Meta-Blogging

As one small blog in an ocean of 70 million, I found something decidedly cute about this morning's article in the New York Times about blogger civility.

To be truthful, I didn't read the whole thing, I got really bored rather quickly, but it broached a debate about blogging standards and specifically at one point, whether it is wrong for a blogger to strike a comment from his or her blog if it is disruptive and/or posted anonymously.

Rather than drone on and on like I would normally do, I'd like to make my opinion short. I think the issue to note in this question is not about freedom of speech, but rather about how funny the comment is.

Take this real world example:

Meta-Mets.

While on a walk in Williamsburg last weekend, I stumbled across an anonymous comment posted on someone's car. One person (presumably the car owner) made a statement in the public domain about his or her love for the overpaid, Beltran-thieving, obnoxiously good (thus far) New York Mets by placing a Mets sticker on his or her car.

However, someone who clearly disagreed with this statement decided to SPRAYPAINT over it.

Now that is pretty funny. Destruction of personal property notwithstanding, it was a valid (anonymous) retort to the statement. This could have been made by a Yankee fan or a fan of another baseball team (except for an Astros fan, of course) or someone who hated baseball or America or globalization or something else.

SIDENOTE (for people who think that finding humor in this situation is morally askew): In the summer of 2001, I had the air let out of my tires and my car windows were spat on by someone who disagreed with the bumpersticker "Re-elect Gore in 2004"...the initial reaction was anger toward George W. Bush, followed by anger at the Supreme Court and the 49% of the country who voted for Bush, followed by anger at myself for parking my car in Virginia.

If this were the internet, someone with a Mets website would have a post about how the Mets had the best record in baseball last year and thus, were clearly the best team in the league.

Now, if someone were to seriously comment to respond or refute this claim, the Mets fan would have every right to strike this wayward voice from his (purchased plot of internet) domain.

Even if said comment had all the logic in the world, for example, "Actually the St. Louis Cardinals were the best team in baseball because they not only fended off the Houston Astros in the NL Central but also won the postseason series against your vaunted Mets and eventually the World Series." A comment like this would represent the convergence of two (douchey) opinions and would only lead to further unnecessary fratty sparring.

But if the commenter were to post a picture....

Like this one of Carlos Beltran striking out with two outs in the bottom of the 9th inning with the bases loaded in Game 7 of the NLCS last year...well...that would have made the point, not only because it's valid (to the point that it cannot be refuted), but also because it would be very, very, very funny.

I love slow days.