reasonable. I'm not sure what else you're looking for, msquare.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 6:13 PM on July 18, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 6:13 PM on July 18, 2007 [1 favorite]
I'm actually pretty stunned at the responses I'm receiving. How many have watched the video? Raise your hands... Oh boy, I think I need a brewski now...
posted by msquare at 6:13 PM on July 18, 2007
posted by msquare at 6:13 PM on July 18, 2007
Take it www.howu.info, they will post it and be very helpful.
posted by Razzle Bathbone at 6:14 PM on July 18, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by Razzle Bathbone at 6:14 PM on July 18, 2007 [1 favorite]
msquare, why in the world would we want to watch this video? I value my safety and won't recklessly engage in dangerous video watching without precautions.
Maybe some goggles?
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 6:15 PM on July 18, 2007 [2 favorites]
Maybe some goggles?
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 6:15 PM on July 18, 2007 [2 favorites]
So your argument to her was that, while it's possible that she had seen the video, she probably hadn't, and that in either case there was no reason to delete it; that, again, it shouldn't have been deleted; and that, really, the problem is that she's not open minded.
That's pretty much "no". You declare her reasons to be without merit, repeat the same talking points (it's two hours! it's dangerous! censorship! let the people decide!) and insist that you are right, without addressing the actual reasons or even acknowledging any understanding of why your post might be objectionable for reasons other than those that you keep asserting. It's a mighty frustrating conversation.
posted by cortex (staff) at 6:15 PM on July 18, 2007
That's pretty much "no". You declare her reasons to be without merit, repeat the same talking points (it's two hours! it's dangerous! censorship! let the people decide!) and insist that you are right, without addressing the actual reasons or even acknowledging any understanding of why your post might be objectionable for reasons other than those that you keep asserting. It's a mighty frustrating conversation.
posted by cortex (staff) at 6:15 PM on July 18, 2007
msquare, Metafilter is not for 2 hour videos. On any topic. It's just not the best of the web.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 6:15 PM on July 18, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 6:15 PM on July 18, 2007 [1 favorite]
when the hell have we ever watched a video, read the article? this is metafilter for cyring out loud.
posted by Stynxno at 6:17 PM on July 18, 2007
posted by Stynxno at 6:17 PM on July 18, 2007
And here is my response to your post, jessamyn. I think it's important for people to understand my position a bit better:
"Thank you for the prompt reply, Jessamyn. I appreciate it. I'd like to answer your points if I may.
- no matter what the topic is a two hour video lecture is rarely the best of the web, people won't watch it but they'll dive into arguing about it anyhow.
I didn't categorize the topic as being a "best of the web" so I don't feel this is a charge to which I should have to answer. It may be true that a lot of people won't watch it, but will dive into arguing about it. That doesn't mean it's not worthy of discussion. I'm sure many people dive into arguments all the time on Metafilter without having throughly read an article or articles on a particular topic. But that's life. And it's their loss for being intellectually lazy and other readers' loss by having to read inane, uneducated comments (even if they are sometimes pretty damn funny).
We don't all have to agree, but at least when a person comments they should know a little about what their commenting about.
- your post had more flags than it had comments and all the comments when I pulled it (I think? I may be mistaken about this...) were variants of "this sucks"
And you decided to go with those commenters who almost assuredly couldn't have watched the video? That post was up for probably less than 5 minutes before you pulled it. Call me tin-foil hat wearin' crazy, but I'd say that video must have been awfully dangerous to get yanked at that velocity...
- the topic has been done to death on MeFi
And the Iraq war hasn't? Or how many different ways a person can customize their Ipod hasn't? I'm not suggesting that you censor these posts either.
The Iraq War is a big issue. The Ipod is a much beloved thing. And people should have the right to talk about them at length. I enjoy many of those discussions and have learned a lot from them including how to fix my Ipod.
As far as this lecture by Richard Gage not being something new, I think it is in a way as Richard Gage is addressing a university audience with a very straightforward, detailed presentation and is a respected architect with 20 years of experience as well. Precisely why I believe it is "dangerous" for the Bush administration (note the use of the term "Internets").
Incidentally, it's a bit ironic, but a quick search informed me that Project Censored (http://www.projectcensored.org/) recently sponsored a lecture by
him:
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/04/18/18401074.php
- the whole "most dangerous video on the web" is predisposing the post to seem like it's a conspiracy-type post
That's your interpretation. Shouldn't the folks on Metafilter be able to decide for themselves the worthiness of it? That's what the comments section is for I thought. I would also urge you to consider the meaning of the term "conspiracy". You know there was a time when people would call civil rights activists "conspiracy theorists" when they started pressing the issue of syphillis experiments being performed on unknowing African-American men. Nowadays, it's just common knowledge and those activists who worked so hard to bring the issue to light would I'm sure be the first to tell you about the thought-stopping effect of a loaded term like "conspiracy theorist". All this being said, I would happily apply a question mark to the end of the title "The Most Dangerous Video on the Internets" post so it doesn't state things quite so boldly although I don't believe it's necessary.
- you don't have any other track record on MeFi that would make your post not seem that way. Almost all of your comments are in this thread. out of
114 comments, 14 are yours. This implies a hobby horse level of inteerst in this topic (i.e. pushing an agenda, not just "hey this is something neat I found that I think people on metafilter will
like")
I'm not sure what you mean by a "hobby horse level of interest in this topic". And to pretend that anybody posting anything is "neutral" and not given to particular biases, perspectives, etc. -- when they are posting is absurd. I would think that in these so-called postmodern times, this would be understood as a given.
I do intend to post to MetaTalk and am sure I'll face a lot of anger there.
That's just the nature of the issue unfortunately. But you know a lot of people booed Michael Moore when he spoke out at the Academy Awards. Now what do people think of his statements and predictions?
This is a undoubtedly a difficult issue. I readily admit to having a knee-jerk reaction to it for quite some time -- which I'll be frank is what I think you had -- to the information that I posted. It took me until about
6 months ago to actually research the matter beyond the analysis that outlets like Democracy Now!, The Nation and Counterpunch were providing.
That's a long time before I began to think for myself. And I liked to think of myself as being fairly well-informed politically. When I did investigate the evidence available, it was unsettling and humbling. At the risk of sounding cliché and overly sentimental, I learned a lot about myself. I'd urge you to learn a bit about yourself also and look into it. And even if you decide against it, you should reconsider your snap decision to censor the post. Not everyone on Metafilter should have to be "protected" from information that you may find disagreeable.
In many ways, you've got a wonderful thing going on at Metafilter. That's exactly why I made it my homepage some time ago, but am now sadly reconsidering my decision after this event. Please let me know your thoughts."
posted by msquare at 6:17 PM on July 18, 2007
"Thank you for the prompt reply, Jessamyn. I appreciate it. I'd like to answer your points if I may.
- no matter what the topic is a two hour video lecture is rarely the best of the web, people won't watch it but they'll dive into arguing about it anyhow.
I didn't categorize the topic as being a "best of the web" so I don't feel this is a charge to which I should have to answer. It may be true that a lot of people won't watch it, but will dive into arguing about it. That doesn't mean it's not worthy of discussion. I'm sure many people dive into arguments all the time on Metafilter without having throughly read an article or articles on a particular topic. But that's life. And it's their loss for being intellectually lazy and other readers' loss by having to read inane, uneducated comments (even if they are sometimes pretty damn funny).
We don't all have to agree, but at least when a person comments they should know a little about what their commenting about.
- your post had more flags than it had comments and all the comments when I pulled it (I think? I may be mistaken about this...) were variants of "this sucks"
And you decided to go with those commenters who almost assuredly couldn't have watched the video? That post was up for probably less than 5 minutes before you pulled it. Call me tin-foil hat wearin' crazy, but I'd say that video must have been awfully dangerous to get yanked at that velocity...
- the topic has been done to death on MeFi
And the Iraq war hasn't? Or how many different ways a person can customize their Ipod hasn't? I'm not suggesting that you censor these posts either.
The Iraq War is a big issue. The Ipod is a much beloved thing. And people should have the right to talk about them at length. I enjoy many of those discussions and have learned a lot from them including how to fix my Ipod.
As far as this lecture by Richard Gage not being something new, I think it is in a way as Richard Gage is addressing a university audience with a very straightforward, detailed presentation and is a respected architect with 20 years of experience as well. Precisely why I believe it is "dangerous" for the Bush administration (note the use of the term "Internets").
Incidentally, it's a bit ironic, but a quick search informed me that Project Censored (http://www.projectcensored.org/) recently sponsored a lecture by
him:
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/04/18/18401074.php
- the whole "most dangerous video on the web" is predisposing the post to seem like it's a conspiracy-type post
That's your interpretation. Shouldn't the folks on Metafilter be able to decide for themselves the worthiness of it? That's what the comments section is for I thought. I would also urge you to consider the meaning of the term "conspiracy". You know there was a time when people would call civil rights activists "conspiracy theorists" when they started pressing the issue of syphillis experiments being performed on unknowing African-American men. Nowadays, it's just common knowledge and those activists who worked so hard to bring the issue to light would I'm sure be the first to tell you about the thought-stopping effect of a loaded term like "conspiracy theorist". All this being said, I would happily apply a question mark to the end of the title "The Most Dangerous Video on the Internets" post so it doesn't state things quite so boldly although I don't believe it's necessary.
- you don't have any other track record on MeFi that would make your post not seem that way. Almost all of your comments are in this thread. out of
114 comments, 14 are yours. This implies a hobby horse level of inteerst in this topic (i.e. pushing an agenda, not just "hey this is something neat I found that I think people on metafilter will
like")
I'm not sure what you mean by a "hobby horse level of interest in this topic". And to pretend that anybody posting anything is "neutral" and not given to particular biases, perspectives, etc. -- when they are posting is absurd. I would think that in these so-called postmodern times, this would be understood as a given.
I do intend to post to MetaTalk and am sure I'll face a lot of anger there.
That's just the nature of the issue unfortunately. But you know a lot of people booed Michael Moore when he spoke out at the Academy Awards. Now what do people think of his statements and predictions?
This is a undoubtedly a difficult issue. I readily admit to having a knee-jerk reaction to it for quite some time -- which I'll be frank is what I think you had -- to the information that I posted. It took me until about
6 months ago to actually research the matter beyond the analysis that outlets like Democracy Now!, The Nation and Counterpunch were providing.
That's a long time before I began to think for myself. And I liked to think of myself as being fairly well-informed politically. When I did investigate the evidence available, it was unsettling and humbling. At the risk of sounding cliché and overly sentimental, I learned a lot about myself. I'd urge you to learn a bit about yourself also and look into it. And even if you decide against it, you should reconsider your snap decision to censor the post. Not everyone on Metafilter should have to be "protected" from information that you may find disagreeable.
In many ways, you've got a wonderful thing going on at Metafilter. That's exactly why I made it my homepage some time ago, but am now sadly reconsidering my decision after this event. Please let me know your thoughts."
posted by msquare at 6:17 PM on July 18, 2007
It is my firm and considered opinion that every 9/11 conspiracy video, website, essay, and blog that I have encountered is totally loony. Totally.
I will also state for the record that I think the mods have unenviably difficult jobs that they do admirably, I almost universally their deletions, and have defended them here on many occasions.
That said, I urge everyone to take a step back for a second and think about this a little while longer, because I think that msquare has some points. To wit:
cortex:
One of the points jessamyn made in her response to you is pretty key here: you joined the site to discuss a very closely related thread, almost all of your involvement on the site is in that thread, and your first post is to a two hour lecture on the topic. It's not a great post. It's not a new topic to the site. It's not even a new topic to you or your participation on the site. And you're really, really close to it which seems to be getting between you and any objective analysis of your own post.
So what? The fact that msquare sings a one-note song is irrelevant to whether his/her post is a good one or not. There are plenty of members who have previously acted like complete jerks, and been given timeouts, whose posting history is not taken into account in judging their posts. y2karl posts remarkably similar FPPs (almost all of which I like) on an almost weekly basis, but no mods hold it against him. I think you're unfairly holding msquare to a different standard. If msquare posting on an "old" topic that s/he has talked about a whole lot is off-limits, then get busy with the scissors on the next Iraq war post that comes across the front page.
And re: "It's not a great post." I think that its incredibly easy for everyone here to summarily say that anything 9-11 conspiracy related is a bad post and should be summarily banished from the front page. Why? What is so awful about this particular topic that its appearance as an FPP merits summary deletion? Is it really so much less worthy than the countless single-link youtube posts we're inundated with? If msquare had posted the exact same FPP, but instead linked to a 2-hour documentary on geeks who live with sex dolls, it would have stayed. I just don't see how this post is any worse than a good 25% of what stays on the front page.
What makes Metafilter great is the extraordinary variety of subject matter that stays on the front page - including a variety of opinions and political viewpoints. Deleting this post because it links to an opinion that many here (including me) find ridiculous detracts from that variety. If the will of the hive mind is that this is worthy of ridicule and deconstruction, then it will be ridiculed and deconstructed in the thread. And, believe it or not, that may do more to dissuade msquare of his/her views than just deleting it will.
posted by googly at 6:18 PM on July 18, 2007 [6 favorites]
I will also state for the record that I think the mods have unenviably difficult jobs that they do admirably, I almost universally their deletions, and have defended them here on many occasions.
That said, I urge everyone to take a step back for a second and think about this a little while longer, because I think that msquare has some points. To wit:
cortex:
One of the points jessamyn made in her response to you is pretty key here: you joined the site to discuss a very closely related thread, almost all of your involvement on the site is in that thread, and your first post is to a two hour lecture on the topic. It's not a great post. It's not a new topic to the site. It's not even a new topic to you or your participation on the site. And you're really, really close to it which seems to be getting between you and any objective analysis of your own post.
So what? The fact that msquare sings a one-note song is irrelevant to whether his/her post is a good one or not. There are plenty of members who have previously acted like complete jerks, and been given timeouts, whose posting history is not taken into account in judging their posts. y2karl posts remarkably similar FPPs (almost all of which I like) on an almost weekly basis, but no mods hold it against him. I think you're unfairly holding msquare to a different standard. If msquare posting on an "old" topic that s/he has talked about a whole lot is off-limits, then get busy with the scissors on the next Iraq war post that comes across the front page.
And re: "It's not a great post." I think that its incredibly easy for everyone here to summarily say that anything 9-11 conspiracy related is a bad post and should be summarily banished from the front page. Why? What is so awful about this particular topic that its appearance as an FPP merits summary deletion? Is it really so much less worthy than the countless single-link youtube posts we're inundated with? If msquare had posted the exact same FPP, but instead linked to a 2-hour documentary on geeks who live with sex dolls, it would have stayed. I just don't see how this post is any worse than a good 25% of what stays on the front page.
What makes Metafilter great is the extraordinary variety of subject matter that stays on the front page - including a variety of opinions and political viewpoints. Deleting this post because it links to an opinion that many here (including me) find ridiculous detracts from that variety. If the will of the hive mind is that this is worthy of ridicule and deconstruction, then it will be ridiculed and deconstructed in the thread. And, believe it or not, that may do more to dissuade msquare of his/her views than just deleting it will.
posted by googly at 6:18 PM on July 18, 2007 [6 favorites]
This has nothing to do with me.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 6:18 PM on July 18, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 6:18 PM on July 18, 2007 [1 favorite]
WAIT- I take it back. If someone made a 2 hour slideshow video of LOLCATS, I would watch it. And LOL LOL LOL all the way home.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 6:19 PM on July 18, 2007 [6 favorites]
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 6:19 PM on July 18, 2007 [6 favorites]
Exactly, cortex. "(I)n either case there was no reason to delete it " and I've stated my reasons.
posted by msquare at 6:20 PM on July 18, 2007
posted by msquare at 6:20 PM on July 18, 2007
You're reconsidering having MetaFilter as your homepage??? Well, that changes everything!
posted by grouse at 6:20 PM on July 18, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by grouse at 6:20 PM on July 18, 2007 [1 favorite]
Anyone want some popcorn?
posted by Razzle Bathbone at 6:20 PM on July 18, 2007
posted by Razzle Bathbone at 6:20 PM on July 18, 2007
yes, msquare, where would we be without you to bring us THE TRUTH!
That's exactly why I made it my homepage some time ago, but am now sadly reconsidering my decision after this event.
Well, there goes my nights sleep.
Jeez, first this, then the Hummer post. They musta thought it was Wingnut Day. It's not Wingnut Day, is it?
posted by jonmc at 6:20 PM on July 18, 2007
That's exactly why I made it my homepage some time ago, but am now sadly reconsidering my decision after this event.
Well, there goes my nights sleep.
Jeez, first this, then the Hummer post. They musta thought it was Wingnut Day. It's not Wingnut Day, is it?
posted by jonmc at 6:20 PM on July 18, 2007
who here isn't going to read msquare's response? or hell, even jessamyn's response? that's right. raise your hands.
posted by Stynxno at 6:21 PM on July 18, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by Stynxno at 6:21 PM on July 18, 2007 [1 favorite]
Don't worry. I wouldn't keep you from watching it, ThePinkSuperhero. And LOL LOL LOL all the way the way home would be OK too as long as you didn't hurt anyone doing it...
posted by msquare at 6:21 PM on July 18, 2007
posted by msquare at 6:21 PM on July 18, 2007
It's not Wingnut Day, is it?
I hope not! I haven't finished knitting my Wingnut sweater, with matching crotched earrings.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 6:22 PM on July 18, 2007 [1 favorite]
I hope not! I haven't finished knitting my Wingnut sweater, with matching crotched earrings.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 6:22 PM on July 18, 2007 [1 favorite]
Bloody librarians, stinking of censorship. First she came for msquare. Next, jessamyn will be coming for Daddy's Roommate by Michael Willhoite. Just you wait.
posted by KokuRyu at 6:23 PM on July 18, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by KokuRyu at 6:23 PM on July 18, 2007 [1 favorite]
Moonjuice, moonberry, etc.
posted by puke & cry at 6:24 PM on July 18, 2007
posted by puke & cry at 6:24 PM on July 18, 2007
cgc373: How often does it need to be pointed out that "censorship" is a function of a state
Until you realize that it doesn't have to be. Unless there's a word that means "the suppression of speech by a non-governmental agency" that I'm not aware of. Unless your referencing the office of censor, in which case yes, being a censor means being a part, or function, if you will, of the Roman state.
Deleting a post from the front page isn't censorship, however, it's editing.
posted by Kattullus at 6:25 PM on July 18, 2007
Until you realize that it doesn't have to be. Unless there's a word that means "the suppression of speech by a non-governmental agency" that I'm not aware of. Unless your referencing the office of censor, in which case yes, being a censor means being a part, or function, if you will, of the Roman state.
Deleting a post from the front page isn't censorship, however, it's editing.
posted by Kattullus at 6:25 PM on July 18, 2007
googly, there's a great big difference between a 2-hour documentary and a 2-hour lecture, and the difference is the way the information is presented. At least in a documentary, it's understood that some breadth of audience is sought, and interestingness is implicit in the aim. A lecture may be easily summarized without reducing its entertainment value. However, if our poster here has instead posted a transcription of this lecture, it would be equally deleteworthy, because a 10,000 word argument we've all heard about before and which is, I would argue, unresolvable and unimproveable is not interesting.
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 6:25 PM on July 18, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 6:25 PM on July 18, 2007 [1 favorite]
I'm not telling you what THE TRUTH is. I'm suggesting you figure it out for yourself. Am I biased? Absolutely. Ah, but that's the nature of human existence, isn't it?
posted by msquare at 6:26 PM on July 18, 2007
posted by msquare at 6:26 PM on July 18, 2007
We all have a brain I think...
Some of us, however, seem to have failed to read the Owners Manual and learned how to use theirs.
The obsession of the "controlled demolition" faction has been so successful in distracting us from the REAL ISSUES of that tragic day and branding all those who doubt the Official Story as Conspiracy Nuts, that it sometimes appears you are in the employ of those who wish to keep the REAL truth from ever coming out and being accepted.
In other words, go away, Karl Rove.
posted by wendell at 6:26 PM on July 18, 2007 [1 favorite]
Some of us, however, seem to have failed to read the Owners Manual and learned how to use theirs.
The obsession of the "controlled demolition" faction has been so successful in distracting us from the REAL ISSUES of that tragic day and branding all those who doubt the Official Story as Conspiracy Nuts, that it sometimes appears you are in the employ of those who wish to keep the REAL truth from ever coming out and being accepted.
In other words, go away, Karl Rove.
posted by wendell at 6:26 PM on July 18, 2007 [1 favorite]
"I didn't categorize the topic as being a "best of the web"
In which case, please don't post it to MetaFilter. That's the point you appear to be missing: it doesn't fit the description (the fairly loose "best of the web" standard) of something that needs to be posted.
That you think the information you posted is important is distinct from it being appropriate to post. MetaFilter is not a place to post something that has a sole value of being "important."
posted by majick at 6:28 PM on July 18, 2007 [5 favorites]
In which case, please don't post it to MetaFilter. That's the point you appear to be missing: it doesn't fit the description (the fairly loose "best of the web" standard) of something that needs to be posted.
That you think the information you posted is important is distinct from it being appropriate to post. MetaFilter is not a place to post something that has a sole value of being "important."
posted by majick at 6:28 PM on July 18, 2007 [5 favorites]
Shouldn't the folks on Metafilter be able to decide for themselves the worthiness of it?
They did, and upon seeing it was yet another breathless 9/11 conspiracy post they flagged it to hell. Bye.
posted by brownpau at 6:28 PM on July 18, 2007 [1 favorite]
They did, and upon seeing it was yet another breathless 9/11 conspiracy post they flagged it to hell. Bye.
posted by brownpau at 6:28 PM on July 18, 2007 [1 favorite]
What makes Metafilter great is the extraordinary variety of subject matter that stays on the front page - including a variety of opinions and political viewpoints.
msquare, you're right that there is a variety of subjects covered on mefi and variety is the spice of life around here.
Consider that again and know that we've had dozens and dozens of posts on the same subject of 9/11 conspiracy and at this point, there's no longer anything new to cover. Your post isn't about variety, it's about asserting the same viewpoint made in many similar posts previously.
If you want MeFi to keep it's variety, you'll have to see why we delete stuff that has been covered multiple times before from multiple angles.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 6:30 PM on July 18, 2007 [1 favorite]
msquare, you're right that there is a variety of subjects covered on mefi and variety is the spice of life around here.
Consider that again and know that we've had dozens and dozens of posts on the same subject of 9/11 conspiracy and at this point, there's no longer anything new to cover. Your post isn't about variety, it's about asserting the same viewpoint made in many similar posts previously.
If you want MeFi to keep it's variety, you'll have to see why we delete stuff that has been covered multiple times before from multiple angles.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 6:30 PM on July 18, 2007 [1 favorite]
So we should censor 2-hour lectures and not 2-hour documentaries? People can't make up their own minds about a presentation's "interestingness" - be it lecture or documentary?
posted by msquare at 6:32 PM on July 18, 2007
posted by msquare at 6:32 PM on July 18, 2007
It's hard to believe that this doesn't have to do with the content of my post. Yeah, it's controversial. No, we're not all going to agree. Again, I'm waiting for a good reason...
posted by msquare at 6:33 PM on July 18, 2007
posted by msquare at 6:33 PM on July 18, 2007
mathowie I sure hope you'll be selling collectible editions of that, printed on pulp.
posted by dmd at 6:34 PM on July 18, 2007
posted by dmd at 6:34 PM on July 18, 2007
Find me a post on this website that contains a link to a 2 hour documentary (not a link ABOUT a 2 hour documentary; a link to the actual documentary) and I will give you a dollar.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 6:34 PM on July 18, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 6:34 PM on July 18, 2007 [1 favorite]
The fact that msquare sings a one-note song is irrelevant to whether his/her post is a good one or not.
Well ignoring the point that an email I sent to a user was posted on the site before I had a chance to see it (it's okay, but it wasn't the email I would have sent to everyone in MeTa if I'd had the chance) I'd say this
1. y2karl's posts aren't single topic and especially his music posts aren't just advocacy posts. If his Iraq posts were less than almost always superlative, we'd have a big problem. The first ten comments in y2karl's Iraq posts aren't "this sucks"
2. The fact that it's a hobby horse topic is more to point out that someone may not have enough distance from a topic to be able to judge what is and is not a good link to post for MeFi. We see this a lot for "sign my petition" posts for worthwhile topics. The topic may be good, the petition may not be.
3. Hobby horse topics also mean that the person may not be able to judge how their topic is worthwhile or useful to a MeFi audience. So there's "this isn't a good link for this topic" (#2) and "Why is this a good story to tell MetaFilter?" A cursory scan of other 9/11 demolition posts would indicate that this wouldn't go well as would a cursory inspection of all other TWO HOUR VIDEO LECTURE topics. I can't even think of another one of those here, ever. Sex dolls, yes. Agenda political long lecture posts, no.
There have been a few threads in MeTa lately lamenting that community policing leads to this sort of thing, but I'd argue that's sort of how the site stays like itself and doesn't turn into things that the bulk of the contributing members don't want. We have differences of opinion on things like the decent ratio of politics to youtube posts, but for the most part I think asking "if the whole front page were filled with similar posts to this one, would it suck or rule" is a good if weird litmus test for links that seem off the beaten path for MeFi.
Anyone who wants to can now go look at that "dangerous" post, but if you're going to link to a two hour video and then play "grade my report card' for anyone who comments in under 120 minutes, maybe MeFi isn't working out well as your soapbox.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 6:34 PM on July 18, 2007 [1 favorite]
Well ignoring the point that an email I sent to a user was posted on the site before I had a chance to see it (it's okay, but it wasn't the email I would have sent to everyone in MeTa if I'd had the chance) I'd say this
1. y2karl's posts aren't single topic and especially his music posts aren't just advocacy posts. If his Iraq posts were less than almost always superlative, we'd have a big problem. The first ten comments in y2karl's Iraq posts aren't "this sucks"
2. The fact that it's a hobby horse topic is more to point out that someone may not have enough distance from a topic to be able to judge what is and is not a good link to post for MeFi. We see this a lot for "sign my petition" posts for worthwhile topics. The topic may be good, the petition may not be.
3. Hobby horse topics also mean that the person may not be able to judge how their topic is worthwhile or useful to a MeFi audience. So there's "this isn't a good link for this topic" (#2) and "Why is this a good story to tell MetaFilter?" A cursory scan of other 9/11 demolition posts would indicate that this wouldn't go well as would a cursory inspection of all other TWO HOUR VIDEO LECTURE topics. I can't even think of another one of those here, ever. Sex dolls, yes. Agenda political long lecture posts, no.
There have been a few threads in MeTa lately lamenting that community policing leads to this sort of thing, but I'd argue that's sort of how the site stays like itself and doesn't turn into things that the bulk of the contributing members don't want. We have differences of opinion on things like the decent ratio of politics to youtube posts, but for the most part I think asking "if the whole front page were filled with similar posts to this one, would it suck or rule" is a good if weird litmus test for links that seem off the beaten path for MeFi.
Anyone who wants to can now go look at that "dangerous" post, but if you're going to link to a two hour video and then play "grade my report card' for anyone who comments in under 120 minutes, maybe MeFi isn't working out well as your soapbox.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 6:34 PM on July 18, 2007 [1 favorite]
It's not censoring god damnit. It's getting shit off the front page that we don't want. The fact that we're letting you bitch about it is proof enough that we aren't censoring you. You have a link to the post in question three words into your complaint. How is that censoring?
Oy with the moonbats already.
posted by CitrusFreak12 at 6:34 PM on July 18, 2007 [1 favorite]
Oy with the moonbats already.
posted by CitrusFreak12 at 6:34 PM on July 18, 2007 [1 favorite]
they're all out to get you msquare.
just.
you.
posted by Stynxno at 6:34 PM on July 18, 2007 [2 favorites]
just.
you.
posted by Stynxno at 6:34 PM on July 18, 2007 [2 favorites]
I've made a two hour video explaining why your post was deleted. Please watch it in its entirety before disagreeing with it.
posted by ColdChef at 6:35 PM on July 18, 2007 [26 favorites]
posted by ColdChef at 6:35 PM on July 18, 2007 [26 favorites]
If you go to Blogger you can get your own free weblog. Then you can post ANYTHING. Including two hour long videos.
What a country!
posted by konolia at 6:36 PM on July 18, 2007 [2 favorites]
What a country!
posted by konolia at 6:36 PM on July 18, 2007 [2 favorites]
The Society of Name Calling is doing a whole of thanking right about now...
posted by msquare at 6:36 PM on July 18, 2007
posted by msquare at 6:36 PM on July 18, 2007
I didn't categorize the topic as being a "best of the web" so I don't feel this is a charge to which I should have to answer.
Well there you go.
Let's review the posting guidelines:
A good post to MetaFilter is something that meets the following criteria: most people haven't seen it before, there is something interesting about the content on the page, and it might warrant discussion from others.
One out of three by my count, 33%, or an F on any grading curve I've seen.
posted by donovan at 6:36 PM on July 18, 2007
Well there you go.
Let's review the posting guidelines:
A good post to MetaFilter is something that meets the following criteria: most people haven't seen it before, there is something interesting about the content on the page, and it might warrant discussion from others.
One out of three by my count, 33%, or an F on any grading curve I've seen.
posted by donovan at 6:36 PM on July 18, 2007
In the interests of SCIENCE! I watched about 15 minutes of the video. I've made up my mind about the "interestingness" and think I can safely say it was lame, boring, wrongheaded, uninformed, paranoid, and not at all something I want to see on Metafilter (or anywhere else, frankly).
posted by stefanie at 6:36 PM on July 18, 2007
posted by stefanie at 6:36 PM on July 18, 2007
I think it's important for people to understand my position a bit better
....Aaaand scene.
posted by These Penises Are Alarmed at 6:37 PM on July 18, 2007
....Aaaand scene.
posted by These Penises Are Alarmed at 6:37 PM on July 18, 2007
Link broken, no way to check if it's 2 hours long, sorrrrrrry :-D
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 6:37 PM on July 18, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 6:37 PM on July 18, 2007 [1 favorite]
If I told you I watched 15 minutes of (fill in your favorite movie here) and decided it was a total piece of crap, what would you think of my judgment?
posted by msquare at 6:38 PM on July 18, 2007
posted by msquare at 6:38 PM on July 18, 2007
It's hard to believe that this doesn't have to do with the content of my post
It absolutely has EVERYTHING to do with the content of your post, which is why the post sucked and was deleted. You're really not getting it and at this point, it seems like you're being purposely dense to troll us all.
Keep it up and I'll be closing this thread (THE HORROR TEH CENSORHIPPP!!!!) because this is clearly getting us nowhere
posted by mathowie (staff) at 6:40 PM on July 18, 2007 [1 favorite]
It absolutely has EVERYTHING to do with the content of your post, which is why the post sucked and was deleted. You're really not getting it and at this point, it seems like you're being purposely dense to troll us all.
Keep it up and I'll be closing this thread (THE HORROR TEH CENSORHIPPP!!!!) because this is clearly getting us nowhere
posted by mathowie (staff) at 6:40 PM on July 18, 2007 [1 favorite]
How is this any different from the "teach the controversy" argument of creationists? The existing fact of the world and personal political hobby horse "certainties" are not automatically equal.
posted by RMD at 6:40 PM on July 18, 2007
posted by RMD at 6:40 PM on July 18, 2007
msquare: pretty much the same as I do after you trying to post this to the front page.
posted by Stynxno at 6:41 PM on July 18, 2007
posted by Stynxno at 6:41 PM on July 18, 2007
If I told you I watched 15 minutes of (fill in your favorite movie here) and decided it was a total piece of crap, what would you think of my judgment?
Shut up, you, Manos: The Hands of Fate is the best movie ever.
posted by brownpau at 6:41 PM on July 18, 2007 [2 favorites]
Shut up, you, Manos: The Hands of Fate is the best movie ever.
posted by brownpau at 6:41 PM on July 18, 2007 [2 favorites]
Find me a post on this website that contains a link to a 2 hour documentary (not a link ABOUT a 2 hour documentary; a link to the actual documentary) and I will give you a dollar.
Sicko is ~2 hours long (IMDB says 113 minutes). You can donate my dollar to David Wong.
posted by cog_nate at 6:41 PM on July 18, 2007
Sicko is ~2 hours long (IMDB says 113 minutes). You can donate my dollar to David Wong.
posted by cog_nate at 6:41 PM on July 18, 2007
YEAH.
posted by jeffamaphone at 6:43 PM on July 18, 2007
posted by jeffamaphone at 6:43 PM on July 18, 2007
Not censoring? It's beginning to look like MetaTalk or at least a part of it is not unlike those special protest areas that are set up at political events where differing opinion is relegated to the sidelines...
posted by msquare at 6:43 PM on July 18, 2007
posted by msquare at 6:43 PM on July 18, 2007
Stepping out of argument mode for a second, you have to admit this is kind of fun....
posted by msquare at 6:44 PM on July 18, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by msquare at 6:44 PM on July 18, 2007 [1 favorite]
troll.
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 6:45 PM on July 18, 2007
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 6:45 PM on July 18, 2007
Stynx just wants to keep my dollars all to himself.
Good plan, Stynx.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 6:45 PM on July 18, 2007 [1 favorite]
Good plan, Stynx.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 6:45 PM on July 18, 2007 [1 favorite]
You're not going to win this fight boyo, all three mods have ruled against you. Consider how much energy you want to invest in continuing to argue about it, and how you want to feel about it.
posted by edgeways at 6:45 PM on July 18, 2007
posted by edgeways at 6:45 PM on July 18, 2007
IN BEFORE TEH CENSORHIPPP!
posted by CitrusFreak12 at 6:45 PM on July 18, 2007
posted by CitrusFreak12 at 6:45 PM on July 18, 2007
Stepping out of argument mode for a second, you have to admit this is kind of fun....
Thread closed to new comments in 3, 2, 1......
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 6:46 PM on July 18, 2007 [1 favorite]
Thread closed to new comments in 3, 2, 1......
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 6:46 PM on July 18, 2007 [1 favorite]
msquare: there's a difference between the government and metafilter. the government can't sent up special protest sites (thought they do). metafilter can do whatever the hell it wants.
and by whatever the hell it wants, it obviously means to annoy you.
also, it could be a catholic conspiracy. maybe the jews. maybe a combiation of the two.
OH NOSEZ. MATHOWIE HAS THE HOLY GRAIL.
posted by Stynxno at 6:47 PM on July 18, 2007
and by whatever the hell it wants, it obviously means to annoy you.
also, it could be a catholic conspiracy. maybe the jews. maybe a combiation of the two.
OH NOSEZ. MATHOWIE HAS THE HOLY GRAIL.
posted by Stynxno at 6:47 PM on July 18, 2007
Congratulations, msquare, you've now made more comments on this page whining about your deleted post than your comments in all the other areas of the site combined.
Thanks for contributing so much to our community!
posted by grouse at 6:47 PM on July 18, 2007 [1 favorite]
Thanks for contributing so much to our community!
posted by grouse at 6:47 PM on July 18, 2007 [1 favorite]
You're not going to win this fight boyo, all three mods have ruled against you. Consider how much energy you want to invest in continuing to argue about it, and how you want to feel about it.
I keep asking myself. What would Cool Hand Luke do? You gotta know when to hold 'em and know when to fold 'em. Right now I think I'll hold for a little while longer...
posted by msquare at 6:48 PM on July 18, 2007
I keep asking myself. What would Cool Hand Luke do? You gotta know when to hold 'em and know when to fold 'em. Right now I think I'll hold for a little while longer...
posted by msquare at 6:48 PM on July 18, 2007
Well, he admits that the 9/11 conspiracy lectures he posted are of the same quality as "Manos" and "Plan 9," then thinks community shit stirring is "fun." I guess the hammer is in order.
posted by brownpau at 6:48 PM on July 18, 2007
posted by brownpau at 6:48 PM on July 18, 2007
Oh, oh, I want a dollar! If you go back about a week, you'll find a link to the GoogleVideo of Burroughs, a...okay, not QUITE two-hour-long documentary about William S. Which I was quite happy to see.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 6:48 PM on July 18, 2007
posted by kittens for breakfast at 6:48 PM on July 18, 2007
You gotta know when to hold 'em and know when to fold 'em.
You need to learn when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em.
posted by oaf at 6:49 PM on July 18, 2007
You need to learn when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em.
posted by oaf at 6:49 PM on July 18, 2007
Might as well jerk it if you're already holding it.
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 6:49 PM on July 18, 2007
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 6:49 PM on July 18, 2007
OK, OK. I've presented my point. And I do thank the moderators for providing this forum even if it's a bit of a sideline. I thank everyone for the comments - except the cheap shots and name calling...
posted by msquare at 6:50 PM on July 18, 2007
posted by msquare at 6:50 PM on July 18, 2007
MOONBAT.
posted by CitrusFreak12 at 6:50 PM on July 18, 2007
posted by CitrusFreak12 at 6:50 PM on July 18, 2007
closing...
posted by mathowie (staff) at 6:50 PM on July 18, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by mathowie (staff) at 6:50 PM on July 18, 2007 [1 favorite]
msquare licks bunnies.
posted by Stynxno at 6:50 PM on July 18, 2007 [29 favorites]
posted by Stynxno at 6:50 PM on July 18, 2007 [29 favorites]
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by box at 5:44 PM on July 18, 2007 [2 favorites]