anti_meta_men_convention metapologist (and women) please feel free to air your grievances against meta here. i know several skites dislike meta intensely, including minnesota_chris and iNsEcUrE_gOtH_gIrL, both of whom i like and do not seek to incur the antipathies of... *here comes sheepishness from me* ... and of course... uh... meta 080502 ... minnesota_chris I hate it mainly because it's not content, and I don't understand what the point is. It's more like Chrity. go to i_have_words 080503 ... sameolme Is meta a reincarnation of blather spellcheck? I know innocuous when I see it, and it sounds like fun to be part of an antiinnocuos club. Could we be anti tablecloth also, please? 080503 ... minnesota_chris I was thinking that. But then I wondered, did blather_spell_check have a point, a meaning? I decided yes, because when someone would respond to a blathe and only correct their spelling, they are actually saying "You have no point, and your spelling is bad too." 080503 ... Clear Plastic Why don't take a couple of days (weeks) and collect yourself dude? Instead of the saying hurtful things. Spend some time with your own dangerous waters, then spending time dropping sharks into other's swimming pool. 080503 ... minnesota_chris why do you blathe with fake names? In response to your question, I don't know if that would help, and I don't know how. 080503 ... e_o_i alliterates apathetically I knew the blathe blatherskites_i_miss would likely be meta'd, so I posted a disclaimer of sorts... In my mind it's neutral; not beneficial, but at least benign. Sorry for no ranting and railing. 080503 ... Clear Plastic Gone off your meds MC? Looking to hurt other people? Brain tumor? 080503 ... not Clear Plastic what constitutes a real name? isn't part of this site's glory the capacity, if one so chooses, to continually vary one's alias? by my estimations there are at least 10 of us that don't use (and possibly never have used) a regular alias... and don't forget that we have several regulars who almost never blathe a word (hullo to you =D) [although for all i know the other 9 are really just 1 person who is incredibly devious] 080504 ... u24 The point is to record a phenomenon, interesting to some, whereby people start talking about blather on blather. I find it attractive as a hint of recursion, using blather to describe blather. I also find (the ultimately futile attempts at) taming the randomspace of blather interesting. making patterns on the waves. examples: blatherlicious, marked. possibly others. So what if it's not "content" by your definition? it is related to the content, it categorises (defines?) the content. and it's not as if there is a *lack* of content here on blather; the pages that are meta'ed have plenty of content that you can look at if you'd rather. (Though I wish to avoid the argument that "if you don't like it don't click" because that is a logically flawed argument in this case, applicable only to kx21 style spam, and then only as a last resort.) Very often, pages are meta-ed only when they enter "recent", though I conceed that some have in the past gone on metathons, artificially inflating the size of recent with meta pages. But I contend that this is the exception rather than the norm, and thus that meta is a relatively unobtrusive practice. A comparison with chrity is, I think, unfair; her content was indiscriminate spam en masse. Worse still was the recent viagra spam, being not only indiscriminate spam en masse, but also being non-human in origin and pointless. Where chrity could have actually reached people through her actions, the viagra spam literally could never have fulfilled its purpose - you couldn't click the links it posted making it totally without function. Meta on the other hand (though slightly redundant in implementation, having two separate lists*) has a clearly defined purpose which is fulfilled by its execution; by marking a blathe as meta, the purpose is fulfilled. (* one is supposed to dotmark the meta blathe, and add a link to the blathe from meta; giving a list on who and on meta, which is redundant imo. I usually only dotmark) I believe that it is as innocuous as possible. The only other alternatives would be to: a) maintain a list independantly of blather, eg through del.icio.us b) link to the meta blathes from "meta" instead of dotmark -ing the relevant blathes. I would not be averse to using method (a) (as I attempted with blatherlicious) but the problems would be threefold; firstly, how to avoid someone deleting all the content as they did with pictures_of_blatherskites, secondly how to update metaskites when a blathe is marked as meta. And thirdly there is a certain elegance in keeping the meta list self-contained within blather, which this method would disrupt. b) would mean that "meta" would be in recent very often, which would probably be a source of annoyance to some people. Myself possibly included. 080504 ... critic meta is only a hiccup of interruption in contrast with all the other shit i have to sift through. 080505 ... minnesota_chris but all this celebrating while creating nothing, it reminds me of Rome after its glory days. All strutting and no spark. 080505 ... u24 it's not an either-or 080506 ... u24 though I agree that in the darkest_days it, and things like it, can seem indicative of the_intellectual_decay_of_blather and other such myths. but it's really not. it's just another part of the mixture. 080506 ... z mc: do you object to the meta itself, or to the type of blathe that it tags? 080506 ... meta meta 080912 what's it to you? who go blather from