Tired of bush/iraq/war/terror posts

December 15, 2005 2:29 PM

Could someone skilled in JavaScript please compose a script for the Firefox extension Greasemonkey that will remove any FPP with "Bush", "Iraq", or "War on Terror" appearing in the text? It would also be great if this script could allow custom word filtering.
posted by sjvilla79 to MetaFilter-related at 2:29 PM (82 comments total)

So, it's not that I don't approve of the odd NewsFilter-like Iraq, Terror, and Bush FPP. It's just that this is not what I come to MetaFilter for and can only see an improvement in my usage of the site if these kind of posts didn't appear. Please don't hate me because I'm different.
posted by sjvilla79 at 2:29 PM on December 15, 2005

Can I hate you because I very much dislike the number 79?
posted by tiamat at 2:40 PM on December 15, 2005

I'd like to request a related script that will render large black rectangles over the flagged posts. Preferably with black-on-black text, so a little selection-hiliting will sate my curiousity. I think the aesthetic result would be dashing.
posted by cortex at 2:45 PM on December 15, 2005

You mean I'm not alone?

That link'll probably open some sores. Sorry.
posted by Eideteker at 2:45 PM on December 15, 2005

I'm going to openly say I hate this idea. Sure, I could write that script in half an hour. So could orthogonality, Plutor, or over a dozen other MeFites. I'm going to guess that nobody will take up this project.
posted by mystyk at 2:49 PM on December 15, 2005

Or to put it another way, if your view is so singular that you don't even want to be presented with certain topics, you probably don't belong here. It's not all that hard to filter with your mind, and as a bonus nobody would know your deep prejudice. Do you really need a machine to 'help you out' by taking away the last vestage of critical thinking?
posted by mystyk at 2:54 PM on December 15, 2005

Or, hey, take my black-box idea, but instead of just doing black or not for a boolean check against the word list, detect members of a few different word lists (perhaps political terms, religious terms, corporate/retail terms) and draw a box shaded according to the density of hits on those terms for each post, as mapped to different color components (RGB => religion, productfilter, politics).
posted by cortex at 2:55 PM on December 15, 2005

can only see an improvement in my usage of the site if these kind of posts didn't appear

I'm not being snarky, I'm genuinely interested: I hope someone writes the script you need, but what exactly is the problem? that it's too difficult to skip the posts you don't like? too time-consuming? it's not that you have to open the threads. I mean, in almost 5 years here I doubt I have opened a single Flash Friday post. and most of the technical stuff flies way over my head. without greasing any monkeys, I simply skip the topics that I'm not interested in.
posted by matteo at 2:57 PM on December 15, 2005

I think there's GM scripts that do things with contacts, that could be modified a la some of the FF fark extensions (and thus ortho's MF one) to highlight some users' posts in the foreground text color by default. This would effectively soft-censor posts.
posted by kcm at 3:03 PM on December 15, 2005

cortex: I will give you a shiny new cookie if you can make all of that whatever you just said happen, on my computer.

The cookie is very shiny.

I'm all for critical thinking, but the bloody hateful namecalling really upsets my delicate constitution.
posted by Eideteker at 3:06 PM on December 15, 2005

But if you filter on things like Iraq you'd also miss great posts such as one, for example, on the The Secret of Nimrud, or the the baghdad treasures of Iraq.

did you think of that, eh?
posted by vacapinta at 3:08 PM on December 15, 2005

Do you really need a machine to 'help you out' by taking away the last vestage of critical thinking?

Because that's exactly what's going on in those political shit-flinging fests, right?
posted by monju_bosatsu at 3:09 PM on December 15, 2005

Someone write an extension that surrounds my comments with a pure white glow, as they deserve.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 3:10 PM on December 15, 2005

monju_bosatsu: "Because that's exactly what's going on in those political shit-flinging fests, right?"

1. Not all are political shit-flinging fests.
2. Even when they are, there can be some truly good content that might get missed if you just block it out first.
3. You should make up your mind on whether to read a thread, not have a script decide for you. The script can't critically analyze, but you can.
posted by mystyk at 3:16 PM on December 15, 2005

Eideteker, the only reason I'm not coding it right now is my lack of familiarity with the greasemonkey tech. Which, I suppose, raises the question of why I'm not familiarizing myself with it right now...
posted by cortex at 3:17 PM on December 15, 2005

It's okay. I've already "familiarized" myself with the cookie. It was good.
posted by Eideteker at 3:28 PM on December 15, 2005

If you really want to do it, the best way to crash-course greasemonkey is to reverse-engineer other scripts. Go to the Grease Monkey scripts archive and poke around.
posted by mystyk at 3:29 PM on December 15, 2005

I totally agree with sj, I am sick to death with your fucking Bush, Iraq, terror bullshit. If you bedwetting hippies have a problem with anything relating to these subjects please contact your elected representative and do something about it.
Don't come crying about in here, because it is just useless, pathetic noise.
Go to your local bar and talk about it there instead if you don't really want to take any effective action.
Go on, gobshites, don't talk about it, do it.
posted by Joeforking at 3:30 PM on December 15, 2005

if your view is so singular

I also hate the idea, mystyk. But is his view so singular? I have a feeling many people feel this way.

In any case, I applaud you. I work in webdev and it's fucking awesome to see a developer tell a customer to go fuck himself because his idea sucks. I'm not kidding. Huge laugh for me :)
posted by scarabic at 3:31 PM on December 15, 2005

I'm putting it on my List. Such a script might just get put together in the next week or so.
posted by cortex at 3:31 PM on December 15, 2005

(That'd be my crazy useless fuckin' rainbow-content-encoding script, not sj79's proposal. Just to be clear.)
posted by cortex at 3:32 PM on December 15, 2005

mystyk, virtually of the Iraq threads turn into shit-flinging as soon as dios, ParisParamus, or some similar poster makes a comment. The only real content in most of those threads comes in the first few comments. Moreover, some of us don't care about any "truly good content" in the Iraq and other political threads because we're not here to read and examine every bit of "truly good content." I am fully prepared to concede that some of those threads contain "truly good content," but I'm still not interested. Just as matteo notes that he's not interested in Friday flash posts, I'm not interested in Iraq posts. As a result, I don't need to decide whether I want to read Iraq posts on a case-by-case basis. I don't want to read any of them. Hence, a filter works just fine for me, thanks. cortex's idea sounds blissful.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 3:33 PM on December 15, 2005

Dive into greasemonkey is a great tutorial although it's starting to get a bit out-dated.
posted by TimeFactor at 3:35 PM on December 15, 2005

Go on, gobshites, don't talk about it, do it.
posted by Joeforking at 3:30 PM PST on December 15 [!]

My advice to you is: find some pro-Bush posts that are convincing, rather than resorting to verbal abuse.

If you can.
posted by dash_slot- at 3:46 PM on December 15, 2005

I'm of several minds on the subject of Iraq posts. I care deeply about the issue, to the point of barely being able to hang onto my sanity over it, but for whatever reason I haven't become one of the crusaders who've made it their mission to keep it on the front page. I'm not totally sure why...

Mind #1: the more posts on the subject, the less importance each commands in the eye of the beholder. I think we have a problem somewhere between the people who unerstand how to bring a message to an audience in a way that they understand and will act on, and the "if you're not angry you're stupid" crowd.

Mind #2: This is a world-shattering story and we owe nothing less to it than to be annoyed, brought down, inconvenienced, depressed and consumed by it. What business do we have compartmentalizing the story from our daily web browsing. We've crossed the line from World's Shining Democracy to some strange combination of theocracy and corporate oligarchy and that's not only unacceptable, it's historic! Jesus christ! We should be thinking about this constantly, raving from the rooftops, freaking out, claiming our moment in history by opposing it. Can't be bothered? Well, fuck you and your browsing preferences and your mother too.

Mind #3: There's a balance here. If people are smart about what they post, then perhaps there is a productive place for posts on this subject. It's hard to image that there is NO place for them. Posters who moderate their frequency and maintain a high level of quality, like y2karl, are on the right track. But tossing up any CNN.com link that possibly casts a bad light on GWB is on the wrong track.

Actually, I think that getting off of GWB's ass is the key to it all. If we focused on important foreign policy issues, there'd be no problem. Most of the noise is directed at GWB, who is a momentary player in a broader historical arc. And for the good of MetaFilter I'd suggest getting off his personal nut and focusing on the larger movement that's at work in America, as well as our catastrophic foreign policy. NOT Bush's idiotic public statements, minute brain farts / malapropisms about same.
posted by scarabic at 3:49 PM on December 15, 2005

Alright, I created one real quick (first GM script). MetaFilter Filter.
posted by sbutler at 3:58 PM on December 15, 2005

GWB = ZB. Please, direct all anger at the figurehead. Pay no attention... men... curtains.I'm agreed with scarabic on this.

I'm also agreed with J4K about actually fucking doing something instead of whining. I'm sure some people's minds have been changed by reading metafilter. But how many of those people have started campaigning and so forth in their home areas? This is a personal battle, fought in the homes; not some vague impersonal conflict to be waged facelessly on the internet. You have a greater effect on those you know personally, and those who trust you.

This "pile-on" and "team" bullshit just encourages useless groupthink back-patting, and name-calling.
posted by Eideteker at 3:59 PM on December 15, 2005

Joeforking writes "If you bedwetting hippies have a problem with anything relating to these subjects please contact your elected representative and do something about it."

I talked to my MP and MLA and neither seemed to feel they could do anything.
posted by Mitheral at 4:02 PM on December 15, 2005

I just urinated in Joeforking's bed
posted by matteo at 4:06 PM on December 15, 2005

#: Or to put it another way, if your view is so singular that you don't even want to be presented with certain topics, you probably don't belong here.

This isn't about having a singular view. Rather, it's about not wanting to see Iraq/War/Bush NewsFilter-like posts on MetaFilter. Know however that this want in no way reflects my personal view on the war in Iraq or anything related. It's just that I simply don't see the point in recycling content that belongs on the evening news. Is news about Bush and Iraq really the best of the Web, or is it just widely accepted here because MetaFilter's members are predominantly made up of Americans?

#: It's not all that hard to filter with your mind, and as a bonus nobody would know your deep prejudice.

Again, how does this show that I'm prejudiced? It's a simple request pertaining to filtering words. It might float your boat to do so but please don't try to make something more of this. Yawn.

#: Or, hey, take my black-box idea, but instead of just doing black or not for a boolean check...

I honestly don't know if you're being serious or not.

#: ...but what exactly is the problem? that it's too difficult to skip the posts you don't like? too time-consuming? it's not that you have to open the threads.

That is the problem. I mean I've been skipping over posts for a few months now (obviously not all just Iraq NewsFilter posts). I've even talked to other members about this issue. But I also reiterate what I've said in reply above (e.g. Why recycle or prelude evening news stories?). People here frown upon recycled BB and Kottke articles. Sure, they are not the best of the Web because 95% of folks have already seen it. But how and why do Iraq and Bush NewsFilter posts differ from this category? Seriously.
posted by sjvilla79 at 4:15 PM on December 15, 2005

Y'know, when I stormed out of the library because they insisted they were keeping that whole row of books on double entry bookkeeping that wound me up, those big ole municipal doors hit me right on the arse. Really hard, too.
posted by dash_slot- at 4:32 PM on December 15, 2005

I like how far down the intarweeb can help us be discerning in our information retrieval and filtering.
posted by Captaintripps at 4:33 PM on December 15, 2005

I honestly don't know if you're being serious or not.

I was being completely serious but had basically given up any pretense of staying on topic.
posted by cortex at 4:37 PM on December 15, 2005

I would hardly equate these threads and their ensuing discourse with "content that belongs on the evening news".

People here frown upon recycled BB and Kottke articles. Sure, they are not the best of the Web because 95% of folks have already seen it. But how and why do Iraq and Bush NewsFilter posts differ from this category? Seriously.

If you feel it justfied to transpose the relevance of a war with an average post from BoingBoing, that's your prerogative.

Skip it.

:I've always wanted to see a visual representation of flags as well. Can you see them as it is - aside from the "fantastic q/a" flags?
posted by prostyle at 4:44 PM on December 15, 2005

Alright, I created one real quick (first GM script).

I've installed this but am not at all clear on what it does or how to get it to do what it does.
posted by kindall at 4:51 PM on December 15, 2005

I totally agree with sj, I am sick to death with your fucking Bush, Iraq, terror bullshit. If you bedwetting hippies have a problem with anything relating to these subjects please contact your elected representative and do something about it.
Don't come crying about in here, because it is just useless, pathetic noise.
Go to your local bar and talk about it there instead if you don't really want to take any effective action.
Go on, gobshites, don't talk about it, do it.

Ammm.. Go fuck yourself.
posted by c13 at 4:53 PM on December 15, 2005

Oh, my bad, I adjusted the matching strings and screwed 'em up.
posted by kindall at 4:54 PM on December 15, 2005

fucking wants his head buried in sand, and wants the sand supplied as well.
posted by quonsar at 4:57 PM on December 15, 2005

sbutler, nice work!

It even filters out the text of sjvilla79's original post!
posted by TimeFactor at 4:59 PM on December 15, 2005

And that little filter/unfilter button is a nice touch, too. Even more flexibility.
posted by Captaintripps at 5:03 PM on December 15, 2005

Please create one to delete me, ok?
posted by ParisParamus at 5:19 PM on December 15, 2005

Metafilter: fucking wants his head buried in sand, and wants the sand supplied as well.
posted by amberglow at 5:38 PM on December 15, 2005

Better would be a block on "Metafilter:" .
Jesus kryste that's a dogmeme whipped to death every 2mins around here.
posted by peacay at 6:12 PM on December 15, 2005

Can someone create a GreaseMonkey script to make my bowel movements smell like bakery-fresh cinnamon rolls?
posted by Gator at 6:13 PM on December 15, 2005

Here ya go Gator.
posted by Mr T at 6:35 PM on December 15, 2005

Could someone skilled in JavaScript please compose a script for the Firefox extension Greasemonkey that will remove any request to remove FPPs that pthers don't care for with "Bush", "Iraq", or "War on Terror" appearing in the text? It would also be great if this script could allow custom word filtering.
posted by juiceCake at 6:52 PM on December 15, 2005

I love how this thread has brought out the best in MeFi's members. If only one day I could rise to such a standard. I mean only then will I die a complete and happy man. However I now need a GM script that'll attach an audio file to this post so that violins will play when the page loads. But I'm sure that's not beyond anyone here.
posted by sjvilla79 at 7:08 PM on December 15, 2005

sjvilla79 come on. You had to expect some flak. Initially I thought the idea had some merit but I'm persuaded that my eyes and scrolling work well enough. Besides, sometimes....just occasionally..I like to watch the conflagrations and it serves as notice if I do actually want to watch the evening news or visit news sites. So overall I don't love the newsfilter (and appreciate when people preface their post with that word) but it's not that much of an issue.
posted by peacay at 8:29 PM on December 15, 2005

Someone write an extension that surrounds my comments with a pure white glow, as they deserve.

Optimus, have you considered the fact that white text with a white glow is unreadable?

Or was that the point?
posted by George_Spiggott at 8:40 PM on December 15, 2005

sjvilla79 come on. You had to expect some flak.

Sorry about the snarky comment. Have just moved house and was tired when I made my post. Yeah, I expected some negative comments. That's what I love about MetaFilter anyway. Rah.
posted by sjvilla79 at 12:09 AM on December 16, 2005

troll
posted by johnny novak at 12:49 AM on December 16, 2005

But how and why do Iraq and Bush NewsFilter posts differ from this category? Seriously.
posted by sjvilla79 at 4:15 PM PST on December 15 [!]

Because people care about these issues. A lot of them. They want those posts here, they participate in those posts, whether others like it or not.

Give the man a script, who cares if he wants to have a script decide what he can and cannot see? It's his life.
posted by sic at 2:13 AM on December 16, 2005

johnny novak, please have my babies.
posted by sjvilla79 at 2:43 AM on December 16, 2005

Because people care about these issues. A lot of them. They want those posts here, they participate in those posts, whether others like it or not.

But people care about recycled BB and Kottke stuff too! And I mean, the people who post these Iraq/War on Terror/Bush Rulesis teh suck stories (or those that participate in the threads), do they not see those same articles posted elsewhere too?

Not that I particularly need a filter setup for this kind of thing, as I just skip past (and occasionally dip in to see the flame fests), but I don't see why somebody should be flamed for wanting a greasemonkey script to do it automatically. Maybe he should've just asked for a script to filter out specific words that he didn't care about? Would he have been less flamed then?
posted by antifuse at 4:23 AM on December 16, 2005

johnny novak, please have my babies.

and have baby trolls? I don't think so.
posted by johnny novak at 4:38 AM on December 16, 2005

I know that this has been covered before, but what we really need is some method of allowing non-posters to tag things. No way do all of the offending FPPs use the word "Iraq", or "terror", and sbutler's hack (I mean that as a compliment) will filter out my upcoming post about where to buy a Hannukah Bush. Until we get a way to get the poster or the community to mark a post as NewsFilter or IraqFilter (poster-only tags barely count, since too many don't use them or don't use them well), or a genius machine-learning algorithm can recognize them like a human would, there's no way to do it that even approaches usable.

Hmmm, I wonder if a Bayesian filter could be tought to recognize Posts-I-Don't-Like..
posted by Plutor at 5:02 AM on December 16, 2005

Please name the script "et2karl?"
posted by furtive at 5:16 AM on December 16, 2005

I totally agree with Joeforking, I am sick to death with fucking Bush's Iraq terror bullshit.
posted by If I Had An Anus at 5:55 AM on December 16, 2005

Ohhh... it's a hack, I know. But the man asked for something simple and I thought he should have it.
posted by sbutler at 7:34 AM on December 16, 2005

The aversion to political posts is not evidence of wanting one's head in the sand. I care a lot about Iraq and current political issues. I read about them in a variety of places. I hate Bush and am a lefty. But I can't stand the political posts on Metafilter. They almost uniformly reek of smug self-satisfaction. Along with the comforting delusion that posting on the internet is actually doing something about real world problems. And the discussions that follow are worse than the posts.

But hey, a lot of you like the politics, and your $5 is as good as mine. So the best way to keep the peace is to allow some way for Mefites to screen out the posts they consider noise. The best idea is politics.metafilter.com, a separate section. But Matt has made it clear that will never happen. A second solution is some sort of tag sorting that will allow users to customize their front pages. Until then, thanks, sbutler.
posted by LarryC at 8:13 AM on December 16, 2005

So the best way to keep the peace is to allow some way for Mefites to screen out the posts they consider noise.

But each and every Mefite already has that in their freakin' brain. If someone wants a custom script to formalize the process, more power to them, but the idea that Metafilter itself needs this functionality as an intrinsic feature is bad, bad, bad.
posted by cortex at 8:28 AM on December 16, 2005

(I see a very important difference between the following two ideas:

A. "Politics should not be discussed on Metafilter as they currently are."

B. "I don't want to read the political threads on Metafilter."

sjvilla79's original stated request doesn't strike me as all that unreasonable, because it's looking for a personal, opt-in way to formalize idea B. If he really wants to prevent himself literally from reading any thread with "Bush" in the post, and someone is inclined to write such a script, fine. Great. It does not affect me, at least until such time as he starts making posts about how he can't see this Bush stuff people are yattering on about, etc.

What bugs me (and, I suspect, a lot of other folks) is the treatment of idea A as something that should be in any way addressed by automation. It cannot be done right; politics as they are discussed on the site are a reflection of the userbase. Matt can prune threads and try to cut down on spikes, but without going on a mad anti-political spree he's not going to supress such threads. Introducing some mechanism to do so won't work any better.

I get the feeling that a lot of the ire that's been around, in this thread and elsewhere, comes from some conflation of A and B -- people who believe B is equivilant to A, people who are upset by such a statement of equivilance, people who think folks who say B are really saying A, and so on.)
posted by cortex at 8:37 AM on December 16, 2005

I have a Bayesian filtering userscript in pre-pre-pre-Alpha testing. I'll update once I've used it for a while, and let you know if it works.
posted by Plutor at 8:45 AM on December 16, 2005

I have a Bayesian filtering userscript in pre-pre-pre-Alpha testing. I'll update once I've used it for a while, and let you know if it works.

Now that's interesting. You could place a little button next to each post labeled "WarFilter" and train the damn thing.

What I find disturbing is that someone has a basian filter framework (I assume) all ready for JS.
posted by sbutler at 9:06 AM on December 16, 2005

... and I managed to horribly misspell bayesian.
posted by sbutler at 9:07 AM on December 16, 2005

Just so everyone can see the direction I'm heading, here's a preview:


It needs a whole ton more work, though. I think the algorithm is almost 78% screwed up, and I'm not even sure it meets the adjective "Bayesian".
posted by Plutor at 9:34 AM on December 16, 2005

Now that, Plutor, is super-cute.
posted by Captaintripps at 10:24 AM on December 16, 2005

Holy Moly. So this is what the information age is all about?

"I'll get other people to build me robots that will spoon feed me only information that will not cause me any discomfort whatsoever. "

Bush could start eating babies, and you'd never know.
posted by Freen at 1:21 PM on December 16, 2005

That is, if you were a complete moron and relied on MetaFilter as your only news source.

Bush could start eating babies, and you'd never know.
posted by Captaintripps at 2:14 PM on December 16, 2005

Topquoter!
posted by cortex at 2:24 PM on December 16, 2005

Quick, someone get a script!
posted by Captaintripps at 2:38 PM on December 16, 2005

Well, Captaintripps, I meant that this is a worrying trend, and is in it's present state a "bad idea" and could be, if taken to it's logical conclusion an "horrific idea".

I thought that people would glean that, but perhaps I should have been more specific. Perhaps I should have also mentioned that the babies were Iraqi, thus to further sink my hypothetical news item into the queue of unpalatable facts filtered out of the news stream.
posted by Freen at 2:50 PM on December 16, 2005

Ha ha ha. No, I getcha. At least from my perspective it's handy to have a simple way like this where I can turn it off and on. I think most people who use MetaFilter are probably similar in that they have several news sources, web sites, etc.

Personally, I consider MetaFilter a party. I go to parties to have fun and lately when I've been at a party where my end of the room starts talking about Bush, Iraq, et. al. I go to another part of the room where they're discussing Heidegger, whether The Avengers were underrepresented in punk or different types of farts.

I just don't see what's so offensive about this request in general in this thread. Dude got an off/on button. Big deal.
posted by Captaintripps at 3:09 PM on December 16, 2005

What worries me is the desire to do so and the ability. Human beings are already creatures of bias. Do we really need bias mechanically enforced?

For instance, it would trivial to set up Privoxy to scrub all incoming RSS feeds for an entire network, and slightly more difficult for the web in general, but not impossible.

You network administrator could, if they so chose, ensure that each and every post on metafilter, Article on NYtimes, or RSS feed was silently eradicated of any news that they deemed improper.
posted by Freen at 4:52 PM on December 16, 2005

What worries me is the desire to do so and the ability. Human beings are already creatures of bias. Do we really need bias mechanically enforced?

Anything that gets the news posts out of the cool-site posts would, be definition, be an improvement.

This is not because I desire to mechanically remain ignorant of how much you think Bush sucks and how much you think Iraq is a quagmire, but because I already have already read and read and read and read and read and read and read and read and read and read and read and read and read and read and read and read and read and read and read and read and read and read and read and read and read and read and read and read and read and read and read and read and read and read and read and read and read and read and read and read your opinions on these matters.

A statistical filter is just dandy, because when a new topic comes up, the filter won't know what to do with it and will thus let the first few posts through, and I can learn what y'all think about it, and once I understand to my satisfaction and don't care to read any more, then I can easily arrange just that.

We've had killfiles in newsreaders for decades and so far as I know they have not caused the collapse of civilization. (AOL and spammers caused that.)
posted by kindall at 5:48 PM on December 16, 2005

For instance, it would trivial to set up Privoxy to scrub all incoming RSS feeds for an entire network, and slightly more difficult for the web in general, but not impossible.

You network administrator could, if they so chose, ensure that each and every post on metafilter, Article on NYtimes, or RSS feed was silently eradicated of any news that they deemed improper.

Whoo! Good thing I didn't write one of those!
posted by sbutler at 8:04 PM on December 16, 2005

It's evil. Pure and simple. You can all remember how things look, but you use cameras instead which take pictures. You can all get around perfectly well by walking, but you use bicycles which make movement easier. You could remember all the groceries you need to buy, but you write them down on a piece of paper instead.

Using technology to simplify something you're doing already mentally is evil, dammit! Didn't you learn anything from the middle ages?

So, yeah, I could, and do, skip poli posts when I read Metafilter. As such, I think using a tool to make that easier is an absolute abomination to all that is holy. I would be letting a script determine what I can and can't read, just like I let my bicycle force me to go places I don't want to go, and my camera to force me to take pictures of things I don't want to take. My pen and paper force me to write down the groceries they want, and determine what I can and can't eat! Abominations all, and thus I revile sjvilla79 for this request, and revile Plutor even more, so much that I would be willing to help beta test this Bayesian filter just so that I could determine how evil it is, and maybe make some bug fix suggestions of evil.
posted by Bugbread at 10:23 PM on December 16, 2005

Please create one to delete me, ok?
posted by ParisParamus at 5:19 PM PST on December 15 [!]

I would pay real American Dollars for that. I figure Matt could retire soley by selling it on a $1/mo subscription model.
posted by Ynoxas at 10:37 PM on December 16, 2005

ParisParamus: You, almost by definition, are content free, and thus require no deletion.
posted by Freen at 12:36 AM on December 17, 2005

Bugbread - you my hero, even if I do think the little filter/unfilter button is way cool.
posted by Slap Incognito at 4:36 AM on December 17, 2005

Bugbread: Yeah, you've got a point.
posted by Freen at 4:24 PM on December 17, 2005

I think ParisParamus, outside of political threads, is perfectly fine. Inside of political threads it's too dark to read, so who can say how he is.
posted by The Monkey at 12:49 AM on December 19, 2005