Useless post that doesn't follow the guidlines, posted solely to mock religion?

December 20, 2004 10:11 AM

Is it just me or is this a useless post that doesn't follow the guidlines, posted solely to mock religion?
posted by Recockulous to Etiquette/Policy at 10:11 AM (56 comments total)

Welcome to Metafilter, Recockulous.....
posted by Pressed Rat at 10:17 AM on December 20, 2004

ive been here since 02'
posted by Recockulous at 10:20 AM on December 20, 2004

That is one bad post, and it should be deleted.
posted by gd779 at 10:22 AM on December 20, 2004

It was pretty dumb.
posted by DrJohnEvans at 10:22 AM on December 20, 2004

You act as though there is some other way to treat religion.
posted by xmutex at 10:23 AM on December 20, 2004

Oh, also: Hands of Manos doesn't need to post like every other day. Somone oughtta tell him that, too.
posted by xmutex at 10:24 AM on December 20, 2004

And do not fight amongst yourselves, 14kers. If we are divided, how can we ever hope to rise up against the Overlord?
posted by DrJohnEvans at 10:26 AM on December 20, 2004

xmutex...someone should tell that Son of a bitch that he's posting like everyother day...I wish someone had the balls to tell him!
posted by Hands of Manos at 10:28 AM on December 20, 2004

Hands of Manos doesn't need to post like every other day. Somone oughtta tell him that, too.

He also doesn't need to comment like every other comment in his own threads. Somone oughta tell him that, too. Oh wait, I did. Guess it didn't take.
posted by soyjoy at 10:28 AM on December 20, 2004

Religion is mocked around here a lot so I really dont expect a different treatment. But i would at least expect the mockery that normally insues in a religion thread to at least be under a post about some new interesting point of view or information, this is a quote from the bible that anyone has access too. And if the link to the site, which can be useful in finding different translations of the bible, were written to do so then i really wouldnt care.

religion is something metafilter doesnt do well, so why throw out the bait?

Also I can stand it how members cant come here to bash the thread so that the people who do find it worth discussing can do so... that would just make the blue easier to read.
posted by Recockulous at 10:30 AM on December 20, 2004

What guidelines does this not follow? When did it become wrong to mock religion?
posted by rks404 at 10:30 AM on December 20, 2004

I enjoyed the post. It is interesting. Watching HoM micromanage the thread is annoying though.

Don't delete the post. The FPP itself isn't even close to being specifically religion bashing. Any religion-related thread on MeFi gets bashed at least a little.
posted by loquacious at 10:34 AM on December 20, 2004

soyjoy.

So it's ettiquette to not respond on my own posts? If so, I was unware of that and will consider this in my future replies.

Oh wait, I did. Guess it didn't take.

oh wait, you're the first to tell me this.

You know, not one email or one person has said "Hey, I just wanted to tell you that you may want to calm down the posts or respones. It's not really the 'thing' to do on MEFI."

But there seems to be plenty of sarcasitc comments and pile-ons towards me.
posted by Hands of Manos at 10:38 AM on December 20, 2004

What guidelines does this not follow?

Well, there's the part where we link to "new" and "interesting" things on the web. There's also this:

"don't troll (quick definition: posting purposely inflammatory things for the sole purpose of baiting others to argue the points until blue in the face - basically people do this for kicks, to destroy conversations and communites, for the hell of it)".

There is no way this is an appropriate post for MetaFilter. How is this even a question?
posted by gd779 at 10:38 AM on December 20, 2004

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.

There was nothing interesting or novel about the link. It was a link to a Bible passage, for pete's sake. It was like most of Revelations: a little outlandish, and easily laughed at by anybody who wants to make fun of religion. You're free to mock religion as much as you like, but the link itself was pointless.

On preview: true, loquacious, HoM doesn't promote a big pile-on-religion-fest, but I'm still missing the point of the link itself.
posted by DrJohnEvans at 10:39 AM on December 20, 2004

Uh, HoM, we're talking about FPP's, if you're confused. I'm not going to comment on that comment, but it does point out that you need to bear up to criticism a bit better, or your time here will be brief, stressful, and generally disruptive.

I assume this FPP was well-intentioned, but take the time to think about why you're posting that link. You've posted good posts before. That site's actually a nifty tool, but that's only apparent once you get over the initial shock of "I can't believe some jackass is just straight-up quoting scripture on the front page."

Getting indignat to your critics, however, makes me think much less of you than the laziness of your post.
posted by mkultra at 10:40 AM on December 20, 2004

You know, not one email or one person has said "Hey, I just wanted to tell you that you may want to calm down the posts or respones. It's not really the 'thing' to do on MEFI."

Hey, I just wanted to tell you that you may want to calm down the posts or respones. It's not really the 'thing' to do on MEFI.
posted by xmutex at 10:40 AM on December 20, 2004

Uh, HoM, we're talking about FPP's

(BTW, this was in regards to the "I know you are but what am I?" retort to xmutex. My, this thread moves fast...)
posted by mkultra at 10:41 AM on December 20, 2004

Hands of Manos, I think its an interesting post and appreciated it. But let the post stand on its own. I know that I also have a tendency to watch a post until it gets some legs and defend it or just respond to comments. Its not a terrible thing but let it see if it can walk a few steps on its own before leaping to prop it back up.
posted by fenriq at 10:44 AM on December 20, 2004

This would have been a marginally ok post with a little cross-referencing, or some alternative links; hell ANY other context at all. As it stands:

BOOO-RRRR-IINNNGGG.

It's not another x-mas story, just some stuff from revelations. Hell, half the link's contents are included in the FPP, fer jebus' sake. I would have WELCOMED some honest holiday mockery, but there's none of that, either.

HoM's hair-trigger comment responses and invitations to discuss offline also don't help.

What a waste of everyone's time.
posted by Aquaman at 10:45 AM on December 20, 2004

The FPP could have been worded better, but that site is an amazing resource that I didn't know about. Thanks for pointing it out.

If the link is deleted, I suggest someone reposts it as "comparative bible."
posted by grumblebee at 10:46 AM on December 20, 2004

MOTHERFUCK! This is annoying. New users, just do us a favor and don't make Front Page Posts. Not because your posts suck, but because there's a group of Stalinists who have a circle jerk in MeTa every time you try.
posted by Mayor Curley at 10:48 AM on December 20, 2004

Hands of Manos, I think its an interesting post and appreciated it.

This is what I don't understand. HoM misunderstood the rules; okay, that's fine, it happens to everybody at one point or another. But fenriq, loquacious, rks404: how can so many people not get this? Have we become that much of a "discussion" site? Should we just throw in the towel, get rid of links altogether, and just admit that we're a chat board?

That site is an amazing resource that I didn't know about. Thanks for pointing it out. If the link is deleted, I suggest someone reposts it as "comparative bible."

It's the first result on a Google search for "online Bible". It's the second result for "Bible". It's been around for years and years now. Is it really the sort of thing that requires wide notification? If you want something like that, can't you just search google for it?
posted by gd779 at 10:50 AM on December 20, 2004

Ah! Yes, the site does seem to be a nifty resource, and it might've made a good post. But see, I didn't notice that, 'cause I was too busy trying to figure out what made that particular passage so mind-blowing.
posted by DrJohnEvans at 11:00 AM on December 20, 2004

What gd779 said. This is just not blue-worthy.
posted by Doohickie at 11:00 AM on December 20, 2004

Great, now I'm scared to EVER make a post on the front page.
posted by jackofsaxons at 11:01 AM on December 20, 2004

gd779, no, MeFi isn't just a discussion site but the discussions that arise from interesting posts are one of my favorite aspects of MeFi. Does that make this a super strong, awesome FPP? No, but its not as bad as MeFi Grumpus Patrol is making it out to be.

And yes, HandsofManos could be far better served by not shepherding the post with loads of comments.

Mayor Curley's got the right take on it. Yes, we've had a lot of shitty front page posts lately. I don't think this one's anywhere near the stupidity that was the iPod referall post. And I am, as are lots of members, getting tired of the non-stop vitriol and callouts and general pissing and moaning.

As I've said many, many times in the past. No one's making people read FPPs that they think are bad. If they're bad enough, Matt will delete them.

There's an awful lot of members running around MeFi with little plastic badges and cap guns making alot of noise. Its tiring to have to wade through all the whine comments.

On Preview: jackofsaxons, bounce your FPP's off someone if you're unsure. I'm happy to give you some feedback if you want some. Don't be afraid of the front page, be afraid of the sharks who circle endlessly waiting for a soft and juicy post to devour.
posted by fenriq at 11:04 AM on December 20, 2004

MetaTalk: You are not special. You are not a beautiful or unique snowflake.
posted by cavalier at 11:07 AM on December 20, 2004

Here is my sincere apology (no sarcasam)

Please forgive me for my micromanagement, daily posts, and bad FPP (that has been removed).

Do know if I get by a shark, I bite back and I'm not running off crying when someone states their opinion.

So "can't we all be friends?" I'm extending my apologies and a hand (knowing that it could get bit off again) to chocking this up for experience (for me)
posted by Hands of Manos at 11:13 AM on December 20, 2004

It's not another x-mas story, just some stuff from revelations.

It's weird how following the link and reading a bit would dispel that notion, but I guess that a lot of the newer readers don't have the patience or the attention span for that - Just more FPPs! faster! faster! Churn out the flash game links, funny pics and the slashdot/boingboing dups - no time for discussion - we're new here, gotta catch up.

Two Great Signs and Their Interpretation

The mystery of Christmas is unfolded in various ways in the New Testament. In one account it is the story of poor visitors in Bethlehem who give birth to a child "destined to cause the fall and rising of many in Israel, and to be a sign that will be spoken against, so that the thoughts of many hearts will be revealed," with a warning to the mother that "a sword will pierce your own soul too" (Lk 2:34-35). In another account the infant Jesus is threatened by Herod the Great and taken to Egypt by his parents when Herod "gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under" (Mt 2:16).

The third story, less well known, is a kind of transformation of the second. A pregnant woman is threatened by a great dragon that intends to "devour her child the moment it was born." But when she gives birth, the male child is "snatched up to God and to his throne," while the woman flees to the desert to "a place prepared for her by God" (Rev 12:4-6). Wherever we look, the mystery of Christmas is linked to danger and to the ancient conflict between good and evil. This particular expression of the conflict has the look of certain myths that were current in several cultures in John's time and before (see Yarbro Collins 1976). For our purposes, however, the point at issue is not the origin of the imagery, but the uses to which the imagery is put in John's vision and in the testimony he bears to the seven churches in Asia Minor.
posted by milovoo at 11:14 AM on December 20, 2004

Well, there's the part where we link to "new" and "interesting" things on the web.

New meaning, "not in a book that's really old", or new meaning, "not read by many till now"? I grew up in sunday school, but didn't read that thing in revelation till recently. And many have never read it (revelation or the bible)- in that sense it's new.

And interesting as hell, to some folks. Do we need a 51% vote on what qualifies as interesting? My god, I just choose to ignore the posts I find boring, what's the issue?

once you get over the initial shock of "I can't believe some jackass is just straight-up quoting scripture on the front page."

Why is that shocking? The bible's an interesting book that has had a formative impact on our culture. No shock there.

I enjoyed the read, if nothing else as a little stretching exercise for my imagination.
posted by iwearredsocks at 11:19 AM on December 20, 2004

I really enjoyed it and I intend to follow some of the thread's links (out of LoFi) and even read some of the trippier parts of the Bible. I didn't see the post as mocking religion, and with more interesting related links the thread could have been excellent. With a few more links, I certainly hope the post would have stood undeleted.

Snarks: you're not helping, not even coming across as cool, just desperate to one-up someone to make yourself look better.

That said, you shouldn't bother being defensive, Manos. Just do what you do and don't comment much in your posts.
(I haven't always been the best example of this, but I try, and I think it has finally sunk in.)
posted by Shane at 11:22 AM on December 20, 2004

I, for one, didn't know that a comparative online bible existed, I find the idea of it, with translations in my own language and everything, to be quite brilliant. I think it definitely deserves a front page post.

That's not what the guy was posting, though.

But I have to say that the reaction from the users in the thread pissed me off more than the subject of the thread itself. The subject was maybe shaky, but possibly the start of an interesting discussion. In the past, i've seen shittier posts being saved by additional comments early in the thread. My feeling, these days, is that increasingly, people don't get the chance to make a good thread out of a so-so FPP, because anything additional and interesting gets drowned out in all the newbie bashing.
posted by svenni at 11:25 AM on December 20, 2004 [1 favorite]

Metafilter is links and discussion. Y'know, you can have your cake, and then you can eat it. You don't have to just look at it. And after you're done eating your cake, we can make some more cake. Cake for everyone!

Was this the best of the web? Probably not. But where is it said that it is impossible or verboten for MeFi itself to become the best of the web?

Like all communities, online or not, MeFi is going to change and evolve. Some users will hate it, because it'll become unfamiliar, especially if they did not instigate that change or adapt with it. Others will love it - likely because they instigated that change or adapted to it.

MeFi desperately needs more neophiles, more tolerance and less vigilante dimestore cowboys.

I give mad props to the tolerant and patient who have tried to teach rather than rule, but emphatically frown and grimace disparagingly at all the grumpy stuffed brownshirts pleading for stasis at any cost.

Adapt or perish.
posted by loquacious at 11:27 AM on December 20, 2004

Personally I found the linked site interesting as a "bible as literature" tool, and I'm so used to ignoring the various religion/anti-religion flamings that I didn't react to the tone of the post at all. I didn't even read much of the goofy story.

But I can see how it might get some of you all riled up, so it's probably not a great way to present it. As some have mentioned "Here's a neat comparitive texts tool" would go over better.

Nonetheless, I have to say that very few people freaking out about the post seem to have actually followed the link: half the link's contents are included in the FPP? No: that would be half the entire bible, in a multitude of interesting languages, with notes. I didn't see that on the Front Page but as I say, maybe I didn't look closely enough.

So, I think it's an interesting post for the simple reason that I found the linked site interesting, and it seems at least a few other people did as well. Having said that, it probably could have been presented in a way less likely to freak people out.
posted by freebird at 11:28 AM on December 20, 2004

"New" meaning, "not in a book that's really old"?

*snap*

Screw it. You know what? Matt's taking a hand-off approach to administering this place, and the majority interpretation seems to be against me. So, if you all think that MetaFilter is just a giant chat room, where we occassionally find links to justify our discussions, then fine. That's what it is. I'm not sure why the links are necessary, but whatever.

Of course, Matt deleted the post. I don't know what that means in this context.
posted by gd779 at 11:34 AM on December 20, 2004

Metafilter: vigilante dimestore cowboys.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 11:36 AM on December 20, 2004

A comparative Bible was posted less than a month ago.
posted by sciurus at 11:40 AM on December 20, 2004

So, if you all think that MetaFilter is just a giant chat room, where we occassionally find links to justify our discussions, then fine. That's what it is. I'm not sure why the links are necessary, but whatever.

No one is making you chat. Consider it optional. Really ... consider it.
posted by milovoo at 11:40 AM on December 20, 2004

Obviously, he should be banned for a couple weeks.










Ah-ha ha. Teehee.

Ahem.

Anyways. Would just like to add that it was in fact an awful post. HoM's name is a good one, though, as he certainly is a subject fit for parody.
posted by kavasa at 11:44 AM on December 20, 2004

MetaFilter's not a discussion site?

Coulda fooled me.
posted by xmutex at 11:50 AM on December 20, 2004

I'm saddened to find out what I thought was an interesting link is actually bad and inappropriate and if unchecked could lead to the ruin of MetaFilter.

And despite all that mocking of religion, I learned a decent amount of stuff about the Bible. Perhaps HandsofManos is some kind of stealth evangelical missionary?
posted by rks404 at 11:58 AM on December 20, 2004

the majority interpretation seems to be against me

democracy sucks
posted by iwearredsocks at 11:59 AM on December 20, 2004

If you want to discuss Bible stuff with both Christians and skeptics, there are numerous discussion boards on Beliefnet. You can even "Criticize or debate the validity of Christianity in the Debate Forum". Heck, they have a debate forum in every imaginable flavor of religion and philosophy. [free registration required to post]

Just sayin'.
posted by Doohickie at 12:03 PM on December 20, 2004

I've started another thread on the broader question of whether or not "good" links are necessary and why or why not.
posted by gd779 at 12:10 PM on December 20, 2004

MetaTalk^2

(sheesh, at least do it right.)
posted by milovoo at 12:16 PM on December 20, 2004

No one is making you chat. Consider it optional. Really ... consider it.

Apparently he/she is considering it. At least for the blue.
posted by iwearredsocks at 12:25 PM on December 20, 2004

rks404, please read the thread posted above by sciurus. Can you see why this thread was deleted and that one wasnt?

This was flame bait.

what can and is leading to the ruin of metafilter, at least for me, is the in-thread bashing of posts. That is why posted this here hoping that if others like me didnt like the post it would be discussed here or deleted.


rks404, if you came accross this site on your own, and felt like making a FPP with it, would you link to it from a passage of revelation in the site or the homepage as a translation tool? would you choose to call the passage the christmas story and equate it to Tolkien?
posted by Recockulous at 12:26 PM on December 20, 2004

Apparently he/she is considering it. At least for the blue.

Ahh, poor impulse control for a self-imposed pout hiatus, we've all seen that before.
posted by milovoo at 12:28 PM on December 20, 2004

I don't see what's new about the site linked to either. It's the main online Bible. Sure, that may be interesting, but then we should also be linking to Slashdot or SomethingAwful or HowStuffWorks. I thought the word "new" in this case meant "unlikely to be known by lots of folks". The number one hit for "online Bible" doesn't seem in any way to meet the criteria for novelty, regardless of the quality of the site.
posted by Bugbread at 12:38 PM on December 20, 2004

we have discussed Revelation in the past, if tangentially, and it went pretty well. I don't agree with those who say that we can't discuss religion well. we have proved we can.
I'd love to read a serious post on Jewish apocalyptic literature, by the way. I immensely liked this book, by the way. the mere fact that Revelation's language is zany doesn't make a good post, sadly.
posted by matteo at 1:01 PM on December 20, 2004

Recockulous - I think we've got an honest point of disagreeement here. I don't see it as flame bait but as a minor-league snark of the type that accompanies every post on this site. I honestly found the link to be worthwhile and interesting and spent quite a bit of time on the site and bookmarked it and walked away from it knowing more than when I had started. It strikes me that a number of people are really complaining because their religious sensibilities were offended and the whole "bad link" complaint is a smokescreen for that. I've seen weaker posts here that weren't called out because they were less controversial.

HoM is a new member and has put up some interesting posts. The post itself is a bit weak but wholly worthwhile IMHO.
posted by rks404 at 1:22 PM on December 20, 2004

Too bad your ass got saaaaaaacked.
posted by orange clock at 2:52 PM on December 20, 2004

religion is something metafilter doesnt do well

Bollocks.

Great, now I'm scared to EVER make a post on the front page.

This is the appropriate feeling to experience. You walk the path, young learner.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 3:21 PM on December 20, 2004

Maybe we could set up a panel of judges, like in figure skating, and they'd throw down some arbitrary numbers every time a front page post gets made.

This MetaTalk thread, well, I figure it'll average out around 5.7 or 5.8. Yeah.

Also: Calm the fuck down you nutbags. Seriously. It was an interesting link to several versions of the Bible, allowing you to easily see the incredible translation differences across the board. (This has been mentioned before.) Maybe it could have been worded better. Or you people could have clicked the link and remembered to take your medication. Stop peeing all over yourselves.
posted by Kleptophoria! at 4:27 PM on December 20, 2004

It strikes me that a number of people are really complaining because their religious sensibilities were offended and the whole "bad link" complaint is a smokescreen for that.

Bullshit. I'm glad you found a link worthy of bookmarking, but it isn't that unique of a link. If you were interested in that sort thing and google it, it pops up at the top. As a link, it is hardly Best of the Web; it's rather mundane and pedestrian, actually. Furthermore, I don't even see the original post as being anti-Christian; it may be a little off the mainstream of Christian thought, but it hardly debunks Christianity. I've seen worse.
posted by Doohickie at 3:08 PM on December 21, 2004