My first post to metafilter was deleted. Why?

December 16, 2004 12:17 PM

I recently posted my first thread to Metafilter today. Within five minutes, it had been taken down. Did I happen to violate some policy/taboo/sense of etiquette?
posted by Leege to Etiquette/Policy at 12:17 PM (174 comments total)

Matt's reason is on the post page.
posted by ALongDecember at 12:19 PM on December 16, 2004

Leege, just going by the numbers of the posts on the front page, it doesn't seem that one is missing. Are you sure it made it on in the first place?
posted by papercake at 12:19 PM on December 16, 2004

I sit corrected.
posted by papercake at 12:20 PM on December 16, 2004

I didn't think posts were deleted from lofi.mefi. Hm?
posted by metaculpa at 12:24 PM on December 16, 2004

what, Matt has a once a week quota for Iraq now?
posted by amberglow at 12:27 PM on December 16, 2004

OK, I can buy that. Better luck next time, I guess.
posted by Leege at 12:31 PM on December 16, 2004

what, Matt has a once a week quota for Iraq now?

well, it's not like people are dying every day!
posted by quonsar at 12:35 PM on December 16, 2004

Well, where the fuck are the posts about all the people that die from malaria each day? Mefi is really letting me down on keeping up with the important stuff.

Besides which, there's been a few more than 1,000 troops killed in Iraq. Okay, but that's compared to many tens of multiples of that for Iraqis. Where's all the news about those dying people?

But, hey, that the debacle that is the US's occupation of Iraq is the most important daily event on the planet is self-evident, right? Right?
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 12:52 PM on December 16, 2004

what, Matt has a once a week quota for Iraq now?

For the same story posted twice in the last couple weeks? Yeah.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 12:53 PM on December 16, 2004

Ethereal Blah, I'm pretty sure you're welcome to post about Malaria, and any number of other things killing a number of people over 1,000.
posted by angry modem at 12:59 PM on December 16, 2004

Trouble is - and this is why the question keeps coming up - unless you bookmark your own thread (which maybe you wouldn't do, knowing you could find it via your own userpage), a newbie probably won't know about lofi.mefi (it's not linked anywhere on the site), so comes here to find out why and wherefore.

Result: another MeTalk about this topic.
posted by dash_slot- at 1:03 PM on December 16, 2004

I'd like to see a post about how many people die from boredom reading Ethereal Bligh's comments.
posted by Ryvar at 1:04 PM on December 16, 2004

Blight, OMG, STFU. Please just shut your content-free spewing piehole, sunshine, or I will be forced to come and personally harsh your mellow.
posted by adamgreenfield at 1:05 PM on December 16, 2004

EB, get out your research fedora and get on an fpp detailing the Iraqi losses. Quitcherbitchin' and do something about it.
posted by fenriq at 1:09 PM on December 16, 2004

lofi.mefi? What is it and how do I get to it?
posted by Leege at 1:13 PM on December 16, 2004

Actually, underneath my ridicule was sarcasm. I don't think that MeFi is supposed to be Daily News of Important Stuff that We Should All be Very Concerned About. There's things called "newspapers" that are pretty good at that stuff.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 1:14 PM on December 16, 2004

Can you please snuff yourself already?
posted by adamgreenfield at 1:15 PM on December 16, 2004

*yawn*
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 1:20 PM on December 16, 2004

I continue to agree more and more with EB every day.
posted by loquax at 1:21 PM on December 16, 2004

Blight, OMG, STFU. Please just shut your content-free spewing piehole, sunshine,

When did we become AIM for Intellectuals?

On a more relevant note, adam, look at my first six months on this site. All I did was hound Miguel at every given opportunity because I hated his "content-free spewing" as well. The only result, that I can tell, is that I looked like an ass and he continued to be his charming self. Lesson: try not to make this place so personal. It pisses you off and rarely affects the person that upsets you.
posted by BlueTrain at 1:22 PM on December 16, 2004

Oh, I'm not upset. This is like...I dunno, sit-ups or something? Something that's equal parts pleasurable and drudgery. I just like working out my aggression all over Blight.

I'm having a ball, actually. But if it upsets you, I suppose I can try to square it away.

God I hate that guy.
posted by adamgreenfield at 1:26 PM on December 16, 2004

lofi MeFi.
posted by me3dia at 1:28 PM on December 16, 2004

EB, I wasn't trying to snark on you, I was just saying, hey, if you want to see more of then maybe you should consider putting one together.

Re: LoFi, is it just me or does everyone go from LoFi to regular MeFi when you click on a comment link?
posted by fenriq at 1:29 PM on December 16, 2004

Actually, underneath my ridicule was sarcasm. I don't think that MeFi is supposed to be Daily News of Important Stuff that We Should All be Very Concerned About. There's things called "newspapers" that are pretty good at that stuff.

Nice try, xeTherEAlxBlIgHx, but I'm afraid we see right through you.
posted by angry modem at 1:34 PM on December 16, 2004

fenriq: Everyone does. The comment links are the same as on the, er, hifi mefi.
posted by mendel at 1:35 PM on December 16, 2004

adamgreenfield, ethereal bligh, you're both pretty, OK? and mommy loves you equally.
posted by jonmc at 1:36 PM on December 16, 2004

That's a negative, jonmc. Ooh, unsat.
posted by adamgreenfield at 1:38 PM on December 16, 2004

I continue to agree more and more with EB every day.

As do I.
posted by gd779 at 1:46 PM on December 16, 2004

No, mommy likes me just this much (holding fingers slightly apart) more than Adam.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 1:46 PM on December 16, 2004

posted by y2karl at 1:48 PM on December 16, 2004

AAAAAAAAAAGGGGGHHHH!!!! KILL THEM KILL THEM NOW!!!
*Faints in terror*
posted by elwoodwiles at 1:53 PM on December 16, 2004

Thanks mendel, I thought as much but am never sure.
posted by fenriq at 2:01 PM on December 16, 2004

Er, I know I'm exposing myself as a ignorant newbie, but what's the function of lofi mefi?
posted by Specklet at 2:02 PM on December 16, 2004

Exposing ignorant newbies. Now put your pants on.
posted by yerfatma at 2:12 PM on December 16, 2004

I like how that was actually a serious answer to his question, too.

*tips hat to yerfatma*
posted by Ryvar at 2:25 PM on December 16, 2004

Yes, your mommy loves you vewwwwy much. Sicko.
posted by adamgreenfield at 2:26 PM on December 16, 2004

adam, you might want to reread Blue Train's comment, especially the part right after "The only result, that I can tell."
posted by soyjoy at 2:43 PM on December 16, 2004

lofi.mefi is mefi without all the funky graphics (so your boss doesn't ask "why are you always reading that blue page, dude?") and also contains all the deleted posts.
posted by fishfucker at 2:47 PM on December 16, 2004

lofi was put in place a while back when we were on an older server, and calls to the front page (which was dynamically built at the time) were going through the roof. A bit after that, Matt started serving static pages to people who aren't logged in which relieved a bunch of the pressure, and then a bit after that, we got a new server or two. The principal reason for it now is that deleted posts aren't deleted from lofi, so it's easier then scrubbing over the links to see which numbers are missing if you want to go looking for the MeFi dung heap.
posted by willnot at 2:49 PM on December 16, 2004

People just don't get EB. He's too dry in the sarcasm, to long in the verbals, and too earnest for the cynical snarkfest which Mefi is/has become/always was. He can barely make a reasonable post without the usual suspects absolutely thrashing like sharks in a crimson sea. Even in his newer, more concise updated version, old enemies trawl after him. It's getting so old...

I mean, "God I hate that guy.
posted by adamgreenfield at 1:26 PM PST on December 16"

Adam, why the small tag? Why such a strong reaction? Who really needs to step away from the keyboard?
posted by dash_slot- at 2:56 PM on December 16, 2004

EB = "Owl" in Winnie the Pooh. Nice enough, but a bit on the wordy side.

I guess that would make me Rabbit, then.... fretting so much that every thread I post to the grey gets deleted for its naivete. You know, come to think of it, I don't like Rabbit too much. [*Light goes on*]
posted by Doohickie at 3:02 PM on December 16, 2004

I want a research fedora now. In Shriner burgundy, if you've got it in stock.

As much as I want to avoid a pile-up on EB (too late), it seems people have a problem with him because they burn out halfway through the essay-post, stop reading, and miss all the qualifiers which explain what he says.

I can't think of any other reason why somebody reading his 'malaria' post would take it seriously, other than they didn't read the whole thing. Or, inter-personal asshattery.
posted by cosmonik at 3:13 PM on December 16, 2004

If Matt has actually started limiting posts on certain themes to some number n per week, that is totally awesome, and thanks for doing it. If he was being sarcastic, boo, hisss.
posted by Hildago at 3:26 PM on December 16, 2004

Blight, OMG, STFU. Please just shut your content-free spewing piehole, sunshine, or I will be forced to come and personally harsh your mellow.

The "Buddhists" sure are aggro these days.
posted by dhoyt at 3:27 PM on December 16, 2004

That was zen - this is miaow...
posted by dash_slot- at 3:30 PM on December 16, 2004

People just don't get EB.
They get him just fine. It isn't the verbiage, although that doesn't help and it isn't the dry sarcasm. (wherever that may be). It's the I'm holier and cleverer than you attitude, its the fact that you have to SHOUT at him for him to hear any little point you're making, and it's the fact that he has no discernable sense of being able to laugh at himself.

He's like the office bore, who upon hearing that you want to go to Africa, spends the next half an hour lecturing about how HE went to Africa, and HE met a nice couple there and how HE was excellent at bartering and the western hotels are very nice and aren't things cheap over there.

Sorry to jump on your back EB, but tonight the anonymous nature of the internet makes me want to be an asshole. Again.
posted by seanyboy at 3:30 PM on December 16, 2004

Re: LoFi, is it just me or does everyone go from LoFi to regular MeFi when you click on a comment link?

lofi.mefi displays only the front page posts, and it displays them whether they have been marked "deleted" or not. it doesn't show you only deleted posts, or flag them in any way. when you click through a link on it, you get a regular page just like any other. you can't "stay in lofi", so to speak.

while on the topic, it is well worth mentioning milov's excellent lofi bookmarklet, which automatically ferrets out "deleted" posts and links you to them. i haven't used lofi.mefi since i got it!
posted by quonsar at 3:31 PM on December 16, 2004

I can't think of any other reason why somebody reading his 'malaria' post would take it seriously, other than... Or, inter-personal asshattery..

I'm pretty sure this is the correct explanation.
posted by gd779 at 3:36 PM on December 16, 2004

That was zen - this is miaow...

Gold.

Though you also could've used "Mao", given the simultaneously self-important & violent nature of the comments.
posted by dhoyt at 3:38 PM on December 16, 2004

My own problem with EB has nothing to do with not reading his posts and everything to do with the torrent of condescension his every sentence subtly implies.

Then there's the boredom factor - if EB were a normal person and the discussion were about bowel cancer and his aunt had died of bowel cancer he might comment something like, "Yeah my aunt died of that. Harsh stuff, man."

The EB way of talking is to instead say, "My aunt Matilda who was my father's youngest sister, and as fine a person who has ever graduated from a small, socially-accecptably-liberal university in the Portland area . . . [months later] . . . also died of a bowel cancer at the age of 53, it may interest you to know."

There are those of us who, upon reading such excerpts, go literally insane with rage not only at the amount of valuable time being wasted by reading them, but in the social progressive's version of holier-than-thou verbiage mixed in with it. It's not just aggravating, it's deeply immature - and coming from me (never terribly hung up on appearing mature when appearing outraged will suffice) that's a pretty damning indictment.

There was more to this rant, but on preview I see seanyboy has pretty much nailed it.
posted by Ryvar at 3:39 PM on December 16, 2004

I can't think of any other reason why somebody reading his 'malaria' post would take it seriously
I can't see any evidence that anybody took it seriously anyway, so your point is moot.
posted by seanyboy at 3:41 PM on December 16, 2004

But ... back to the point at hand.
My opinion is that Matt's coming down on newsfilter posts because with the election over, we've had our newsfilter fun, and now news, news, news isn't what MeFi is about. I was slightly aggreived to see the Blunkett Resignation deleted, but I agree. A firmer hand is what is needed if only to condition people to think twice about posting anything in a breaking news format.

Personally I'd like a "news item" tickbox on the post page. news items would get recycled in a ticker at the top of the front page, and the links would go to normal Metafilter discussions.

Of course, asking for that would be (I love this phrase) Hating The Baby.
So I won't.
posted by seanyboy at 3:50 PM on December 16, 2004

The point is that EB wasn't doing that in this thread. EB has made shorter, on topic (though nuanced) comments here, and he still got crap for it.

There's a lot of carry over going on here, and it's a bit sad that it's totally derailed the thread. Such as it was.

You want people to change? Maybe they already have.
posted by dash_slot- at 3:52 PM on December 16, 2004

I'm pretty sure you're welcome to post about Malaria, and any number of other things killing a number of people over 1,000.

Especially those supported by a majority of the American public.

Don't feel too bad, Leege. You may be scratching your head trying to figure out which rule you broke, but the reality is that Matt largely moderates by the seat of his pants, and his whims matter. Not much you can do but try again.
posted by scarabic at 3:54 PM on December 16, 2004

It's the I'm holier and cleverer than you attitude, its the fact that you have to SHOUT at him for him to hear any little point you're making, and it's the fact that he has no discernable sense of being able to laugh at himself.

All criticisms which seem to be at least partly valid and I will keep it in mind. The last, though, I don't think is as true as the first. Most people seem to me to be awfully self-righteous and I'm led to believe that perhaps it's the manner in which I'm self-righteous that is particularly irksome.

I'm suddenly reminded of a criticism of a former griflriend's mother (who did not like me and the feeling was mutual) who found my common qualifiers "it seems to me" and "from my point of view" to be very offensive because, in her view, she was certain they weren't sincere. That is to say, in her view, I was couching universal assertions in supposed subjectivity and the hypocrisy of doing so in the context of asserting my point of view really irked her—offended her, really—quite deeply. This seemed to me to be a sort of a catch-22 she was putting me into. And it's not as if she, or anyone else, wasn't going around asserting their own views and opinions. The only way I can make sense of this is to imagine that there's some tone, some affect, some thing about my manner that gives people deep reason to be very sure that I am certain that I am both far more right and far more intelligent than everyone else, even when I go out of my way to offer disclaimers to the contrary. I'm sabotaging myself, somehow. But, you know, all I can do is the best I can do and I can say, with as much introspection and honesty as I can find, that while I believe that I'm more thoughtful and educated and yadda yadda than average, that this doesn't really count for that much to me and I don't feel even remotely as superior as people seem to get the impression that I feel. Maybe all my attempts to refute that work against me, in a sort of "methinks she doth protest too much" sort of a way. That makes sense, and it's a reasonable surmise, but it's not necessarily accurate. There could be other reasons in my psychology motivating such behavior.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 3:57 PM on December 16, 2004

seanyboy:
Yeah, I have to say that 'too newsy-nichey' as a reason to delete a thread about the #3 guy in the British government was a bit weak, when the sacking of an untenured professor at the esteemed Southern Utah University was deemed important enough to survive and thrive with mathowie's approval and participation..

We all have different assessments of importance - that one threw me.
posted by dash_slot- at 3:59 PM on December 16, 2004

Then there's the boredom factor... [months later] . . .

Total words posted by Ethereal Bligh in this thread: 142

Total words posted by Ryvar in this thread, complaining about EB's length: 252

I think some people - mostly the people who value MetaFilter for the snarky one-liners, the aggressiveness, and the shallow arguments - just can't stand (or simply aren't used to) sincerity, honesty, and thoughtfulness. Confronted with these traits in EB, they project their own ways of thinking onto him.
posted by gd779 at 4:00 PM on December 16, 2004

seanyboy: I can't see any evidence that anybody took it seriously anyway, so your point is moot.

Huh? You don't see adamgreenfield ("Blight, OMG, STFU") & angrymodem's ("I'm afraid we see right through you") responses as taking his malaria post at face value? The latter following EB's claim of sarcasm?
posted by cosmonik at 4:00 PM on December 16, 2004

EB: is there blood seeping out of your shoe?
posted by dash_slot- at 4:01 PM on December 16, 2004

Well, those numbers don't include EB's latest comment, which wasn't there when my post was being written.
posted by gd779 at 4:02 PM on December 16, 2004

I'm suddenly reminded of a criticism of a former griflriend's mother.... *cue enormous block paragraph of circuitous blather*

Ok, now EB's just fucking with us.

Funny stuff!
posted by dhoyt at 4:03 PM on December 16, 2004

and he still got crap for it.

Well, dash_slot, that's a fair cop. EB, if it makes you feel any better - I apologize that my initial attempt at snark lead to your being lynched. I wouldn't have cracked the joke if I'd known what the result would be.

On preview:
The only way I can make sense of this is to imagine that there's some tone, some affect, some thing about my manner that gives people deep reason to be very sure that I am certain that I am both far more right and far more intelligent than everyone else, even when I go out of my way to offer disclaimers to the contrary.

Bingo (for me, at least).

To be more specific - your speech in a generalized sense has the manner of an Oxford don, and such people NEVER couch their phrases until they're sliding the knife in you.

Don't take too many pointers from me, though - I'm a condescending pissant myself, but something about my mannerisms allows me to frequently and seriously advocate genocide of the entire human race to large groups of people both online and in person only to be met with (for the most part) "Oh, no, I totally agree - people are such shits, aren't they?"
posted by Ryvar at 4:10 PM on December 16, 2004

And gd779: I like sincerity, honesty, and thoughtfulness just fine when it isn't being used as a tool for self-aggrandizement.
posted by Ryvar at 4:14 PM on December 16, 2004

I like EB. I really do. I just think he needs to relax sometimes and write a few comments that don't read like excerpts from some academic self-examination by a pscychologist.

That said, EB, I have some experience with the problem you're talking about. It's an issue in academe, as well, where you have to strike a balance between a reasonable and effective level of (often false) modesty and an amount that strikes others as unbecoming hubris.

I suggest jokes, and not taking things so seriously. You do tend to take things a little seriously. Then again, it's hard not to around here (on occasion).
posted by The God Complex at 4:17 PM on December 16, 2004

Ok, now EB's just fucking with us.

Well, I certainly undermined gd779's defense, huh? No, I was serious, which I think you realize. Re-reading my comment, it seems to me to not be circuitous or blatherous at all—I thought it nicely illustrated how it's possible to give people exactly the wrong and false impression and even with the best of intentions it's not obvious how to correct it.

I did intuitively recognize that it's the sort of thing that I write that gives other people the hives. But I suppose that I am incapable of taking my own advice about avoiding being sincere and willing to be self-critical on MeFi (the advice was: it just puts the sharks into a bigger frenzy). Seanyboy's criticisms seemed honest and well-intentioned and it seemed that the least I could do was to acknowledge that and take them seriously. I realize that this Just Isn't Done and, therefore, Must Be Insincere. Or something. Whatever it is, it must be blather and offensive, right?

On Preview: "To be more specific - your speech in a generalized sense has the manner of an Oxford don, and such people NEVER couch their phrases until they're sliding the knife in you." Which seems to be in accordance to other people's viewpoints. I'm not sure how to correct that, exactly. I suspect that my mannerisms and whatnot might date from an intellectual/emotional developmental period where I was rather more like the arrogant Oxford don about to shiv someone in the ribs. Indeed, that's a side of my personality I've been at war against my whole life. But it's less true today than it ever was, and that is a lot less true than it's false. That leaves me stuck with a style that understandably gives people the wrong impression. But I'm middle-aged. How likely is it that I'll be able to completely reshape my discursive style?
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 4:26 PM on December 16, 2004

TGC (and the last I'll participate in this derail as its embarassing and unseemly), at the risk of offending adam again by mentioning Asperger's, a lot of my mannerisms, my personality, is built of things where I've tried to solve a social problem by including advice such as yours. What's happened, though, is that, I'm guessing, there's a sense in which it's sort of artificial, or grafted on, and thus seems insincere. I think that, with Asperger's in mind, this is the result of that I see all this sort of thing as a sort of intellectual puzzle that I have to somehow solve. I never solve it completely, but iteratively, a little closer every time. My guess is that in some ways I'm too good at solving these problems for my own good, in that I end up giving the impression that I should be the sort of person who simply intuitively behaves socially correctly and therefore, I'm held to a standard that I can't quite reach. If I were completely socially inept, things might work out better. :)
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 4:28 PM on December 16, 2004

You fuckers are just intimidated by smart people. EB and I have been putting up with this from lesser beings for years.

Haven't we, buddy?
posted by mr_crash_davis at 4:28 PM on December 16, 2004

There's things called "newspapers" that are pretty good at that stuff.

No, no actually they aren't much anymore, sadly.

It's the I'm holier and cleverer than you attitude, its the fact that you have to SHOUT at him for him to hear any little point you're making, and it's the fact that he has no discernable sense of being able to laugh at himself.

Oh, I was fine with all that. For me it was the bet-welching.
posted by rushmc at 4:36 PM on December 16, 2004

Re-reading my comment, it seems to me to not be circuitous or blatherous at all

This explains a lot. EB, if you really didn't think that that comment was circuitous or "blatherous", I strongly suggest that you lay off the Henry James, David Halberstam, Shelby Foote, or whatever you're reading right now.

Because it was certainly circuitous and, if not blathering (the word you were looking for), it was quite prolix.

And I don't mean that in an insulting way, either--there is a place in this world for lengthy prose rhodomontades. However, I don't think MeFi is that place.
posted by Sidhedevil at 4:36 PM on December 16, 2004

EB - Do you actually think you solve anything with these cathartic outpourings? And will I regret asking you this question, fearing a response through which I will have to sift for the essence of an answer?

Your posts, when you get to the point, are both thoughtful and excellent. But essays about yourself and your internal stream-of-conscious are just noise. Eloquence is about brevity and quality as well as word choice. I suspect nothing I say here is news to you, and apologies if this just adds to the wave of pilings-up.
posted by cosmonik at 4:37 PM on December 16, 2004

No, I was serious, which I think you realize.

Mmm, actually I didn't. I really thought you were parodying yourself. Sorry.

Not that you care, EB, but I think you're a good bloke--you just need an editor ;) And don't forget to find humor in these criticisms. Hell, Adam once called me, in all sincerity, a "crypto nazi". Everyone I work with had a huge laugh at that one. Clearly, the "insults" won't even make sense sometimes, and they'll do far more to embarass the insulter himself. Just skate on past, and keep it brief.
posted by dhoyt at 4:41 PM on December 16, 2004

EB: Maybe it's just me, but I don't think of these discussions as derails - the initial question was answered in the first comment. I think that the dialogue now, where people - even me! - are making good-faith and honest criticism is probably about ten times more important because clearly a lot of people care deeply about this issue. As long as we're here we've got a perfectly useless thread to burn up - so why not have at it?

But essays about yourself and your internal stream-of-conscious are just noise.

This is also part of it, for me - I'm not adverse to learning what conclusions people have arrived at about themselves, but I don't need to know about your intermediary steps. Your life is an open book? Good, same policy here. Your life as open encyclopedia article with concordance and special "The Making Of This Article" featurette? Bad.
posted by Ryvar at 4:45 PM on December 16, 2004

Crash, that deserves a response, because it's important. As I wrote elsewhere to (or about) Ryvar, I don't really doubt that being "smart" has some actual meaning, as most people are pretty sure it does. Therefore, I don't doubt that some of us are "smarter" than average. Some much smarter than average. But one of the really coolest lessons I've learned in my life is that the odds are specatcularly against one being as much smarter than everyone else as many of us, now or when we were younger, might have thought we were. No matter how smart you are, you will likely find yourself surrounded by people that are much, much smarter. At the very least, you become quite aware that those people exist. And, more to the point, my experience is also that no one is as universally competent as they seem to think themselves to be. The people that I've known that are intimidatingly credentialed, clearly my superiors in every general respect are, sadly, still prone to making fools of themselves from time to time by assuming a personal competency that clearly, to many onlookers, they don't possess. So pretty much none of us, even the exceptional among the exceptional, are nearly so wise and correct as we tend to think ourselves to be. That's my experience, anyway.

On Preview: cosmonik, "But essays about yourself and your internal stream-of-conscious are just noise."...but, that's the topic (not of the post, but the derail). There's something here I'm not "getting". Other people can be thoughtful when they criticize one, but to respond thoughtfully in any depth has the unseemly scent of being self-indulgent? That makes a sort of sense. A sense that is alien to me, odd, inconsistent; but a sense that I can sort of grok because the ways in which people are expected to socially behave are not consistent. Avoiding the impression of being self-important trumps other considerations, so if someone says, "doing X is what your problem is" then the most socially acceptable response is to say "thanks for the input" and then privately go somewhere else and consider it. To respond to it in public directly, even if the criticism is public, is violating the rule against self-important behavior. Okay, that makes some sense.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 4:46 PM on December 16, 2004

Do you actually think you solve anything with these cathartic outpourings?

Do you think we actually solve anything on MetaFilter, ever? At least EB is thoughtful, sincere and civil in his self-expression. Who are you to tell him that he can't say what he thinks here?

This probably goes without saying, but I, at least, enjoy his writing. And I'm noticing that many of the people arrayed against him tend to be the people who's contributions I don't enjoy. I wonder what that means. Perhaps there's room for more than one type of personality here?

As long as we're here we've got a perfectly useless thread to burn up - so why not have at it?

Tell me again, then, why you're complaining about EB's length?

I'm not adverse to learning what conclusions people have arrived at about themselves, but I don't need to know about your intermediary steps.

Then don't read it. I routinely scroll past y2karl's cut-and-past essays, because I'm just not interested. If I have to put up with the fact that other people judge signal-to-noise differently than I do; well, so do you.

On preview: Okay, that makes some sense.

No, it really doesn't.
posted by gd779 at 4:50 PM on December 16, 2004

Ryvar (aghh!, I need to jump into World of Warcraft to get away from this thread!), that's a general critcism I've heard a lot in many different contexts, not just when I'm trying to explain my own behavior. I have a very strong tendency to offer up my process of reasoning as part of the discussion, and that seems to other people to be often irrelevant or self-indulgent. But, from my point of view (here I go again!), there's so much ambiguity in the world that communicating about ideas, opinions, things we are arguing about as "truths", whatever, necessarily involves a presentation of how we arrived at wherever we've arrived. Because it's in that middle part that people often are able to go, oh, see, that's where I parted ways with you and why I reached a different conclusion. Then when can jump to that point and see what we can do at that divergence. It's certainly not the case that I only care about my own process for reaching a decision or belief—I care just as much about other people's. I wish they were more forthcoming about their thought processes so that I could, as I just said, figure out where we diverge and take up the discussion there. Instead of the more typical repetition of a few favored facts, the bare-bones of a line of reasoning, and the re-presentation of the assertion with the implicit assertion that anyone who doesn't find that sufficiently persuasive is simply an idiot, or willfully wrong. This is why I'm verbose about things, including my thought processes.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 4:52 PM on December 16, 2004

EB amuses me, writes well, if too much, and reminds me of what I might be like if I hadn't gotten out of my parents' house and wandered the world with a bottle in hand for a couple of decades.

Not to say that he hasn't done Big Fun Stuff out in The World, but I think I'd be much more like him -- involute, obsessively explanatory, unaware of the ways in which my personality tics may bother others -- if I hadn't.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:54 PM on December 16, 2004

just can't stand (or simply aren't used to) sincerity, honesty, and thoughtfulness. Confronted with these traits in EB, they project their own ways of thinking onto him.

Wow. My brain did a pfffft! reading that. If there's any trait which I would never assign to EB it's sincerity. Empathy and humility would take up second and third.

That is to say, in her view, I was couching universal assertions in supposed subjectivity and the hypocrisy of doing so in the context of asserting my point of view really irked her—offended her, really—quite deeply.

That's one way of putting it and it's pretty much on target with what I think of you, not that you asked (or care). However, there's a maliciousness (or at the very least, craftiness) implied in that analysis which I'm not sure I agree with.

I think you care more about what people think of you than what they think of your ideas (posts). As a result, the posts all seem "crafted" with a "People will be judging me when they read this" quality to them which just makes (some) people like/trust you even less. You also insist on having the last word on everything.

Almost without exception your posts make me think of that adage, "Who you are speaks so loudly I cannot hear what you're saying."

Note that I am completely aware that there are plenty of people on mefi who would say everything I wrote above about me. I care about as much as I'm sure you do. :)
posted by dobbs at 4:56 PM on December 16, 2004

EB - you just nailed part of the problem. You say 'go somewhere else and consider it' and then 'respond to it in public' as if they're mutually exclusive. You can do both. The heavy background processing ('thought') can churn away wherever you want, and then the end result (response) you put in a thread.

(I don't think anyone wants a 'thanks-for-your-input' statement if you don't actually 'get it'.)

On preview: gd779, I'm not 'telling' him, or anyone else, anything. I was asking out of genuine interest whether he solved anything inside himself with those posts (hence the use of 'cathartic'), not between MeFites. EB seems to be asking how best to express himself whilst not annoying others - anything I say is in response to this, not a command to cease & desist.
posted by cosmonik at 4:58 PM on December 16, 2004

I'm suddenly reminded of a criticism of a former griflriend's mother (who did not like me and the feeling was mutual)...

I laughed so hard my face empinkened and the tears flowed.

Don't change a blatherous word, EB! Yadda on to heart's delight!

(FWIW, EB's stuff is the opposite of crafted: those long sentences are the way my voice sounds inside my head, often. There's no editing going on.)
posted by mwhybark at 4:59 PM on December 16, 2004

EB: you don't have to solve it, because Mefi's not a problem, it's a process (of learning, sharing, connecting, etc - at least to me it is.) It's not meant to be such hard work - for me, for you and for all of us.

Though sidhedevil just made smoke come out of my ears with rhodomontade, so don't feel like your on yer own....
posted by dash_slot- at 5:01 PM on December 16, 2004

EB:
To respond to it in public directly, even if the criticism is public, is violating the rule against self-important behavior.

There's nothing wrong with responding publicly and directly to public criticism - there's something wrong with publicly displaying the entire thought process behind your self-defense. Which, by the way, your last paragraph is an example of.

gd779:
If I have to put up with the fact that other people judge signal-to-noise differently than I do; well, so do you.

The problem is that EB clearly is an intelligent person - thus we can safely assume that he has a point. Having to read his entire process on arriving to that point not only shows a complete disregard for my time, it conveys a sense that the author believes all his readers to be mere children.

On preview: EB:

The normal path for a conversation is very much like writing an essay. You begin with your thesis statement - if the party agrees, exit to next point, if they disagree proceed to introductory paragraph (a few summary statements that outline your general process briefly). Again, if they agree, exit to next point, if you still encounter resistance - THEN you launch the 40-page dissertation.

The heavy background processing ('thought') can churn away wherever you want, and then the end result (response) you put in a thread.

Cosmonik nails it.
posted by Ryvar at 5:02 PM on December 16, 2004

Oh, I was fine with all that. For me it was the bet-welching.

Sorry about that, rush. I was honestly in a mourning period. At the moment, I don't have five bucks I could electronically xfer to you. I do have five bucks in my pocket, so if you want to email me, I could mail it to you. I do like to honor my bets, honest.

On Preview: stav, oddly, though, depsite my mannerisms, my life has been a lot more like what you're saying yours has been than not. True, I've not lived outside the US, and I'm the poorer for it. But within the US I've lived in many places and, more to the point, in an unusual varitey of socioeconomic contexts. Oddly, for example, in the barrios with the people you'd think are the most desperately unlike myself, I've been at least as well-accepted there as anywhere else. Which is to say, "mostly", though never do I really fit in. I'm not nearly as ivory-towerish, parent's basement as I seem. Or, alternatively, in some sense I congenitaly am and no amount of experience will counter it.

Finally, dobbs wrote: "Wow. My brain did a pfffft! reading that. If there's any trait which I would never assign to EB it's sincerity. Empathy and humility would take up second and third." With the probably exception of "humility" I can say that I seem to myself, and I can truthfully assert that I seem, notably, to the people that know me well according to them, to be unusually sincere and empathic. That I can strike some people like yourself as being exactly the opposite is, I suppose, a sort of a paradox, perverse, and I deeply regret it. But I'd prefer to be in this situation than the inversion (that the people that know me and I would know myself to be insincere and unempathic while more casual aquaintances thought that I was).

'Nuff said. Off to WoW.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 5:06 PM on December 16, 2004

I would bet that peoples like or dislike of EB would closely correlate with their like or dislike of My Dinner with Andre Sometime I like to hear how folks got to where they are rather than just have them blurt out an opinion.
posted by arse_hat at 5:07 PM on December 16, 2004

(FWIW, EB's stuff is the opposite of crafted: those long sentences are the way my voice sounds inside my head, often. There's no editing going on.)
i'm with mwhybark, and often do it too--it helps to get to the point you're trying to make. EB's a good guy, and i like him and am glad he's here.

Speaking of writing styles, i was disappointed in that Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norell book specifically because of her tone and style, but EB's is ok by me. I don't get any sense of insincerity or nastiness or snark or patronizing from him at all.

It is a fact, tho, that people's eyes tend to glaze over when they see a really long comment--from anyone--it's not just you, EB.
posted by amberglow at 5:11 PM on December 16, 2004

stav, oddly, though, despite my mannerisms, my life has been a lot more like what you're saying yours has been than not.

Well, there you go. I think I'd like to spend a weekend with EB in the desert somewhere with a few gallons of whiskey and a dogchokin' motherload of amphetamines. That'd be a gabfest par excellence, by gum!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:13 PM on December 16, 2004

While reading Meta Talk I am often reminded of Al Franken's 1994 WHCD speech in which he jokingly refers to a media panel discussion entitled "Constant Self Re-evaluation - Useful Exercise or Giant Wankathon?"

And I don't even like Al Franken.
posted by probablysteve at 5:17 PM on December 16, 2004

If you have Aspberger's EB then it really all does make sense.
And don't let the bastards get you down. Be yourself. I admire how you take this shit with equanimity.
posted by Rumple at 5:25 PM on December 16, 2004

If there's any trait which I would never assign to EB it's sincerity. Empathy and humility would take up second and third.

How strange. I have grown to understand and respect EB's shorter comments, even occasionally enjoy them. I do not doubt his sincerity, I know he empathises to a point, and I'm sure that when one strips out the process stream, there's no end of humility in there - it;s the wood which he hides with trees.

But that made me laugh too, mwhybark (sorry, EB!). MyBark also has it right about how to read EB - I am sure there's no 'side' to him, it's all written and posted far too quickly to be crafted with malicious intent. The time from brain to keyboard is too short.

That isn't necessarily a bonus, but I don't think it's a persona, radically different to his real-life one. It's all EB, all the time. In the uber-snarkdom, that sticks out and gets hammered. We're not always that civilised, for our 'sophisticated' ways.

I think that when the smooth edges are roughed off, EB's style will be accepted as much as clavdivs is, or thomcatspike's, or y2karls's.

Which is to say, more honoured in the breach than in the observance. Aren't we a broad church, in the end?
posted by dash_slot- at 5:26 PM on December 16, 2004

Oddly enough, I'm in the group that couldn't stand Andre. Lots of friends think very highly of it. But I have much difficulty in taking acting seriously in the way in which Andre Gregory takes it seriously. Drama and art, yes; acting, not so much. In the philosophical sense. As a craft, I value it highly. But I often ponder why it is that actors are more often than not notoriously boring people when it comes to the subject of their work. They are often oddly uninsightful. I see this a lot on DVD commentaries. The director, writer, and other crew have a lot of insights about the film, or even the filmmaking; but actors either gossip or mumble inanities.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 5:26 PM on December 16, 2004

Funny how most of this thread seems to have nothing to do with the original question. You should really take this to MetaTalk. Or something.
posted by grouse at 5:29 PM on December 16, 2004

"actors either gossip or mumble inanities" Yup.
posted by arse_hat at 5:32 PM on December 16, 2004

in the end, someone is bound to rush the stage and shoot Eponymous Blargh five times in the head at point blank range.
posted by quonsar at 5:37 PM on December 16, 2004

he'll survive the shooting, he'll bleed out during the post-trauma monologue.
posted by quonsar at 5:38 PM on December 16, 2004

It is a fact, tho, that people's eyes tend to glaze over when they see a really long comment--from anyone--it's not just you, EB.

I don't mean this to be antagonistic, but for me it really is just EB's unusually long responses that irk me. I don't doubt your sincerity EB, and I'm even starting to see the humility and self-deprecation in your responses, when I can get through the dense, off-topic wayward prose to the point that you're trying to make. I believe that if you sat down and wrote The Great American Novel, I'd enjoy reading it. In Metafilter, however, that wandering style is off putting.
posted by eyeballkid at 5:39 PM on December 16, 2004

I really feel sorry for Leege. Ask a simple question...
posted by arse_hat at 5:41 PM on December 16, 2004

Jesus, how in the hell did this become another EB roast? I thought we were over that shit? He's curtailed his length greatly in recent months, after withstanding some of the most vicious "we hate you die" attacks I've ever seen here. And he remains a humane, reasonable conversationalist. What the fuck's not to like again? That is, what's not to like that's actually *evident,* not some inferred malice?

Man I know he hates to be defended, but sheezus you guys get fucking boring.
posted by scarabic at 5:42 PM on December 16, 2004

EB is one thesaurus away from becoming troutfishing.

Either that, or it's an elaborate bit of Internet performance art.
posted by Sidhedevil at 5:44 PM on December 16, 2004

sheezus=jesus' evil twin sister? ; >
posted by amberglow at 5:45 PM on December 16, 2004

What in the hell happened in this thread? And why does it smell like sex in here?
posted by loquacious at 5:58 PM on December 16, 2004

I think EB is what you would get if you crossed me with Miguel. (All theoretical, of course.)
posted by konolia at 5:58 PM on December 16, 2004

Thanks, scarabic, and who said I hate being defended? :) But, it seems to me that the criticism of me in this thread has been unusually well-intentioned, honest, and sincere. There's more than a few people, eyeballkid is a good example, that have been the most maliciously insulting to me in the past that, in this thread, took the time here to articulate their objections in a well-intentioned, generous manner. Were that more criticism of anyone, anywhere, were like this and not just simply "fuck off and die you're an offense to the human race" sort of insult. Some people here, and in email, have said some very nice things to me about me while, at the same time, helping me get more in accordance with acceptable behavior. I don't know how to be dishonest to my sense of self, but I'm willing and even eager to correct what I can comprehend as truly objectionable behavior. Oddly enough, this is one of the sorts of thing that MeTa is intended to do and it'd be nice if it were successful at it more often, instead of being merely an opportunity for people to relieve their anger and aggression.

And to all, a goodnight.

Who's that guy rushing up on the stage??!
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 6:02 PM on December 16, 2004

I think EB is what you would get if you crossed me with Miguel. (All theoretical, of course.)

*shudder* How the fuck am I supposed to sleep now?
posted by terrapin at 6:13 PM on December 16, 2004

And all this time I thought EB was the love child of Miguel and troutfishing, but konolia is probably more possible, with the current technology.

Bligh, I like you, I respect you (as much as SOME of your detractors and MORE than others) and I still suffer the MEGO (My Eyes Glaze Over) effect from some of your longer comments, taking away from my appreciation of your words until somebody else pulls a quote out that makes me think "Did he say THAT?"

And forget about the guy rushing up on the stage, who's the guy in President Lincoln's box with the gun?
posted by wendell at 6:16 PM on December 16, 2004

most.insightful.konolia.comment.evar.

And EB's right: this is precisely what MeTa is for.

Let's think about what we've achieved today.
~wink~
posted by dash_slot- at 6:21 PM on December 16, 2004

And forget about the guy rushing up on the stage, who's the guy in President Lincoln's box with the gun?
Oh, sorry--that's just me and that's no gun, but thanks! ; >
posted by amberglow at 6:29 PM on December 16, 2004

I still suffer the MEGO (My Eyes Glaze Over) effect from some of your longer comments

I hate to break it to you folks, but I suffer MEGO pretty much over this entire website. I read my own comments right before I post them. That's about it.

Not really, but sorta :P
posted by scarabic at 6:38 PM on December 16, 2004

I do like to honor my bets, honest.

I'm not particularly worried about it really. An email would have been nice. Just keep it. (I believe it was $10.)

Jesus, how in the hell did this become another EB roast? I thought we were over that shit?

He's just throwing himself on the grenade to shift us away from the all-consuming newbie roasting. And I thank him for it.

I think EB is what you would get if you crossed me with Miguel.

Hmm...I don't see it.
posted by rushmc at 6:40 PM on December 16, 2004

I just like working out my aggression all over Blight.
...
God I hate that guy.

Wah! I have to deal with people I... don't like. And don't get.

And... some other people do!.

God I hate them too.
posted by namespan at 7:00 PM on December 16, 2004

He's just throwing himself on the grenade to shift us away from the all-consuming newbie roasting. And I thank him for it.

You know, I wish I were noble and considerate enough to have actually intended to do this. Because the newbie roast has been depressing the hell out of me, lately. That scarabic, who I consider my friend, has been so hard on the newbies has made me sad. 'Cause, out of all of these, there's gonna be some shit but, all in all, I remain thrilled with most of them. It's really exciting to see all these new voices, and they have a lot of intelligent and positive things to contribute.

I'm not saying that MeTa should cease to function as a callout for subpar posts and the like. Just that the newbies are getting a lot more criticism (especially in the general sense) than they deserve. And certainly not enough praise for all that's praiseworthy, which is a lot.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 7:01 PM on December 16, 2004

Speaking of newbies is Leege still here? (You know, the guy who started the tread way back when.)
posted by arse_hat at 7:09 PM on December 16, 2004

Stop sucking up, EB. They'll learn to hate you too. ;-)
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:23 PM on December 16, 2004

Truly, it's occured to me that my vocal defense of them perhaps may incline some of them to think favorably of me, but I embarked on this quest to defend them exclusively because I thought they deserved some defense. Or, rather, since I am uncomfortable with "defending" people without their requesting that I do so, I should say that I'm objecting to their thrashing because I think the thrashing has been objectionable.

That paragraph really does seem like I'm parodying myself, but, alas, I'm not.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 7:26 PM on December 16, 2004

EB gets a boner everytime we all focus on him like this.
posted by bonheur at 7:28 PM on December 16, 2004

MetaFilter: MEGO

That sums up *so much*!
posted by mwhybark at 7:32 PM on December 16, 2004

Metafilter : [It] does seem like I'm parodying myself, but, alas, I'm not.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:39 PM on December 16, 2004

That scarabic, who I consider my friend, has been so hard on the newbies has made me sad.

I have tried not to be hard on newbies for its own sake. Where I've seen willful disregard for the norms around here, I've pushed back for the sake of our long-considered consensus on things like double posting and self-linking. But I don't think I've been leading the charge on electrocuting newbies who unknowingly or out of mere negligence break the rules on a first offence. I only get out my whip if they break the rules and then bitch and moan about how they're right and the rules are wrong.

Hey, and I coined "neoFite," too, the best non-pejorative and inclusive name for them to date, so gimmie a tiny break. I also anticipate great things from them, but my methods in greeting and socializing them may differ from yours. Our methods differ in most matters, anyway, so, if you consider me friend, trust me in this as in other things - at least as far as you can throw me :)
posted by scarabic at 8:02 PM on December 16, 2004

As cute as all of this discussion about EB has been, I have no interest in it whatsoever. Some things that I heard that made me think, though...


For the same story posted twice in the last couple weeks? Yeah.

Not the same story, but pretty much the same topic expressed differently, I admit.

If Matt has actually started limiting posts on certain themes to some number n per week, that is totally awesome, and thanks for doing it. If he was being sarcastic, boo, hisss.

I'm cool with keeping posts to a certain number, but it would be nice to see what number that was.

But ... back to the point at hand.
My opinion is that Matt's coming down on newsfilter posts because with the election over, we've had our newsfilter fun, and now news, news, news isn't what MeFi is about.

I also understand not just talking about the headline stories, but not talking about news? What should be the priority, reality television? The sexual practices of Mormons? German artist colonies? I think there always could be room for news if it looks at what's going on out there in a fresh (or at least rare) viewpoint or angle.

(editor's note: I've worked in journalism for the past nine years, so I might cop to being a news nerd.
posted by Leege at 8:24 PM on December 16, 2004

Well, I'm probably a news nerd as well, although not a journalist. That's why I've got a bazillion freaking news sources on my constant web rotation. You get my drift? Because I never read a news item here that I haven't already read elsewhere is why I find newsfilter so annoying. Usually, it's the people that want to get their news on MeFi that are gung-ho about newsfilter. And discussion about the news...well, while it's undeniable that mefi is de facto a discussion site, it's unambiguous in terms of what Matt has said and in the guidelines that mefi posting is not intended to be primarily for the purposes of fostering discussion.

"secondarily", though, is swell, even encouraged.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 8:30 PM on December 16, 2004

But I don't think I've been leading the charge on electrocuting newbies

Only a 6V jolt once and awhile - tame in comparison to the 220V zaps I've seen.

(that sentence was too tempting to resist commenting on)
posted by squeak at 8:34 PM on December 16, 2004

"Leading the charge" sounds like an electrician's faux pas.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 8:37 PM on December 16, 2004

Speaking for myself, there are only two kinds of news posts I want to see on Metafilter:

The really HUGE stories that it would impossible to ignore (ie shuttle blows up, Abu Ghraib torture), because I respect quite a few of the opinions shared here and I want to see what everyone's analysis of the situation is. The problem with these stories is that they get posted multiple times, regardless of how much deleting Matt does. Each of these huge stories needs one single authoritative thread.

The other kind I want to see is the really obscure shit the mainstream media just is refusing to report. Metafilter has *excelled* in this capacity for me over the last four-five years, and if I seem to cry out against Matt's recent decision towards a more liberal deletion policy, it is specifically because I fear he will destroy Metafilter in this regard.
posted by Ryvar at 8:39 PM on December 16, 2004

Yeah, I do have a fondness for obscure news stories, too, although many of the supposedly obscure stories that appear here I've seen elsewhere. But I do agree that those sorts of newsfilteresque links are far more justifiable. Most egregious, in my opinion, are run-of-the-mill AP, Reuters, CNN, or NYT lead stories posted because they're "important". I myself don't really like the "Space shuttle blows up" stories, but a good number of people do, they're the exception, and Matt approves them, so I don't object to them other than personally. It's clear that they're acceptable fodder for MeFi FPPs.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 8:49 PM on December 16, 2004

All of those are good points, EB. From my readings of the guidelines and the comments here tonight, I'm getting the impression that the bar for a good post is pretty high. I'd never thought I'd ask this of anyone (because writers in general get it all the time) but here goes: Where do you guys get your post ideas for these obscure sources?

P.S. - Just to test the level of "obscurity" here at MeFi, would our war on drugs in Afghanistan adversely affecting our war on terror there apply?
posted by Leege at 8:52 PM on December 16, 2004

No. If the word "war" is in your post, close your browser window before you hit "post." Good posts are stunning things you stumble upon in your web travels that you think the rest of MeFi would really enjoy seeing. If someone wanders by in a year and clicks the link, it would still be interesting. News posts never fit that requirement.
posted by bonheur at 9:05 PM on December 16, 2004

Well, again, in my opinion the "obscure news" exemption is sort of a guilty pleasure. I'm not sure I'm willing to vigorously defend it in principle. I truly do not believe that the point of MeFi is to post news. It's certainly not the case that I have anything against news—if so I wouldn't spend much of my day obsessively reading news. And it's also not the case, for me, that the liberal slant to MeFi's choice of "important news" is disturbing, being that I myself am liberal and if there's a news here I'd prefer, it'd be that kind.

I've only made a very few posts in my eight months here and of those, I'm not very inclined to think they met the standards that I think they should have. Looking at them now, most of them look newsfilterish to me.

Just taking something out of the blue that occurs to me as an example, the post on the Millau viaduct seems to me to be the sort of newsfilterish thing that's worth seeing. (Actually, I think it first appeared here not in any way, really, as a news item, but more as a link to the official site and a history of it and its engineering.) I'd have seen the news that it opened the other day, but I wouldn't have already known about it months ago were it not for the mefi post.

What I think mefi posts should be are things that a majority of mefi readers will follow the link to and think to themselves "wow, I'm so happy that this was posted to mefi because it's very interesting and I wouldn't have seen it otherwise". Some people are always going to have seen these things elsewhere, of course. But it seems important to me to try to avoid posting things that tha majority are likely to have seen elsewhere. I firmly believe that almost anything that is a leading news item is one of those "seen elsewhere by the majority" things.

The "of the web" quality seems important to me, as well. While it's obviously not the case that this implies "exclusively of the web" I think it does imply something like "not incidentally of the web and appearing in many other media elsewhere". I think a good post should be to something on the web that is inherently "of the web", so to speak (but not necessarily exclusively "of the web"!). Most of my own posts fail on that account.

Subjects that are inherently political that appear as FPPs that I wholeheartedly endorse are (again, something that just comes easily to mind, not necessarily the best example I could find if I went to the archives and looked) things like the "visit to North Korea" website that was posted. Because, that's of the web, it's good, and I wouldn't have seen it otherwise.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 9:06 PM on December 16, 2004

I am in 100% appreciation of your interperetation, squeak.

but not talking about news? What should be the priority, reality television?

I really, really used to be right here with you. Honestly. But what you have to consider is that what is important to MetaFilter isn't a 1-to-1 correlative with what's important to life itself. Mind you, MetaFilter is about doing something which isn't being done elsewhere. Posts about high-profile subjects like the war in Iraq are, in all fairness, subject to greater scrutiny. That's becase lots of news sources are exploring this topic at present. Further, see above comments about Matt's whims. You're not going to find concrete variables, here.

I'm cool with keeping posts to a certain number, but it would be nice to see what number that was.

As I already said, you will not get very specific guidelines from Matt, period. I'm not saying "shut up noob," here, I'm saying "this sucks and has sucked for a long time with no relief in sight." Just be advised.
posted by scarabic at 9:17 PM on December 16, 2004

Cool. Then, if that's what we're talking about, then I think the best policy for me is just to lay back an comment on other people, and wait and think long and hard before contributing.

Night to all.
posted by Leege at 9:28 PM on December 16, 2004

You seem to be taking this awfully hard. I can't blame you. I don't know what it feels like to be in your position. But if you do feel *very* chastised and *very* confused about why, then perhaps a further incubation would, in fact, be the best thing. You seem to have your head about you as far as I can tell, but if thread deletion is too painful, just stick around a while and you'll get a feel for Uno's M.O.

Don't take it too too hard. Many have gone before you and been deleted for less.
posted by scarabic at 10:27 PM on December 16, 2004

Rather than searching for things to post, I'd recommend you just wait for a lightning bolt to hit -- damn, this'd be great for the 'filter! -- possibly gussy it up a bit, if appropriate, with some supporting linkage (although this is by no means absolutely necessary), and go for it.

I've posted rarely over the years, though, so what the hell do I know?
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 11:11 PM on December 16, 2004

My point was that Matt is stamping down harder on news stories as a short term thing to get us to think harder about what we post.

On the David Blunkett story. It should have had more meat to it, and the Yanks probably don't know or care who he is, but politically this was one of the biggest UK stories of the year. It has everything in it. ID Cards, a curtailing of human rights, prison injustice, an increased emphasis on "security and xenophobia" from a blind working class man man who goes on throw it all away on a couple of minor abuses of power and an insistence that he is the father of a woman he is having an affair with, and (in a reversal of male politician behaviour) he insists on being given access.

It should have been allowed to stay, but katemonkey should have made a better front page post.
posted by seanyboy at 12:48 AM on December 17, 2004

sheezus=jesus' evil twin sister? ; >

I don't know about you, but that sounds hot. As Hell.
posted by DaShiv at 12:48 AM on December 17, 2004

... oops .... father of the children of the woman he is having an affair with ...
I didn't mean to make that story more exciting than it already is.
posted by seanyboy at 12:51 AM on December 17, 2004

But if you do feel *very* chastised and *very* confused about why...

There really shouldn't be much confusion now about Leege's post, since Matt pointed out in this thread that the topic has already been covered here. Matteo's post alone was awfully thorough.

If there is a point to be made it is this: If one does find a news post that seems important and seemingly hasn't been seen by most people, the onus is on the poster to try to make sure that the subject (not the exact news article) really hasn't been posted here already. You can't do that by relying on a url match - you wll have to exert a a great deal of effort in your search, and it would probably be wise to actually look through the last couple of weeks of posts as well. Matt didn't delete Leege's post because it wasn't the right kind of news, but because the information had already been posted.
posted by taz at 1:34 AM on December 17, 2004

Mefi as I see it has 2 purposes:

1. outward focus: to provide illuminating links to other places on the web

2. inward focus: to engender discussion about and commentary on those links amongst and by metafilter members in a threaded environment

When news links get posted, it's obvious they don't fulfill purpose #1. But what is wrong with posting news items to fulfill purpose #2? Of course I can read about Iraq on CNN and MSNBC and all of the other bot-like news sources, but I certainly cannot discuss those stories or read biting commentary by other interested readers on those sites. It's terribly ignorant of Mefi policy to justify exclusion of news links by saying that the information linked to exists bountifully elsewhere. When something big happens in the world, I usually go to Mefi first to see what other members have thought about it. If I find nothing on the subject (either because it's too strictly newsy or just not timely enough), I feel disappointed that I can't share in others' commentary on the issue.

In sum, please don't forget purpose #2... Mefi is a powerful, powerful forum... Don't censor it by allowing only "unique" or "offbeat" links...
posted by superfem at 3:09 AM on December 17, 2004

This is merely for newbie searching purposes.

Why Was My Post Deleted or Removed?

Your post was deleted because it was deemed unnecessary, get over it and try again tomorrow.

Be sure to check this website, click on the link for a reason, and don't bring it to Metatalk to complain because nobody wants to hear it.
posted by Arch Stanton at 7:02 AM on December 17, 2004

Being late to the party, I'd just like to say that I like EB's writing, his attempts to be precise, to offer the workings of his mind rather than pat answers. I think he is brighter than most and it's a pity that he has to be concerned and apologetic about it. The methodology of his arguments irk me sometimes; he sets himself up as a strawman to support an opposing argument, and I cannot figure what's behind of his (and Mig's) willingness to be abused and condescended to.

About Leege's issue: life is not consistent, neither is Matt.

Otherwise, what superfem said.
posted by semmi at 7:36 AM on December 17, 2004

I'm perfectly fine with the situation. My writing's been ripped by experts at it, but I still keep coming back, trying it again, and producing better stuff. I know what I don't know, but what I do know keeps growing. I've had a positive experience here, and I'll keep coming back.
posted by Leege at 8:02 AM on December 17, 2004

Of course I can read about Iraq on CNN and MSNBC and all of the other bot-like news sources, but I certainly cannot discuss those stories...........Mefi is a powerful, powerful forum... Don't censor it by allowing only "unique" or "offbeat" links.


I too enjoy reading Mefi's reactions to big news events. But in, ahem, moderation. Once in a blue moon, yes. But this is not supposed to be primarily a discussion site and cluttering the front page with every damn story on the AP national wire is getting annoying and very depressing. Stuff like this is going to kill the site, in my opinion, though it might be exactly what you are looking for.
posted by CunningLinguist at 9:35 AM on December 17, 2004

EB - good luck with that. Most people aren't quite as ... aware of their own thinking as you are.

They haven't devled into their own minds as much, either by choice or nature. Try not to take the criticism so much to heart (BTW, I know you can't, but try).

word.
posted by wah at 11:04 AM on December 17, 2004

Rather than searching for things to post, I'd recommend you just wait for a lightning bolt to hit -- damn, this'd be great for the 'filter!

What the wonderchicken said. I never go looking for material, my default mode is reading and commenting, but every once in a while I'm browsing around and read something and think... well, "damn, this'd be great for the 'filter!" (Oddly, these occasions seem to come in bunches: I'll post nothing for months, then three times in as many days.)

I'm late to the party too, but on the EB front: Speaking as someone who flailed him vigorously and repeatedly back in his Days of Infinite Verbosity (which some people seem not to be willing to forgive and forget), I've come to like him a lot and think of him as one of the most intelligent and well-intentioned people here. I have no idea why dobbs (another poster I respect a tremendous amount) thinks he's insincere, but I'm quite sure that's a misjudgment. He's trying hard, folks; toss a snowball at his top hat from time to time for old times' sake, but try to get over the pointless antipathy. This has been a Public Service Announcement. And now, back to our regularly scheduled clusterfuck.
posted by languagehat at 1:36 PM on December 17, 2004

What languagehat said. All of it.
posted by me3dia at 2:03 PM on December 17, 2004

My guess is that the problem Dobbs has with me has everything to do with our argument in the "boyzone" thread. At the risk of inviting some ridicule of how seriously I take most things, I've spent quite a bit of time in the following however-long-its-been since then thinking about the argument he and I had.

It seems something of a comic tragedy, in a way, because here's two men that feel strongly about women's rights that hurl at each other the charge of sexism.

Dobbs is clearly very well-intentioned and the thing that's bothered me most has been my very strong desire to just assume the best of him and dismiss my criticisms. The problem I have with that—and I think the problem Dobbs has with me is symmetric, though a different problem—is that being a member of a privileged class and being patronizing in the defense of an oppressed class is a behavior that hits a whole host of hot-buttons for me. I can't shake the feeling that Dobbs is acting, to some degree, in this fashion so I'm not able to just dismiss my concerns. On the other hand, I'm well aware that this is such a hot-button issue for me that I'm likely quite oversensitive to it and likely to place blame where it doesn't deserve to be placed.

Again, I only know how to offer an anecdote to explain my state of mind and views on this matter. My ex-wife is an incest survivor, of her father (and she's public about this so me discussing it is not a violation), and the very hardest lesson I had to learn in my capacity as the spouse of a survivor was that my impulse to protect her, to defend her, to take the initiative against her father was not to her benefit and, horribly, a form of continuing the abuse of her. It wasn't my job; and, more to the point, in assuming that it was my job I was playing a role not that dissimilar to the role her father was playing. I've also related the story of a time during rape crisis training when some of the other trainees became very condescending (in this patronizing sense, though they were women) about how many abuse survivors become prostitutes and, sadly, also frequent victims of rape and other sexual violence. There was this whole "pity" thing going on, a sense that I had that these people were working from a primary instinct that these survivors were essentially "other". The way in which some men, quite especially when it's done with a sense of "chivarly", come to the defense of women strikes me as similar. There's something dehumanizing about it, something that really bothers me because I intuitively feel that the effect of this mindset and behavior is directly contrary to the aims it claims it's trying to achieve. It is, essentially, the whole "white man's burden" thing, and I think it's wrong, wrong, wrong. As a white man, however, and someone who objects to sexism and racism, it seems to me to be of profound importance that I somehow figure out a way to navigate this difficult terrain, and do what I think I ought to do because it's right in a way that is cognizant that I'm a white man and pragmatically effective, regardless of my good intentions. Just being outraged at the way women are treated is not enough. Indeed, sadly, sometimes just being outraged at the way women are treated and acting against it, for a man, can do more harm than good.

Dobbs took our mutually well-intentioned argument to necessarily reflect some sort of bad-faith on my part. I originally saw him that way, as well, but not later. But I think Dobbs doesn't really have the framework or experience to "parse" my point of view and how my suspicions might be legitimate, if nevertheless false in his case. He's left just assuming that I'm an insincere bastard that, despite my claims to the contrary, disrespects women.

And all this is to illustrate how two people of good-intention, like Dobbs and myself, can come into nearly-unresolvable conflict. Need I point out that where there is bad-faith—which there very often is hereabouts—there almost always results vitriol and hurt feelings?

Sorry that that's so long and an echo of myself as Infinitely Verbose. It seems important, and the thread is old, is my defense.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 2:31 PM on December 17, 2004

nobody. fucking. cares.
posted by quonsar at 2:32 PM on December 17, 2004

EB, I think what Q so inelegantly meant is most folks on here really arent thinking that deeply about things, and really don't care how deeply folks like you-or I -DO think about them. We are sharing things best kept to ourselves, or discussed live at Starbucks with best friends.

I took a communication course years and years ago and one part of it actually stayed with me. It was about levels of communication. When I remember that different relationships call for different levels, then I don't spill ALL of my guts to people I barely know. There indeed is a time and place for that, but not here, usually. Speaking for only myself here, there are levels of communication and understanding I have in my own mind that will never really successfully get communicated to another human. I have had to learn to be okay with that.

Anyway, if that all seems too complicated, making sure my written communication stays UNDER a paragraph or so usually takes care of it.
posted by konolia at 2:45 PM on December 17, 2004

I suffer from much of the same sort of prolixity that EB does, and oddly enough people seem to become the most unhinged around me when I'm trying desperately to be the most sincere.

Something MeFi - the site and community - has been teaching me is to try to keep it succinct.

It's working. Slowly but surely. I've had to bite my tongue more than a few times in this thread.

I generally like EB and his posts.

And I too tend to display Asperger's Syndrome symptoms in spades. It's incredibly bothersome. It gets in the way of effective communication so often over my life that it's very nearly driven me suicidal more than once. I've lost intimate relationships, friends, jobs and more over it.

I want to state for the record I'm really pretty simple IRL, and not some condescending monkeypuncher. I try really, really hard not to be judgemental of people. In reality my self-esteem isn't all that hot, and the times that I've intentionally and purposefully taken a morally superior stance on anything throughout my whole life can probably be counted on one hand.

Honestly, all I want is to understand and learn.

"My own problem with EB has nothing to do with not reading his posts and everything to do with the torrent of condescension his every sentence subtly implies." -Ryvar

It's funny, I have this exact problem with Ryvar - but not with EB, perhaps because EB and I are more alike than different - and I'm pretty sure Ryvar has the same problem with me.

There was a MeTa thread not long ago where Ryvar and I crossed paths basically for the first time and it was like a small - but pointless and pretty inconsequential - matter/antimatter reaction. Immediate and focused mutual loathing, for whatever reason.

I'm willing to work under the assumption that on my end it's as much of a mistake and misunderstanding as it is with EB. I respect and appreciate Ryvar's thoughts, as he's obviously sharp and well-formed. Though, I don't like how quick he is to attack folks as quoted above.

And what languagehat said.

On preview: quonsar, you're wrong. Some of us do care. Some of us care a great deal. And I know that you also care in some strange way, or else you wouldn't be here. It's ok to give a shit, I won't hold it against you if you do.
posted by loquacious at 2:48 PM on December 17, 2004

you wanna hold what against me now?
posted by quonsar at 2:52 PM on December 17, 2004

*groan*
posted by loquacious at 2:57 PM on December 17, 2004

As long as the groaning has begun...

*holds something against quonsar and loquacious*
posted by mr_crash_davis at 3:05 PM on December 17, 2004

I AM NO LONGER INFECTED. WE GO BACK TO MY APARTMENT. BOUNCY BOUNCY!
posted by loquacious at 3:23 PM on December 17, 2004

Back away from Q. He's like the Star Trek character, and not to be taken seriously.
posted by konolia at 3:30 PM on December 17, 2004

MeFi - the site and community - has been teaching me is to try to keep it succinct. It's working. Slowly but surely. I've had to bite my tongue more than a few times in this thread.

And, in this way, the best part of MetaFilter dies a little bit more; with one more victim bullied into submission by an endemic culture of snarky one-liners. "The best lack all convictions, while the worst are full of passionate intensity".
posted by gd779 at 3:55 PM on December 17, 2004

*Runs up to the stage to shoot Eponymous Blargh in the head 5 times*

*slips on a banana peel, falls down, and shoots quonsar instead*
posted by loquacious at 4:25 PM on December 17, 2004

*raises guitar, plays sublime note of such incredible intensity the bullet is immediately vaporized*
posted by quonsar at 4:44 PM on December 17, 2004

you wanna hold what against me now?

just my beautiful body, quonsar.

And how about we give the EB-as-community-punching-bag routine a rest for a while. When an entire group decides to gang up on one person relentlessly it's an example of herd mentality at it's worst. I figure a bunch of self-styled intellectuals and nonconformists would be above that sort of thing.
posted by jonmc at 4:52 PM on December 17, 2004

And, in this way, the best part of MetaFilter dies a little bit more; with one more victim bullied into submission by an endemic culture of snarky one-liners.
I didn't hear you saying anything like that when trout was bullied (and deleted) into submission.

well, EB, your indoctrination is now over--finally, we can hope. You should feel like a real Mefite now, with scars and all.
posted by amberglow at 4:54 PM on December 17, 2004

It would have been cooler if the bullet had transmogrified into a teddy bear or some flowers.

EB, you may have a point but, sadly, I just get tired of reading your essays. Brevity is a virtue. And I actually think I may have mentioned that to you before.

On Preview: What, jonmc, are we ALL supposed to have stylists on retainer or something? Isn't that what baseball hats are for?

Besides, I'm not piling on EB. I'm just pointing out that the essay approach to MeFi is a turn off for me and any salient points he makes are lost in the tornado of characters.
posted by fenriq at 4:54 PM on December 17, 2004

fenriq, we all have our virtues and faults as contributors here, and we all eventually take our lumps. I'm just saying that maybe EB has taken more than his fair share, since I can think of plenty of users I find more noxious than him.
posted by jonmc at 4:58 PM on December 17, 2004

I want to state for the record I'm really pretty simple IRL

You, um, know the other definiton of "simple," right? *chuckle*

Anyway, I want to state for the record that I don't suffer from Asperger's Syndrome. I'm just wordy.
posted by rushmc at 5:15 PM on December 17, 2004

I didn't hear you saying anything like that when trout was bullied (and deleted) into submission.

Two differences. Troutfishing was axe-grinding: pushing the same political issues over and over again, at every opportunity. EB obviously isn't doing that. Even ignoring that, troutfishing was posting his missives to the front page. Posting is different than commenting; it's much more important to keep things reasonably short and readable when posting.
posted by gd779 at 5:20 PM on December 17, 2004

EB, you may have a point but, sadly, I just get tired of reading your essays.

fenriq: It wouldn't be so sad if you wouldn't think you have to read them, but would move on to pastures more to your constitution, and leave those who enjoy such verbiage the freedom to enjoy it.
posted by semmi at 7:19 PM on December 17, 2004

It would have been cooler if the bullet had transmogrified into a teddy bear or some flowers.

for that, i would need the daisy...
posted by quonsar at 7:30 PM on December 17, 2004

... i said for that, i would need the daisy.
posted by quonsar at 7:32 PM on December 17, 2004

I'm always pretty impressed when a thread like this goes on and on. It just takes on a life of its own and rides a rocket ship all the way to Mars.
posted by Kleptophoria! at 9:31 PM on December 17, 2004

I knew quonsar was a Care Bear! I knew it! And that's no rocketship, it's a rainbow!
posted by loquacious at 9:54 PM on December 17, 2004

Quonsar is everything you ever suspected him of being, and more. Oh, so much more. "Quonsar, you are so huge. We are all really impressed down here, I can tell you."
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 11:16 PM on December 17, 2004

I had forgotten this thread existed...

But I think Dobbs doesn't really have the framework or experience to "parse" my point of view and how my suspicions might be legitimate, if nevertheless false in his case.

Well, see, that's why I don't like you right there. You're constantly making assumptions about the people you're "talking" with. It's fucking annoying. YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT ME yet each of your condescending posts implies that you think you do. I wouldn't mind so much if you were taking things I said and drawing your "analysis" from that (what I think I'm doing with you), but that doesn't seem to be the case because everything you've said about me has been incorrect. (My favorite is still your implying that I, at any time, said that "women are not sexual beings". Un-fucking-believable.)

Did it ever occur to you that I have both the experience and framework to parse your pov but I simply do not agree with it? Regarding the "man-woman thing": I've heard your tired arguments many, many times. I've heard them in women studies classes and read them in books and magazines. For a time, I agreed with them. I don't anymore. That doesn't mean I think they're "wrong" or that I don't understand them. It means I don't agree with them.

Your posts (on whatever the topic) always come across as if you're unveiling some unique theory that you present as your own discovery. Instead, to me (and this is what I meant by your lack of sincerity), you come across as a gung-ho first year uni student parroting your prof but lacking the intellect to appreciate that these are theories and that the world is not black and white. (What I meant by your lack of humility.)

Your ex-wife is an incest survivor. Okay. You used to work (if I remember correctly) in a rape crises center. Okay. I appreciate that these experiences help qualify your beliefs (if even just to you). What you don't appreciate is that those experiences do not nullify the experiences of everyone else on the planet. I've had SOs that have been incest survivors and rape victims and anorexics and bulemics and what have you. My relationships with them do not trump your own and vice versa. They're just different. I mean, for fuck's sake, for all you know, I'm an incest survivor. But none of this ever occurs to you. It never crosses your mind to ask yourself why someone doesn't agree with you. Instead, you dismiss them as being incapable of following your argument. When you're not dismissing them, you're repeating your theories over and over and over again as if repetition makes a theory fact. It doesn't.

He's left just assuming that I'm an insincere bastard that, despite my claims to the contrary, disrespects women.

Indeed, I think you're an insincere bastard. However, I don't think you disrespect women--at least not in the sense that I think you think I think that. I think you disrespect women by believing you know "their plight" well enough that you no longer have to pay it any mind (from a "I still have things to learn" angle). (What I meant by lack of empathy.)

Again, as I said above, I have no doubt people could say all of these things about me.
posted by dobbs at 12:21 AM on December 18, 2004

And, in this way, the best part of MetaFilter dies a little bit more; with one more victim bullied into submission by an endemic culture of snarky one-liners. "The best lack all convictions, while the worst are full of passionate intensity".

Fuck you, you fuckin' fuck. What if the best part of MeFi is the snarky one-liners? And Yeats was a total hack, you loser!

</bullying> :)
posted by DaShiv at 12:39 AM on December 18, 2004

Well, I tried. I disagree with you, too, Dobbs, and I think your impulse to defend women is patronizing and more about you than it is about them. I grant that you think you mean well. You're just a prick, then. :)
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 11:05 AM on December 18, 2004

you're both pussies.
posted by quonsar at 1:23 PM on December 18, 2004

I disagree with you, too, Dobbs,

I could be wrong, but I believe this is the first time you've said this. Usually you just claim that you're right and those that disagree with you don't have the capacity to understand. We're all just uneducated plebes compared to you.

I think your impulse to defend women

It's not an impulse. It's a concerted, conscious effort. And, as pointed out on multiple occasions (and ignored every single time by you), I don't "defend women". I condemn misogyny (and homophobia and sexism and xenophobia, etc.). Women can defend themselves.
posted by dobbs at 2:02 PM on December 18, 2004

Women everywhere are sleeping soundly tonight, dobbs.
posted by jonmc at 3:00 PM on December 18, 2004

with one more victim bullied into submission by an endemic culture of snarky one-liners.

If your comments can be blown away by a snarky one liner then maybe your thoughts (or perhaps the thinker) weren't that cogent to begin with.
posted by jonmc at 3:21 PM on December 18, 2004

you're both pussies.

q: and you're a dick?
posted by semmi at 2:56 PM on December 19, 2004

There are some disagreements with EB's pov as presented in his posts. Fine, we're not all the same. But there are also several people who condemn him simply on the length of his posts. I think many people here are concerned, even alarmed, that popular news outlets are reducing complex news stories to 30-second sound bites. Many of the fpp's to the blue address this concern, and attempt to flesh out the sound bites with more in-depth looks at additional information behind the headlines. So here comes EB, essentially doing the same thing in his posts, and you don't wanna hear it. Face it folks, you've been assimilated far more than you'd like to admit if you don't have the patience to read an in-depth comment.

And EB... scarabic isn't all that hard on the neoFites really.
posted by Doohickie at 10:53 AM on December 20, 2004